Less than half of Dutch municipalities reported findings of studies into Nazi loot

Following Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague’s example, 150 other Dutch municipalities launched investigations into the expropriation of Jewish-owned real estate during the Second World War. But only 64 of them have published reports on comprehensive studies, Pointer reported. 30 municipalities have comprehensive reports, but refuse to disclose them.

The 64 municipalities examined whether the stolen homes were returned to Jewish returnees or their surviving relatives. They also critically assessed the municipality’s role in that process. Many concluded that they had acted shamefully in their post-war treatment of Jewish residents, taking a long time to return homes or even charging Jewish people property taxes for periods when they were in hiding or held in concentration camps.

All 64 municipalities published substantive reports on the studies conducted. Some offered apologies, organized commemorative events, or provided financial compensation.

The other 86 municipalities were far less thorough, or now refuse to publish the findings of their studies, according to Pointer.

30 municipalities are in possession of substantive, in-depth reports after a comprehensive study, but did nothing further with them. They made no public statements regarding the municipality’s role, and offered no acknowledgements, apologies, or restitutions.

45 municipalities only conducted a limited preliminary inquiry and did no comprehensive research, according to the program. Often, the inquiry involved no more than a municipal employee searching the local archives.

11 municipalities had official investigations conducted, but they were highly superficial. According to Pointer, the research focused primarily on the factual issue of whether looted homes were returned, rather than on the municipality’s role therein. These municipalities also barely looked into whether they charged Jewish residents taxes on looted homes during the war.

Rony Naftaniel, former chairman of the Central Jewish Board (CJO), considers it highly objectionable that these municipalities failed to properly investigate their complicity or now refuse to publish the results of investigations. “The public has a right to know how a municipality functioned during wartime,” he told Pointer.

It is crucial that these studies are properly conducted, published and discussed, Naftaniel said. “If you return from hiding or a concentration camp to find your home badly damaged and sold to someone else—and then have to fight for years just to get back into your house—that feeling doesn't simply go away. The sense of having been robbed of your property lingers."