Examination of Witness (Questions 369
- 391)
THURSDAY 18 MAY 2000
PROFESSOR JONATHAN
PETROPOULOS
Chairman
369. Professor Petropoulos, I would like to
welcome you here today and say how very grateful we are for all
the trouble you have taken to be available to this inquiry. The
issues that we are covering are extremely wide, but those to which
you have been addressing yourself are particularly sensitive,
even by the standard of sensitivity of all the rest of the issues.
I would like to start by asking you, considering the amount of
literature there has been on this, including that which you have
provided, why has it taken half a century, or more, for these
issues to become a primary concern?
(Professor Petropoulos) Mr Chairman,
members of the Select Committee, thank you for inviting me here
this morning, it is an honour to be here, and my thanks to Colin
Lee for arranging my visit, too. Before I answer your question,
I am obliged to say that the views that I will represent today
are my own and do not represent those of the Presidential Commission
on Holocaust Assets in the United States or the US Government.
I think there are three main reasons why the subject of spoliation
in World War Two was ignored for 50 years. The first reason was
there was a sense that the job of safeguarding the restitution
was completed. You will know very well that the Allied arts officers
safeguarding the restituted millions of objects, the best numbers
I have here in my memorandum say 2.5 million objects were returned
at war's end and there was a sense that this was a job that was
completed, a job well done, and we must acknowledge that the efforts
of the Allied arts officers was oftentimes heroic, that they worked
exceedingly hard, that they were oftentimes able to overcome Cold
War obstacles. The United States restituted over 500,000 objects
to the Soviet Union, quite remarkable, at this period in time,
and I think, by 1950, there was a sense this task had been completed
and we did not need to worry about it any more. The second reason
why it was ignored was I think it is very difficult for victims
and their heirs to proceed with claims, for a number of reasons.
Emotionally, it was quite difficult, they wanted to get on with
their lives, and they did not want to have to relive this history.
Politically, it is sometimes difficult; most of you know that
the majority of the victims in the Holocaust came from Central
Europe, and it was quite daunting to go back to countries in Central
Europe, especially if they were in the Eastern Bloc, and try to
trace property. And financially it was quite difficult too; it
is expensive to track these art works. Several weeks ago, I was
speaking with Elaine Rosenberg, who is the heir to Paul Rosenberg,
the Rosenberg Gallery, about a painting that I thought I might
have found for her, and she said that they had looked for it in
the 1950s and spent an incredible amount of money in the search,
and engaged lawyers, and they had finally given up and had received
compensation from the German Government; but it was very expensive
to track these works. And so, I think, for the victims, for these
three reasons, they just did not have the energy or what it took
to pursue these works, in these years. And, finally, the third
main reason I would describe as volitional amnesia on the part
of the art world. What do I mean by this: it was easier to believe
that the job of restitution was completed and to get on with their
work. In the art trade, there were tremendous sums of money to
be made, let us face it, it is true; as you know, art increased
in value tremendously in the post-war period, much greater than
the consumer price index. If one figures out wartime values to
today, normally one multiplies by a factor of ten, to figure out
what something cost in World War Two to today; in art, it is completely
different, you could buy a Max Beckman for £50 in 1945, today
it would be £5 million, or many million. And so there were
huge sums to be made in the art trade, and for the museum directors
this was an opportunity to build collections, and especially in
the United States, this was when American museums built their
art collections, in the post-war period. It is axiomatic that
art follows money, and the United States was the wealthiest country
in the world after the war, and that was when American museum
collections swelled. Up until 1945, American museums are rather
insignificant, the National Gallery has a few paintings from Paul
Mellon, and it is really only the Metropolitan; and it is in the
fifties and sixties that the American curators acquire art, and
it is easier not to worry about looted, spoliated art at this
time. And I think the American museum establishment must have
known about this history and that there were many works that were
not restituted; how could they not, the curators and museum directors
had played crucial, central roles in the safeguarding and restitution
process. Look at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in their hierarchy;
on the curatorial level, you have people like Theodore (Ted) Rousseau,
the Head of European Paintings, who had been an OSS and written
the central report on Goring; you had Edith Standen, who
was a curator, who headed one of the collecting points at Wiesbaden;
you had James Rorimer, who was an MFA&A officer, who became
the Director of the Metropolitan; you had Craig Hugh Smythe, a
trustee, who had also been an MFA&A, and who had overseen
a collecting point. At every level, curator, director, trustee,
they were centrally involved in dissolving the problems created
by the Nazis; they had to know what the situation was in the fifties
and sixties, and they chose not to be involved or interested.
