4 The author thanks archivist
Renate Endler for her professional advice and friendly support.
Literature:
Endler, Renate; Elisabeth Schwarze: Die Freimaurerbestände
im Geheimen Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Vol.
I and II. Frankfurt a.M. 1994/1996. (ISBN 3-631-46831-8 und 3-631-48396-1).
Aly, Götz; Susanne Heim: Das zentrale Staatsarchiv
in Moskau ("Sonderarchiv"). Rekonstruktion und Bestandsverzeichnis
verschollen geglaubten Schriftguts aus der NS-Zeit. Düsseldorf
1993.
[Author unknown]: "149. Die Keller des Gestapo-Gebäudes
Berlin Emserstraße 12-13". In: Hering, Jürgen
(Hrsg.): "Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie"
(Periodical for Librarianship and Bibliography). Sonderheft 64.
Frankfurt a.M. 1996. P. 105 (ISSN 3-465-02882-1).
Wilson, W. Daniel: Geheimräte gegen Geheimbünde.
Stuttgart 1991. (ISBN 3-467-00778-2).
Lennhoff, Eugen; Oskar Posner: Internationales Freimaurerlexikon.
Wien, München 1932. 2nd non-revised edition 1975.
MASONIC LOSSES DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR IN BELGIUM
On August 24th and 27th, 1940 a total of 82 crates
of books, works of art and masonic ritualia were gathered by the
German occupiers in the masonic lodges of Brussels. Not less than
97 crates were assembled in other masonic lodges of Belgium, which
makes a total of at least 179 crates. Thanks to the German administrative
accuracy the transports to Berlin on November 26th, 1940 and January
17th, 1941 can be traced. The masonic lodges were the first institutions
to be spoiled systematically in Belgium: first by the "Sicherheitsdienst"
(Security Service), closely followed by the "Einsatzstab
Reichsleiter Rosenberg". The Belgian interest in masonic
material was underlined by the fact that Reinhard Heydrich und
Alfred Rosenberg personally visited the lodges in Brussels in
July 1940. The lodges, especially of Brussels and Antwerp were
used during the Second World War as depots of spoiled cultural
objects or as national socialist administrative centres.
In 1946 nine crates, containing "Belgian mostly
freemason materials and Jewish libraries from Antwerp and Brussels"
returned from the American Collecting Point Offenbach in Germany.
On February 25th, 1949 another four were restituted to Belgium,
containing among other things masonic books. At least 170 crates
of the masonic cultural goods never returned to Belgium. Only
during the last years concrete evidence and locations of lost
freemason's material of Belgian origin turned up: in Würzburg
(Germany), in the Osobyi Archives in Moscow (Russian Federation)
and in the library of the University of Poznan (Poland). The discoveries
in Moscow were confirmed by Belgian historians, who did active
research there. 2,265 freemason dossiers of the years 1784-1940
were found. The archives contain documents of the Grand Orient
of Belgium, the Higher Council of Belgian lodges and the working
places "Les amis philantropes" and "Les amis du
progrès", even of daughter lodges in London. Besides,
regulations, circulars, protocols of the working of the lodges,
also the publications and bulletins were found in Moscow. The
text of speeches, publications of members of Belgian freemasonry
on political and social issues and the history of freemasonry
of Belgium are also kept in the same archives. Important international
correspondence with lodges in Europe and America completes the
discovery.
The period of the Cold War made every possibility
of restitution between Western and Eastern European countries
impossible. The officials, experts and researchers agree how much
the attitude of the Russian authorities on this subject remains
uncertain. Even the law proposal of the Duma concerning restitution
of works of art and archives differentiates between 'legal' and
'illegal' spoils of war.
In Belgium the Ministry of Economic Affairs is coordinating
the research about cultural losses of Belgian origin. A close
cooperation and working relationship was established between the
Belgian freemasonry and the Ministry of Economic Affairs. In the
meantime the Belgian freemason's lodges are documenting and investigating
the cultural losses they suffered and are providing evidence of
ownership of these lost cultural objects.
Charles Tomas, Curator Masonic Museum Belgium, Brussels
The Mauerbach Case
PART I
After the war, all looted and displaced artworks
found in Germany and Austria were gathered together by the Allies
in several (Central) Art Collecting Points and one Archival Depot
from which the restitutions took place. In September 1951, the
Collecting Points were closed down and the remaining objects were
handed over to the "Treuhandverwaltung für Kulturgut"
(Trustee Administration for Cultural Property), that continued
the restitution work until its closure in December 1962.
