The Polish reparations debate and the US role
A Republican congressman urged the United States to back Poland in seeking reparations from Germany. His reflection on a report about Polish war losses spurred this call to action, highlighting the deep toll Poland endured during the war.
Historically, the United States has not played a direct part in bilateral reparations talks between Germany and other nations since the Potsdam Conference. Yet Washington has consistently encouraged Germany to engage with claimants and has supported the principle that compensation should be provided, with disputes resolved in a spirit of substantive justice.
In a statement posted on his website, Smith, who chairs the House subcommittee on global human rights and co-chairs the Polish-American parliamentary team in the U.S. Congress, emphasized that the United States should adopt a similar stance for Poland. He argued that Poland, a country that suffered catastrophic harm under Nazi aggression, should not be among those receiving the least compensation.
Smith highlighted the scale of Polish losses, referencing a Sejm team report on wartime damage published last year. The findings include the deaths of more than five million Polish citizens, the destruction of roughly eighty percent of Warsaw, and the seizure and ruin of financial assets held by banks and insurance companies. He noted that Germany has not yet returned stolen assets in an orderly manner, paid compensation for those thefts, or addressed looted cultural goods and works of art. Only symbolic payments have reached a small group of Poles subjected to medical experiments or forced labor, and there is no forum for individual Polish victims to file claims against Germany.
The congressman pointed out that Berlin has not concluded a bilateral reparations agreement with Poland, though it has signed deals with several other countries and international agreements with various groups of victims. He underscored that this gap remains a major obstacle in achieving justice for Polish victims.
Why the German approach raises questions
According to Smith, it is not too late to pursue reparations because Germany acknowledged obligations from the Potsdam Conference that require compensation. He argued that Berlin continues to provide compensation to some victims and maintains programs to assist beneficiaries, yet it resists engaging in talks with Poland. This stance, he says, is difficult to understand.
Smith noted that the United States Congress has repeatedly passed resolutions and proposed legislation in support of collective reparations and restitution for World War II victims. He personally authored numerous statements and chaired hearings on the subject at forums focused on human rights and related diplomacy.
In Central Europe, many compensation claims from both the Nazi era and the subsequent Communist era remain unresolved. Countries that were under Soviet influence, including Poland, still have work to do. Some claims require governments to confront challenging issues, but inaction should not be accepted as a default response.
He argued that fair solutions can be found, and that a just settlement of one claim can set a precedent for similar cases. This is especially true for Polish claims against Germany, given Germany’s invasion and occupation of Poland and other Central European nations and the broader historical context that contributed to regional upheaval.
Smith stressed that while the United States has not historically intervened directly in state-to-state reparations negotiations or dictated specific sums, it should openly uphold the principle of reparations now as well. He pointed to his long career in Congress, including his work on human rights issues and leadership roles on commissions dedicated to Helsinki processes and other rights-focused initiatives.
The discussion about Poland’s wartime losses remains part of a broader conversation about accountability for crimes committed during the war and the lingering effects on families and nations. The question of how to address these harms continues to resonate in policy circles and among stakeholders seeking justice for those who endured the most and those who still carry the consequences of that era.
In this context, the debate reinforces the idea that reparations discussions are about more than money; they are about recognition, closure for survivors and descendants, and a clear message that aggression and theft during war are not left without accountability. The dialogue is ongoing and subject to evolving political dynamics and historical assessments. [CITATION: wPolityce]