We won't give piece of Auschwitz back, say USA

[Irbis]

Since I haven't seen it here yet:

Poland, US Museum Tussle Over Auschwitz Barracks

Warsaw, Poland - Polish and U.S. officials are engaged in intense talks to determine the fate of a sensitive object: a barrack that once housed doomed prisoners at the Nazis’ Auschwitz death camp and is now on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Poland is demanding the return of the artifact, which has been on loan to the Washington museum for more than 20 years and is an important object in its permanent exhibition. But the U.S. museum is resisting the demand, saying the valuable object shouldn’t be moved partly because it is too fragile.

“Due to the barrack’s size and the complexity of its installation, removing and transporting it to Poland presents special difficulties, including potentially damaging the artifact,” the U.S. Holocaust museum said in a statement to The Associated Press. “Both the Museum and our Polish partners have been actively discussing various proposals, and we remain committed to continue working with them to resolve this matter.”

The issue has arisen because of a Polish law aimed at safeguarding a cultural heritage ravaged by past wars, particularly World War II. Under the law, passed in 2003, any historic object on loan abroad must return to Poland every five years for inspection. While Poland appears open to renewing the loan, it says the barracks must return — at least temporarily.

...

The barracks on view in Washington are, in fact, just half of a wooden building where prisoners slept in cramped, filthy and often freezing conditions as they awaited extermination, often in gas chambers. The remaining half still stands at Birkenau, a part of the vast Auschwitz-Birkenau complex.

...

“We have indicated many times that this half of the barracks must return, that there is no other solution in accordance with the law,” Cywinski said. “It’s a very important object, not just for Washington but for the integrity of Birkenau, the last authentic site of Holocaust remembrance among all the major death camps.”

The story ran recently in our newspapers. Some details missing from here: from here US museum claims that returning of the barracks will damage their exposition, making it "less authentic", does not intend to return it despite lease period ending in 2009, and threatens to sue/withdraw payments promised earlier (15 mln $) if the Auschwitz Museum in Poland doesn't back off.

[Grumman]

The issue has arisen because of a Polish law aimed at safeguarding a cultural heritage ravaged by past wars, particularly World War II. Under the law, passed in 2003, any historic object on loan abroad must return to Poland every five years for inspection. While Poland appears open to renewing the loan, it says the barracks must return — at least temporarily.

It sounds like Poland's suffering from a lack of common sense. If you want to safeguard a culturally significant building, shipping it across the Atlantic twice every five years sounds rather counter-productive.

[Broomstick]

It's a bit ironic, given how the UK made off with Greek marble and Germany has a pile of Ancient Egyptian artifacts and so on that now Europe is getting a taste of how it is when some other country makes off with the cultural artifacts and won't give them back. However, I don't know if Poland ever participated in Europe's plunder of other nations' cultural heritage the way some other European powers did.

That said - the notion of packing up a building every five years and shipping it across an ocean and continent is a bit irrational. It's not the way to preserve the artifact. Either bring it back permanently, or send some Polish folks over to inspect it. Buildings aren't paintings or vases. Moving them is not an operation one should repeat if at all avoidable.

In other words, if the law is stupid then change it.

And be careful about loaning stuff like that out, 'cause it doesn't always come back.

[Slacker]

I'll agree with the general sentiment of 'Really, we're going to ship a building back every five years????'

I've seen the display in question-it's a fifty year old wooden building that wasn't exactly built to spec to begin with. I highly doubt it'll survive more than one or two transfers, period. Poland needs to have some common sense on this one-maybe send an inspection team over to the US to check it out.

[Solauren]

Agreed.

Send an inspection team over to exam it, and then if the Poles still want it back, say "Hey, it's yours, you want it, YOU move it, I'm not risking damaging the artifact". If they still want to relocate it back, offer to pay costs, and the rest is on their heads.

They'll either flinch, or take it back. Then use a nice, industrial built replica you own, with a sign saying 'Original returned to Poland to avoid stupidity'

[Irbis]

However, I don't know if Poland ever participated in Europe's plunder of other nations' cultural heritage the way some other European powers did.

Dude, Poland was under occupation between 1794-1919, during which time occupying powers shipped off most of our 'cultural heritage' to their own museums, then, after 20 years break, there was this little thing called 'World War 2' where Nazis burned most of the remaining 'cultural heritage' of Slavic subhumans as it was worthless anyway, plundering the rest. Funny story is, a lot more additional damage was wrought by Allied powers, who kept what Polish government managed to evacuate before the war in damp magazines for decades, refusing to return it to commie museums, letting it rot instead. Plunder others?