A few hundred works of art, mainly, but not exclusively,
of previous Jewish ownership, had earlier been taken to the American
zone of occupation in Austria. In 1955, when the Austrian State
Treaty was signed, these objects were handed over to Austria with
the obligation to return them to their owners. All objects which
were not claimed by January 1956, were to be given within 18 months
to organizations set up by the Allies for assistance to victims
of persecution by the Axis powers.
Instead, after the claims period had expired in 1957,
the Austrian government installed an independent organization
called the "Sammelstelle A&B" (Collecting Point
A&B), which could claim property of which it was certain that
it had belonged to owners who had died and left no heirs. These
objects were to be sold and the proceeds had to go to successor
organizations. This way eight to ten objects were sold by auction
for the sum of 731,100 Austrian Schillings.
In the late 60's, partly because of pressure by Simon
Wiesenthal, a law was being prepared for the restitution of the
remaining objects in Austrian care. Since some of this property
might have been claimed by the "Sammelstelle" itself
- in case it had belonged to war victims without any heirs - the
"Sammelstelle" asked for a settlement. Five million
Austrian Schilling was then paid by the government and divided
between survivors of the Holocaust. In 1969, the "Sammelstelle"
ceased operations.
On September 2nd of the same year, the list of the
remaining 8,422 objects in Austrian care, together with the text
of the restitution law, "Bundesgesetz" (Federal Law)
294 of June 27th, was published in the "Amtsblatt" of
the "Wiener Zeitung". The law stipulated that claims
could be filed until December 31st, 1970, after that all objects
became the property of the Austrian state. Later the period for
claims was extended until 1972. From 1969 to that year, 71 objects
were returned. The rest remained as Austrian state property deposited
in the 14th-century monastery in Mauerbach near Vienna. Some 550
works of art were placed in Austrian museums and embassies. In
1984, a critical article by Andrew Decker in the widely read magazine
ARTnews helped to reopen the case. A list of the 8,153 remaining
objects was published together with the text of the second restitution
law, the "Kunst- und Kulturgutbereinigungsgesetz" (Art
and Cultural Property Clearing Law) of December 13th, 1985 which
allowed claims to be filed until September 30th, 1986. After it
expired, all unclaimed objects and those unsuccessfully claimed
would be auctioned.
By January 1995, a total of 3,282 claims had been
reviewed and 350 objects had been returned. In October of the
same year, the Austrian government transferred title of ownership
of the unclaimed or unsuccessfully claimed objects to the "Bundesverband
der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinden Österreichs" (Federation
of Israelic Communities of Austria). The Jewish community has
sold them in an auction organized by Christie's, which took place
on October 29th and 30th, 1996 in the Viennese Museum of Applied
Arts. The English title of the catalogue is "Mauerbach. Items
Seized by the National Socialists to be Sold for the Benefit of
the Victims of the Holocaust".
Listed and illustrated are a thousand lot numbers
of - mainly 19th-century - paintings, sculptures, books, coins
and other works of art. Although in his foreword the Austrian
president Thomas Klestil describes the objects as being seized
from Austrian Jews, they may well have other provenances too,
since the Mauerbach objects originally came from Allied Collecting
Points in Germany as well. The sale brought a total of 155,166,810
Austrian Schillings. The net proceeds of the auction will go to
people in need or to the descendants of those who were persecuted
by the national socialist regime for racist, religious or political
reasons. An aggregate total of 12% of these proceeds will be made
available to the Federation of Austrian Resistance Fighters and
Victims of Fascism, to the Federation of Socialist Freedom Fighters
and Victims of Fascism, as well as to the Association of the Austrian
People's Party of those persecuted on political grounds.
The "information regarding the legal status"
explains that all purchases at the Mauerbach auction have "the
same special protection granted under Austrian law to any auction
purchases, namely a fundamental right to ownership against any
legal claims by third parties. According to section 367 ABGB this
protection also extends to cases where third parties could successfully
prove their right to title of ownership".
With this auction, the history of the Allied Collecting
Points will not be closed completely - the Austrian courts are
still reviewing claims on Mauerbach objects. In some cases, there
are claims by twenty different claimants on one individual object.
