Either there's a mistranslation somewhere, or the guy doesn't know his own history.
There were three partitions of Poland in the 18th century, and the Nazis and Soviets split it up again in 1939.
Which would seem to make the process he was complaining about the 5th.
FWIW: Jewish Press Fires Online Editor Yori Yanover for Criticizing Ultra-Orthodox Anti-Draft Rally
Doesn't give much background, but apparently some Polish pol doesn't want to give back some property to the heirs of those the Nazis stole it from back in the day.
Since this theft took place 75 years ago, all the actual participants are dead.
I don't know how Kopycinski came into possession of this property, but it would likely be an injustice for it to be taken from him and returned to the heirs of the original owners. It is unlikely he had anything to do personally with the original property, and may in fact have acquired it in perfectly good faith. Quite possibly with no awareness of is history.
The answer, of course, is for the government to compensate either the heirs of the original owners or Mr. Kopycinski. Possibly some or all of this money should come from the descendants of the states responsible for the original theft and murder, the Germans or Russians.
I found the general tone of the article more than a little disturbing.
I mean, listen to this bastard, Kopycinski, hes actually complaining about giving back property his family and his neighbors have stolen almost 70 years ago.
The author provides no evidence that Kopycinski, his family or his neighbors were personally involved in the theft of this property. Apparently they are to be standins for all Poles, who must suffer now because some other Poles in the past did bad things.
You'd think a Jew would have the common sense to reject this POV, as it was the one used for centuries to target Jews.
If we apply this principle comprehensively, a whole bunch of Americans are going to have to give the land they live on back to the Indians. Possibly all of us.
Send the bill to Germany and Russia, they started it.
I'll guess that he would not be as enthusiastic an advocate of returning Brooklyn to the descendants of its native inhabitants.
He seems ignorant of history in general.
If foreign invaders (Wehrmacht) steal property and then another set of foreign invaders (Red Army) take it from them, and then the new foreign proprietors forcibly resettle new inabitants where the old ones used to live, and the old inhabitants have either been murdered or have fled to safety, and the property was then abandoned 60 years later by the invaders leaving the property to maybe a third or fourth generation of new inhabitants, what do you do?
Turn the new people out in the street, apparently, and call them murderers.
How about this, instead: let the Russians and Germans pay reparations for what they stole and destroyed to the descendants of the original injured parties.
Is the author going to move to the property and take up residence among people whom he hates in a land he clearly despises?
Hardly. What he wants is the value of his inheritance.
Germany is paying substantial reparations, perhaps "The New Russia" should use its oil wealth to pay some of its own historical debts.
What the author clearly wants is to rip open old wounds and commit new injustices because he is a nasty person who enjoys conflict and bitterness.