logo
Germany's ex-royals strike deal over family riches – DW – 06/17/2025

Germany's ex-royals strike deal over family riches – DW – 06/17/2025

DW6 hours ago

After years of wrangling, the German state and Hohenzollern family — heirs to the former German imperial dynasty — have reached a settlement over thousands of precious items, including paintings and furniture.
An almost century-long dispute in Germany is coming to an end.
The House of Hohenzollern — a German noble family which the last German Emperor, Wilhelm II, also belonged to — had long laid claim to various objects housed in German museums. They had also demanded millions in compensation for expropriated palaces and inventory.
The whole saga went to court — until Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia, the great-great-grandson of the last German emperor, finally changed the aristocratic house's strategy in 2023. He withdrew the compensation claims and thus cleared the way for out-of-court negotiations. The talks began in late 2024, resulting in the newly-reached agreement.
The new German Minister of State for Culture Wolfram Weimer (CDU) and Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia had announced the breakthrough back in May 2025.
The federal government and the states of Berlin and Brandenburg had reached an agreement with the former ruling house of Hohenzollern to set up the non-profit "Hohenzollern Art Foundation" to manage the previously reclaimed art and cultural objects.
Now that the supervisory bodies of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation and the German Historical Museum have also given their approval, the agreement has been signed and sealed.
According to Weimer, the public will be the biggest winner. The collections that include around 3,000 objects will now feature in the German Historical Museum, along with museums run by the Prussian Palaces and Gardens Foundation Berlin-Brandenburg, and the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation.
The new foundation will also manage the inventory — furniture, tableware and paintings — from around 70 palaces, villas and other properties in Berlin and Potsdam that were owned or used by the Hohenzollern family until 1945.
There are also objects belonging to the family that were confiscated as early as 1918, after the end of the monarchy.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
At the end of World War II, Soviet troops conquered the former German territories east of the Elbe River and with them the bulk of the Hohenzollern territories.
The Soviet Union regarded the "Junkers" — the land-owning nobility — as the class enemy and a pillar of the Nazi system. So in 1945, all noble houses in the Soviet occupation zone were expropriated without compensation.
More than four decades later, the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was reunited. From one minute to the next, many former Hohenzollern castles and estates were once again on the Federal Republic's soil.
But the German Unification Treaty in 1990 stated that the land reform of 1945 would not be reversed, meaning the Hohenzollerns had to write off their old properties in the east.
Some 30 years later, the heirs of the last monarch demanded millions in compensation from the German state and the restitution of cultural assets — in vain. So the matter went to court.
This question played a central role in the compensation dispute: Had representatives of the House of Hohenzollern colluded with the National Socialists who ruled Germany between 1933 and 1945? Specifically, had the heirs of the last German Emperor, Wilhelm II, who abdicated in 1918, "significantly supported" National Socialism?
And what role did the son of the last monarch and former Crown Prince Wilhelm of Prussia play between the world wars? Did he help the Nazis come to power in order to re-establish the monarchy?
The so-called "Compensation Act" of 1994, which regulates the compensation of landowners whose property was expropriated in the East in 1945, states that anyone who "significantly aided" Hitler and the Nazis has no right to compensation.
In fact, historical documents prove Wilhelm's ties to Hitler, with photos and films showing the former crown prince with the dictator and other Nazi leaders. However, Wilhelm's hopes that the Nazis would crown him the new emperor were never realized and historians continue to debate Wilhelm's role in the Nazi state.
In their biographies, two German historians Lothar Machtan ("The Crown Prince and the Nazis") and Stephan Malinowski ("The Hohenzollerns and the Nazis") describe the crown prince as a radical anti-democrat who admired Mussolini and sought proximity to Hitler. His mission was to restore the monarchy.
Malinowski and his colleague Peter Brandt concluded that Wilhelm of Prussia's behavior had "considerably aided and abetted" the establishment and consolidation of the National Socialist regime.
In fact, the ex-crown prince called for the election of Hitler in the 1932 German presidential election. He later boasted to Hitler that he had procured him two million votes.
Wilhelm also publicly demonstrated solidarity with the new elites. "The symbolic capital of the Hohenzollerns was very important for the Nazis in 1932/33, even if the crown prince had his own agenda in the process," said Jacco Pekelder, a historian from Münster, in a television interview."
The editors of the anthology "Die Hohenzollerndebatte" (The Hohenzollern Debate), published in 2021, casted their doubt on these fascist ties.
Historian Frank-Lothar Kroll attested to Wilhelm's "rather marginal commitment" to the Nazis. He may have pandered to Hitler, but he did not share his totalitarian ideology.
For decades, hordes of lawyers, politicians and historians dealt with the restitution and compensation claims of the descendants of Wilhelm of Prussia. Now a settlement finally seems to have been reached, and the public could benefit the most.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NATO allies pledge 5% on defense to keep US on board – DW – 06/25/2025
NATO allies pledge 5% on defense to keep US on board – DW – 06/25/2025

