It would hold symbolic value, sure, but also have consequences I don't think we're really interested in.
I mean, you're going to pay reperations with taxpayer money (governments barely profit in other ways), and we're already on the brink of a worldwide depression, having several countries entered a state of recession already. This is where politicians and people in power would simply say 'no', because it would be a stupid use of money.
Call it an "investment" then, but what differientiates it from the vast amounts of money that the EU (and USA for that matter) is already pouring into foreign countries already?
I also think it's a bit weird to hold someone today accountable for something then and I don't understand why money should imply justice, seeing as most nations with bad economies hardly suffer this problem due to the atrocities then, but more so because of geopolitics, and I certainly don't think taxpayers should be accountable for that (time and time over, we see that our vote hardly matters in this case).
At the end of the day, we would use taxpayers money, which would hurt economies in Europe, which would further hurt economies worldwide, to pay for something that people today aren't accountable for, enacted at the responsibility of the few in power then, yet somehow justifying the proxy either way, ultimately making money the symbolism of justice, claiming validity in this whilst totally ignoring the fact that many European nations are already supporting foreign countries, sharing knowledge and know-how, and so on and so forth.
If we're looking at is a case of compensation, well then it's just not happening.
There may be other ways to give back, which I just don't know off. I certainly think it's alright to tear down statues of dumbasses, and try and consider our modern day history, and what the narratives are rooted in. This isn't a money problem to me.
