Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
henryk
Member
Posts: 2559
Joined: 27 Jan 2004, 02:11
Location: London, Ontario

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#61

Post by henryk » 16 Jul 2010, 19:45

michael mills wrote: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.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... ecognition
In International Law, the term recognition refers to the formal acknowledgment by one state that another state exists as a separate and independent government. Recognition is not a mere technicality. A state has no status among nations until it is recognized by other states, in spite of the fact that it might possess all other attributes of a state, including a definable territory and population, a recognizable government, and a certain amount of continuity or stability.

The decision to recognize a new national government is a political act that is in the discretion of the officials who are responsible for foreign policy. In the United States, the president makes the decision to recognize a country and can do so by making a formal announcement or by having another official, such as the Secretary of State, make the announcement for him. Recognition can also be informal, such as by opening negotiations with a new state or exchanging diplomats with it.

A nation is not truly sovereign and independent unless other nations recognize its sovereignty. Formal recognition operates to assure a new state that it will be permitted to hold its place and rank as an independent political body among the nations.

Recognition takes effect from the time it is given as if the state had always existed, and a new government can carry forward international projects initiated by the old government it replaces.

Many difficulties come into play when a government is not recognized. For example, an unrecognized government is not entitled to participate in diplomatic negotiations or to have its laws applied in lawsuits or in jurisdictions.

The term recognition is also used in relation to armed conflicts. If a state of belligerency is recognized, then the law of war applies with all of its protections for prisoners of war and noncombatants. Recognition of a state of belligerency ordinarily comes from an uninvolved state that declares itself neutral. A neutral country is able to recognize a state of belligerency and carry on trade and diplomatic relations with both sides of the conflict.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
In practical terms, few countries, and no major ones, recognized Germany. It therefore did not exist. Most countries, including most major countries, continued to recognize Poland.Therefore it existed.

murx
Member
Posts: 646
Joined: 23 May 2010, 21:44

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#62

Post by murx » 10 Nov 2010, 21:11

From the report of the military commander of France, July 13th 1944 to OKW, OKH, SS etc.:

..

Protection of artwork

Since the invasion and the increasing anglo american air terror the protection of the local castles cannot be maintained as it was before. To prevent losses, already in the beginning of this year it was recommended to the owners of the castles in departements close to the coast, to salvage precious inventary in bomb protected shelters. Despite some castles which have been off limits for occupation, under respect of the demands of the troops, now have to be used in military fashion, the protection of museums with their untaxable treasures of art remains the highest priority without any change. Presently in cooperation with then Dept. IB additional measures for the protection of those 47 depots in castles, located mainly in central france, are launched.

The transfer of the depots of detachable artwork, located in the region of the south coast towards the central region oif the country has been carried out by the responsible officer for the protection of artwork in cooperation with the French administration of arts. End of June the office for art protection in the south of France therefore was given up, as planned. The measures for protection of artworks have been taken over by the referent for art protection in the office of the military governor.

In cooperation with the propaganda unit in France and the French administration of arts a catalogisation of damages to historical buildings caused by anglo-american air terror was initiated (e.g. Rouen, Bordeaux, Angers).
The importance of that task as been seen in Italy, where the allies had mounted signs on historical buildings, being destroyed by their own air raids: "Destroyed by the Germans..."



Seit Beginn der Invasion und der Zunahme des anglo-amerikanischen Luftterrors ist der Schutz der historischen Schl�sser naturgem�ss nicht mehr in dem bisherigen Umfange zu gew�hrleisten. Um Verlusten vorzubeugen, ist schon zu Anfang d[iese]s. J[ahre]s. den Schlossbesitzern in den nahe der K�ste gelegenen D[e]p[artemen]ts. empfohlen worden, wertvolle Einrichtungsgegenst�nde, soweit nicht schon geschehen, bombensicher zu bergen. W�hrend also die bisher mit Belegungsverboten ausgestatteten Schl�sser angesichts des Bedarf der Truppe jetzt in manchen F�llen milit�risch nutzbar gemacht werden m�ssen, bleibt der Schutz der Depots der franz. Museenmit ihren unermesslichen Sch�tzen in unver�ndertem Masse dringlichste Aufgabe. Es werden z.[ur]Z[ei]t. in Verbindung mit der F�hrungsabt. Ib(1) zus�tzliche Massnahmen f�r die Sicherheit dieser 47 meist in Schl�ssern Mittelfrankreichs untergebrachten Depots eingeleitet[57].

