* Ardelia R. Hall: The Recovery of Cultural Objects Dispersed During World War II. In: The Department of State Bulletin. Vol. XXV. August 27th, 1951. Pp. 337-345, especially
p. 338.
THE NETHERLANDS
There have been no meetings of the joint Russian-Dutch Koenigs working group about the Koenigs drawings from Rotterdam which are now in the Pushkin Museum. No progress has been made concerning the return of Dutch material in the Osobyi Archive.
On April 15th and 16th, Amsterdam hosted an international symposium "The Return of Looted Collections (1946-1996), an Unfinished Chapter". The symposium commemorated the 50th anniversary of the return of books and archives that had been taken from the Netherlands by the occupying German forces during World War II. Lectures were given on the restitutions from Germany, on recent research of Nazi looting, on recovery work in progress, and on Dutch material in Russia and possibilities for recovery and cooperation. The possibility to publish the proceedings is being looked into. A brief summary is given below.
The symposium was organized by initiator F.J. Hoogewoud (Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Amsterdam), E.P. Kwaadgras (Cultural Masonic Center 'Prins Frederik', The Hague), J.E.P. Leistra (Netherlands Office for Fine Arts (RBK), The Hague), P.M. Manasse (International Institute of Social History (IISG), Amsterdam) and H. de Vries (State Institute for War Documentation (RIOD), Amsterdam).
Guests of honour were Colonel Seymour J. Pomrenze and his wife from New York and Madame Madeleine Milhaud from Paris. Col. Pomrenze, as the first director of the Offenbach Archival Depot in March 1946, was responsible for the return of many important Dutch library collections. Madame Milhaud received the first copy of the book by Wim de Vries on the music section of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR). During his research, De Vries discovered, among others, the music manuscripts of Henri Cliquet's "Six petites pièces pour Madeleine Milhaud" (1916), which was played at the end of the first symposium day.
In the opening lecture, Aart J. van der Leeuw, formerly of the RIOD, gave an overview of his work in the years 1957-1962. Under the "Bundesrückerstattungsgesetz" (Federal Law on Refunding) of July 19th, 1957, compensation could be claimed for household goods which demonstrably were taken from occupied countries to Germany during the war. Aart J. van der Leeuw was charged with finding the necessary documentation for these claims and found important files pertaining to the missing libraries of Jewish institutions, masonic collections, the International Institute of Social History and many more.
In Col. Pomrenze's lecture on the Offenbach Archival Depot, special reference was made to the Netherlands. From July 1945 until February 1946, no restitutions had been made from Offenbach; only six people worked there at the time. Once the Depot's proposed organization had been approved and the staff had been increased to 200 people, work progressed rapidly and at the end of March, 1.8 million items had been handled. Restitutions to the Netherlands were given priority resulting in three major returns by ship in March, April, and July of 1946.
Apart from the masonic lodges and the Jewish organizations, the Belgian unions in 1942 also lost their archives to the ERR. As Wouter Steenhaut and Michel Vermote explained, research is being done to compile detailed lists of losses. The Moscow Osobyi Archive houses 35 Belgian archives containing 20.000 files, mostly of the Belgian Ministry of Defense, but private archives and archives of socialist institutions are present as well. There have been meetings to discuss their return to Belgium, but political circumstances have stopped progress in this matter.
Florence de Lussy lectured on the repression by the French secret police and the German institutions of societies, especially masonic lodges, in France between 1940 and 1945. In August 1940, all possessions of societies were confiscated. The best material was taken to Germany, the rest of the masonic archives was placed in the Paris "Bibliothèque Nationale". In September 1944 it was agreed between the Bibliothèque and the Grand Orient lodge that the old archives would stay at the Bibliothèque and that the rest of the material would be returned to the lodge. Much of what had been taken to Germany ended up in Moscow, but there is archival material in Poznan as well. A cooperation and exchange of information has been set up with both cities.
Josefine Leistra presented an overview of art loss and art recovery in the Netherlands, leading up to the case of the Koenigs drawings. The first efforts of the Dutch government to locate the missing drawings date back to December 1945. In October 1992, the presence of 307 drawings in Moscow was officially acknowledged for the first time. They were exhibited in the Pushkin museum in 1995. A counterpart exhibition in Moscow organized by the Dutch government showed thirty drawings from the Koenigs collection in Rotterdam with an art-historical relationship to the drawings now in the Pushkin museum. Negotiations for their return and the search for the still missing 182 Koenigs drawings continue.