This law is direct consequence of this, yes, it's stiff, but the legislators were thinking of protecting what little 'cultural heritage' remained, not shipping it off overseas for show.

That said - the notion of packing up a building every five years and shipping it across an ocean and continent is a bit irrational. It's not the way to preserve the artifact.

I agree, it should have never been shipped in 1989 as some sort of tribute by newly installed régime, but it's not like we could do anything about that then.

Plus, from where you guys get idea the '5 year law' is about this building? From what was written in newspapers here, it only applies to minor items. We demand return of the barracks permanently, to properly restore it to museum grounds, not get it shipped back and forth. It would have returned regardless of this law, as lease ended 3 years ago, this law just makes it illegal for museum director to not push for return as quickly as possible.

[Skgoa]

Man, is there LSD in the water in america? "US museum is in breach of contract and refuses to send cultural artifact back to Poland" -> "Poland is unreasonable and anyways all europeans are bastards and shouldn't be allowed to complain about stuff being stolen" ... How? ... Just how des that make sense in any way, shape or form?

[Thanas]

It's a bit ironic, given how the UK made off with Greek marble and Germany has a pile of Ancient Egyptian artifacts and so on that now Europe is getting a taste of how it is when some other country makes off with the cultural artifacts and won't give them back.

Because clearly the way the Egyptians were using their national treasures (mummies = firewood) was superior. Or maybe the situation is a bit more complex and always was.

However, I don't know if Poland ever participated in Europe's plunder of other nations' cultural heritage the way some other European powers did.

Poland did not exist in the 19th century.



That being said, the artifact is on loan. If the museum in the USA is unwilling to honor a written contract it clearly is in the wrong here.

[Broomstick]

However, I don't know if Poland ever participated in Europe's plunder of other nations' cultural heritage the way some other European powers did.

Dude, Poland was under occupation between 1794-1919....[snip]

As I said, I did not know. Thanks for bringing me up to date, facts noted.

That said - the notion of packing up a building every five years and shipping it across an ocean and continent is a bit irrational. It's not the way to preserve the artifact.

I agree, it should have never been shipped in 1989 as some sort of tribute by newly installed régime, but it's not like we could do anything about that then.

Then it's doubly sad that the "newly installed regime" aided in the plundering Poland's momuments.

Plus, from where you guys get idea the '5 year law' is about this building? From what was written in newspapers here, it only applies to minor items.

From the OP, mostly. As presented it sure looks like it's "about this building". Agreed that for minor/transportable items the 5 year law makes some sense.

We demand return of the barracks permanently, to properly restore it to museum grounds, not get it shipped back and forth.

Hey, I'm totally on board with that.

Man, is there LSD in the water in america? "US museum is in breach of contract and refuses to send cultural artifact back to Poland" -> "Poland is unreasonable and anyways all europeans are bastards and shouldn't be allowed to complain about stuff being stolen" ... How? ... Just how des that make sense in any way, shape or form?

Again, as presented in the OP it doesn't make much sense. With a better explanation of what all is going on, including the "we want it back permanently, not shipped back and forth" it makes much more sense. As usual the media does not provide the whole story, slants information, and does a piss-poor job of explaining what is really going on.

And no, Europeans aren't "bastards" but many nations there have long had a double-standard regarding the preservation of other cultures' artifacts. Which is why places like Egypt and Greece have long bitched about THEIR cultural stuff having been carted off in the past without permission and now being held forever in someone else's collection, said someone refusing categorically to give said stuff back. If Poland never participated in such plundering good for them.

[Broomstick]

It's a bit ironic, given how the UK made off with Greek marble and Germany has a pile of Ancient Egyptian artifacts and so on that now Europe is getting a taste of how it is when some other country makes off with the cultural artifacts and won't give them back.

Because clearly the way the Egyptians were using their national treasures (mummies = firewood) was superior. Or maybe the situation is a bit more complex and always was.

So why don't you give those items back now that the Egyptians are spending resources to safeguard their heritage? Nice of you to preserve them, thank you, but we all know that many of those items were acquired under shady circumstances. Since when is theft excused by "but I treated the items better than the original owner"?