Die Verlegung der in der s�dfranz. K�stenzone befindlichen Depots von beweglichem Kunstgut in das Innere des Landes wurde vom Kunstschutzbeauftragten f�r S�dfrankreich[58] in Verbindung mit der franz. Kunstverwaltung abgeschlossen. Ende Juni wurde die Aussenstelle S�dfrankreich des Kunstschutzes wie vorgesehen aufgegeben. Die Aus�bung des Kunstschutzes �bernimmt der Kunstschutzreferent[59] beim Mil.[it�r]Bef.[ehlshaber]

In Verbindung mit der Propaganda-Abteilung Frankreich und der franz. Kunstverwaltung ist eine Inventarisation der durch den anglo-amerikanischen Luftterror verursachten Sch�den an historischen Baudenkmalen (z.B. in Rouen[60], Orl�ans[61], Angers[62] usw.) begonnen worden[63]; sie wird laufend weitergef�hrt. Wie wichtig eine solche Dokumentation f�r die Zukunft ist, zeigt das Beispiel Italiens, wo die Alliierten an den durch ihre eigenen Luftangriffe zerst�rten Baudenkmalen im S�den des Landes Schilder haben anbringen lassen mit der Aufschrift: "Zerst�rt von den Deutschen!". .. .



From:

http://www.ihtp.cnrs.fr/prefets/


Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#63

Post by Panzermahn » 11 Nov 2010, 12:47

David Thompson wrote: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
Hi David

I had some questions regarding the Hague coventions on the respect of private property

1. Would the actions of the victorious Allied troops in getting "souvenirs" which were private property (e.g. personal wristwatches, cutleries, swords or other objects of cultural/historical value) the defeated Axis troops or civilians by forceful coercion (under the threat of physical or psychological harm to the latter) constitute a violation of the Hague Convention and thus a war crime?

2. Would utilization of items from dead bodies (such as clothing or boots) vital to survival of the individual or a group of persons who is not responsible for those the dead people and had no choice but to obtained them from the bodies of killed people nearby if the items are present nearby constitutes a violation of the above-mentioned Hague Convention with respect to private property? For example, the famous photograph shot of the German troops removing the boots of the dead American troops during the Battle of the Bulge.

3. The confiscation of German scientific patents during and after the war without any suitable compensation to the patent holder. I recalled that the Allies created a legal of Act of doing so (Alien Property Act) but how would that be consistent with the application of the Hague Convention which the Allied Nations has signed as well as ratified it. Wouldn't this be contradictory to the Hague Convention since it is stated that private property must be respected and patents by their respective inventors are also considered some sort of intellectual "private property"?

Panzermahn

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#64

Post by Panzermahn » 11 Nov 2010, 13:12

PFLB wrote: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.
The German state was not expunged from existence from a physical or moral standpoint. The German State existed whether you like it or not since the Allied Control Council assumed control as the governing authority of the German state at that time when the legal Reich government headed by Admiral Dönitz after the demise of Adolf Hitler was overthrown.

Neutral countries still had German ambassadors and legations to represent the continuity of the legal Reich government (as demonstrated by the Irish President de Valera who send his condolences to the German ambassador in Dublin after the death of Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler) until they were recalled back to Germany

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#65

Post by David Thompson » 11 Nov 2010, 20:22

Panzrmahn -- You asked: 1.
Would the actions of the victorious Allied troops in getting "souvenirs" which were private property (e.g. personal wristwatches, cutleries, swords or other objects of cultural/historical value) the defeated Axis troops or civilians by forceful coercion (under the threat of physical or psychological harm to the latter) constitute a violation of the Hague Convention and thus a war crime?
"Souvenir" collections are common to all victorious troops, and have been for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The practice is not generally classed as a war crime, but as common theft, punishable by the military code of the army to which the soldier belongs and the criminal law of the location where the theft takes place.

