Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

[Rob - wssob2]

I wanted to post a new topic on the subject of cultural property, looting and the rules of war with the request that Marcus and his AHF moderators consider placing it a a "sticky" in the H&WC section of the Forum. It's a topic of critical importance, and one that has become increasingly recognized during the 20th Century and continues to resonate today.

The looting of cultural property and artwork has probably been with mankind since the dawn of war. Several famous examples spring to mind - the looting of the Second Temple during the Siege of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_J ... m_%2870%29), memorialized by a frieze on the Arch of Titus, and Lord Elgin's removal of the sculptures from the Parthenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgin_Marbles) spring to mind, as well as Nazi Germany's removal (and eventual mysterious disappearance) of the Amber Room (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Room)

However, the protection of cultural artifacts during wartime has been a topic of discussion in diplomatic circles in recent centuries.

One of the first attempts at a set of protections for cultural artifacts was included in the “Leiber Code” – a set of rules for conduct drawn up at the request of President Lincoln during the American Civil War:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc ... enDocument
http://www.civilwarhome.com/liebercode.htm
§§34-36 of the Leiber Code specifically address cultural property with the following edicts:

34. As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, or other establishments of an exclusively charitable character, to establishments of education, or foundations for the promotion of knowledge, whether public schools, universities, academies of learning or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific character-such property is not to be considered public property in the sense of paragraph 31; but it may be taxed or used when the public service may require it.

35. Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded.

36. If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace.

I hope that other AHF members will contribute additional diplomatic documents concerning the protection of cultural property between 1860 and WWII (I'm sure there are a few) but I did want to mention that in 1954, the Hague Convention published the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property In the Event of Armed Conflict, which set explicit guidelines vis a vis protecting cultural and artistic property during wartime:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sta ... _hague.htm

Since this forum section mainly concerns WWII, I wanted to point out that Hitler and Nazi Germany played a huge role in mankind's sad annals of cultural looting, destruction and desecration. A good introduction to the subject is Cultural Looting: the seizure of archives and libraries by Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg, 1940-45
by Martin Dean, USHMM, available at http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/onl ... /hist1.htm

Most of my research concerns the Waffen-SS, and it probably isn't well know that even this military formation played a large role in the Nazi looting of Europe and the Soviet Union. Battalion Z.b.V der Waffen-SS, a.ka. SS-Sonderkommando Ribbentrop a.k.a. Künsberg was responsible for the systematic confiscation, looting and destruction of cultural treasures from the occupied territories of the Reich, specifically the Soviet Union. The SS created SS-Sonderkommando Künsberg for Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop but it was only one of many Nazi organizations created to loot European collections. SS-Sonderkommando Künsberg was unique in the respect that rather than looting for a specific Nazi organization or ministry, it pilfered for anyone - even going so far as publishing catalogs of stolen material and reaching agreements with various ministries to look for specific material!

The organization had branches set up in the major cities of the occupied eastern territories, in addition to a research wing back in Berlin and units in the field that would do the actual looting and destruction. Transferred into the Waffen-SS in 1942, the unit continued its efforts of cultural pillage until Germany's declining fortunes forced its disbandment in 1943.

One W-SS military commander that "earned his spurs" with the Sonderkommando looting artwork, archives and artifacts was SS-Obersturmbannführer Josef "Sepp" Syr (see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &p=1286497) - a biographical fact that is little-known and its significance little discussed among our members who frequent the SS&P section of the Forum.

Of course, the W-SS wasn't the only Nazi organization involved in cultural looting - the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR) and the Ahnenerbe played a far greater role. There are plenty of online and offline resources about those organizations and I hope other members will be willing to add them.

For members interested in learning more about the subject, here are some book suggestions to get started:

Simpson, Elizabeth, ed. The Spoils of War: The Loss, Reappearance, and Recovery of Cultural Property New York: Harry N. Abrams and Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, 1997

The Amber Room: The Fate of the World's Greatest Lost Treasure
Catherine Scott-Clark & Adrian Levy - Walker & Company - New York - 2004

The Rape of Europa
Lynn Nicholas - Vintage Books - New York - 1995

Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World
by Sharon Waxman

I hope other AHF members will find this topic of interest and contribute to the discussion - Rob

[michael mills]

The crucial issue is the preservation of objects of cultural value, and their availability to be studied, admired and wondered at by all humans who appreciate them.