Or, if discussing the past abuses of other peoples' artifacts by Germany touches a sore spot with you, why are so many Greek marbles still sitting in British museums? Again, acquired under shady circumstances at best. Sure, if they had been left in Greece they might have been quarried for building material. On the other hand, they might have been obliterated during the Blitz while staying in England. There's risks no matter where you park a cultural artifact.

Yeah, to some of the rest of the world Europeans (in general) bitching about the appropriation of their stuff does look hypocritical. Doesn't make it right to take their stuff, of course, but when a thief complains about theft it does cause raised eyebrows. And Thanas, YOUR country was one of the guiltiest of theft during the 20th Century during the WWII era, not just the 19th Century. Deal with it.

That being said, the artifact is on loan. If the museum in the USA is unwilling to honor a written contract it clearly is in the wrong here.

No objection - what I thought nonsensical is the notion of shipping a building back and forth every five years. That point has since been clarified.

[Thanas]

So why don't you give those items back now that the Egyptians are spending resources to safeguard their heritage?

You mean, like plundering museums during their recent uprising?

Nice of you to preserve them, thank you, but we all know that many of those items were acquired under shady circumstances. Since when is theft excused by "but I treated the items better than the original owner"?

How about you actually show which artifacts were acquired illegally? Maybe then there would be some merit to your anti-european tangent here.

Or, if discussing the past abuses of other peoples' artifacts by Germany touches a sore spot with you,

Bitch queen of passive-aggressive much?

why are so many Greek marbles still sitting in British museums? Again, acquired under shady circumstances at best. Sure, if they had been left in Greece they might have been quarried for building material.

Or blown up during exercises, used as feeding throughs in stables, used as inscriptions etc. The latter two are still ongoing in Greece btw. Not to mention the recent theft of artifacts from what was allegedly one of the most modern and safest museums. Suddenly going "well, we care now" after treating things like crap for over 1500 years does not hold a lot of weight with me, especially with continued incompetence in a lot of those countries when it comes to safeguarding them and national interest fluctuating wildly according to whoever despot is in charge. Egypt for example planned to flood a large part of their national history a few decades ago (you should be old enough to remember, but maybe you were just to poor to afford TV back then) and only massive international pressure and donations saved the temples.

On the other hand, they might have been obliterated during the Blitz while staying in England. There's risks no matter where you park a cultural artifact.

Sure, but the risks are vastly minimized in an area where local farmers do not use the artifacts for firewood or disposable pieces, or where the government does not plan to flood the artifacts.

Yeah, to some of the rest of the world Europeans (in general) bitching about the appropriation of their stuff does look hypocritical. Doesn't make it right to take their stuff, of course, but when a thief complains about theft it does cause raised eyebrows. And Thanas, YOUR country was one of the guiltiest of theft during the 20th Century during the WWII era, not just the 19th Century. Deal with it.

How the heck has WWII anything to do with this? Is this merely an angry response due to *gasp* a German daring to criticize the mighty USA? Like all the other Europeans are bastards BS thread tangent you pulled in this thread?

[Simon_Jester]

Or blown up during exercises, used as feeding throughs in stables, used as inscriptions etc. The latter two are still ongoing in Greece btw. Not to mention the recent theft of artifacts from what was allegedly one of the most modern and safest museums. Suddenly going "well, we care now" after treating things like crap for over 1500 years does not hold a lot of weight with me, especially with continued incompetence in a lot of those countries when it comes to safeguarding them and national interest fluctuating wildly according to whoever despot is in charge. Egypt for example planned to flood a large part of their national history a few decades ago (you should be old enough to remember, but maybe you were just to poor to afford TV back then) and only massive international pressure and donations saved the temples.

We can take this stance- but then the argument has to be consistent, it has to run something like "cultural artifacts do not necessarily belong in the host country, they belong in the country of whoever will preserve them responsibly." And if that argument is anything more than a naked excuse for you, personally, to enjoy the fruits of past imperialism by having large classics collections sitting around where you can get at them in a hurry, it has to apply to everyone. If it applies to Egyptian relics in Britain, it applies to Polish relics in the US.

Does the act of shipping a rickety wooden building back and forth across the Atlantic over and over strike you as a good way to "preserve" the building? If not, then isn't the building now staying in the location where it is most likely to be preserved?