And some of the work I have done for the Presidential Commission
has been to interview these individuals. I have spoken with Tom
Hoving, the former Director of the Met, and the Presidential Commission
convened a hearing on April 12, where Philippe de Montebello testified,
the current Director of the Met, and both Hoving and Montebello
said they never asked about the source of gifts, the provenance
of gifts, one does not count the teeth of a gift horse, the cliche«
that was often used. And it is rather extraordinary, that they
must have known about the history of Nazi spoliation and that
not all the works were restituted, yet in the fifties and sixties
they were never asking about the provenance of their gifts. And
so I think that is something we should explore in greater depth.
370. That is a pretty scathing, but as far as
I am concerned, wholly justified indictment of the way in which
some of these institutions acquired these works. Quite apart from
all the other issues that my colleagues and myself will want to
raise with you, would you not agree that one word, among many
valuable words that you have just spoken, stands out, namely,
the word provenance, and is it not a duty, and perhaps ought it
not to be a legal duty, on institutions like that, particularly
an institution like the Metropolitan Museum of Art, to ascertain,
with as much accuracy as possible, the provenance of the objects
they acquire, not only to make sure that they had not derived
from criminality but also to make sure that they are genuine?
(Professor Petropoulos) While I am very critical of
the behaviour specifically of the American museum establishment
in the 1950s through the 1980s, I think, in the nineties, more
recently, there has been a good faith effort, and more especially
in the last couple of years, to make amends and to redress these
problems. In the period from the fifties to the eighties, about
the only time when provenance research was conducted was when
there was a concern about fakes, that was why one did provenance
research at those times, to make sure one was not buying a bogus
art work. Nowadays, I think, everyone in the museum world and
art world is sensitive to this issue, and I would be very surprised
if a curator or collector would acquire a work without making
efforts to learn about its provenance, I think people have become
very sensitive to this problem now. But there is still work to
be done, and I think both in the United States and in Europe we
need to talk about standards for provenance research, because
right now it means very different things to different people.
Look at the lists that were published recently, in the last month,
in the United States, on the part of American museums, because
a number of institutions, as you know very well, have come forward
and published lists of works about which they have concerns on
their provenance; and there is tremendous variety, in terms of
the research they are doing and the amount of detail on the provenance.
On the one hand, we have the National Gallery in Washington DC
which has put its entire paintings collection on-line, and there
is a tremendous amount of information there; it is really very
laudable, that I personally like to see, I think it sets the standards.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is the Art Institute of
Chicago, which released a list of hundreds of paintings, with
no information about provenance or ownership; and, for a researcher
like myself, that is not terribly useful, we need information
about owners, we need names and dates, these are the footholds,
the toe-holds, if you will, if we are going to climb the edifice
and really figure out the history of an art work. And so I would
encourage you to think about standards, in terms of provenance,
and the websites too, as much information as possible is what
we need; and, again, it is surprising sometimes to me how little
is known about art works. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, and
their website, for works with gaps or with questions about the
provenance, they try to give information about previous ownership,
about provenance, and it is so sketchy, it is quite shocking,
actually, sometimes one or two names, I would say three-quarters
of the works listed have no actual information about previous
ownership, and there is a lot of research to be done. But we need
to have as much information as possible, that if we are going
to work together, collaboratively, all the researchers in the
field, we need the museums and the collectors to come forward
with every bit of information they have about the work.
Mr Faber
371. Before others perhaps go on to the current
situation on the issue of restitution, I wonder if you could just
dwell for a moment on the period of the war years and the pre-war
years and the looting and the character of the Nazi looting. I
am very interested you say that American museums are principally
full of many of these works of art, but, of course, European museums
are full of works of art looted during war years, and perhaps
previous years. Now I know that the Hague Convention undoubtedly
makes a difference, but what is the special character of Nazi
looting as opposed to other forms of looting in previous centuries?
(Professor Petropoulos) Again, I think there are three
main issues that distinguish Nazi looting from that which occurred
previously; and the first, as you rightly know, is the 1907 Hague
Convention, and, I think, for most of us in the field, that is
a watershed, and I would not advocate restituting cultural property
that changed hands prior to 1907, and I say this as a Greek American.
I do not believe that it is necessary, according to international
law, for the British to return the Elgin Marbles right now. What
we have in World War Two is different because of international
law and because Britain and America and other countries were signatories.
The second reason why spoliation in World War Two is different
is the scale, of course, that never before had one nation plundered
others so thoroughly, and we still do not have precise numbers
in terms of cultural objects removed by the Germans. I consider
this to be a work in progress, and I have advanced numbers and
I hope that this will contribute to an international dialogue
and that all the national commissions will work together and come
up with more precise figures; but it is clear that the Germans
took hundreds of thousands of art works and that this was unprecedented.
And the third and probably most important feature was that the
spoliation was connected to the genocidal project, that expropriation
was part of the process of dehumanisation, that you took the objects
belonging to victims and it made them seem less human, less cultured,
less like you and me; that expropriation preceded deportation,
and deportation led to murder, it was a very important turn on
the twisted road to Auschwitz, part of the radicalisation programme.