2.
Would utilization of items from dead bodies (such as clothing or boots) vital to survival of the individual or a group of persons who is not responsible for those the dead people and had no choice but to obtained them from the bodies of killed people nearby if the items are present nearby constitutes a violation of the above-mentioned Hague Convention with respect to private property? For example, the famous photograph shot of the German troops removing the boots of the dead American troops during the Battle of the Bulge.
The practice of robbing the dead is not regulated by the 1907 Hague IV convention. It is, however, a violation of the customs and usages of war. In former times persons caught robbing the dead were summarily shot on sight or hanged. Modernly, the preferred practice is to give them a trial before they are shot or hanged.

Note that uniforms and equipment of dead persons are not usually the personal property of the slain, but belong to the army which issued them.

3.
The confiscation of German scientific patents during and after the war without any suitable compensation to the patent holder. I recalled that the Allies created a legal of Act of doing so (Alien Property Act) but how would that be consistent with the application of the Hague Convention which the Allied Nations has signed as well as ratified it. Wouldn't this be contradictory to the Hague Convention since it is stated that private property must be respected and patents by their respective inventors are also considered some sort of intellectual "private property"?
This issue depends on whether the patents were private property, their location when seized, and the circumstances of the seizure.

The issue of private property – Patents confer upon an inventor the right to collect royalties for the use of his invention within a fixed period of time, and depending on certain conditions which can be extinguished. The patent is conferred by a country, and whether any other country recognizes it depends on whether the invention and the right is one recognized by some international convention. Patents held by governments are not private property. If the patent-holder is a corporation which is owned entirely or in part by the state, or has been nationalized for the war effort, the right of the inventor to collect royalties may not exist.

The location and circumstances of the seizure - The right of a sovereign to seize the property and persons of enemy aliens within his own realm has been recognized since Roman times. The same is true of the right of a sovereign to seize persons and property of enemy aliens on the high seas. Seizures of the property of enemy aliens can also result from the terms of peace treaties, as reparations. Disagreements and adjustments are/were usually handled by claims commissions, international arbitration or an international civil court, depending on when the seizures took place.

See also Article 53 of the 1907 Hague IV convention annex:
Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.

All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multilaterals/texts/BH036.txt

Your questions (1) and (2) have little if anything to do with this topic, and as for (3), we have an open thread at:

Robbery of German patents by western allies in WWII
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=44023

See also my post at Western Allies Looting
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 435#625435

so if you want to continue the discussion of these questions, please use an existing thread for (1) and (3) and/or create a new one for (2), and we can get back to cultural treasures on this thread.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#66

Post by Panzermahn » 12 Nov 2010, 08:30

Hi David

Thanks for your informative reply. I will continue the discussion on the topics at the link you had indicated

Thanks
Panzermahn

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#67

Post by David Thompson » 12 Nov 2010, 16:26

An interesting but off-topic question from Panzermahn now has a thread of its own at:

Neutrality and Deportations
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=171766

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#68

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 24 Oct 2012, 01:58

Recently reading Black Sun by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, I learned about Varian Fry, the “American Schindler,” an individual whom I thought would be germane to this topic.

Varian Fry was the American representative of the Emergency Rescue Committee, who helped circa 2,000 European artists escape occupied France.

Through these rescue efforts, Fry
probably did more than any other person to make New York the art capital of the postwar world.

Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varian_Fry

Biographical website
http://www.varianfry.dk/

2001 Movie
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0245540/

User avatar
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#69

Post by Pingpongtweet » 30 Jan 2013, 03:00

One Item that I don't think has been covered is the deliberate destruction of cultural property.