Josephine Leistra, Inspectorate of Cultural Heritage,
The Hague
PART II: AN EQUIVOCAL SALE
The Mauerbach Auction on October 29th and 30th at
the Museum of Applied Arts (MAK) in Vienna rejoiced all those
interested and concerned by the Holocaust, Nazi art looting and
restitution. But notwithstanding our joy there lie a few errors
concerning the origin of the artworks to be sold and seen fully
for the first time in 50 years and on the real efforts accomplished
by Austria since the war to find their rightful owners.
It is the London auction house Christie's that, since
November 1995, prepared the sale catalogue, the 1045 lots (comprising
over 8,000 items) and that will direct the sale. A large part
of the proceeds will go to the Federation of Jewish Communities
of Austria while a smaller part will go to Austrian associations
of resistants and victims of Nazism. These lots will, hence, be
sold and the case of Nazi art looting in Austria will be closed
once and for all. In fact, the Austrian government has reassured
potential buyers stating that their new ownership rights will
be protected against any legal claims by third parties, even in
cases where third parties could successfully prove their right
to title of ownership.
This auction sale is an answer to the duty to remember,
a praiseworthy act and a seemingly satisfying outcome for all
parties involved, fifty years afterwards. In the same way that
chasing, arresting and bringing to trial a Nazi war criminal today
fulfills our demands for justice and moral. But, on reflexion,
the soon-to-be-tried criminal will have lived peacefully and with
complete impunity through all those years. This is why, beyond
the duty to remember all looted victims and all those who died
at the hands of the Nazis, there is also the duty of truth, aside
from the international public relations campaign set by the Austrian
government and by the auction house concerned.
Let us try to clear up a few misunderstandings. First
of all, contrary to what the Federal President of the Republic
of Austria, Thomas Klestil, states in his foreword to the Christie's
catalogue, the artworks stored at the Mauerbach monastery did
not all belong to Austrian Jews. The more than 8,000 items to
be sold that week are essentially remains of what had been hidden
by the Nazis in the Alt Aussee salt mines, near Salzburg, before
they were found by the advancing US army. But the fact that the
Nazis had stored them in Austria does not mean they belonged to
Austrian citizens. In fact, the Nazis had used Alt Aussee to store
artworks looted all over Europe, like the sublime altarpiece "The
Adoration of the Lamb" by the van Eyck brothers belonging
to Belgium, a part of the valuable Rothschild and David-Weill
collections coming from France and other collections belonging
to German museums.
This remainder - which in the postwar confusion was
thought to belong only to Austrians - plus artworks coming from
other depots in Germany were still in storage at the Munich Central
Collecting Point when it was to close in 1951. This collecting
point for looted art had been opened by the US army after the
German surrender in 1945 to inventory and restitute to each European
country the hundreds of thousands of looted artworks found all
across Germany. And the Austrian government at the time found
itself with these thousands of works to be restituted to their
rightful owners. But until very recently Austria has been extremely
secretive concerning these unclaimed objects. In a similarly discrete
manner these unclaimed works were stored in the 70's at Mauerbach,
the "Kunsthistorisches Museum" (Museum of Art History)
and the "Österreichische Galerie" (Austrian Gallery).
Access to these works was strictly forbidden to individuals filing
claims as well as to foreign diplomats or curators representing
them. In order to recuperate one's own property one had to fulfill
government demands nearing absurdity, where claimants would not
be allowed to see the objects they were claiming.
Thus, in 1973, Pierre Rosenberg, the current director
of the Louvre and then a young state curator, went on an official
French claims mission to Austria to inspect several paintings
stored at Mauerbach and thought to belong to looted French families.
But the Austrian Finance Ministry refused to show him the paintings
or even photos of it. The French ambassador at the time was also
refused to the depot. 14 years later, in 1987, two other Louvre
curators on a 100 paintings claim mission noticed that
Austria's attitude had changed little. Their report stated: "After
long and tedious negotiations the Austrian Finance Ministry has
accepted to show us 17 paintings ...refusing to show us
the rest under the pretense that we possessed no photos of those
works or because those works were already being claimed by other
or others". In the same official report the two curators
complained moreover of the inaccuracy of the lists of artworks,
of the lack of professionalism and of the cold, humid and unheated
rooms where these works were kept. A few years later still another
French ambassador to Austria was again refused access to Mauerbach.
At the same time, the Austrian government, with all
is zealousness in keeping these works from public view, did not
undertake any seemingly active research to find the rightful owners
of these works, and it started selling some of them. Moreover,
about 550 of these unclaimed artworks were taken into the collections
of Austrian state museums or designated to decorate Austrian embassies
around the world. Why were these works sold or kept by Austria
while, at the same time, it was returning some of them to those
who could prove ownership?