DW

timean hour ago

  • DW

NATO allies pledge 5% on defense to keep US on board – DW – 06/25/2025

Most NATO allies promised to ramp up defense spending and reaffirmed their "ironclad" commitment to mutual defense. But there are lingering concerns over the scale and scope of US engagement. From the perspective of the European NATO allies, it all went to plan: A short, one page and five point declaration, a nice group photo and even dinner with the Dutch king and queen. US President Donald Trump was in good spirits at the NATO summit at The Hague. When he addressed the press, Trump claimed credit for ending the war in Iran, and for getting the NATO allies to increase their defense spending to 5% of their national GDPs by 2035. He praised the European members of the alliance for "the love and passion they showed for their countries," but also said they needed the US. He hailed the new pledge as a "big win for Europe and for western civilization." The declaration says the allies will spend 5% on defense but split it in two parts. At least 3.5% of GDP will be spent on hard defense – that includes purchase of weapons – and up to 1.5% will go towards other defense-related investments that enhance military mobility and protect against cyber attacks. The trajectory and balance of spending will be reviewed in the next four years. Yet not all NATO members are fully on board. President Trump called out Spain for refusing to increase spending and warned he would make the country pay more through trade. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Spain is the lowest NATO spender at less than 1.3% and has only recently agreed to meet the 2% target that was made a decade ago. Observers said the political turmoil at home made it nearly impossible for Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to agree to the 5% goal. Tens of thousands protested in Madrid last week after a senior leader of Sanchez' socialist party was accused of corruption and the opposition called for the prime minister to resign. Sanchez asked NATO for an exemption and said Spain would achieve the military capabilities that Nato had asked for but that 2% of GDP would be enough for that. Poland, which is leading in defense spending and already this year announced plans to increase it to 4.7% of its GDP, was not happy. "We believe that any deviation from this principle by any member country is a bad example," Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said. He may have had a point. Slovakia soon piggybacked on Spain and also refused to meet the target. "The Slovak Republic has other priorities in the coming years than armament," Prime Minister Robert Fico posted on X. "The Slovak Republic must, similarly to Spain, reserve the sovereign right to decide at what pace and in what structure it is prepared to increase the budget." Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot told the local press his country "may not have done so by making a noisy statement like Spain, but I can assure you that for weeks our diplomats have been working hard to obtain the flexibility mechanisms that could help to lighten the burden of the Belgian effort,' But even if most allies do reach the 5% target, there is lingering uncertainty over the US' commitment to the alliance. On his way to the summit President Trump said there were "numerous definitions" of Article 5 – NATO's mutual defense clause. After his arrival however, he reassured the US was with the NATO allies "all the way." Still, the European allies had to do some damage control. "Stop worrying," NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said at the press conference. "The United States is totally committed to NATO." In the summit declaration the allies then reaffirmed an "ironclad commitment" to collective defense as enshrined in Article 5, "an attack on one is an attack on all." Kristine Berzina, Washington DC-based managing director of the German Marshall Fund (GMF) Geostrategy North, who is currently at The Hague to attend the summit, told DW that in a way, President Trump was right. But that this was hardly the perfect time to deliberate on the nuances of the clause. She said while it was left on individual members to choose the extent of their support to an ally under attack, the only time Article 5 has been invoked was following the September 11th attacks on the United States. "The US has been the beneficiary of Article 5 and that's the part that President Trump should remember," she said. There are also concerns that over time, the US may dial down its support to NATO. "Later this year we can expect the US to consult allies on its global force posture – that will likely be reduced military presence in Europe and then focus on how the Europeans can fill those gaps," Rafael Loss, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) told DW. But he added that the good news was that the US wasn't "dumping everything on the Europeans suddenly." Berzina of the GMF said there was already a conversation about how to compensate Europe for a reduction in troops and assets. "It's possible the US might deploy more nukes in allied countries as a deterrent against adversaries."