You had the "book burning" of works by "militaristic" authors such as von Clausewitz, probably many first issues were lost to us.
http://web.archive.org/web/200906270644 ... 47,00.html

Then you had the confiscation and destruction of other types of works of art. To destroy propaganda makes sense, but since the rules were so arbitrary and applied so "generously" undoubtedly many real artworks were burned or otherwise destroyed by the Americans.
Thousands of paintings were destroyed and 8,722 were shipped to military deposits in the U.S. (Historical Properties Section, Office of the Army Headquarters Commandant, the Pentagon).
[4] Of course, deciding what was or was not "Nazi" or "militarist" art was not an exact science. Among the sequestered militaristic paintings still held at U.S. Army Center of Military History in Washington, D.C. there is an oil painting depicting a couple of middle aged women talking in a sunlit street in a small town. The "Russian farmland near Kremenschung" by Theo Sharf, a watercolor, 7" x 10 1/4," also held at the U.S. Army Art Collection in Washington, D.C. is peculiarly innocent looking. George Clare, in "Before the Wall" describes how the application of the Control Council Directive #24 and the Allied Kommandatura Order # 10 resulted in the labeling of a cigar box of a traditional brand showing a "lonely sentry in early-nineteenth-century uniform and the caption underneath, taken from a German nursery rhyme, ...'Lippe-Detmold eine wunderschone Stadt, darin ein Soldat," as German military propaganda. [Clare]
http://web.archive.org/web/200712231537 ... stein.html

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#70

Post by David Thompson » 30 Jan 2013, 18:07

Pingpongtweet -- You wrote: (1)
You had the "book burning" of works by "militaristic" authors such as von Clausewitz, probably many first issues were lost to us.
http://web.archive.org/web/200906270644 ... 47,00.html
One of the problems with using journalistic sources like Time Magazine is that opinions are frequently passed off as fact. Another problem is that the journalists may not follow through on the story, leaving the reader sputtering like Donald Duck. Interested persons can see the applicable Allied Control Council Order (No. 4), and its subsequent amendment "in the interests of research and scholarship," in Enactments and Approved Papers of the Control Council and Coordinating Committee, Allied Control Authority, Germany (1945-1948), vol. 3, pp. 131-33, available online courtesy of the US library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... -home.html

(2)
Then you had the confiscation and destruction of other types of works of art. To destroy propaganda makes sense, but since the rules were so arbitrary and applied so "generously" undoubtedly many real artworks were burned or otherwise destroyed by the Americans.
The quote you give in support of your speculation suggests that where there was a question, the art was "sequestered" rather than destroyed "by the Americans":
[4] Of course, deciding what was or was not "Nazi" or "militarist" art was not an exact science. Among the sequestered militaristic paintings still held at U.S. Army Center of Military History in Washington, D.C. there is an oil painting depicting a couple of middle aged women talking in a sunlit street in a small town. The "Russian farmland near Kremenschung" by Theo Sharf, a watercolor, 7" x 10 1/4," also held at the U.S. Army Art Collection in Washington, D.C. is peculiarly innocent looking. George Clare, in "Before the Wall" describes how the application of the Control Council Directive #24 and the Allied Kommandatura Order # 10 resulted in the labeling of a cigar box of a traditional brand showing a "lonely sentry in early-nineteenth-century uniform and the caption underneath, taken from a German nursery rhyme, ...'Lippe-Detmold eine wunderschone Stadt, darin ein Soldat," as German military propaganda. [Clare]
http://web.archive.org/web/200712231537 ... stein.html

User avatar
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#71

Post by Pingpongtweet » 30 Jan 2013, 23:47

David Thompson -- You wrote:

---(1)---
One of the problems with using journalistic sources like Time Magazine is that opinions are frequently passed off as fact. Another problem is that the journalists may not follow through on the story, leaving the reader sputtering like Donald Duck. Interested persons can see the applicable Allied Control Council Order (No. 4), and its subsequent amendment "in the interests of research and scholarship," in Enactments and Approved Papers of the Control Council and Coordinating Committee, Allied Control Authority, Germany (1945-1948), vol. 3, pp. 131-33, available online courtesy of the US library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... -home.html
You may not like references to Time Magazine, but in this case there is precious little editorializing, just a reporting of what took place during the briefing about American policy on literature destruction. The article is borne out by the order you linked to. (No. 4).

