The operative word there is 'current' - i.e. an ex post repeal.
Even some German/Austrian expellee organisations declared they forego the bulk of material claims, so compromise shouldn't be impossible.
That's true of many of the BdV and Landsmannschaft leaders these days, including Erika Steinbach who has disassociated herself from Rudy Pawelka's Preussische Treuhand - the organization that seeks to get full compensation for material losses. True - but legally irrelevant. The claims are individual ones, nothing the expellee organizations say or agree to can change those individual claims. The German government can't make this sort of agreement unless it is prepared to pay in full or the courts change their minds (possible - courts generally shy away from decisions that would have disastrous practical effects, regardless of the legal merits, and bankrupting the government certainly qualifies as disastrous.)
On main problem in this case is Czech historical amnesia -- France progressed more in recognising the extent of collaboration than the Czech Republic, while the pre-Munich Czech assimilation policies, Sudetengerman political symphaties, and the existence and scale of post-Munich political cleansings among Sudetengermans is virtually unknown, so a wide majority of Czech citizens and politicians has a rather warped view of what happened
Yup. And as a relevant footnote the two most prominent expellee leaders of the seventies and eighties were themselves not too fond of the Nazis. Herbert Hupka was half Jewish. Herbert Czaja was an active opponent of the Nazis from the beginning - fled to Poland in 1933 and worked for a leading anti-Nazi ethnic German activist. Later during the war he was peripherally involved with the July conspiracy.
This is not entirely correct. On one hand, these organisations represent a great many of the potential claimants -- I don't know about Bavaria, but in Austria, majority f members support the leaders in such positions. On the other hand, a significant part of material claims would have been collectively, communally (or state) owned property. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
They support that position but just because someone believes that there should be a settlement awarding only symbolic compensation doesn't mean they won't take more if it is suddenly available. The organizations have no authority to renounce that right on behalf of their members (let alone the majority of expellees and their descendants who are not members). Nobody does. People can oppose a policy as harmful to the general good yet still act on behalf of their own individual good if that policy is enacted.
On the other hand, a significant part of material claims would have been collectively, communally (or state) owned property.
Both Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany were based on private property, there was more than enough to bankrupt any state that is suddenly made liable for compensating the expellees in full for their losses. Not that I can figure out how you'd calculate those losses - at 1944 price levels, adjusted for inflation or not, with interest, at current value of the property ...?
