Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

[Peter H]

As Rob stated in his first post "Hitler and Nazi Germany played a huge role in mankind's sad annals of cultural looting, destruction and desecration".We seem to be discussing little about this,or deflecting the discussion into "Hey the Soviets did it later as well so why single out the Nazis".

[Karl]

As Rob stated in his first post "Hitler and Nazi Germany played a huge role in mankind's sad annals of cultural looting, destruction and desecration".We seem to be discussing little about this,or deflecting the discussion into "Hey the Soviets did it later as well so why signal out the Nazis".

Was rob misleading the forum or was it an innocent thoughtless, elementarily and a dumb mistake with it's sole aim being noble for truth -truth of truth.

Rob - you must be more specific or we won't know what you are addressing -confusion will confuse- and we''ll become lost and goodwill will become badwill.

Ragrds.

[Rob - wssob2]

As Rob stated in his first post "Hitler and Nazi Germany played a huge role in mankind's sad annals of cultural looting, destruction and desecration".We seem to be discussing little about this,or deflecting the discussion into "Hey the Soviets did it later as well so why single out the Nazis".

A cogent observation. But isn't that just a the well-worn rhetorical stratagem associated with Third Reich apologia?

Was rob misleading the forum

No.

or was it an innocent thoughtless, elementarily and a dumb mistake

No. I had been corresponding with Marcus about The Rape of Europa and recently finished Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World and thought the topic -cultural property, looting and the rules of war - especially by but not limited to the III Reich during WWII, would be an interesting semi-permanent "sticky" subject for discussion.

If anyone feels the Third Reich is being picked on, I would like to point out again that Charles A. Goldstein, a lawyer with the Commission for Art Recovery, called III Reich cultural plunder "the largest theft of cultural items in history."

with it's sole aim being noble for truth -truth of truth.

You're reading too much into this.

Rob - you must be more specific or we won't know what you are addressing -confusion will confuse- and we''ll become lost and goodwill will become badwill.

It is specific enough. The subject is cultural property, looting and the rules of War during the 20th Century - which can range from the looting of Peking after the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 to the Washington Conference in 1998.

[Karl]

It is specific enough. The subject is cultural property, looting and the rules of War during the 20th Century - which can range from the looting of Peking after the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 to the Washington Conference in 1998.

So everything fine.

[michael mills]

For the record, I nowhere claimed that the activities of Soviet agencies in taking possession of cultural treasures in countries overrun by Soviet armies and placing them in secure storage, for the purpose of their later display in a planned "Stalin Museum", was somehow "worse" than similar activities by German agencies, undertaken for the purpose of displaying appropriated cultural treasures in a planned "Hitler Museum".

That is an example of ideological "Spinnning" by Rob-WSSOB and Peter H.

What I did say is that I consider the crucial factor to be the preservation of cultural treasures for study and contemplation, and the avoidance of their destruction, in that regard it does not really matter whether a particular cultural treasure is held and displayed at a museum in Germany or a museum in Russia. In my view, cultural treasures are the heritage of all of humankind, or at least of those of us who are genuinely interested in them, rather than of any particular country.

[bf109 emil]

Michael Mills wrote'

What I did say is that I consider the crucial factor to be the preservation of cultural treasures for study and contemplation, and the avoidance of their destruction, in that regard it does not really matter whether a particular cultural treasure is held and displayed at a museum in Germany or a museum in Russia. In my view, cultural treasures are the heritage of all of humankind, or at least of those of us who are genuinely interested in them, rather than of any particular country.

and Michael may have a point!! As works taken by the USA where deemed to be NOT looting as numerous Austrian works and artifacts where confiscated by the USA after WW2 for the exact purpose as Michael states, so they can be shown and displayed!!! Would these Austrian pieces displayed by the USA not fall under the same guise as one taken by Germany for the exact same purpose? Only hence with Germany it was deemed as LOOTING and as shown here it was stated as being TRANSFERRED TO COLLECTION POINTS!! Here from box 47 shows how items from Austria now became in possession by the USA after WW2 and only became know after seizes which were classified became de-classified

Austria [4 files]. Includes:

An extensive report of the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Austria regarding cultural properties under U.S. Control. Over 1,200 items are identified

Lists of unidentified works of art transferred from the former Munich collecting point to U.S. Authorities in Austria, 1952

A State Department message of January 12, 1951, dealing with the disposition of property of Hungarian persecutees that had been sent by train eastward during the latter days of World War II

A December 10, 1951 despatch dealing with the files and records of the former Monuments and Fine Arts Section.