Frits Hoogewoud spoke about the background of the restitution to Amsterdam in 1992 of ca. 600 books of the Rudomino Library of Foreign Literature, which had received these books from Minsk in 1982. They are probably part of collections taken by the ERR or in the "M-Aktion" and came to Minsk through Ratibor. The books had belonged to private owners as well as Dutch organizations, such as theosophic societies and an Esperanto centre.
Hans de Vries spoke about the two research visits the RIOD made in 1992 and 1993 to the Osobyi Archive. The German section includes material taken by the Germans in the Netherlands from Jewish, masonic, and Catholic organizations, as well as the IISG and the International Archive of the Women's Movement (IAV). The Russian-Dutch agreement of 1992 about their return has not yet been carried out, but in March 1995, the IAV in Amsterdam received microfilm copies of its 203 dossiers in Moscow.
E. Bramson-Alperniené lectured on the tragic history of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in Vilna. During the war, the book and library collections were transported to Germany. What was found there after the war, was sent to the YIVO in New York. Material found in Vilna after the war was placed in a newly established Jewish museum. In 1949, the museum had to close because of the Stalinist policy and the material is now in the Lithuanian National Library. In 1993, missing documents were found in the Lithuanian State Archives which are now studied by experts.
Patricia Grimsted of the Ukrainian and Russian Research Center at Harvard focused on two Nazi operations particularly involving books and archives, namely the ERR Ratibor Center and the activities of the "Reichssicherheitshauptamt" (RSHA) in Silesia. A large part of the RSHA library and archives collection was moved from Berlin to Silesia in 1943, ending up in Habelschwerdt (now Poland) in 1944. This material was partly taken by Ukrainian troops, which arrived first in the area, and was partly taken to Moscow and forms the base of the Osobyi Archive. The Nazi resources now available in Moscow and Kiev demonstrate the need for further research of this material.
According to Ekaterina Genieva of the Rudomino Library, research suggests that a total of 11 million books were taken from Germany to the Soviet Union at the end of the war. They were distributed to several libraries, including university libraries, in the whole of the USSR, but only 4.7 million books from Germany have been identified up until now. One important result of the Russian-German library committee was the agreement on unlimited access to library collections for both sides. Political circumstances recently have prevented progress. Ekaterina Genieva's advocacy for discussions and consultations and an open exchange of information concerning these collections was a fitting closing statement to the symposium.
Josefine Leistra,
The Netherlands Office for Fine Arts, The Hague
POLAND
This country report focusses on the publishing activities of the Office of the Government Commissioner for Polish Cultural Heritage Abroad in the years 1995-1996.
The four years ongoing cataloguing of war losses in the field of works of art has already generated information on over 40,000 items unaccounted for. This number will certainly increase by ca. 20-25% since not all material has arrived yet. We have only received a full account in the area of Polish archaeology and antiquities. Therefore we have started our work on the catalogues with these two subjects.
The losses in the field of Polish archaeology are enormous, not only because of the disappearance of individual items or collections, but also because the invaders destroyed a large part of the inventories as well as identifying material. As a rule the Germans would separate the most precious items on the basis of their material value, and furthermore they would move part of the collections to locations which seemed to offer more safety. Such actions on the part of the occupying forces caused irreversible damage to numerous objects. As early as the first months of the hostilities, the German authorities decreed that archaeological items from Central Poland should be transferred to Poznan, while the Cracow collections were brought to Wroclaw. Part of these items, especially selected, was destined to serve as research material used to prove that the occupied territories were of Germanic origin. Items which were deemed unfit for such research were simply destroyed.
The preparation of a comprehensive catalogue concerning Polish archaeology was not an easy task. It should be pointed out that it represents the first postwar publication dealing with the subject matter, and it required from the author, archaeologist Marta Bocian, extensive knowledge and many months of work. Considering the neccessity of verifying all of the material in order to avoid possible mistakes, it was decided to provide a preliminary publication in a limited edition and to adress only readers directly or indirectly involved with the subject matter of archaelogy. This publication has primarily reached museums in order to assure a final check of the presented data and supplementation. Everything leads to believe that by the end of 1996 a complete catalogue will be available to everyone interested.
