Last German kaiser's heirs fight for riches lost behind Iron Curtain • Hacker News Board

Re: Last German kaiser's heirs fight for riches lost behind Iron Curtain

#81

Post by pmiller2 » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 12:19 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #65

zokier wrote: post #24

Post-communist reparations is one big mess in central Europe. I think the case of Lichtenstein is one of the most stark: > Through the prince of Liechtenstein and his family, this country on the Alpine Rhine was still closely linked to the distant Czech lands in the first half of the 20th century, and after 1918 the prince and other family members had an influential role in Czechoslovakia as late-Medieval propertied…

> It is easy to brush these away as long past history, but for example these properties were confiscated from the hands of the current princes father. That I'd think as pretty close connection still. I'm having a problem coming up with a reason why we should care about the prince of Liechtenstein compared any other random person. Seriously during the period when they lost their lands whole families were totally wiped…

Especially since the Prince is the richest monarch in Europe according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Adam_II,_Prince_of_Liecht...

Once someone is worth $4billion, the idea that we should care that they're not worth 10x more is ludicrous.

Re: Last German kaiser's heirs fight for riches lost behind Iron Curtain

#82

Post by colechristensen » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 8:29 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #56

colechristensen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of that conflict is about things that were done generations ago. True, recent and current actions also fit the bill, but it is disingenuous to claim that the settlement activity is the primary mover of the situation. One thing that link throws around is the word "illegal". There are customs and treaties, but there is not a world government to enforce the rule of law for these treaties. Many of the definitions li…

>One thing that link throws around is the word "illegal". There are customs and treaties, but there is not a world government to enforce the rule of law for these treaties The inability to enforce a law does not make a crime legal. The occupied territories are a violation of international law, even if they are never punished for them.

Calling something a crime when there is no rule of law to enforce it and no legal authority with jurisdiction is simply a contradiction in terms.

Re: Last German kaiser's heirs fight for riches lost behind Iron Curtain

#83

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 8:29 AM UTC

DoctorOetker wrote: post #75

Given that: 1) Hitler was in the kaiser's military, 2) sent to spy / infiltrate a left-wing worker's party (DAP, "German Worker's Party"), 3) out of world-wide fear of communism (justified or not), turned it into the NSDAP ("National Socialist German Worker's Party") 4) including Jews as scapegoats (incidentally copying the failed tactic of the russian tsarist secret police, who fabricated the scrolls of zion thing,…

[deleted]

Re: Last German kaiser's heirs fight for riches lost behind Iron Curtain

#84

Post by boomboomsubban » Fri, Sep 06, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #82

boomboomsubban wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One thing that link throws around is the word "illegal". There are customs and treaties, but there is not a world government to enforce the rule of law for these treaties The inability to enforce a law does not make a crime legal. The occupied territories are a violation of international law, even if they are never punished for them.

Calling something a crime when there is no rule of law to enforce it and no legal authority with jurisdiction is simply a contradiction in terms.

The UN has both, and has called the settlements crimes many times. A punishment could be handed down if certain states allowed it to happen.

Re: Last German kaiser's heirs fight for riches lost behind Iron Curtain

#85

Post by afiori » Sat, Sep 07, 2019, 12:15 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #79

afiori wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially considering they were neutral during WWII. Neutrality is strongly in favor of Liechtenstein case here. Similarly to how when the neutral San Marino got bombed in WWII Italy was held liable for reparations.

Everyone had to sacrifice something, my uncle sacrificed 4 years of his life. Maybe losing his inherited lands is the prince of Liechtenstein's sacrifice.

I would say that this kind of sacrifice should not be expected or demanded across national borders.

Had the prince forfeited or sold the land for the safety of the nation then he would agree with you.

but as far as I know this is more like your uncle getting kidnapped for 4 years (human life and land are incomparable, so this makes little sense) by a different country to fight their war.

Note that this sort of already happen when regions that want to/should be independent get exploited in war times.