Where exactly in the world the world they are are preserved, which group of humans has "ownership", is of far less importance.

I see no reason why an object of cultural value created by a people that long ago ceased to exist as a distinct ethnic group, and found in a territory that today belongs to a particular political entity that did not exist at the time of the object's creation, should be regarded as the inalienable possession of that political entity.

I see no reason why an object of cultural value, created by, let us say, a medieval Italian craftsman, that in the course of time came into the possession of a Jewish merchant who acquired it as an investment and display of wealth, should remain in Jewish hands forever.

If the German State created operational groups whose task was to locate and take possession of objects of cultural value, our sole concern should be whether the result of those operations was the preservation or destruction of the objects.

Take as an example the famous Amber Room of St Petersburg. The aim of the German State in taking possession of that object of cultural value was its preservation in the place where it originated, namely East Prussia. The destruction of the object during the fighting in Königsberg was not the intention of the German State.

In my opinion, the topic of the major effort mounted by the German State during the Second World War to collect and preserve objects of cultural significance, on the model of the similar effort by Napoleon at the beginning of the 19th Century, is one worthy of discussion. However, it should be discussed in a way free of the particular ideological "spin" put on it by Rob-WSSOB.

[Rob - wssob2]

In my opinion, the topic of the major effort mounted by the German State during the Second World War to collect and preserve objects of cultural significance,

"Collect and preserve?"

The aim of the German State in taking possession of that object of cultural value was its preservation in the place where it originated, namely East Prussia.

Yes, the Nazis stole it so that they could preserve it; no doubt for their 1,000 year Reich. BTW Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm I gave it as a gift to Russia. When you invade your friends' country and take back your gift, it's called stealing.

Not forever Amber
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissu ... /amber.htm

A Brief History of the Amber Room
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... amber.html

http://polandpoland.com/amber_room.html


The Big Question: What was the Amber Room, and has it really been discovered at last?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 84891.html

[michael mills]

Yes, the Nazis stole it so that they could preserve it; no doubt for their 1,000 year Reich. BTW Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm I gave it as a gift to Russia. When you invade your friends' country and take back your gift, it's called stealing.

So, you give a gift to a friend. Then the friend is killed by a bunch of criminals who take over his house, where your gift to him is stored.

Some time later you attack the criminals, killing as many of them as you can catch, capture the house, and take back the gift.

Is that stealing? Presumably the criminals who had killed your friend and appropriated your gift to him would call it stealing. Presumably a friend of the criminals, or someone related to them, would also call it stealing.

[uberjude]

Michael, some of the issues you raise are certainly reasonable, but your choice of language leaves something to be desired, and distracts from the larger point.


"I see no reason why an object of cultural value created by a people that long ago ceased to exist as a distinct ethnic group, and found in a territory that today belongs to a particular political entity that did not exist at the time of the object's creation, should be regarded as the inalienable possession of that political entity.

I see no reason why an object of cultural value, created by, let us say, a medieval Italian craftsman, that in the course of time came into the possession of a Jewish merchant who acquired it as an investment and display of wealth, should remain in Jewish hands forever."


Putting these two paragraphs together, it's hard to avoid the notion that you are equating theft by a government from a civilian murdered or at least robbed by that same government with a "found" object. I don't know if this was your intent, and so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and not make a mountain out of a molehill. As for the second part, a lot of those Jewish merchants apparently have heirs. So this is not random "Jewish hands" that are reclaiming those works so much as family hands. So, to borrow from your discussion of the Romanovs, if somebody breaks into your family member's home, and kills him, and steals his property, and then that criminal is apprehended, would you consider it "stealing" to ask for that property's return? It seems that families murdered by the Nazis should be entitled to the same courtesies you extend to the Romanovs.


Oh, and one last thing: "The crucial issue is the preservation of objects of cultural value, and their availability to be studied, admired and wondered at by all humans who appreciate them."


I can think of at least one group of humans who, according to the Nazis, wouldn't be able to study, admire, and wonder at the art the Nazis looted. And seeing as how a lot of it was previously owned by that same group of humans, I'm betting that they would have been able to appreciate it pretty well.

[David Thompson]

Michael -- You wrote (at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1402591):

I see no reason why an object of cultural value created by a people that long ago ceased to exist as a distinct ethnic group, and found in a territory that today belongs to a particular political entity that did not exist at the time of the object's creation, should be regarded as the inalienable possession of that political entity.