I'm not saying this is a good argument, mind you- but let's be consistent here. If shipping the Elgin marbles from London to Athens is wrong because it would undermine the goal of preserving the artwork, why is shipping an Auschwitz barracks from Washington to Poland right, unless the barracks is more likely to be preserved by being moved back across the Atlantic?

[HMS Conqueror]

I could see some argument here if the barracks had simply been taken by US (or Soviet and then given to US, I guess) troops when they liberated the camp, and was now considered property of the US museum, but since it was only ever on loan it seems like a straight case of theft.

Even assuming this isn't illegal in US (surely it is?!), the downside is I see no reason any museum would loan anything to a US state-owned museum again, since they have no guarantee the same won't happen to them.

[Thanas]

We can take this stance- but then the argument has to be consistent, it has to run something like "cultural artifacts do not necessarily belong in the host country, they belong in the country of whoever will preserve them responsibly."

Which is a only part of my argument.

And if that argument is anything more than a naked excuse for you, personally, to enjoy the fruits of past imperialism by having large classics collections sitting around where you can get at them in a hurry, it has to apply to everyone. If it applies to Egyptian relics in Britain, it applies to Polish relics in the US.

Character assassination much?

Does the act of shipping a rickety wooden building back and forth across the Atlantic over and over strike you as a good way to "preserve" the building? If not, then isn't the building now staying in the location where it is most likely to be preserved?

Well, if you had paid attention you would know the Polish are not demanding the thing be shipped back over and over, they are demanding the long-overdue return of a loaned piece and want to keep it. As is their right because it is their property. The situation here seems to be that the US museum signed a specific agreement and when that agreement ran out they refused to hand the artifact back. For over three years.

Oh and there are special ways to preserve things in transport nowadays. I find it very unlikely the Polish will be that inept as to not package things properly. Given that they already shipped it over once without incident is a point in their favor.

I'm not saying this is a good argument, mind you- but let's be consistent here. If shipping the Elgin marbles from London to Athens is wrong because it would undermine the goal of preserving the artwork,

It would not and that is not the argument the British museum is making.

why is shipping an Auschwitz barracks from Washington to Poland right, unless the barracks is more likely to be preserved by being moved back across the Atlantic?

Because in this case we have an agreement between two museums. These are supposed to be honored or nobody will ever lend anybody anything, which will be the death knell for museums almost everywhere except for those in a dozen or so cities.

[Block]

Well, if you had paid attention you would know the Polish are not demanding the thing be shipped back over and over, they are demanding the long-overdue return of a loaned piece and want to keep it. As is their right because it is their property. The situation here seems to be that the US museum signed a specific agreement and when that agreement ran out they refused to hand the artifact back. For over three years.

Bullshit. From the article:

The issue has arisen because of a Polish law aimed at safeguarding a cultural heritage ravaged by past wars, particularly World War II. Under the law, passed in 2003, any historic object on loan abroad must return to Poland every five years for inspection. While Poland appears open to renewing the loan, it says the barracks must return — at least temporarily.

Thus, they're not permanently demanding it back and whoever said it was wrong. Sending inspectors would make more sense.

[Chardok]

Germany: Yo, US, Give us back our thing!.


US: No.


Germany: But it's OURS.


US: We don't give Auschwitz.

I'll be here all week. And by here, I mean BotB, surely.

[Thanas]

Well, if you had paid attention you would know the Polish are not demanding the thing be shipped back over and over, they are demanding the long-overdue return of a loaned piece and want to keep it. As is their right because it is their property. The situation here seems to be that the US museum signed a specific agreement and when that agreement ran out they refused to hand the artifact back. For over three years.

Bullshit. From the article:

Bullshit. From one of our resident Poles:

Plus, from where you guys get idea the '5 year law' is about this building? From what was written in newspapers here, it only applies to minor items. We demand return of the barracks permanently, to properly restore it to museum grounds, not get it shipped back and forth. It would have returned regardless of this law, as lease ended 3 years ago, this law just makes it illegal for museum director to not push for return as quickly as possible.

[HMS Conqueror]

Well, if you had paid attention you would know the Polish are not demanding the thing be shipped back over and over, they are demanding the long-overdue return of a loaned piece and want to keep it. As is their right because it is their property. The situation here seems to be that the US museum signed a specific agreement and when that agreement ran out they refused to hand the artifact back. For over three years.