The preliminary catalogue, aside from the introductory part which acquaints the reader with the question of war losses, has been subdivided into nine sections, namely: Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Pre-Roman Period, Period of Roman Influence, Early Middle Ages, Middle Ages and Modern Times. Items of undetermined chronology are dealt with separately. Both chronological and alphabetical orders have been adopted, while the illustrative material - mostly drawings and partly photographs - on account of its considerable wealth has been included in a separate volume (192 tables and 74 photographs).
As the author points out in the introduction, the catalogue altogether contains data on 13,795 lost items from 268 archaeological sources. Numismatics have been left out. A separate catalogue will be devoted to them. It will deal with losses of coins and medals covering the period from Antiquity to the outburst of World War II.
The author of the catalogue also draws the attention of the readers to differences in the presentation of the material received, depending on whether they came from an archaeological museum or from an institution incidentally in the possession of such a type of collection. Therefore there are parts which contain a full description of a given item, a full bibliography, as well as iconographic material, while others appear as so-called mass material. A separate problem lies in the difference in terms of scholarly value between archaeological items originated from a group, from excavations and items taken out of their context. However, in view of our desire to present the full extent of the losses in this field rather than merely providing a list of items suitable for identification, all the data received have been included.
As far as the catalogue of losses in antiquities is concerned, final editing for a preliminary issue is in progress. Similarly it is intended to serve for further verification and supplementation. It will comprise information on 1,300 items subdivided into various categories. Besides museums and governmental agencies, it will cover so-called private collections such as the collection of antiquities of the Czartoryski Museum in Cracow or a similar collection at the Goluchow Castle which belongs to the same princely family. Extensive, illustrative material will supplement the catalogue, thus permitting a full identification of individual items.
While on the subject of archaeology, one should mention a recent and interesting publication by Marian Kwapinski which has been published by the Plenipotentiary of the Government's Office and is easily accessible to the public. It deals with a collection of Pomeranian "kanops" (funeral urns) from the middle of the 6th to the end of the 4th century B.C. (see bibliography). Their unusual shapes and decorations which were intended to represent a human form caused this collection, already known in the 17th century, to be considered one of the most engrossing in Europe. It suffered the fate of many other collections during the war. Only a small number of items remained, part of the collection was destroyed by the Red Army and part was taken away to Germany to an unknown destination. We only know that three items have recently surfaced in Thuringia. Therefore there are grounds for hope that the main core of the collection still exists somewhere.
Monika Kuhnke,
Office of the Commissioner for the Polish Cultural Heritage Abroad, Warsaw
UKRAINE
How should the Ukrainian-German cooperation with regard to the mutual return of cultural property be appraised in the light of the third round of Ukrainian-German negotiations on restitution of cultural property lost or displaced during and after World War II? Did the negotiating parties achieve progress and mutual understanding in the course of negotiations? Is there hope of developing a program on this important cultural - and at times purely political - issue? These questions have assumed prime importance today, on the eve of German Chancellor Kohl's visit to the Ukraine, although the visit is actually still several months away.
The negotiations laid the foundation for the Ukrainian-German Intergovernmental Agreement of February 15th, 1993 on the Cooperation in the Field of Culture and have become a further important link in the development of Ukrainian-German relations, which were reinforced by the visit of the Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma to Germany from June 3rd to 5th, 1995.
The restitution process is an important factor in the consolidation of Ukrainian-German relations, and its development is characterized by steady improvement. Without doubt this process was accelerated by the fortunate coincidence that at the Festival of Ukrainian Culture in Bavaria the former Prime Minister of the Ukraine, L. Kuchma, returned 32 of Goethe's documents and art works to the German people to whom the objects belonged until the war.
The exchange of cultural property has progressed further since then: the Ukrainian side has returned to Germany the archeological relics of the "Kablov Find", and in return the German side has given back the architectural monuments removed in 1944 from the Local History Museum in Kherson. Not long ago over 700 books were returned to the Ukraine from the "Pfahlbau Museum" in the town of Unteruhldingen, and Bremen received a Hans von Marées portrait. The restitution agreements between the Ukraine and Germany are based on trust and sincerity and this is to be welcomed, though it should be borne in mind that restitution has also attracted the attention of individuals who for whatever reason are in possession of foreign cultural property.
