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.
I agree. Well put.
If you go back far enough, every single property in the world changed hands, usually many, many times, by conquest.
Which of those conquests do we decide is valid, and date legal title from, with all subsequent transfers “illegal?”