Upvote:4
The first situation is about retrieval or recompense for property stolen and damage inflicted. The second situation is about extorting money from victims of oppression. They are not remotely comparable, except that they both have their genesis in the Holocaust. This question just sounds like provocation.
A group of people, the Nazi regime and its supporters and facilitators, stripped many people of their homes, possessions, artifacts, and livelihoods. This ranged from home furniture to jewelry to priceless art to simple family storefronts. Seeking return of stolen items or compensation for the loss of destroyed items is a relatively basic concept of law, and it almost certainly stretches back to prehistory. The rule is complicated here by the time that has elapsed and the large number of people involved today who have no moral culpability. But the principle of compensation for wrongs committed is the foundation.
Saving people from unjust imprisonment in the midst of a war being fought for other reasons, then trying to get something from them, is not well supported by law or history. It would have seriously conflicted with Soviet claims that they were forces of liberation for the working classes against foreign bourgeois aggressors. Not to mention the image of Communists grubbing for a little money from starving refugees. It's also entirely unenforceable under any cognizable theory of law, since the Soviets did not obtain the agreement of the rescuees, prior to liberation, that the USSR would be compensated for the rescues.