I see no reason why an object of cultural value, created by, let us say, a medieval Italian craftsman, that in the course of time came into the possession of a Jewish merchant who acquired it as an investment and display of wealth, should remain in Jewish hands forever.

If the German State created operational groups whose task was to locate and take possession of objects of cultural value, our sole concern should be whether the result of those operations was the preservation or destruction of the objects.

The civilized nations of the world disagree with you. Plunder of private property has been a war crime for several hundred years. For example, article 46 of both the Hague II (1899) and Hague IV (1907) convention annexes prohibit such thieving:

Art. 46.
Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century ... .asp#art46
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century ... .asp#art46

[michael mills]

Uberjude,

Let us elaborate on the example I gave, that of the object of cultural value created by a medieval Italian craftsman.

Let us assume that the object is now in the custodianship of a museum in the United States, where it is on display to anyone who wishes to appreciate its aesthetic qualities.

Let us assume that in the period since its creation by the medieval Italian craftsman, custodianship of the object has changed many times, sometimes under "regular" circumstances, sometimes under "irregular" circumstances.

Let us assume that at a certain point in time, a Jewish merchant assumed custodianship of the object, and passed it on to his heirs.

let us assume that in the 1930s, an heir of the aforesaid merchant transferred custodianship of the object to a Nazi bigwig in exchange for a consideration, namely his life.

Let us assume that in 1945 the Nazi bigwig transferred ownership of the object to a member of the US armed forces for the same consideration, namely his life.

Let us assume that at some date between 1945 and the present, the member of the US armed forces or his hears transferred custodianship of the object to the museum in the United States in rteturn for a consideration, let us say a largish sum of money.

Let us finally assume that all the persons who have had custodianship of the object, from the Italian craftsman who created it down to the Jewish merchant, the Nazi bigwig and the members of the United States armed forces, have descendants who are able to come to the museum and admire the object.

The crucial issue now is how the object should best be held and preserved as part of the common cultural heritage of humanity. Is the museum the best place for it? Should its custodianship pass into the hands of the descendants of the medieval italian craftsman who created it? Or perhaps to the Italian State as the representative of that craftsman?

Or should its custodianship be determined according to the widely propagated principle that once an object has been in Jewish possession, it must remain a Jewish possession forever?

And there is indeed such a principle. I remember the time about 10 years or so ago when there were those loud celebrations of 3000 years of Jewish Jerusalem. Jerusalem had been Jewish for 3000 years, it was trumpeted all over the world, and will remain Jewish forever. But from what point was the 3000 years measured? Why, from the assumed date when, according to Judaic tradition, the Tribe of Judah "stole" the city from its previous possessors, the Jebusites. The previous possession of the city prior to its seizure by the Tribe of Judah did not matter; nor did the historical fact that for long periods of time over the intervening 3000 years the city was possessed by non-Jews, indeed for longer periods than the city was actually in Jewish hands. According to the Judaic tradition, once the city had come into Jewish hands, it should remain Jewish forever.

That sort of principle is of course not unique to the Jewish people; the desire to "have and to hold" is a universal human trait. I am suggesting that it is an outmoded principle in relation to objects of cultural value, and that it should be replaced by one of seeing such objects, even including entire cities in some cases, as part of the common heritage of humanity, rather than the exlusive possession of one individual or people.

Let us now pass to the example of the Amber Room. Rob-WSSOB presented one way of looking at the process by which that object of cultural value was removed from the Catherine Palace at Tsar'skoe Selo near St Petersburg to temporary storage at Königsberg and was then unfortunately destroyed (presumably) in the fighting that engulfed the city.

I presented an alternative way of looking at that same process. But both of those viewpoints are subjective and highly prejudicial, being those of rival interested parties; I presented one of those subjective viewpoints in order to demonstrate the subjectivity of the other. My own view is that if the original Amber Room were ever found, its custodianship should be decided on the basis of whatever best allows its full aesthetic appreciation by all who want to appreciate it. If that means that, taking into account its original environment, it is best displayed in the restored Catherine Palace, then so be it. But let us not get ourselves mired in the view that it was the inalienable possession of the former Soviet State, simply because that state had seized it from its former custodians, whom it put to death.