Is Donald Trump making Europe great again? – DW – 06/25/2025
Is Donald Trump making Europe great again? – DW – 06/25/2025

DW

time2 hours ago

  • DW

Is Donald Trump making Europe great again? – DW – 06/25/2025

The US president's erratic trade policy is unnerving investors in the US, while at the same time opening up opportunities for European businesses to capture their attention. Will they seize the moment? Time is running out for American and European trade negotiators working to cut a tariff deal before a July 9 deadline set by US President Donald Trump. So far, it remains unclear whether or not Trump's threat of imposing a 50% levy on nearly all European Union imports will materialize — a move that could escalate the dispute into a full-blown transatlantic trade war. Given Trump's erratic trade policy, global investors have grown increasingly wary of the US economy — and at the same time, are beginning to turn their attention toward Europe, especially Germany, the continent's largest economy. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video While the American S&P 500 stock market index has seen big ups and downs since Trump became US president in January, Germany's blue-chip DAX index has risen steadily, and is up more than 15% now. In addition, the US dollar has lost 10% of its value against the euro, with the British pound and the Swiss franc also rising against the US currency. Joachim Nagel, the president of Germany's central bank, the Bundesbank, cautioned about fresh turbulence in global financial markets if the trade conflict with the US isn't resolved. Speaking at a May 14 event in Madrid, Nagel said that "disruptive" was the word that jumped to his mind as he listened to Trump's April 2 announcement of sweeping "reciprocal tariffs" on many countries, adding the move caused a global-stock slump and a weakening dollar that brought financial markets "close to a meltdown." The International Monetary Fund (IMF) already sees "signs of strain" in the US economy amid Trump's policies, warning in its April 2025 Fiscal Monitor that US debt could spiral out of control. In an interview in May, IMF's First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath told the that the US's budget deficits were "too large" and that Washington needed to address its "ever-increasing" debt burden. According to the US Treasury Department, America is now saddled with over $36 trillion (€31.6 trillion) in debt — more than 120% of its GDP as of last year and nearly twice Germany's debt-to-GDP ratio. In 2025, the US's budget deficit is expected to exceed 6.5%, adding to the debt burden. German economist Hans-Werner Sinn sees little room left for the US to continue on its current fiscal path. "The Americans need to tighten their belts. This lifestyle, this world of endless malls and few factories, can't be sustained indefinitely," the former president of the ifo Institute in Munich told DW. Ralph Ossa, chief economist at the World Trade Organization (WTO), shares the view that Washington needs to reduce its trade deficit with the EU and the rest of the world. But like most economists, he sees tariffs as a misguided tool to achieve that. "From an economic standpoint, there's a broad consensus that tariffs are not the right instrument to address trade deficits," he told DW. Ossa likens the US strategy to a person who spends more than they earn and accumulates debt. "If I, Ralph, have a debt problem — because I buy too many cars, for example — then one way to tackle it is to tax the cars so I buy fewer. But that's obviously not the most direct way to address the issue." Stefan Wintels, CEO of Germany's state-owned development bank, KfW, believes Donald Trump's aggressive trade and tariff policies have spooked investors and driven them to reassess Europe. "During my roadshows in New York, London, and Zurich, I see rising interest from international investors in Germany as a location. Many institutional investors are overexposed in the US and want to invest more in Europe, especially in Germany," Wintels said in a recent interview with German business daily In just a few months, sentiment toward Europe and Germany among global investors has "completely shifted," he said, adding: "In over 30 years in this business, I've never seen such a rapid change in investor mood. We must do everything we can to harness this momentum for Germany and Europe." Even global financial heavyweights like US investment firm Blackstone are being drawn to Europe. The company's CEO, Steve Schwarzman, has announced plans to invest up to $500 billion in the continent over the next decade. In an era of geopolitical volatility, Europe is becoming increasingly attractive to investors — thanks in part to Germany's multi-billion-dollar infrastructure and defense investment packages that were adopted by parliament in March. "We see a major opportunity here," Schwarzman told Bloomberg TV in early June. "They're changing their approach, which we believe will lead to higher growth rates." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The European Commission has also acknowledged the need to strengthen the EU's single market of nearly 450 million consumers. In response to global trade tensions, the EU Commission is preparing to tackle what it calls the "ten biggest obstacles" to internal EU trade. According to a leaked strategy paper obtained by German media platform Table Briefings, "all it takes to make up for a 20% fall in the goods exports to the US, is a 2.4% increase in intra-EU goods trade." One key plank in the strategy is cutting the EU's massive bureaucracy to the benefit of particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, making it easier for them to operate across borders within the EU. There's also growing consensus in Brussels that the pace of free trade agreements with countries like India and Indonesia needs to accelerate. Negotiating over decades — as happened with the Mercosur trade deal with Latin America — is no longer viable. But already now, Europe, and particularly Germany, is reaping the benefits of investors' heightened awareness. The so-called SuperReturn International conference held annually in Berlin, drew thousands of top investors this year, including from pension funds, insurers, and sovereign wealth funds managing around €46 trillion ($53.2 trillion) in assets. Touted as the world's largest private equity and venture capital conference, the event attracted representatives from firms like BC Partners, Permira, and Brookfield Asset Management, for example, who all showed an interest in Europe as an investment destination. New York-based Apollo Global Management — already managing about $100 billion of its $800 billion portfolio in Europe — said it intends to focus even more heavily on Germany over the next decade. "We see in this country [Germany] alone the opportunity to put $100 billion in the ground in the next decade," Apollo President Jim Zelter told the , adding that this is "a number that would be hard to match around the globe."

