This article compares the policies of compensation implemented after five cases of forced migration in the 20th century. Compensation for property left behind was discussed in all these cases, but only implemented in some. One might think that compensation may have been easier when “abandoned” property was available and some form of “exchange” was engineered, but the relative failure of the Greek, Turkish, Palestinian, and Israeli cases and the relative success of the German ones suggest that the opposite may be true. This may be due to compensation systems being based on the principle of redistributory justice, rather than restoration of pre-conflict levels of wealth. Moreover, I argue that unilateral compensation schemes worked better than multilateral ones. However, in the long run, the most important factor impacting refugees’ successful integration does not seem to be compensation, but the granting of citizenship, civil rights, and eventual economic development.