Also included are numerous documents relating to cultural properties in Austria.

from sourcehttp://www.archives.gov/iwg/declassifie ... .html#box1

[Rob - wssob2]

I found a good "treasure trove" (no pun intended) of documentation from NARA about the Records Concerning the Central Collecting Points (“Ardelia Hall Collection”)

Originally there were numbers of temporary collecting points in which all cultural objects found in the United States Zone in need of preservation or suspected of having been looted by the Germans were stored. By 1946, there were only four of these temporary facilities, at Munich, Wiesbaden, Marburg, and Offenbach. After June 15, 1946, when the Marburg Central Collecting Point was closed, the remaining three central collecting points became specialized. the Wiesbaden Central Collecting Point held mostly German-owned material, especially that of the former Prussian State Museums, the Städel Institute of Frankfurt, and the local museums of Wiesbaden, plus a certain amount of internal loot (material confiscated from German nationals) and objects subject to restitution. At its height, this installation contained approximately 700,000 objects. The Munich Central Collecting Point specialized largely in materials subject to restitution, although in addition it contained materials of the Bavarian State Museums. At its height this central collecting point had in excess of a million objects. The third of the specialized central collecting points, known as the Offenbach Archival Depot, was devoted primarily to Jewish materials, books, and archives.

The Offenbach Archival Depot was closed in June 1949, and both the Munich and Wiesbaden Central Collecting Points were closed in August 1951, although some cultural objects continued to be stored at the Munich and Wiesbaden facilities under U.S. control, and residual restitution authority for these objects was exercised by the Office of Public Affairs of HICOG.

The list of records is located at http://www.archives.gov/research/holoca ... 260-3.html

[Rob - wssob2]

Hi bf109 emil, you wrote:

As works taken by the USA where deemed to be NOT looting as numerous Austrian works and artifacts where confiscated by the USA after WW2 for the exact purpose as Michael states, so they can be shown and displayed!!!

I'm not sure where where specifically in the URL you provided where it states that a) the US took artworks b) that this confiscation was deemed not to be looting and that c) they can be showed and displayed.

The text you then cited seems to concern property taken from Hungarian Jews who were deported and killed at the end stage of the war - thus giving a plausible explanation why the artwork was unidentified and unclaimed.

The link you provided also included the following descriptive text:

"...Most of the records in Lot Number 96D269 Boxes 1-17 relate to two topics: claims against the United States for seizing, vesting, and liquidating property declared to be enemy-owned or enemy-controlled during World War II; and the disposition of external German assets seized during the War.

The records of claims reflect attempts at achieving diplomatic remedies to losses suffered in federal courts in suits handled by the Office of Alien Property. Among the records of claims are those of Internationale Industrie - und Handelsbeteiligungen AG (Interhandel) of Switzerland, and Manfred Weiss, and his heirs, of Hungary.

Most of the records dealing with the disposition of external German assets are for German assets in Japan, although there are also records relating to the disposition of German property in Brazil, Luxembourg, and other countries.

Also included are records relating to crafting legislation for dealing with compensation claims and war assets, German objections to the "overlap" of compensation payments under the German Equalization of Burdens Legislation and other funds, attempts by former Yugoslav nationals to receive compensation for time spent as German prisoners of war, the disposition of external Japanese assets, a few references to Nazi Gold, the settlement of Greek claims against Germany for the destruction of merchant vessels and other property prior to Greece's entry into World War I, and State Department compliance with Executive Order 12372, which sought to foster intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism.

Most of the records in Lot Number 96D244 Boxes 18-104 relate to four topics: compensation and reparation payments by the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) to victims of the Nazis, the return to either the FRG or the German Democratic Republic (GDR) of works of art and other property looted or confiscated from Germany after WWII, the work of the Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold, and U.S. participation in the Bureau of International Expositions.

The records on compensation and reparation payments to Nazi victims mainly consist of requests by individuals to the State Department for help with receiving compensation from the FRG; accounts of negotiations between the FRG and Austria, and between the FRG and countries invaded by the Nazis, over the return of stolen property and reparation payments; and analyses of the ramifications for Nazi victims of changes in FRG compensation laws and the 1974 U.S. recognition of the GDR.

The records on the return to the FRG and GDR of works of art and other objects looted or confiscated from Germany after WWII document the negotiations and litigation that led to the return of the items. Most of the looted art works were found in the hands of individuals in the US. The works were usually located when the individuals tried to sell the works, and reputable dealers notified authorities. The works included Portrait of Hans Tucher and Portrait of Felicitas Tucher by Albrecht Duerer; eight rare postage stamps from Mauritius, British Guiana, and the then independent Hawaiian islands; and gold medals and coins.

