Chapter 3 examines the political negotiations and debates that took place within Romania’s transitional governments concerning the process of drafting and adopting the restitution legislation. It shows that while a few Romanian politicians supported a full and rapid restitution, others were reluctant to do so and even displayed antisemitic prejudice. Most of the politicians agreed to adopt restitution laws because they saw them as requirements of the allegedly philosemitic Allies and, thus, useful for improving Romania’s standing at the peace conference. Some ministers supported specific categories of beneficiaries and devised various strategies aiming to help them keep the Jewish assets.

Given that the French authorities usually did not tell their families the real reason for their conviction, prisoners could claim after the war that they went to military prison for an act of resistance, which was technically not incorrect but either covered up an amorous relationship or gave it a functionality (such as facilitating an escape or undermining enemy morale) that it almost never had. Former inmates of the military prison of Graudenz formed an association in France and tried to get recognition as war victims. Women sentenced for a forbidden relation usually had to live with the stigma of the (often adulterous) relationship. While their sentences for the relationship were voided after the war, they never received any compensation for the injustice they suffered.