I see no reason why you would need to mention the amendment made 3 months later as the only thing it added was that a "limited number of copies" may be saved from destruction for future research. Not even a "shall", just a "may".

For those readers who found themselves "sputtering like Donald Duck" after reading the Time article, and possibly also after reading the Order No. 4 itself, I quote an analysis of it below that picks out some interesting details, but first Ziemke and the basics as Ziemke knew them or chose to report them.

Ziemke:
Books were a special problem. Normally, per capita German book consumption was at least four times that in the United States and after the book-dealers had cleared Nazi-influenced and other unacceptable works off their shelves, they had nothing left to sell. ICD suspected that books influenced German opinion as much or more than any other medium, which increased the need to prevent Germans from reading the wrong material. In any event, getting rid of the old book industry, although it was more work than in the other media and successive inspections always turned up some objectionable volumes, was easier than getting the industry restarted on a new course. To avoid the stigma of Nazi-style book-burning, ICD issued strict orders against burning, arranged to have sample copies deposited in research libraries in the United States, and pulped the rest.
(374 -375)
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... h20.htm#b4

Roehner:
May 13, 1946: Order No 4: Confiscation of literature and material of a Nazi and militarist nature. [excerpts]
The Control Council orders as follows:

1a. All libraries, bookshops and publishing houses to hand over to the Military Commandants within 2 months all books, magazines, newspapers, films and magic lantern slides (including everything intended for children of all ages), the contents of which includes Nazi propaganda or propaganda directed against the United Nations.

1b. Everything which contributes to military training.

2. All directors of elementary or secondary schools, gymnasia and universities to remove from the libraries in their charge all literature enumerated in paragraph 1 together with the relevant cards from the card index system of the library.
All publications and material mentioned in this order shall be placed at the disposal of the Military Commanders for destruction.
(Enactments Vol 3)

[Two observations are in order:

(i) The fact that the index cards had to be delivered along with the books would prevent libraries from knowing which books were removed.
Similarly, readers will have no way to know that books had been removed. This is similar in intent to the orders which forbid media to mention that they are under censorship.

(ii) Allied accounts usually say that the books were destroyed by being “pulped”.
The purpose of using this term rather than saying that they were burnt was certainly to prevent any parallel to be drawn with the burning of books carried out by the Third Reich.
However, to reduce books to small bits requires special devices and costs a substantial amount of energy. Thus, it is much more likely that most books were indeed burnt. Had the order been issued in winter, they could have been burned in stoves and furnaces in complement to coal which was in these years in great scarcity.]
May 13, 1946: Directive No 30, Liquidation of German military and Nazi Memorials and Museums. [excerpts]

Every existing monument, statue, edifice, street name marker, emblem, or insignia which is of such a nature as to glorify incidents of war must be completely destroyed by 1 January 1947.
An exception may be made for tombstones erected at the places where members of regular formations died on the field of the battle.
Also all military museums must be liquidated by 1 January 1947 throughout the entire German territory.
(Enactments Vol 3)

[If such a rule had been issued by the German authorities after the war of 1870-1071 the “Arc de Triomphe” at the center of the Place de l’Etoile in Paris would have been destroyed.

It would be interesting to know how many major German monuments were effectively demolished.

The article regarding tombstones was extended on 12 July 1946 to include also “monuments erected solely in memory of deceased members of regular military organizations with the exception of the SS or Waffen SS”.]
http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/ocg.pdf

---(2)---
The quote you give in support of your speculation suggests that where there was a question, the art was "sequestered" rather than destroyed "by the Americans":
David Thompson, you omitted to quote the first part, to which the second part was just a footnote from the same paragraph, but you chose to keep the footnote?

This is the sentence from the main text that I used but that you omitted to include in your reply:
Thousands of paintings were destroyed and 8,722 were shipped to military deposits in the U.S. (Historical Properties Section, Office of the Army Headquarters Commandant, the Pentagon).
I see no room for genuine speculation that art was not destroyed "by the Americans", just because some of it was "sequestered", as long as we keep the sentence from the main text in the discussion. Also note the "still held", which may indicate that also sequestered art was to larger or smaller extent destroyed, since some is no longer "sequestered".

