26th April 2004
According to various human right treaties, ownership of property is fundamental right that can't be taken away. Let it be Hitler or Stalin in World War II or anyone else.
United Nations declaration of human rights, article 17.
Although various borders were moved after World War II (Poland, Finland..) the people still own their property and the state can't cede private property to an another country.
Soviet Union started an illegal war of aggression against Finland in 1939, and was expelled from the League of Nations as a result. Peace was made and Soviet Union annexed parts of Finland. Hostilities resumed one year later after Finland had allowed German troops to be stationed in its areas, and Soviet Union once again attacked, until peace was made and confirmed in Paris Peace Treaty, 1947.
There was no mention that people's right to own property was moved away from them, and it was possible to stay in their homes if they just had wanted. It was not possible to cede personal property.
422,000 people had to leave all behind to the annexed areas here. There are alot of people in East Germany and Poland with this situation too.
Well, I came to interesting news: YLE uutiset / Kotimaa (Finnish)
70 Finnish persons who have the documents to indicate they own the property in Russia have demanded their property back from the City of Vyborg, and if necessary they will take the demands to the highest court of Russia.
There is a Russian kindergarten on that man's property, and he demands it back.
How will Russia react? Probably sabotage the trials. But the jurist has already said they will take the case to European Council of Human rights, as Russia is violating human rights.
My family also owned (owns?) property in Russia. In Салми (Salmi), Ladoga Karelia. On a village of Tulema, quite close to the Lake Ladoga. The legal owner of the property is my family as from my grandfather. We would have visited area, as we have maps which have our family name on the property but my grandfather rather did not want to see it occupied. He last saw his house in 1944 when Finnish army was soon retreating, he said he dropped house's key which he had carried inside the door and never saw the property again.
Interesting times for human rights and ownership, some Poles are demanding their property back from Soviet occupation too, although this might as well apply to Germans who lived in pre 1939 eastern borders of Germany which is Poland today.
I didn't make it!
This is really a tough thing to debate. On the one hand I would say, rather obviously, that those who were kicked out should have the right to have their property returned to them, but on the other hand what about those who now live on the property? In many cases I'm sure the people who live there now are as innocent as the original owners, and happen to be innocent bystanders in the whole thing. For instance, should the children that belong to that Kindergarten have to lose their school because of crimes committed by their government decades ago?
It's something that really needs to be investigated on a case by case basis to try to come to the fairest possible outcome for all the innocent people who happen to be involved. In some cases the property should probaly remain in the hands of the current owners, but the people who were originally kicked out should be given some other kind of just compensation. In other cases the original owners should have the property returned to them, if they so wish.
26th April 2004
Indeed, but it may be necessary to fix mistakes and crimes commited by totalitarian communist regimes for the future of united Europe. (The Epoch Times: Council of Europe Parliament Condemns Human Rights Violations by Communist Regimes | Clearharmony - Falundafa in Europe)
But as said our family has the documents of ownership of that property too. This isn't the Cold War anymore, rich Russians are buying loads of lands here too, so I see no problem that Finns or Poles own land in former Soviet territories. That is, we don't talk about returning whole regions.
7th December 2003
I don't think this will go very far because Russia has an obvious interest in preventing a precedent that allows people to claim some sort of reparation for the crimes comitted by communists.
There are similar problems between Germany and Poland, with people from both sides demanding compensation.
A difficult question as those who formerly owned the property have a moral right to have it returned to them while those who own the property now can't really be held accountable for crimes comitted half a century ago.
From a legal point of view a stolen object remains the property of it's rightful owner, regardless of who bought it in the meantime (that's what German legislation says at least). However, after a certain amount of time those claims become time-barred.
26th April 2004
MrFancypants;3943295 There are similar problems between Germany and Poland, with people from both sides demanding compensation.
I can see that many East Germans had to move away from Königsberg areas and so on, but what the Poles are wanting from Germany? Compensation for lost population and economical losses? I support Poles getting their property back which were moved by Soviets to Belarusian SSR and Ukrainian SSR. But obviously when people like Lukashenko are still in power, there's no chance.
I can't understand why some people today would be proud of occupations and annexations done by either Soviet Union or Germany. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Ribbentrop was sentenced to death of war crimes and everything judged illegal. But Molotov, who had exact same position, is a hero today, although his wars of aggression and forced annexations are as bad. But yeah, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus can keep their Stalinist heritage and areas of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
However, after a certain amount of time those claims become time-barred.
And how long you think that will take? There wasn't really even any chance prior to Soviet Union's collapse to bring it on the table.
I found this website by the way: ProJusticia
"Where there are no guarantees of property there are no limits to state authority and no regulatory bodies of law, and hence no guarantee of individual liberty, or civil rights".