So I think this makes it qualitatively different. And one point
I would clarify, in terms of the number of spoliated works in
museums in America and Europe, I do not know that the number is
all that high, I think the number in American museums is probably
in the hundreds, but I do not think it is in the thousands, and
I think we should be clear on that issue.
Chairman
372. Could I just interrupt you; obviously,
it is your area of especial expertise, you are simply talking
here about looted objects from the wartime period in Europe, you
are not talking about other works of art which may have been acquired
illicitly, or sold illicitly?
(Professor Petropoulos) We are talking about Holocaust
era works, works that were stolen by the Nazis and their collaborators.
I believe that in the United States the number is probably in
the hundreds, and it is probably the same in Europe as well; but
I think worldwide the number of cultural objects is in the tens
of thousands. As you read in my memorandum, Ronald Lauder has
given the controversial figure of 110,000 cultural objects that
were never returned to their owners, and this figure actually
is not that outlandish; when one thinks about objects not just
in American museums but also European museums, when one thinks
about not just paintings but graphic works and decorative objects,
and that is where the numbers really increase, and when one thinks
about not just museums but private collections, I think the vast
majority of the works that have never been restituted to Holocaust
victims or their heirs are in private collections, and I think
the majority are on the Continent, in Europe. I think the nature
of Nazi spoliation was most of the victims did not have `museum
quality' art, and we are not talking about Raphaels and Rembrandts,
and what have you, these were middle-class individuals who had
nice works but not `museum quality' works, and these are still
in private collections and homes today, and I think most of them
are on the Continent. And I think that the Nazi art experts, whom
I have studied in my work, played a role in laundering these objects
after the war, that they knew where they were and subsequently
sold them, and I think that some of them just changed hands within
these Central European communities. In my memorandum I cite Aharon
Appelfeld, an Israeli author, who went back to his home town in
Romania, and when he entered the homes of villagers he saw objects
from the Jewish community that had been there before the war and
now belonged to non-Jews living there; and I think that is, frankly,
quite common. And so, if you think about these everyday objects,
china and porcelain and etchings, that is where one gets to 100,000,
or 110,000; but, the number of paintings that are in British or
American museums, it could be as low as dozens or twenties, but
I do not think it is into the thousands; my guess would be hundreds.
Mr Faber
373. In your analysis of the looting, spoliation,
that took place, do you draw a difference between the different
kinds of acquisitions that were made? There were, shall we say,
forced sales, in particular, in the occupied countries pre-war,
so this really started before the war, in Austria, in Czechoslovakia;
there was the actual looting that you are talking about that took
place during the war years, and, of course, therewas a very active
art market in the occupied countries throughout the war, a so-called
legitimate art market. How do you differentiate between those
different types of acquisition?
(Professor Petropoulos) A good question. I think these
different categories are most important in terms of identifying
research areas where there is still work to be done. I think,
whether one is talking about forced sales, Aryanisations, so-called
Jew auctions in the 1930s and 1940s, or one is talking about the
ERR directly seizing property, breaking down doorways and taking
people's objects, all of that counts as spoliation and all of
that art should be restituted to the survivors and their heirs,
and I think that all of it should go back to these people. But
it is the forced sales and the Jew auctions where the most work
needs to be done, that this has been ignored until quite recently.
It was very difficult to get documentation about these forced
sales and about these Jew auctions, even to this day to find the
sales catalogues for Jew auctions is quite difficult, they are
quite rare, you find them in the archives of some museums, I have
seen them in Munich, in the archives of the Bavarian State Painting
Collections, but they are quite unusual, and this is where a lot
of the research needs to be focused in the years to come. As you
know, probably quite well, the financial records in Germany and
in many countries on the Continent are still closed today, these
are one type of archive where researchers have now been given
access, and we need these records if we are going to really find
out what happened with forced sales, Aryanisations and Jew auctions;
and right now this is an area, in terms of archival access, where
we should be. And so, I think, to answer your question, all those
areas constitute looting, in my opinion, but we do not know very
much about the forced sales and the Aryanisations.
374. If I could have just one follow-up to that,
Chairman, which was that the last part was the so-called legitimate
art market; presumably, quite a lot of the restitution that took
place immediately after the war was as a result of that, is that
correct?
(Professor Petropoulos) I am not sure I understand
your question.
375. There was a thriving art market, in France
in particular, during the war years; do you consider that objects
that perhaps came onto that market for the benefit of the Nazis
should be restituted too?
(Professor Petropoulos) I do; I think because of the
London Declaration of January 1943, which says that any sale which
occurs in a Nazi-occupied land is null and void. That had been
the principle which was operative when the Allies, especially
the United States, were restituting art works at war's end, that
the German buyers were forced to relinquish these objects and
they went back to France, or The Netherlands, or the country of
origin, and I think that that is the operative principle, yes.