Today, Austria courts are still reviewing claims
on some of these artworks, while the auction goes on. Many of
the active state officials in charge of restitution of looted
art in France, Germany, Holland and Belgium are surprised at the
conditions under which the Austria sale took place. They all
agree that Austrian official information on the auction travelled
slowly and badly. Information was never officially and wholly
transmitted to the state administrations in charge of restitution
in other European countries. Although it is true that the sale
was announced in the Austrian government's semi-official newspaper
and sent out to embassies in Vienna. But this is not enough.
With such a complex and delicate situation Christie's
should have taken precautions to make sure a maximum is done to
find the owners of these works before the sale comes up. Christie's
has already announced that three lots have been taken off the
sale since the catalogue was published. They have been successfully
claimed by an 83-year Israeli woman who, upon seeing the catalogue,
recognized them as belonging to her mother. But this type of spontaneous
claim will not be admitted by Austria after the sale took place.
And we come to the central misunderstanding concerning
the Mauerbach sale: no one was and has never been really in charge
of finding the owners of these works. Christie's saw the items
only a year ago at "Schloß Schönbrunn" (Schönbrunn
Palace), and, besides, the search for owners was unfortunately
not stated in the terms and conditions of the auction house's
contract. According to Anke Adler-Slottke, Christie's international
coordinator for this sale, "Christie's does not have the
duty to look for former owners. Christie's can only do the artistic
research, as it is recorded in art books that we have access to
as an auction house. We consider Austria and the Allies did their
best". But we have seen this was not and has never been the
case.
Moreover, this type of exclusively aesthetic research
disregards the kind of documents, archives, and the experts that
could verily be useful in this case. Let us take lot 101 in the
auction catalogue as an example: it is a small 16th century painting
by the French painter Pierre-Antoine de Machy. The provenance
of the painting merely mentions the Maria Dietrich Gallery in
Munich as the only entry since the time this picture was painted
some two hundred years ago. Now, as any researcher in Nazi art
looting knows, the very active Maria Dietrich, a friend of Eva
Braun, was one of Hitler's personal art dealers. Several of the
interrogatories of Maria Dietrich undertaken by the US army and
other Allies and the detailed lists of many of the paintings that
went through her gallery are easily and readily accessible in
public archives in several countries. Why did not anyone check
them? They could have provided us with important information leading
eventually to the rightful owner of lot 101. This kind of passive
research is inappropriate in this and all other cases involved.
It is true, though, that if ideally Christie's had
fully accomplished active research on all of the unclaimed artworks
we would have probably reached an absurd situation: the auction
sale would not have taken place at all since all, or most, owners
and heirs would have been found.
The fact remains, however, that we had to wait almost
50 years for the Mauerbach works to be shown. No matter the present
Austrian government's undoubtedly good intentions we cannot but
deplore that the search for the rightful owners of these works
was skirted round, dodged and avoided for half a century. And
that now, after the auction has taken place, the real and rightful
owners of these works will have truly disappeared for ever.
Hector Feliciano, Journalist, Paris
"THE SPOILS OF WAR": PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1995 NEW YORK SYMPOSIUM
The proceedings of the international
symposium organized by The Bard Graduate Center for Studies in
the Decorative Arts and held in New York on January 19th-21st,
1995, will be published in early 1997 by Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
in association with the Bard Graduate Center.
The symposium, "The Spoils of
War - World War II and Its Aftermath: The Loss, Reappearance,
and Recovery of Cultural Property", dealt with the art and
other cultural property that was looted, damaged, and destroyed
in vast quantities by the Nazi armed forces and confiscation agencies
and the consequences that ensued. The purpose of the New York
symposium was to provide a public forum in which those people
working most actively on World War II recovery and restitution
could discuss their concerns openly in an unbiased and productive
setting.
The publication of the proceedings
will provide a permanent document of these discussions, including
written versions of the 49 presentations given at the symposium,
papers by six of the invited guest participants, and a brief introduction
to the volume. The original order of the presentations has been
retained, with much new information added by the authors. Endnotes
and a bibliography have been included at the back of the book.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the authors for their
contributions and to acknowledge the hard work of the members
of the "The Spoils of War" staff and the editorial board:
Constance Lowenthal, Lynn Nicholas, Jonathan Petropoulos, and
Stephen Urice.