The cooperation between the Ukraine and Germany is clearly constructive and has also produced concrete results. These are reflected in the protocol and give grounds for optimism that the German side will manage to recover German cultural property currently held in the Ukraine, that it will call for the creation of a complete register of these spoils of war, and that it will also demand free access to the mentioned depositories for German experts (which until Ukrainian independence were kept secret). Equally the German side should adequately address the question of returning Ukrainian cultural property on the basis of agreed conditions.
The Ukrainian side is conducting searches for its lost national cultural items, is creating a corresponding data base and at the same time, in keeping with the norms of the protocol, is setting up a register of German cultural items taken as spoils of war, which demands great effort and ultimately creates additional costs. Since gaining independence, the Ukraine began to make estimates of its losses and to systematically formulate state policy with regard to restitution strategy, which European states such as Germany, Poland, or Hungary began almost half a century ago. As early as the late 50ies, 1,375,000 museum exhibits and other cultural items were returned to the GDR, a large proportion of these came from the territory of the Ukraine. The process of returning the cultural property of the German people was thus begun in the first decade after the war.
In the broad context of cooperation in the field of culture, the question of restitution is inseparable from normative moral judgments and obligations. Above all these relate to the Ukraine, whose culture suffered perhaps more than any other during the tragic events of the war, but the right of the Ukraine to corresponding compensation has never been put on the agenda.
The Ukrainian side has begun registering the cultural property lost in the Ukraine and is also establishing a mechanism at governmental level to resolve the numerous problems involved in returning cultural property and fulfilling its obligations under international law while complying with the norms of its own internal legislation. Thus in New York at the international symposium organized in January 1995 by the Soros Foundation the German side received a prepared catalogue of the lost paintings of the Kiev Museum of Western and Eastern Art. The German side reported that it has no information whatsoever on the 475 works of art looted from the museum in Kiev. The Ukraine was subjected to aggression, its cultural works and monuments were destroyed, no trace was left for posterity. The development of the negotiations ought to take into account the moral aspect of recovering the lost cultural property of the Ukraine. This is a fundamental normative element.
In 1995 the Ukrainian side demonstrated propriety in giving its German partners a list of ascertained cultural items removed from Germany to the Ukraine. Of these, 275 are held in the National Historical Museum and 14 in the Ukrainian Academy of the Arts. It made this gesture despite the fact that the Ukraine has no reports on the loss of its own cultural items, their displacement or return. In the process of negotiations at all three meetings of the Ukrainian and German delegations (1994-1996) the Ukrainian side has emphasized that the loss of Ukrainian cultural property as a result of the occupation must be taken into account in the restitution process.
In the deliberations and cooperation during negotiations new and additional problems arise and thus necessitate the undertaking of joint efforts. The Ukraine now proposes to hold an international symposium on international legal aspects of restitution in Kiev. This symposium should make a contribution towards solving contentious questions. Arguments in favour of negotiations on looted cultural property should encompass both the search for and return of Ukrainian cultural treasures on the one hand (which the Ukrainian side is in fact presently working on), and on the other hand, should involve similar gestures of good will with regard to German cultural property.
As indicated in a project of the German Coordination Office of the Federal States for the Return of Cultural Property (Bremen), "the question of the return of cultural property corresponds to a line of correlation between countries' level of culture and their foreign policy in the field of culture". The Ukraine has begun compiling a register of cultural losses, which are staggering in scale. Germany has been working on the same kind of register for many years. The current state of opinion gives grounds for hope that the return of cultural property on both sides (or compensation in the restitution process) will become a stable bridge uniting Western and Eastern Europe. Today the tragic conflicts of the war with all its dramatic events should be put aside, as difficult as it is. The facts, however unpleasant they may be, should not be ignored, because they can foster the establishment of the truth on the path to an agreement on the problem of restitution.
An intergovernmental agreement has been signed between the Ukraine and the Republic of Poland regarding the protection and the return of cultural property lost and displaced during World War II. The National Commission is pursuing productive negotiations with Hungarian colleagues. Budapest has officially returned the diary of the scholar Nandor Fettich, which was written in Kiev in 1941-1942 and gives an impression of the period of German occupation. With Russia the restitution process is at a stalemate which the Russian side maintains by evading official round table talks and not responding to corresponding propositions by the National Commission.
Alexander Fedoruk,
Head of the National Commission
of the Restitution of Cultural Treasures to Ukraine, Kiev