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#72

Post by David Thompson » 31 Jan 2013, 04:02

Pingpongtweet -- This section of the forum deals with war crimes, and the thread deals with Cultural Property and the Hague Convention of 1954 on "Protection of Cultural Property In the Event of Armed Conflict." The convention defines cultural property as:
CHAPTER I: GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING PROTECTION

Article 1

DEFINITION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "cultural property" shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:

(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;

(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);

(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in subparagraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments".
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sta ... _hague.htm

Do you have any specific examples for us of the destruction of "property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people" which took place in the former Third Reich after the 1954 Hague Convention was enacted? If not, I'll move your posts and my responses to the "German POWs, Allied occupation and Denazification" section, and deal with your claims there.

User avatar
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#73

Post by Pingpongtweet » 31 Jan 2013, 21:24

David Thompson, I appreciate that you will "deal with" my "claims", I assume this is the standard jargon in this forum.

I have some comments first though.
David Thompson wrote:Pingpongtweet -- This section of the forum deals with war crimes, and the thread deals with Cultural Property and the Hague Convention of 1954 on "Protection of Cultural Property In the Event of Armed Conflict." The convention defines cultural property as:
CHAPTER I: GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING PROTECTION

Article 1

DEFINITION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "cultural property" shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership:

(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;

(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);

(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in subparagraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments".
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sta ... _hague.htm

Do you have any specific examples for us of the destruction of "property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people" which took place in the former Third Reich after the 1954 Hague Convention was enacted? If not, I'll move your posts and my responses to the "German POWs, Allied occupation and Denazification" section, and deal with your claims there.
(1) You are mistaken, this thread is NOT about the Hague Convention of 1954, it is merely mentioned among many other legal items in the originating post. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=159665
What the originator wanted was a list of documents on the protection of cultural items. Precious little of that seems to have been added to the discussion so far, besides filosofy and examples of nazi looting, and I think it is quite relevant that the discussion also include the opposite kind of documents, such as Order No. 4, on the destruction of cultural objects.

The original post mentions the following:
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
In the first paragraph of that link we find something eerily familiar to what I have posted here:
The seizure of Jewish religious artefacts and books began in Germany in the late 1930s. During the war the Nazis extended such looting to the occupied territories, as the cultural counterpart of the physical destruction of the Jewish people. The greater part of the Jews' cultural heritage was also destroyed: religious objects were melted down and Jewish books were burned or sent for pulp. The Nazis decided, however, to preserve a sample of Jewish culture for 'scientific' purposes, as part of a larger program of 'enemy research'.
Books matching the offending criteria were sent to be pulped, but some were saved for research.

(2) You write
Do you have any specific examples for us of the destruction of "property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people" which took place in the former Third Reich after the 1954 Hague Convention was enacted? If not, I'll move your posts and my responses to the "German POWs, Allied occupation and Denazification" section, and deal with your claims there.
This is in my eyes a very much "straw-man type" approach, and I believe few would disagree with me here.

(A). If you are serious about 1954 as the cut-off date for discussions, then I find it very surprising that you have not relocated to elsewhere pretty much every single post in this thread, since they all - or at least the overwhelming majority - seem to discuss events that took place prior to 1954.

(B) You wish to enforce criteria that were not enacted until 1954 on a discussion that has focused on what took place several years before that date. How very odd.
I think you will find difficulty to assign the criteria of "property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people" to for example the items in this database:
http://www.lootedart.com/search/searchd ... it1=Search

or this database
http://www.badv.bund.de/003_menue_links ... /index.php

Nevertheless these cultural artefacts are described as looted by the Nazis. I don't see why there should be one criteria for Germans and another for everyone else.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#74

Post by LWD » 31 Jan 2013, 22:12

Pingpongtweet wrote:... (A). If you are serious about 1954 as the cut-off date for discussions, then I find it very surprising that you have not relocated to elsewhere pretty much every single post in this thread, since they all - or at least the overwhelming majority - seem to discuss events that took place prior to 1954.
I suspect you will find that it's not 1954 being the cutoff so much as when international agreements were in place that proscribed such actions.
Nevertheless these cultural artefacts are described as looted by the Nazis. I don't see why there should be one criteria for Germans and another for everyone else.
If the terms of the peace treaty allow for the destruction or transfer of such artifacts it's not a war crime. If the terms don't or if individuals do it on their own then it becomes so. Thus for instance GI's taking medals from German soldiers was a war crime the same as a German soldier taking a painting from a residence or museum. One can also argue that even if such actions are allowed by a treaty if the winning party broke the agreements when initiating the conflict then it might still be a war crime.