Bullshit. From the article:

The issue has arisen because of a Polish law aimed at safeguarding a cultural heritage ravaged by past wars, particularly World War II. Under the law, passed in 2003, any historic object on loan abroad must return to Poland every five years for inspection. While Poland appears open to renewing the loan, it says the barracks must return — at least temporarily.

Thus, they're not permanently demanding it back and whoever said it was wrong. Sending inspectors would make more sense.

Well that certainly is a silly law. I would probably refuse too. But if the Poles then demand the barracks be simply returned for good I don't see that the US museum has a leg to stand on.

[Block]

Well, if you had paid attention you would know the Polish are not demanding the thing be shipped back over and over, they are demanding the long-overdue return of a loaned piece and want to keep it. As is their right because it is their property. The situation here seems to be that the US museum signed a specific agreement and when that agreement ran out they refused to hand the artifact back. For over three years.

Bullshit. From the article:

Bullshit. From one of our resident Poles:

Plus, from where you guys get idea the '5 year law' is about this building? From what was written in newspapers here, it only applies to minor items. We demand return of the barracks permanently, to properly restore it to museum grounds, not get it shipped back and forth. It would have returned regardless of this law, as lease ended 3 years ago, this law just makes it illegal for museum director to not push for return as quickly as possible.

Yes, because I'm sure being from Poland makes him the authority on all things Polish. Just like I know every single deal and comment that every museum director in the US has made. If the article says that Poland, or its representitives have said that they're willing to make a deal for its return to where it is after it's brought home for this inspection, I tend to believe the article.

[Thanas]

Yes, because I'm sure being from Poland makes him the authority on all things Polish. Just like I know every single deal and comment that every museum director in the US has made.

So you are saying Irbis is lying about what he saw in the newspaper and in the law?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Look... if the issue is whether to send it permanently back, it is a no-brainer. The lease is up. If they want it back and want to risk shipping, that is their (the Poles) prerogative.

If it is about shipping it over to Poland every 5 years... Um... I think that law was intended to regard artwork, sculpture, things like that. If they insist on the law applying:

Lease the land it is on to Poland for a week, have the building inspected. Decide whether the loan on the building should be renewed. There. Stupidity avoided.

[El Moose Monstero]

For anyone interested, I managed to dig out the relevant law through googlefu. Experts in law/policy may have something more in-depth to say.

The act in question is:

Polish ACT of 23 July, 2003 on the protection of monuments and the guardianship of monuments (Journal of Laws No. 162, Item 1568)

Special focus on 'Export of monuments' Articles 51 onwards.

I'd post it, but it's waaaaaay long link.

The key bits to my eyes were that (paraphrased):

Monuments can be permanently exported providing that it does not damage the national heritage
Organisation renting temporarily must guarantee that it will be kept in good condition and returned prior to permit expiry.
Temporary open permit duration is 5 years.
General Inspector of Monuments reserves right to cancel permit.
Permit can be cancelled if condition is deteriorated or if organisation can’t guarantee it will be in good condition or returned prior to permit expiry.
Organisation renting has two weeks to return object.
Organisation is obliged to make the object available for examination.
Failure to return object to country is referred to Inspector of Monuments.

The question of applicability - basically, they use the term monument (I replaced it with object above for convenience) to mean any piece of real estate or movable listed on their inventory of real estate or movables which are classified as monuments. Again, to a non-expert reader, it does seem like this includes the barracks.

It does seem to be implying that at the end of five years, it has to be sent back. The act doesn't discuss renewals, but obviously Poland doesn't want to permanently export it. It does seem, however, that the provision is within the act to inspect the piece in-situ without necessarily requiring it to be packed up and returned to assess condition.

Fundamentally, however, these were the lease conditions in 2004 when the lease was signed (based on Irbis' date of 2009 lease expiry), and when the lease expired and the piece was not returned. It would seem like good faith on the part of the museum would be to return it, and then if they can't guarantee that it would survive repeated shipping every 5 years, then they need to negotiate for permanent export or return it to Poland forever.

[El Moose Monstero]

GHETTO EDIT: Sorry, for clarity, I should say "IF" these were the lease conditions. I assume they were, otherwise they would't be having this discussion but obviously not privy to whatever deals were made between institutions.