Trump's Comparison of Iran Strikes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki Called Out for One Thing: 'Didn't Iran Bomb Israel After?'
Trump's Comparison of Iran Strikes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki Called Out for One Thing: 'Didn't Iran Bomb Israel After?'

Int'l Business Times

time3 hours ago

  • Int'l Business Times

Trump's Comparison of Iran Strikes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki Called Out for One Thing: 'Didn't Iran Bomb Israel After?'

President Donald Trump seemingly compared his strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. However, users were quick to try to poke holes in Trump's argument. The president referred to the devastating bombings on Japan while responding to a question about the U.S. use of bunker-buster bombs on Iran over the weekend during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Wednesday. "That hit ended the war. I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima. I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war, this ended that with the war. If we didn't take that out, they'd be fighting right now," Trump declared. Trump appearing to compare his damage to Iran's nuclear facilities to two nuclear bombs that killed an estimated 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 74,000 in Nagasaki, according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons , led to shock online. As dozens of users noted the general disparity in the destruction caused by the bombings, several also noted that the fighting continued after Trump's orders. "Iran bombed Israel after this bombing," one user said . Another asked , "Didn't Iran bomb Israel after that?" "Good, because both of those examples are wrong. Iran bombed our bases since your 'total annihilation,'" one user quipped . While users appeared to question the effectiveness of Trump's strikes, Japan did not officially announce its surrender in WWII until August 15, 1945, six days after the bombing of Nagasaki. However, Iran did not surrender to Israel or the U.S., as a ceasefire was agreed upon two days after the U.S. bombings. Although Iran and Israel agreed to the ceasefire proposed by the Trump administration, both countries have since accused each other of breaking the deal. "Donnie, it's like two days, let's see how long it is before they are back at fighting each other," one user jeered . Another declared , "It did nothing." The level of destruction caused by Trump's bombings has been debated. While the president previously declared that the strikes completely "obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites, a report by CNN cited sources saying that a Pentagon report indicated that the sites were only damaged, not destroyed. Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence services reportedly disagree with the results of that report, as their initial evaluation allegedly concluded more damage than the Pentagon's report. Derrick Rose may not get enough playing time in case he ends up joining the Phoenix Suns. Getty Images | Gregory Shamus Originally published on Latin Times

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store