Part One of the proceedings presents
an overview of "the spoils of war" - the taking of booty
in armed conflict - with contributions by Jeanette Greenfield
and Lynn Nicholas. Part Two is devoted to a discussion of World
War II losses in Poland (Jan Pruszynski), the Netherlands (Josefine
Leistra), Belgium (Jacques Lust), France (Marie Hamon), Russia
(Mikhail Shvidkoi), Ukraine (Alexander Fedoruk), Belorussia (Adam
Maldsis), Austria (Gerhard Sailer), Hungary (István Fodor),
and Germany (Werner Schmidt), with special chapters on Jewish
losses (Vivian Mann) and on the project to catalogue losses in
the former Soviet republics being carried out by the Research
Institute for Eastern Europe, University of Bremen (Marlene Hiller).
Part Three is devoted to legal issues
relating to wartime cultural losses, with chapters on the laws
in force at the beginning of World War II (Lawrence Kaye), German
laws and directives in the Third Reich (Jonathan Petropoulos),
laws and conventions enacted by the Allied Control Council (Michael
Kurtz), and the transfer of the contents of German repositories
into the custody of the USSR (Nikolai Nikandrov).
The American Army and Navy officers
that officiated at the Allied Collecting Points and served in
the Art Looting Investigation Unit were honoured at the symposium,
and the presentations of the speakers in this session are included
in Part Four: Edith Standen, James Plaut, Craig Smyth, Walter
Farmer, Bernard Taper, and S. Lane Faison. Chapters on the role
of the US State Department regarding claims for the restitution
of stolen cultural property (Ely Maurer) and on the post-war restitutions
made to the German Democratic Republic by the USSR follow. The
section concludes with chapters on the Quedlinburg Church treasures
by Constance Lowenthal, Willi Korte, William Honan, and Thomas
R. Kline.
Part Five - "Reappearance and
Recovery" - is devoted to a discussion of recent confirmations
of holdings in the once-secret repositories of the countries of
the former USSR, with contributions by Constance Lowenthal (introduction),
Konstantin Akinsha and Grigorii Kozlov (the discovery of the secret
repositories), Alexei Rastorgouev (displaced art in private hands),
and Valerii Kulishov (the history of the repositories and their
contents). These are followed by chapters on legal issues relating
to the Russian repositories and the German-Russian negotiations,
contributed by Wilfried Fiedler, Armin Hiller, and Mark Boguslavskii.
The section ends with a case study
on the "Treasure of Priam" and other precious objects
discovered by Schliemann at the site of Troy, which were removed
from Turkey after their excavation, bequeathed by Schliemann to
the Berlin State Museums, and subsequently transferred from Berlin
to Russia in 1945, where they are now kept in the Pushkin State
Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, and the State Hermitage Museum, St.
Petersburg. Contributors to this case study are Elizabeth Simpson
(introduction), Donald Easton (the history of the Trojan treasures
up to the death of Schliemann in 1890), Klaus Goldmann (the disappearance
and search for the treasures after World War II), Stephen Urice
(claims to ownership of the Trojan treasures), Manfred Korfmann
(the value of the finds to the scientific community), and Vladimir
Tolstikov (preparation of the catalogue for the exhibition at
the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts).
The final session of the symposium
- "Current issues and Cooperative Efforts" - is documented
in Part Six, with chapters by Wolfgang Eichwede (models of restitution:
Germany, Russia, Ukraine), Ekaterina Genieva (german book collections
in Russian Libraries), and Lyndel Prott (principles for the resolution
of disputes concerning cultural heritage displaced during the
Second World War). These three specialists offer suggestions as
to ways in which the current impasse regarding issues of restitution
and return may be circumvented, in the hope that the optimism
that prevailed in the first part of this decade may be realized
in the second.
Contributions of guest participants
are found in Part Seven: Pavel Jirasek (World War II losses in
the Czech Republic), Jana Bahurinska (recovery of cultural property
in Slovakia), Wojciech Kowalski (World War II cultural losses
in Poland), Christine Koenigs (the sale of the Franz Koenigs collection),
Hagen Lambsdorff (return of cultural property: hostages of war
or harbingers of peace?), and Patricia Grimsted (captured archives
and restitution problems on the Eastern front).
Seventeen key legal documents that
are often referred to but rarely reproduced have been added as
appendices at the end of the volume. These appendices contain
the relevant provisions of all major international treaties, laws,
conventions, protocols, and official statements relating to wartime
plunder, restitution, and repatriation. It is our hope that this
volume of proceedings will be of lasting significance for specialists
working on these issues.