Finally, I would like to say that what I have said hitherto refers to the issue of the custodianship of objects of cultural value, which is a quite separate issue from the common humane imperative of rescuing human beings who are in physical danger, of healing the physical and mental wounds that they have suffered, and rehabilitating them so that they may live normal lives, including restoring the means of supporting life. But when that imperative has been fulfilled, the question of the custodianship of objects of cultural value that may have been held by the injured but now rehabilitated people should be determined by wider criteria than simply that of who held what when.

[uberjude]

Again, you raise reasonable issues, only to weaken them by more specious claims. Israel celebrating 3000 years since the establishment of David's rule over Jerusalem is hardly evidence of a

"widely propagated principle that once an object has been in Jewish possession, it must remain a Jewish possession forever?"

First of all, you are completely wrong about the meaning of Jerusalem 3000. It wasn't celebrating 3000 of Jewish Jerusalem, but 3000 years of the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jews. Not 3000 years of possession, but rather, of significance, which one can hardly dispute. See the Israeli foreign ministry's official proclamation--http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/19 ... vid%201996

You might be able to find alternative interpretations, I don't know, but this is official, so your whole argument is moot.

Second, it's simply a nationalist display over a highly contested city. Would you argue that there is a "widely propagated principle that once an object has been in French possession, it must remain a French possession forever?" because of Alsace-Lorraine, or a "widely propagated principle that once an object has been in German possession, it must remain a German possession forever?" because of the Polish corridor? Or Alsace-lorraine, for that matter?

Third of all, what is this "wide propagation?" Could you give some other examples of situations in which this principle has been expressed? By that, I don't mean a situation in which a specific family is claiming something that belonged to the family, which is, of course, hardly unique to Jews. Nor a situation in which a particular Jewish community claims property that belonged to it, say, before it was seized by Communists, since, again, that's hardly unique to the Jews either. Nor a situation like the Bruno Schulz walls at Yad Vashem, in which a museum claimed certain works belonged specifically in that museum, again, a point which you yourself seem to be arguing. I mean situation in which a claim is made that because something once belonged to some Jews, somewhere, it now belonged to other Jews. If this is "widely propagated," it should not be difficult.

As far as your other examples, this is hardly unique to Jews. There are laws regarding stolen property. The basic law, as I understand it, is that even if you buy a stolen item in ignorance, that still belongs to the original owner. Adding the original Italian craftsman is meaningless--if the craftsman sells the item, he has no more claim on it than an electronics store can claim ownership of a DVD player it sells. As for the Jewish owner--and again, you raised a situation in which an owner was coerced to sell, when there are plenty of cases of outright theft--legally, his family, and heirs, remain the owners. That, to my knowledge, is a simple matter of law. Now there are situations where this might be absurd--somebody showing up 500 years after the fact to say "That belonged to my family 500 years ago." But we're talking about nephews and grandchildren claiming property one or two generations removed.

The real irony, of course, is that to argue that a cultural institution has the right to claim stolen private property for the "greater good of humanity" seems awfully pink for an anti-Bolshevik.

[michael mills]

The civilized nations of the world disagree with you. Plunder of private property has been a war crime for several hundred years. For example, article 46 of both the Hague II (1899) and Hague IV (1907) convention annexes prohibit such thieving:

And for hundreds of years there have been highly civilised philosophers who have concluded that all property is in essence itself a form of theft.

And the fact is that the whole concept of private property is entirely arbitrary in that it selects a particular point in the history of a particular resource, say a piece of land, and lays down that whoever is in possession of that resource at that point in time is the legal owenr, regardless of how that possession was initally achieved.

We all know that private property had its origin in a process whereby one individual or group of individuals took possession of a resource and excluded all others from access to it, by force and violence if necessary. And that of course is why many philosophers have concluded that property is theft.

Nevertheless, centuries of human history has taught us that human society does work best, and conflict is most avoided, when private property rights are respected, but balanced against the interests of society as a whole.

However, the issue here is not that of private ownership of resources that a necessary for the sustenance of the physical existence of individuals or groups of individuals, but specifically that of cultural "property", which I suggest is a different matter.

Should the cultural creations of humans in fact be regarded as "property"? It might well be argued that where an object of cultural value has been created within the context of the cultural life of a particular human group, and was created for the purpose of sustaining the cultural or spiritual life of that group, then it should be regarded as the "property" of that group, ie something that should be reserved for the use of that group. One example of such objects would be items created by Jewish craftsmen for use in Jewish religious or cultural rituals; it would be reasonable and fair to conclude that those articles should remain in the possession of the Jewish people, or restored to them where they have been removed.