Mr Maxton
376. Do you believe, where, obviously, it is
shown that there is a legitimate right to restitution, that that
should always be what happens, or do you think that there can
be cases where compensation rather than restitution should take
place? Obviously, if a museum has had a major work of art on display,
it is restored to its former owner, the former owner may be somebody
who requires money, and quite rightly then puts it on the private
market, and that work of art is then lost to the general public.
(Professor Petropoulos) The answer to that question
is, of course, it depends upon the legal code in a particular
country. I happen to think that the United States law in this
respect is quite good; it still needs work. I think this is an
area where the law has not caught up with events completely, but
in the United States, as you know, one can never have good title
to a stolen object and that there is no Statute of Limitations,
or only in a sense that one has three years in order to file a
lawsuit from the time a demand was made and the current possessor
refuses, demand and refusal, there are three years to file a suit,
and I think that is a very good arrangement. I am against any
sort of Statute of Limitations, personally, I think that that
is wrong, that that would perpetrate historical injustices, and,
because of the special nature of the spoliation of World War Two,
because it is linked to the genocidal project of the Nazis, I
think that the victims or their heirs should always have the ability
to regain the object, in every case. Again, the law needs to evolve.
I think there are cases where good faith purchases need to be
able to have a legal recourse, to sue the dealers, the vendors,
or what have you, and they can gain compensation. But I think
that, the victims, this is one thing we can do for them, that
we can recover their cultural property, and cultural property
is very special, it has sentimental value, it is tied to their
lives and their family lives, and it is important that it go back
to them in this way. So I think that the victim should always
be able to reclaim their objects. Ideally, the solution should
keep the valuable art works in the public domain, I think that
is the ideal, that if they are in museums we should find a solution
whereby they stay in museums, on public view, and they are not
lost to the public. I would like to see victims find an arrangement
where they perhaps get financial compensation and the institutions
continue to exhibit the work, I think that is the ideal; perhaps
the arrangement in Chicago, with the Goodman brothers, and you
are familiar with the Searle case, where the Goodman brothers,
for a Degas, took half the value of the art work and the other
half was paid by the museum, the Art Institute of Chicago, and
the museum continues to possess and exhibit the work. I think
that is a commendable resolution. But the owners should be able
to do whatever they want, ultimately. Mrs Rosenberg, when she
recovered the Matisse `Odalisque' from the Seattle Art Museum,
proceeded to turn around and she sold it to Steve Wynn, the owner
of the Bellagio Hotel, in Las Vegas, and it was put in Las Vegas,
we know, within several weeks, and Steve Wynn put it on exhibit
for a little while, and now he has sold it. And while I would
have liked to see Mrs Rosenberg do something else with the painting,
perhaps donate it to the museum, perhaps do something for Holocaust
education, or for research into this area, I think it is her right
to do with the art work anything that she chooses.
377. But you do accept there is, if you like,
certainly some sort of problem there; major works of art disappearing
from public view, I think, is a problem generally, is it not?
(Professor Petropoulos) I know I am an idealist, and
I want to have it both ways, I want to see the victims get as
much justice as is possible and I would like to see something
that results in the public good, and I think that is why we should
highlight those cases which seem like good compromises. Anne Webber
made this marvellous film about the Goodman case, and I think
that was really valuable as an example for dispute resolution,
and I think we should draw as much attention to these positive
resolutions as we can.
378. How much restitution has taken place from
the private sector, as opposed to the public sector, I mean public
in the sense of museums and art galleries; do you know?
(Professor Petropoulos) Very little. I think it happens
very rarely. I think there are others who are better able to speak
to those developments. My own understanding is that when auction
houses have tried to sell works and there is compelling evidence
that they were looted and that the people trying to sell them
did not have good title to them, my sense is that the owners have
withdrawn these objects from sale, and that the restitution process
has not gone forward and the victims did not get their art back.
There is a case in South America, where there were several works
that were in private possession, and the owner realised that they
had been looted and returned them. But these are the exceptions,
that mostly it is public institutions who go forward with restitution,
and then because they want to avoid bad publicity that the negative
publicity is more costly to them than the price of the art work,
or they want to do the right thing, for whatever reason. But,
in terms of private owners voluntarily returning works, it is
very rare.
379. Talking about the objects you were talking
about, the china and the smaller things that you talked about
earlier, presumably, many of these are still in the ownership
of the families who first acquired them, it may be into third
or even fourth generation by now, ownership, they may not even
know they are looted?