The U.S. Army confiscated approximately 8,000 pieces of German War Art immediately after WWII as part of denazification. The U.S. returned some of the art to the FRG in the 1950s and again in 1972. In 1986, the U.S. and FRG signed an agreement for the return of approximately 6,225 pieces of art to the FRG. The Army retained 327 art works because they "could tend to glorify Nazism," and the U.S. Army and Air Force retained another 259 items for educational and historical purposes."

Couple observations:

1) In any occupation force, in any war, you're going to get criminals who will steal valuable items.

2) Based on the above text, it seems that the US State Department did make an effort to investigate claims of looting, return the great majority of stolen artworks and/or compensate the property holders.

3) I believe that many of the artworks retained by the US Army are still on display at various military installations. I am confident that the Federal Republic of Germany didn't press too hard to get their portraits and busts of Hitler back.

4) As for Michael's claim that "cultural treasures are the heritage of all of humankind, or at least of those of us who are genuinely interested in them, rather than of any particular country" while a noble sentiment, still ignores the fact that many nations - and individuals - want their cultural treasures back.

[bf109 emil]

1) In any occupation force, in any war, you're going to get criminals who will steal valuable items.

criminals meaning individuals, or criminals meaning the US Army, whom stole and later returned these items, hardly a case of a few rotten apples as opposed to US Army being the criminals which comitted the thefts and which hence returned the stolen pieces...

The U.S. Army confiscated approximately 8,000 pieces of German War Art immediately after WWII as part of denazification. The U.S. returned some of the art to the FRG in the 1950s and again in 1972. In 1986, the U.S. and FRG signed an agreement for the return of approximately 6,225 pieces of art to the FRG.

I am confident that the Federal Republic of Germany didn't press too hard to get their portraits and busts of Hitler back

nope nor did the army return this little percentage of items being a paltry 327 pieces of a total of over 8,000 which where looted and stolen as many items sought and kept by the US Army where items which where to have gone to the GDR, hardly was the FRG pressing for these items, yet in 1986 was it only then the FRG apt to have returned these items, which prior would have for the most part have fallen into Soviet control and not the FRG's

[PFLB]

Denazification was legislated for by the Allied Control Council, then acting as the government of Germany. I do not see how seizure of art under the denazification laws can qualify as a crime.

[Panzermahn]

There is an excellent article posted somewhere in AHF about USSR/Russian Federation reluctance for the restitution of cultural works looted from central Europe (especially Germany) after the end of the war in 1945

[michael mills]

Denazification was legislated for by the Allied Control Council, then acting as the government of Germany. I do not see how seizure of art under the denazification laws can qualify as a crime.

PFLB,

Do you consider the seizure of art owned by Jews living in German-occupied Poland to qualify as a crime?

Such seizure was carried out under dejudaisation laws legislated by the Cabinet of the Governor-General of the Occupied Polish Territories, which was then acting as the government of the parts of Poland not annexed by either Germany or the Soviet Union.

If an administrative body set up in 1945 to rule the territory and population of the former German State by the powers that had conquered that State could legally seize the property of a particular category of persons under laws issued by it, then I see no reason why the seizure of the property of a certain category of persons under laws issued by an administrative body set up in 1939 to rule the territory and population of the former Polish State by the power which had conquered that State should not also be regarded as legal and not criminal.

[PFLB]

The German state was expunged from existence. The Polish state was not, therefore it remained under military occupation and the rules which governed its administration were different. That is the orthodox legal position and I have absolutely no interest in debating it with you.

[michael mills]

In 1945, the powers that had conquered Germany (the USSR, the USA and Great Britain) declared that the German State had ceased to exist, and that they would henceforth exercise sovereignty over the territory and population of that former State. The existing government of the German State, headed by Admiral Dönitz, was overthrown and its members arrested.

In 1939, the powers that had conquered Poland (the USSR and Germany) declared that the Polish State had ceased to exist, and that they would henceforth exercise sovereignty over the territory and population of that former state. The existing government of the Polish State fled to Romania, where its members were interned.

The difference was that in 1945 there was no power left that could challenge the assertion of the victors that the German State had ceased to exist, whereas in 1939 both Britain and France maintained that the Polish State was still in existence and that the Government-in-Exile set up in France was the legal government of that State.

But there was no difference between the positions taken by the victors in 1939 and in 1945 respectively, namely that the State which they had conquered had ceased to exist, and that they exercised sovereign power over the territory and population of the expunged state, with the right to enact laws affecting those populations.

[PFLB]

No. The Polish government in exile continued to contest, with others, German occupation of Polish territory. So long as that remained the case, the state of Poland persisted in existence and Poland was under belligerent occupation. I don't care if you don't like that explanation - that's the orthodox legal position.