But does that consideration apply to objects created long ago in cultural contexts that no longer exist? For example, an artefact in gold made 3000 years by Greek craftsmen working for a Scythian prince, showing a scene of cultural importance for Scythians. Given that the Scythians no longer exist as an identifiable ethnic group, and the particular cultural context for which this artefact was crafted has disappeared, who should be the custodians of the artefact? Should it be a museum in the former Soviet Union, given that the object was found in territory that had become Russian by the time of the artefact's discovery, even though Russia did not exist when the artefact was made and used in its cultural context? Why should not a museum in Germany be the custodian? On what genuine cultural or historical grounds can this artefact be classed as part of the "cultural property" of the former Soviet Union?

[David Thompson]

Michael -- You wrote:

Let us elaborate on the example I gave, that of the object of cultural value created by a medieval Italian craftsman.

Let us assume that the object is now in the custodianship of a museum in the United States, where it is on display to anyone who wishes to appreciate its aesthetic qualities.

Let us assume that in the period since its creation by the medieval Italian craftsman, custodianship of the object has changed many times, sometimes under "regular" circumstances, sometimes under "irregular" circumstances.

Let us assume that at a certain point in time, a Jewish merchant assumed custodianship of the object, and passed it on to his heirs.

let us assume that in the 1930s, an heir of the aforesaid merchant transferred custodianship of the object to a Nazi bigwig in exchange for a consideration, namely his life.

Let us assume that in 1945 the Nazi bigwig transferred ownership of the object to a member of the US armed forces for the same consideration, namely his life.

Let us assume that at some date between 1945 and the present, the member of the US armed forces or his hears transferred custodianship of the object to the museum in the United States in rteturn for a consideration, let us say a largish sum of money.

Let us finally assume that all the persons who have had custodianship of the object, from the Italian craftsman who created it down to the Jewish merchant, the Nazi bigwig and the members of the United States armed forces, have descendants who are able to come to the museum and admire the object.

The crucial issue now is how the object should best be held and preserved as part of the common cultural heritage of humanity. Is the museum the best place for it? Should its custodianship pass into the hands of the descendants of the medieval italian craftsman who created it? Or perhaps to the Italian State as the representative of that craftsman?

Or should its custodianship be determined according to the widely propagated principle that once an object has been in Jewish possession, it must remain a Jewish possession forever?

Let us elaborate on some well known and generally accepted principles of law. A person who takes the property of another by threats of force and violence is called a “robber.” The act is a criminal offense called “robbery.” It's been that way since before the time of Robin Hood, more than 700 years ago.

In all civilized countries, and in most uncivilized countries, the act of robbery is a criminal offense. The robber may obtain the bare possession of the article he stole, but he does not obtain title – the right to lawfully own and dispose of the object.

The fact that one robber (the Nazi) is robbed by another (the American) does not alter the picture. The second robber can pass on no right to the museum greater than that which he had himself to the robbed property — in other words, nothing. If the museum paid money for the object, it was swindled. That makes the second robber a swindler, but since he had no title to the object, he had nothing to transfer to the museum except mere temporary possession.

The sale to the museum does not change the fact that the legitimate owner was the lawful heir or heirs of the Jewish merchant, from whom the article was originally stolen. As legal principles go, this one is at the basic or remedial level of education.

Your presumably rhetorical question:

Or should its custodianship be determined according to the widely propagated principle that once an object has been in Jewish possession, it must remain a Jewish possession forever?

is wide of the mark. This isn’t a question of religion or ethnology, but one of the rights of private property. The legal principle protects the rights of the lawful owner regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or age. Your casting the issue as “Jewish” – as though somehow this circumstance should change the general rule -- suggests just how far you have wandered away from the mainstream of post-16th century thought.

[David Thompson]

Michael -- You also wrote, quoting me:

The civilized nations of the world disagree with you. Plunder of private property has been a war crime for several hundred years. For example, article 46 of both the Hague II (1899) and Hague IV (1907) convention annexes prohibit such thieving:

And for hundreds of years there have been highly civilised philosophers who have concluded that all property is in essence itself a form of theft.

So what? We're talking about law here, not philosophy. If you have lost your bearings, look at the thread title.