(Professor Petropoulos) Yes, I am sure that is the
case, in many cases they have no idea; in some instances, yes,
they would know, there would be an ex libris in a book,
there might be a marking on the back of a print, there is some
indication, family lore, they might have a sense, but in many
instances they have no knowledge. And the reality is that these
works will probably never be passed on to survivors or heirs,
and that is the reality, that the majority of them will never
go back. It is so difficult to identify cultural objects which
are not paintings; paintings, we have a chance, because they are
so unique and there is provenance and they have been documented,
but when it comes to furniture or decorative arts it is very difficult.
We should still try, we should still make the effort, but, realistically,
the chances of survivors or heirs getting them back are not very
great.
380. You say we should make the effort; do you
think therefore each country, or within Europe maybe we can have
a law which actually makes restitution of objects like this necessary
and essential, and then, if you do that, you come back right to
the original question, how do you differentiate between something
that has been looted during the Nazi period and something that
has been looted during some other war, at some other time. I have
been in your own museums, not your own museum but in Washington,
and it is actually full of, a lot of them have a lot of objects
which basically have been looted from your own native peoples,
for instance?
(Professor Petropoulos) Yes, exactly; it is true.
Again, I think, at this junction in time, it is impractical to
try to restitute works before 1907, that is a Pandora's Box and
it causes too many difficulties; there is enough on the table
already with the post-1907 cultural objects and returning those.
If someone wants to return objects before 1907, I think that is
wonderful, if two countries' Governments can arrange a bilateral
agreement of some sort, and if it improves these bilateral relations
that is wonderful; but, I think, for the post-1907 objects, we
should do whatever possible to facilitate the return of these
objects to the rightful owners. I do not want to see too many
bureaucratic regulations put in place, and I realise the art market
must function, but I think that we need to have mechanisms whereby
the art trade plays a role in identifying these works as they
come on the market. And that is what is going to happen in the
next year, especially with generational transition, that art works,
whether they are paintings or decorative arts, are going to enter
the market, and we need the co-operation of the auction houses
and the galleries. I would hope that they would open their archives
to researchers, for one thing, I think that is very useful, I
would hope that they would consult researchers in the field, and
I welcome inquiries from auction houses and galleries, and I think
most of my colleagues who work in this area who do research would
try to co-operate with them as they do research. We do speak with
people from Sotheby's and Christie's, they do contact me quite
frequently, and I think this is a very positive development. Maybe
we need more, in terms of law, in terms of legal mechanisms, to
facilitate restitution, and I think that is something that we
should talk about.
Derek Wyatt
381. So, in that respect, do you think that
it should be on the G8 agenda; or where would it be located so
that we could have more of you, as it were, but I mean where politically
would it be located?
(Professor Petropoulos) There are others who are better
qualified to speak to legal reforms. I think that the Select Committee
could provide a starting-point by first talking about standards
for best practices and making some policy recommendations; that
is what the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets
in the United States is going to do when we release our report
to President Clinton in December. And I think that, as a starting-point,
we can talk about finding the resources to do provenance research,
that smaller institutions need funding in order to be able to
conduct this research; that is very expensive. I think there should
be funding to train people to do provenance research, and the
Government could play a role there in coming up with the grants,
perhaps fellowships, so people could study this in post-doctoral
programmes; art history, until now, has not focused on this sort
of provenance research. I think we need some standards in terms
of the databases, in terms of provenance, I think that is an area
where we can do work. I think we should then start a discussion
about UNIDROIT, even though UNIDROIT does not go back to World
War Two; it is unfortunate the way that UNIDROIT was drafted that
it does not go back, that is my understanding, to World War Two
and the Nazi era. But I thinkthe principles behind UNIDROIT are
very commendable, which is that you can never have good title
to a work that was stolen, and I think that is the type of law
that has to be implemented worldwide; and whether that takes place
first on a national basis, in Britain, it already exists in the
United States, I think that would be a good starting-point, but
I would like to see it extended Europe-wide, ultimately. I would
like to see (my own opinion, because, again, I am speaking personally
and not in my capacity as Research Director) the UK and the United
States become signatories to UNIDROIT, and then I would like us
to go a little further to extend that back to the wartime period.
382. I am sure we will take your comments back
and reflect on them. This is a practical issue. If I find that
I am an owner, a Jewish owner, of a painting and I have been paid
the compensation, and then, 20 years later, you have turned up
and said, "I've found it," unfortunately I have already
spent the compensation money, because I never expected to find
the painting, you turn up with the painting, what happens between
the insurance company, the owner, the museum, or whatever?
(Professor Petropoulos) That is a very good question.