User avatar
Vikki
Forum Staff
Posts: 3300
Joined: 08 Jul 2003, 02:35
Location: Amerika

Re: Cultural Property, Looting and the Rules of War

#75

Post by Vikki » 21 Mar 2013, 03:55

Not related to the discussion directly above, but to this thread in general:
France gives American art collection that Nazis took from his grandfather in Europe
Article by: THOMAS ADAMSON , Associated Press


PARIS - Tom Selldorff was 6 years old when he saw his grandfather's prized art collection for the last time in 1930s Vienna, before it fell into Nazi hands.

Now, he's 84 — and in a ceremony in Paris on Tuesday, the American was finally given back a piece of his late grandfather's memory: France has returned six of his stolen family masterpieces.

The restitution of the works — including paintings by Alessandro Longhi and Sebastiano Ricci — is part of France's ongoing effort to return hundreds of looted artworks that Jewish owners lost during the war that still hang in the Louvre and other museums. The move ends years of struggle for Selldorff, whose claims were validated by the French government last year after years of researching the fates of the works.

"I'm extremely grateful and very moved," said Selldorff, who flew in from Boston for the event at France's Culture Ministry, where the oil paintings were on temporary display. "These paintings were in this fog of war. The restitution... was not easy. It took a long time."

The artworks were stolen or sold under duress some seven decades ago as Jewish industrialist and art collector Richard Neumann — Selldorff's grandfather — and his family fled Nazi-occupied Europe. The collection — whose original size is unknown — was his ticket out, though he sold it for a fraction of its value. The route the artworks took to show up in French museums is unclear, making their way to places like the Museum of Modern Art of Saint-Etienne, the Agen Fine Arts Museum, the Tours Fine Art Museum, and the Louvre.

"After losing most of his family assets and a good part of his collection to the Nazis in Austria in 1938, he came to Paris for several years and then had to flee again, this time with my grandmother at one point on foot over the Pyrenees, to Spain, and then eventually to Cuba," Selldorff said.

The paintings, meanwhile, stayed behind — all six destined for display in the art gallery Adolf Hitler wanted to build in his hometown of Linz, Austria, according to a catalog for the planned museum.

"I only wish my grandfather was here to be able to be a part of all this, but I am sure he is watching from somewhere upstairs, so that's fine," Selldorff said.

At the end of the war, with Hitler dead and European cities rebuilding, artworks were left "unclaimed" and many thousands that were thought to have been French-owned found their ways into the country's top museums. Many of the 100,000 possessions looted, stolen or appropriated between 1940 and 1944 in France have been returned to Jewish families, but France says that some 2,000 artworks still lie in state institutions.

With a twinkle in his eye and a youthful smile, Selldorff remembered wandering around his grandfather's collection.

"I remember the house (in Vienna) very well. I remember the existence of these dark rooms with these paintings hanging," he said, recalling that his grandfather also opened up the collection to the Austrian public. A remaining link with the art was a catalog left behind by his late mother — a sort of scrapbook with pictures of the paintings.

"So I knew there were some very beautiful paintings in the house," Selldorff said.

"I ,too, hope that some of the art will go on loan to museums and be exhibited so that other people besides our family can appreciate them," he said, adding that he has spoken to some U.S. museums about the possibility of showing the art to the American public.

Overall, Selldorff said it's about being able to pass to his three children and five grandchildren a piece of his grandfather's stolen history.

"His love of art is what I want to pass on," he said. "It's what makes us human."
http://www.startribune.com/entertainmen ... ml?refer=y

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”