Elizabeth Simpson, The Bard Graduate
Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts,
New York
BY DIPLOMATIC POUCH: ART SMUGGLING BY THE NAZIS
Through the sale of gold, silver, platinum, precious
gems, and last but not least works of art the Nazis have been
able to accumulate foreign currencies in the neutral countries.
Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Latin American countries, and
especially Switzerland have been the recipients of looted assets.
Precious metals and stones, just like art, have in common that
they can fairly easily be transported by diplomatic pouch. In
this context the term 'pouch' may be somewhat misleading, because
the size can vary from small bags to big containers.
In this article, I will focus on the transportation
of looted art, which - like other assets of a highly specific
value - was popular among the smugglers of the Third Reich. Paintings
and other art objects were easy to move, easy to hide and generated
much foreign exchange with which goods, necessary for warfare,
could be purchased on markets beyond the German sphere of influence.
Looted art was not only meant to be sold but was
also used as object for exchange. The Nazis adored the works of
old German, Dutch, Flemish, French, and Italian masters. Looted
paintings within this category went straight to the Reich. They
were destinated to the Führermuseum-to-be in Linz, the collection
of Goering or other high ranking Nazi officials. In other cases
art objects were donated to museums spread over Hitler's empire.
Looted works of 'degenerate' artists as Degas, Monet, Renoir,
Gauguin, Van Gogh, or Picasso reached Berne in diplomatic bags
where this "Entartete Kunst" (artworks of Impressionists
and modern pictures) was sold or exchanged for German paintings
which - although not seldom second rate - were more to the liking
of the Nazi art collectors. Besides that these works fitted better
into their ideology, these 'degenerates' also generated far higher
prices on the Swiss art market. The German art smugglers can be
divided into two categories: on the one side the agents who operated
under orders of the government in Berlin and on the other side
Nazi officials - often operating through front men - who had a
private interest. They wanted a financial safeguard for the future
in case Germany should lose the war.
The art was plundered from occupied France, the Benelux
countries, and Eastern Europe. There has been a considerable difference
with regard to the Nazi art politics in the Western and Eastern
occupied territories. In the East of Europe the infamous task
force of Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg ("Einsatzstab Reichsleiter
Rosenberg", ERR), Hitler's special plunder team for libraries,
archives and works of art, made a clean sweep of collections,
both private and public, while in the West national museums were
left comparatively intact. However, that did not apply to private
collections owned by Jews, freemasons, and other groups which
were labelled as enemies of the Nazi state. Their collections
were confiscated outright by the ERR. The same was true for collections
whose owners were absent, mostly Jews, because they had fled from
the invading German armies. Their property was regarded as 'enemy
property' and seized accordingly.
Within the Reich the ERR, since 1937, had the authority
to confiscate Jewish owned paintings which became the property
of the German state. Parts of these confiscated collections have
probably been sold on the international market before the outbreak
of the war. That fact further complicates the problems of recovery,
because the Allied Declaration (January 1943) aimed against illegal
acts of dispossession of citizens in countries occupied by Germany
cannot be applied to the years preceeding the Second World War.
In the Allied Declaration 18 United Nations, including the USSR,
Great Britain, and the United States reserved their rights "to
declare invalid any transfers of, or dealings with property, rights,
and interests of any description whatsoever which are, or have
been, situated in the territories which have come under the occupation
or control, direct or indirect, of the governments with which
they were at war".
The quantity of looted art actually 'exported' (i.e.
smuggled) to the Western hemisphere and the neutral European countries
is probably a small part of the total plunder which in any case
has been the largest in world history. It is difficult to estimate
the total value because the value of art objects is extremely
fluid. The British Daily Telegraph September 21st, 1996 estimated
the value of looted art treasures which entered Switzerland from
Germany by diplomatic bags to £15 billion (today's value).
This estimation is certainly not too low. In August 1945, little
definitive proof of art being smuggled into Switzerland had been
found "except the evidence of those pictures which are known
to have been imported in the German diplomatic pouch by Helmut
Beyer, a German commercial attaché, 6 Florastr., Muri,
near Berne".1 Although
it could not be proven, it was nevertheless assumed, according
to a US report of December 1945, that "in Switzerland traffic
in looted art apparently reached large proportions, and it is
believed that for the moment German-owned and looted art objects
are lying in bank vaults, at forwarding agencies, in depositories
or in private hands, either of German, Swiss, or other nationality.
