26
« on: April 26, 2004, 12:28:55 PM »
I very much agree with Lisa and Melissa. However, I wonder if the conditions in Russia and the Baltic republics are the same. In most Eastern European countries, properties were stolen once -in the 1940's. In the USSR things were different. As far as I know, in the early revolutionary days, the Bolsheviks enacted (not because of their kindness or ideology, but for political circumstances) a land reform who seized huge estates and divided them among the peasants who worked there and other people. At least, that was what happened in the Ukraine. In the 1930's, the victims of Stalin's policies were those new land owners, labeled as "kulaks" -not the original ones, who were already dead, exiled, or trying to survive in a hostile "brave new world". So -who would be the "rightful" owners? May be the palaces were not distributed among retainers -but what about all the other properties -estates, dachas, buildings, houses?
About what could be considered Nikolai II's personal property, I would like to know if that deals in anyway with who should be the "rightful" heir of the non-existant throne. If we are talking about "personal" property here, I guess it should go back to those persons who have a more direct family link with him -his sisters' grandchildren, for instance. That was the case with the Berlin bank deposits in 1938 which started the "Anastasia" legal claims. As far as I remember, no one linked the claim (in legal terms) with the rights to the throne.