I do not know the legal answer to that. The answer I can give
you is what I have been told and is hearsay. What I have been
told is that the German Government, which is the Government that
has paid the most restitution in this respect, does not ask for
that compensation to be returned, that they say, "The sum
that we gave, back in the 1950s, was relatively small, especially
compared with the current value of the art work, and don't worry
about it;" and they are not asking for that compensation
back. That is what I have heard, and I do not know if that is
actually true or not, again, I would qualify this as rumour. And,
in terms of the insurance companies, I just do not know how they
are proceeding in this way, I think that is a very good question,
I wish I could help you.
383. My colleagues around the table are rather
bored when I ask this question, but I keep asking it. When you
buy a car you get a log-book, when eventually you buy a house
you can see who owned it and how much they paid for it, whenever,
but that is not possible for art, and you have sort of hinted
that there should be some sort of ownership or some sort of world
thing that you could do, which you could do via the Intranet or
a password system on the Net. Would you like to see that?
(Professor Petropoulos) Yes, absolutely, I would like
to see this. I realise there are going to be limitations to provenance
research and to our ability to know the history of ownership,
it is the nature of the art trade that it has always been secretive,
and sellers for years have wanted to conceal their identities,
and we are never going to have all the answers. But I think that
computers offer us tremendous possibilities, what can be done
now with computers and databases that were unthinkable, unimaginable,
years ago; and I think we should be very ambitious in our projects
and what we are going to do, and, ultimately, I think, a database
of art works with all their provenance is possible. Philippe de
Montebello, in his testimony on April 12, in New York, before
the Presidential Commission, said that there are only 20,000 European
paintings in all American museums, it is just paintings, mind
you, but 20,000; with a database today, that is manageable, we
could list every European painting in an American museum and talk
about provenance there. And one of the best practices I would
like to see discussed is a way for these databases to interface,
to be able to talk with one another. I know that at this point
this may be Utopian to believe that all the software can be made
compatible; but we put some of our best computer minds to the
task and before long the Metropolitan can speak to the Getty,
can speak to the Art Institute, can speak to Wichita, Kansas,
and I think we start there with provenance for every European
painting, and paintings are easiest, and we build from there.
And by the time my children are working on this project then perhaps
we will have databases for art works, and if we get the archives
opened up, we get the auction houses and the galleries to open
their archives, and most of them have not, to this point in time,
if we really comb the National Archives and sort through the millions
of documents. And, in testimony on Tuesday, in Baltimore, at a
conference of the American Museum Association, someone from the
National Archives in Washington DC said there are ten million
documents pertaining to cultural property in World War Two that
we have to look at, just in the National Archives in Washington
DC, and there is a lot of work to be done, but if we work at it
and use computers I think that there are tremendous possibilities,
and we should be ambitious in this respect.
384. I think we should relax about the ten million;
last week, we heard there were 600 million just in the National
History Museum, so ten seems small by contrast. There was a book
published here by Tom Bower, `Nazi Gold', which you may have come
across, which alleges many things, but which points to the Swiss
being responsible for actually the loot and the funding and the
finance of the market going to America. Do you support his view
on that?
(Professor Petropoulos) I would say this about Switzerland.
I think this is one of the great unwritten chapters in the history
of spoliation of art in World War Two. There is a fine book by
Swiss journalist Thomas Buomberger on the art trade in Switzerland,
but he has not really made a dent in the subject, to tell you
the truth. What transpired in Switzerland is still not known to
us in the field. Douglas Cooper, when he was working for the British
Government after World War Two and he went to Switzerland and
he wrote his famous report, identified 77 plundered art works
that had been laundered through Switzerland; the number is far,
far greater than that, there are thousands of works that went
through Switzerland, and it was a great clearing-house. We just
do not know what transpired, all our evidence is circumstantial,
it just hints at what transpired. But, because of Swiss law, which
allows people to get good title to an art work very, very quickly,
because of the culture (which starts with their banks) of secrecy,
because of the wealth and the number of art dealers there, because
of the geographic location, in the middle of the Continent, because
of the personal connections between the Swiss and Germans in particular,
it is clear that thousands of works went through Switzerland and
then went to other parts of Europe and to the United States. In
my book, in `The Faustian Bargain', where I write about the rehabilitation
of the careers of Nazi art experts, I was struck how many Nazi
art experts continued to be active in the art trade in the post-World
War Two period; and it is clear, from the correspondence, from
the paper trail, that they maintained close contact with their
colleagues in Switzerland, there is a Swiss connection in terms
of these Nazi art experts. And there was one case, that I talked
about in `The Faustian Bargain', where there was a theft from
the American central collecting point in Munich, and within two
weeks the paintings that had been stolen from Munich had crossed
the border and turned up in Switzerland; there is this trail,
there is this pipeline that took things directly to Switzerland.
And the American investigators did a very good job in this instance
and tracked down most of the works, not all of them, most of the
works that were stolen by this guard at the collecting point,
but they found them in Switzerland, they found them in the possession
of Nathan Katz, a famous Swiss dealer. It is quite clear that
Switzerland has been the great laundering centre for spoliated
art; but we do not know, there is still a culture of secrecy and
there are so many questions to be answered.