The total value of this type of assets is estimated $ 29 million
to $ 46 million".2
The search for looted art in neutral countries appeared
to be further complicated by the fact that much was done in order
to obscure its origins: "objets d'art" were often not
held in the name of their German looters or fences but in the
name of vague Swiss front men, not seldom using false identities.
Artworks have also been deliberately made the object of a range
of consecutive transactions devised to disguise their true origin.
As far as known, neither well-known Swiss collectors
nor Swiss museums acquired looted artworks - with very few exceptions
(Emile Bührle, arms manufacturer of Oerlikon who also assisted
German armament production and technical research, being one of
them). Reports state that a substantial portion was bought by
Swiss dealers and citizens. Part of the booty went from Switzerland
to Spain and Portugal where it was either sold or reshipped to
destinations in Latin America. From there, a part is believed
to have been sold to the United States. Already before America's
entry into the war (December 1941), attempts were made to transport
artworks to the US. Not long after the US Excalibur had left the
port of Lisbon, a collection of 500 looted drawings was discovered
on board. Looted art is also said to have been bound for the Swedish
capital.
It is evident that the spoils of war, after having
arrived in German embassies in neutral states, could be forwarded
to any place in the world. According to intelligence reports,
the Germans did not only make use of their own diplomatic mail
facilities but also transported looted art in Swiss, Spanish,
Portuguese, Swedish, or South American diplomatic pouches to safe
havens all over the world. The problem with evidence, based on
intelligence reports, is that the information is difficult to
check, because it rests mainly on secret sources which quite often
- by law - may not be revealed. Those reports, mostly drawn up
by British and US intelligence services, seldom offer conclusive
proof.
The implication is that both the value and the quantity
of the looted art treasures - smuggled by diplomatic bags - cannot
adequately be verified in most cases. Another obscuring factor
is that according to international law, diplomatic bags are immune
from inspection. Thanks to its diplomatic disguise, looted art
on its way to Latin America could easily pass the Allied controls
at sea. By sea any small item could in fact easily be smuggled
- also without making use of diplomatic pouches - because the
Allied blockade machinery was designed to examine bulk cargoes,
measured in shiploads or tons. Smuggling rings have reported to
be effective and well organized; their potential routes were many.
Another often reported way of secret transport was by German submarines.
But also in these cases we do depend on unverifiable intelligence
records.
The conclusion must be drawn that both the sources
of information and ways of shipping are difficult to control and
therefore hard to prove. That does not, of course, mean that those
reports are false or that they must be neglected. On the basis
of circumstantial evidence and the well-known and often established
fact that abuse of diplomatic bags in wartime was rather the rule
than the exception, it seems safe to assume that a considerable
part of artworks has ended up in neutral countries by diplomatic
pouch or by use of neutral means of shipment. From their initial
bases in German embassies and consulates the works of art could
have been sent to almost any destination in the world.
It is not known how many works of art now, more than
half a century later, can still be found in the Alpine state.
By the end of 1945 only about 75 looted paintings had been unearthed
in Switzerland. Is the rest still there (or in the other former
neutral states) or has it been scattered all over the world in
the meantime? We will probably never know.
Gerard Aalders, Department of Research, The Netherlands
State Institute for War Documentation, Amsterdam
Notes:
1 Quoted from: "Looted Art
in Occupied Territories, Neutral Countries and Latin America".
2 Quoted from: "A Program
for German Economic and Industrial Disarmament. Foreign Economic
Administration Enemy Branch, Final Report".
Sources:
Gerard Aalders; Cees Wiebes: The Art of Cloaking
Ownership. Amsterdam 1996.
Riksarkivet, Stockholm, 1920 års dossiersystem.
HP 1645. "A Program for German Economic and Industrial Disarmament.
Foreign Economic Administration Enemy Branch, Final Report, December
20. 1945."
National Archives Washington, RG 84. The Hague Embassy
Confidential File. Box no. 3. "Looted Art in Accupied Territories,
Neutral Countries and Latin America". Revised.
National Archives Washington, RG 59, Safehaven Subject
Files 1945-1947. Box no. 3. Folder: Safehaven Special Subjects.
National Archives Washington, RG 59. Safehaven Country
File. Box no. 2. Folder: Switzerland. Safehaven Special Subjects
Outline.
SYMPOSIUM IN BRUSSELS
In close cooperation with the General Secretariat
of the Benelux the Ministry of Economic Affairs organized an international
symposium "Cultural Goods Spoiled During the Second World
War". This symposium took place in Brussels on October 8th,
1996.