[Rob - wssob2]

I wanted to point out that oftentimes the property taken isn't "created by a people that long ago ceased to exist as a distinct ethnic group" but often a piece of artwork that always existed within the context of common Western ideas of property rights.

For example, Leonardo da Vinci painted Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani (Lady with an Ermine) between 1483-90. Here it is:



The Polish noble family Czartoryski bought the painting in 1798; their art collection eventually became the Czartoryski Museum in Krakow.

The Nazi's looted it after the occupation of Poland. In fact, the painting hung in Governor Han Frank's office!

After the war, US troops discovered the painting hidden in Frank's Bavarian villa, and returned it back to Poland.

More information at

Scientist Strips "Lady with Ermine"
http://www.krakowpost.com/article/765

Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani (Lady with an Ermine) by da Vinci Leonardo
http://blog.allartpainting.com/2009/11/ ... -leonardo/

[Rob - wssob2]

I'd also like to point out that many, many artworks have been lost in WWII's "fog of war." Here's a sample of work missing from some of Italy's major museums (see http://www.oldandsold.com/articles02/article1046.shtml) These pieces could have been stolen by the Germans (and hidden and never found) or stolen by American thieves while serving in the US Army:

GALLERIE DEGLI UFFIZI
(1)-Inv. 1890 # 1123-Memling's School-Portrait of an unknown man. Painted on board; 0.35 x 0.24
(2)-Inv. 1890, #1554-Agnolo Bronzino-Christ laid down. Painted on copper; 0.42 x 0.30
(3)-Inv. 1890, #8268-A. del Pollaiuolo-Hercules striking the Hydra. Painted on board; 0.175 x 0.112
(4) -Inv. 1890 .# 1478-A. del Pollaiuolo-Hercules killing Antaeus. Painted on board; 0.16 x 0.95
(5)-Inv. 1890 .#2185-Lorenzo di Credi-Self portrait. Painted on board; 0.34 x 0.30

NATIONAL MUSEUM (1) Sculpture Inv. No. 59-Pierino da Vinci-Virgin nursing her child, and Saints. Marble relief (2) Sculpture Inv. No. 94-Italian art of the end of XVI Cent.(Sometimes attributed to Michelangelo) -Faun's mask

PALATINA GALLERY (Pitti Palace)
(1) Inv. Palatina Gall. #26-Domenico Feti-The parable of the vineyard. Painted on board; 0.75 x 0.44
(2) Inv. Palatina Gall. #462-John Van Huysum-Flower vase. Painted on canvas; 0.47 x 0.35
(3) Inv. Palatina Gall. #253-In the fashion of Correggio-The Manger. Painted on board; 0.341 x 0.245
(4) Inv. Palatina Gall. #263-Bronzino's school-Christ on the Cross. Painted on board; 0.28 x 0.181
(5) Inv. Palatina Gall. $k282-Van Dyck School-Virgin with the Child, and Saints. Painted on copper;
0.218 x 164. (6) Inv. 1890 #4996-School of Bologna-Annunciation. Painted on copper; 0.35 x 0.27

UFFIZI GALLERY (ROOM OF DRAWINGS AND PRINTS)
(1) Inv. of Drawings #6127-Callot-Saint Anthony's Temptation. Pen drawings; 0.47 x 0.75
(2) Inv. of Drawings #738-Tintoretto-The body of Christ dead. Pen drawing; 0.28 x 0.69
(3) Inv. of Drawings #1774-Raffaello-The Virgin, named "of the veil." Drawing with black pencil and chalk; 0.77 x 0.73
(4) Inv. of Drawings #96774-Annibale Caracci-Figure of beardless man in the act of pulling ropes. Drawing of fragmentary carbon, cut out and applied to cardboard; 1.79 x 0.85

[Rob - wssob2]

Of course, the Nazis weren't the only ones to loot museum collections. Perhaps the most (in)famous material the Soviets looted in post-WWII was the Schliemann collection of Trojan gold. Here's more info:

The gold of Troy emerges from the Cold War
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _18571056/

Moscow to show off gold of Troy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 63628.html

Editorial Notebook; Who Owns the Gold of Troy?
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/26/opini ... -troy.html

[David Thompson]

We should probably start to distinguish between privately-owned and State-owned art at this point. The laws and customs of war respecting private property have been well-established for many years. State-owned art, when seized by another government, is a more controversial subject.