Derek Wyatt: You have helped us greatly;
thank you very much.
Ms Ward
385. Professor, obviously, given the passage
of time, it becomes more and more difficult to establish the evidence
to prove where these items came from. What sort of standard of
evidence do you think should be required to prove where the items
were looted from, and who is entitled to claim them?
(Professor Petropoulos) A good question. I would say
two things, in terms of research into looted art. I am not so
sure that it is more difficult now to trace the history of art
works than before; on the one hand, that is logical and makes
sense, and it is true insofar as we are every day losing eye-witnesses,
that victims, that perpetrators, that bystanders, eye-witnesses,
are dying every day, and they are valuable resources, and as they
pass away, yes, it becomes more difficult. But I think that, because
more people are working on this issue of looted art now, we are
actually making progress, that we are expediting the process of
recovering works that were looted and never restituted. When I
was reading the summary of the Matte«oli Commission Report
recently, I was struck by the fact that the French Government
has restituted 20 paintings from the so-called MNRs in 1999, and
since the mid 1990s the total number is 30, since 1994 it is 30,
so you see ten works that went back between 1994 and 1999, 20
in the past year. So we are picking up the pace here, and I think
that is because more of us are working on this issue, more archives
are being opened up, and I think that we are going to see an increasing
number of works identified that had never been properly restituted.
I think that in the next year the results are going to be quite
striking, especially as, to speak about the United States, American
museums come forward with the results of their self-studies, that
actually we are going to see a number of cases where paintings,
in particular, and then other works, sculptures and decorative
art, are identified. In terms of the evidentiary standards, one
of the most important accomplishments of the Washington Conference
on Holocaust Era Assets, in December 1998, and the Washington
Principles, and I included those Principles in my memorandum,
for the record, I see Anne Webber did as well, as a document,
is the Principle which says that, because it is very difficult
to prove conclusively ownership of a work, let us put it, the
standard should not be as high as perhaps in other cases, and
I think that is an important Principle. We need to use our intuition,
to some degree, we need to use perhaps even commonsense, and yet
there is a preponderance of evidence; if it is quite likely that
the work belonged to a family, I think that then the work should
go back to them, I do not think it has to be an iron-clad, open
and shut case, I think there just has to be compelling evidence.
And, yes, it is difficult to find all the links in the chain from
the looted work to its current owners, it is very rarely you can
put them all together, but if you have the majority of the links,
if the trail is quite clear; and maybe that is an area where we
should do some more work and come up with actual standards and
principles. But right now I am inclined to use intuition and feel,
and to highlight that Principle from the Washington Conference,
that the benefit of the doubt should go to the claimant.
386. But, as you say, inevitably, many of the
victims are dead or are dying, and we are now relying upon their
heirs to make the claims. Are we seeing an increase in claims
because they are taking up the mantle from their parents' generation
or their grandparents' generation, is that the reason why we are
seeing an increase in claims, or is it because there is more publicity
and more work is being done to encourage people to come forward;
and how do you bring families forward to look for items, or to
research for items, that may have been lost by their parents and
grandparents?
(Professor Petropoulos) That is another very good
question. I would first say, we should be aware that there were
many claims by victims and heirs right after World War Two, and
that the United States Department of State, the State Department,
has files of claims, on the part of victims and heirs, for works
that were never restituted, works that never passed through the
hands of the Allies. That was the best thing that could have happened
to an art work at war's end, that either the Americans or the
British or the French got hold of it, because then it would go
through the process and they had a fairly good chance of getting
it back; by and large, the restitution process worked. But, as
we well know, not all the works came into the hands of the Western
Allies. So, as a result, there are many claims by these survivors
and heirs, and these are in the National Archives in Washington
DC, I am just speaking about the American situation, and these
claims were ignored for many years, quite surprisingly. And one
of the projects that the Presidential Commission is undertaking
is creating a database of these original claims, because they
still exist and they are very rich resources, and we are hoping
to use computers to match these older claims from the late forties
and early fifties with the data in the computer databases, and
I think we might find some interesting matches there. So, in the
intervening years, since the late forties and fifties and the
present day, I think most victims and their heirs gave up hope
and did not think it was possible, for the reasons I discussed
earlier; but now, with the publicity, they are coming forward
again. Why are they coming forward again; I guess I think it is
they are survivors who think there is family property and they
have a right to it and they have a chance for it, because there
have been success stories. I think that there are some good advocacy
organisations too, perhaps not enough, and that is another issue
I think merits discussion, whether there should be another organisation
created to assist victims and their heirs. In the United States,
we have groups like, in New York State, the Holocaust Claims Processing
Office, and they are willing to represent individuals, not just
from New York. Monica Dugot, who is one of the employees at the
Holocaust Claims Processing Office, helped the Gomperz family
get back a work in the Raleigh Museum, a painting by Cranach that
was in the Raleigh Museum, and so, even though there was really
no New York collection, the Gomperz family was not in New York,
they are a very effective advocacy group in the United States;
but perhaps we need to do more, in that respect. But in the United
States, because of the Holocaust Claims Processing Office, because
of the World Jewish Congress, these advocacy groups are visible,
and I think this has been a spur to claims, and so on. I do not
know if that answers your question. But I think it is a combination
of those factors. There were claims in the late forties and fifties,
there are heirs now who have hope, and there are some effective
advocacy groups, and it is a combination; it is a very complex
situation.