From 1994 onwards an annual meeting is held at the
General Secretariat o f the Benelux Economic Union between officials
from the three Benelux countries. On this meeting information
which is of interest to all concerned countries is exchanged.
Through these efforts the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg started ist
research on their cultural losses. On historical grounds the Benelux
countrires were enlarged with a French delegation for this event.
After the Second World War a close cooperation, even coordination
existed between the four countries in the restitution of these
lost cultural (and economic) goods. From the national socialist
political angle France and the Benelux countries formed the Western
occupied territories.
The participants were welcomed by Ben Hennekam, Secretary
General of the Benelux Economical Union. Philippe Lambot, representative
of the Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Economic Affairs, Elio
di Rupo put the human, cultural and economic losses of the Second
World War in a historical perspective and gave an overview of
the future activities. Frits Hoogewoud, Replacing Curator of the
"Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana" (University of Amsterdam)
restituted books to Belgium and France under the device "symbol
of a symbol".
The symposium was divided in three round tables on
the cultural spoils of the Second World War, under the presidency
of Charles Godart, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Directorate Economic
Relations.
The first round table was on results of the research
and the restitution of lost cultural objects. Marie Hamon, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs (France); Josefine Leistra, Rijksdienst Beeldende
Kunst and Jan van Hoorn, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (The Netherlands);
Paul Dostert, Ministry of Culture (Luxembourg); Jacques Lust,
Ministry of Economic Affairs; Jan Davadder and Yvan Hubot, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs (Belgium) clarified the situation in their
respective countries. A second round table looked further than
actual investigations and surveyed the possibilities of a renewed
cooperation. A third round table was devoted to the evolution
in legislation, especially in the Russian Federation.
The international symposium not only led to the exchanging
of practical information, but also looked for a more pragmatic
coordination between the Benelux countries and France. The high
number of participants confirmed the succes of the conference.
Thierry Charlier, General Secretariat of the Benelux,
Brussels
Jacques Lust, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Brussels
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN KIEV
On December 12th and 13th, 1996 the National Commission
of the Restitution of Cultural Treasures to Ukraine organized
in Kiev an international symposium on the "Legal Aspects
of Restitution of Cultural Values: Theory and Practice".
This was the largest conference concerning cultural heritage held
in an Eastern European country since the independence of former
Soviet states.
Although the conference was not only concerned with
Second World War cultural losses, this subject dominated most
of the lectures. The symposium was attended mostly by experts
and officials from Middle and Eastern Europe (Belorussia, Hungary,
Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation, Roumania, Slovakia,
the Ukraine). The largest delegation of speakers came from the
Ukraine itself, where most of the national and regional institutions
were well represented. Participants also came from Belgium, France,
Germany, Italy and the USA. Lyndel Prott, director of the UNESCO
International Cultural Legacy Section lectured on "The Legal
Issues Relating to the Return of Cultural Property in Europe".
After the opening of the symposium by Alexander Fedoruk,
Head of the National Commission, the first day was devoted to
scientific reports on "Cultural Heritage and the Restitution
of Cultural Values". The second day was divided in three
sections with specialists reporting on: the national legislation
and its conformity to international law regulations in the field
of protection of cultural values, international law problems and
mechanisms of restitution of cultural values to countries of their
origin and law and organization of international cooperation in
the field of search and restitution of displaced cultural values.
The participants agreed at the end of the symposium
to call upon the General Director and the Secretariat of UNESCO
and the Council of Europe:
- to keep on taking efforts for further updating
international legal norms in the sphere of protection, repatriation,
restitution of cultural treasures and the creation of effective
mechanisms of international cooperation in this sphere
- to bring international laws in the sphere of
protection, repatriation and restitution of cultural treasures
in line with the norms of international law, to enhance the countries'
liability for not-fulfilment of their obligations in the sphere
of protection, repatriation and restitution of cultural treasures
they are bound to as parties to international conventions and
agreements
- to promote international exchange of information
on the lost or illegally transferred cultural treasures which
are subject to repatriation
- to hold a special session of UNESCO International
Committee for the repatriation of cultural treasures to the countries
of their origin or their restitution in case of their illegal
appropriation to the problems of search and restitution of cultural
treasures which constitute an inseparable part of the national
legacy
- that UNESCO-session would not get in the way
of existing bilateral and multilateral agreements.
At the end of the conference Belorussia, Poland and
the UNESCO promised to organize in the coming years conferences
on these topics.
Jacques Lust, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Brussels