[Thanas]

Oh Bloooooock. Turns out Irbis was not lying:

WARSAW, Poland — Polish and U.S. officials are engaged in intense talks to determine the fate of a sensitive object: a barrack that once housed doomed prisoners at the Nazis' Auschwitz death camp and is now on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Poland is demanding the return of the artifact, which has been on loan to the Washington museum for more than 20 years and is an important object in its permanent exhibition. But the U.S. museum is resisting the demand, saying the valuable object shouldn't be moved partly because it is too fragile.

"Due to the barrack's size and the complexity of its installation, removing and transporting it to Poland presents special difficulties, including potentially damaging the artifact," the U.S. Holocaust museum said in a statement to The Associated Press. "Both the Museum and our Polish partners have been actively discussing various proposals, and we remain committed to continue working with them to resolve this matter."

The issue has arisen because of a Polish law aimed at safeguarding a cultural heritage ravaged by past wars, particularly World War II. Under the law, passed in 2003, any historic object on loan abroad must return to Poland every five years for inspection. While Poland appears open to renewing the loan, it says the barracks must return – at least temporarily.

Because of the rule, the U.S. museum in recent years has already returned thousands of objects dating to the Holocaust, including suitcases, shoes and prosthetic limbs, often in exchange for new, temporary loans of similar or identical items.

The barracks on view in Washington are, in fact, just half of a wooden building where prisoners slept in cramped, filthy and often freezing conditions as they awaited extermination, often in gas chambers. The remaining half still stands at Birkenau, a part of the vast Auschwitz-Birkenau complex.

The two camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, are about two miles (three kilometers) apart but were part of the same machinery of death during the war and the complex is typically referred to simply as "Auschwitz."

The director of the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum, Piotr Cywinski, accuses the U.S. institution of violating the terms of a 20-year loan on the barracks, saying the loan expired in 2009.

"We have indicated many times that this half of the barracks must return, that there is no other solution in accordance with the law," Cywinski said. "It's a very important object, not just for Washington but for the integrity of Birkenau, the last authentic site of Holocaust remembrance among all the major death camps."

Many of Poland's paintings, churches and other cultural gems were stolen, burned or otherwise destroyed during World War II, when Nazi Germany occupied the country, killed 6 million Polish citizens and built death camps across the country where they brought Jews and others from across Europe for extermination.

The legacy today is that the country possesses few old Polish treasures but has many Holocaust relics – including the sprawling site of Auschwitz-Birkenau in the south of the country that is one of the most visited Holocaust remembrance sites in Europe.

The memorial site, in fact, has many personal items that belonged to victims and frequently loans them out to institutions across the world, including Yad Vashem in Israel.

The matter between the Polish and U.S. institutions is extremely delicate and officials on both sides have resisted giving many details, or saying how the matter might be resolved. Poland's ministries of foreign affairs and culture are also involved in the matter but did not respond to AP requests for comment.

Although the problem might appear intractable, the U.S. Holocaust museum and the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum have cooperated well in the past and share similar missions of Holocaust remembrance – leading to expectations they will reach an eventual compromise.

The U.S. Holocaust museum confirms that the 20-year loan on the barracks began in 1989, but says that it was a renewable loan – and notes that Polish law was changed since then.

The fate of Cywinski, the Auschwitz museum director, is at stake in the matter. Under the law on protecting historic artifacts, he could be jailed for up to two years if he fails to obtain the return of any object on loan.

Roman Rewald, a Warsaw-based lawyer who has represented the U.S. Holocaust museum in the past on a pro-bono basis and has knowledge of the current discussions, says the matter comes down to Polish law, which is rigid and hard to work around.

The law would do a good job, for instance, of stopping an official from giving away a precious 16th century painting, but isn't as well-suited to regulating Holocaust artifacts, which probably shouldn't be moved so often.

"The Polish law is designed to make sure that nobody has any leeway in allowing Polish artifacts to leave the country permanently," Rewald said. "Poland is trying to protect its artifacts, all of them. Unfortunately Holocaust artifacts, which Poland has an abundance of, fall into the same category as all the other artifacts which Poland has been robbed of during wars, especially World War II."

So....turns out the lease was up 3 years ago.

Potential damage is the only thing that could save the US side now.

[Block]

Who said he was lying you idiot? That was your strawman. What I said, and what it states in the original article is that the Polish authorities said that they're perfectly willing to re-loan the barracks out once it comes back to Poland. My point was that this is stupid and that they should amend the law so that they can send inspectors over instead of moving the structure.