ART TROVE IN MUNICH WORTH 1.5 BILLION EUROS

The Luger is freaking BEAUTIFUL! Kiddest thou me???
It is GOOD ART, with its rakish 55 degree angle!
It was (very likely) taken from its owner during the war.
Presumably, its owner offered it in surrender of his command.
I understand that Lugers were issued to officers, not to enlisted men.





David

The Luger was replaced from 1938 onwards by the the Walther P38 ...
... but there's no connection at all to the found artwork in Munich.

Yes; Hitler found the Luger too expensive to maintain,
but Lugers were present in great abundance in World War II; treasured.
Many were taken as prizes of war.

Note that, as aforesaid, mine was made in 1940.





David

How 'bout 'dem Red Sawx? Now there's artwork for 'yas!

AS its pretty generally known, most of the swiped art from Germany is residing in Russia and you can kiss all those works bye bye.

As far as "not lying around" , many works of art were found just piled up in various salt mines in Germany, and some other excavations

All my sox r black; fungible. That 's more efficient.

During the Second World War, the Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce was a Nazi organisation, which looted art in France, the Benelux countries, Poland, the Baltic States, Greece, Italy and on the territory of the Soviet Union in the Reichskommissariat Ostland and Reichskommissariat Ukraine.

The Sonderkommando Künsberg (aka Group Künsberg) did the same in Yugoslavia, Greece, and Russia.

The Ahnenerbe ("Inheritance of the Forefathers") gave the pseudo-scientic reasons for the looting, 'researching' the supposed archaeological and cultural history of the hypothesized "Aryan race."

was any work sent to Linz for Hitlers museum?

The Linz museum bought art works from (dealer) Wolfgang Gurlitt in 1953.
All but three disputed paintings have been given back to the origional owners.

Three paintings (from Klimt and Scheele) are missing in Linz, but the museum's director doesn't think that they are among those found now.

The CBC's program, The Current, had an episode on these art works yesterday. I didn't hear it until segments were re-broadcast last night. This is their page online for yesterday's episode (clickity-click). What i found particularly interesting was the interview with Uwe Hartmann, the Director for Germany's office for provenance review. His office would move in to determine where a work or art of any other valuable came from, if the item or items are in government hands. According to Mr. Hartmann (in Montréal for a conference), the authorities in Munich are still treating this as a private collectyion. Therefore, although they let Mr. Hartmann see some of the art works, he has no authority, because it is still treated as private property, over which he can exercise no authority. The account by Mr. Hartmann was of a byzantine tangle of responsibilities and authorities in government which needs to be resolved before his office can take any action. It's worth listening to. (At the top of the page linked above there is a button to click on which has the rubric "Listen."_

Dr. Hartmann is the director of the workforce for provenance review ("Arbeitsstelle für Provenienzrecherche/-forschung") at the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation ("Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz"). Similar institutions are located in Hamburg's Kunsthalle (art museum in Hamburg) and at the Bavarian State Picture Collections ("Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen").

Which means what? That the responsible joker in Munich is sitting on his hands?

No. There are just several institutions doing the same.

But Hartmann is correct (I think) to point at the legal background: Hildebrand Gurlitt bought - as far as is known until today - all this art legally. That law from 1938 wasn't changed neither by the Allies nor later by the Federal Republic. His son got them as heritage - legally.

The problem is: you can get looted art from public-owned museums and galleries, but not, if they are owned privately.

I suppose, it will take some months, until the prosecution (and the customs) really know the correct legal owners ...and I bet, then it goes to courts about the ownership.

Has this not been in the hands of government authority for two years now? I had heard that in a radio report.

Not if the artworks are privately owned - exactly that's what Hartmann said. (And "no", there isn't a state/federal authority which just can take away art ... besides with a court order.)

Well, Walter, we often have to coax such information out of you. I believe i am correct in stating that in the United States (or most jurisdictions here) that if you are in possession of a stolen item, even if you are not criminally responsible, it can be seized as the proceeds of crime. So, if someone steals a painting and sells ti to you, providing phony documents, you may not be criminally liable for buying it in good faith, but it still can be seized to be returned to the rightful owner. You can see how the situation you describe might seem bizarre to someone else.

It's not that cut and dried. There's dispute over whether or not some of these items were required legitimately.

You can say that if someone is put under pressure to sell something at a knock down price then it's immoral, but not necessarily illegal. If such activity, (which was well documented prior to WW2) has not been made illegal subsequently then there's not much that can be done without a change in the law.

Some of these items could have been sold because having them was a liability, and could get you arrested as a degenerate. Being ripped off has to be preferable to going to a KZ.

Interesting , I suppose there is a good paper trail on this stuff so that such determinations original ownership are available?

First of all i understood that from what Walter wrote, and he's much better informed than you are. Second--don't talk to me, you miserable piece of ****.

That's one point of the story. But I beg to keep in mind that his art-dealership didn't just start with Nazis ...