387. But, essentially, they are claims that
were made in the forties and fifties and are being revived?
(Professor Petropoulos) Yes.
388. But claims that are registered already,
not new claims of an heir saying, "Well, you know, my grandmother
told me that during that time X article was looted, and I have
now decided that I am going to put in a claim, as the heir to
that"?
(Professor Petropoulos) I am glad you push me for
clarification. There are both older claims, from the late forties
and fifties, and, I have to say, they were lying dormant for many
years; they are on microfiche in the National Archives, and very
few people work with them, some researchers do, the best researchers
in the field work with them, someone like Willi Korte, whom you
have probably heard of, he works with them, but, by and large,
they are forgotten. But we are reviving them, because we realise
they are such a valuable resource, and if we are going to make
progress in terms of identifying works and facilitating the restitution
we need to use these older claims. But there are also efforts
to make new claims now, and the new claims are being made by these
advocacy groups, by their Holocaust Claims Processing Office,
by Gideon Taylor's organisation in New York too, by also the Commission
for Art Recovery, which is a branch of the World Jewish Congress,
it is a complex organisation. Connie Lowenthal is the Head of
the Commission of Art Recovery, her boss is Ronald Lauder, and
Ronald Lauder answers to Edgar Bronfman in the World Jewish Congress;
so, effectively, this Commission of Art Recovery is related to
the World Jewish Congress. And they had collected claims, they
had a database of claims, new claims, from survivors and heirs;
and so there are the new claims and there are the traditional
claims. And we have encouraged, I have encouraged, Connie Lowenthal
and Gideon Taylor to try to incorporate these historic claims
into the database, they should have a comprehensive claims database.[13]
We are working towards that, I think, but we have not yet arrived
at that point.
Mr Fearn
389. Can I just ask how many claims you have
been associated with, in legal cases, how many have been successful,
or have you not been associated with any legal claims?
(Professor Petropoulos) I have never been associated
really with any legal claims, and I played a role in Elaine Rosenberg
recovering a Monet painting, `Waterlilies'; the real credit should
go to Sarah Jackson and the Art Loss Register, but we worked together
on this in recovering a work that had been plundered by Joachim
von Ribbentrop. It happened to be illustrated in my first book,
in `Art as Politics in the Third Reich', and I happened to visit
with Elaine Rosenberg and she was working with Sarah Jackson and
the Art Loss Register, and we discovered that the painting was
on exhibition in Boston, in a travelling show, and, through a
very exciting turn of events, we found out where the location
of the painting was. And Mrs Rosenberg ultimately recovered that
painting; it had been in MNR, it had been held in trusteeship
by the French state. I played a role there but I would not describe
the process as a legal one. Generally, I avoid involvement in
legal processes. I am obliged to do that in my capacity as a consultant,
as employee for the Presidential Commission on Holocaust Assets
in the United States; that is our position, we try to avoid litigation.
We are not partisan and we try to help all sides, we try to work
with museums, in conducting their self-studies, we try to be of
service to claimants, we are willing to work with the art trade.
I have been approached by individuals involved in legal cases
and litigation and they have offered to hire me, but I have said
no. I am fortunate, I have a daytime job as an academic, and this
is not an area where I have chosen to involve myself.
390. How many cases have there been where museums
have returned, to your knowledge anyway, in the last few years?
(Professor Petropoulos) Not too many. In America,
there are three cases, there is the Art Institute of Chicago,
Degas, from Daniel Searle, that went to the Goodmans, there is
the North Carolina Raleigh Museum, that has the Gomperz Cranach,
the portrait of the Madonna, and there is the Seattle Art Museum
which has the Matisse `Odalisque', which went back to the Rosenberg
family. Previously, going back to the 1940s, there were works
that ended up in American museums that turned out to have been
looted, but they did not come from Holocaust victims, they were
stolen from German museums and they were taken by American GIs
and others, and they were discovered to have been looted and they
went back fairly quickly, usually without legal trials, it was
quite clear that these had been taken improperly by American soldiers
and they went back shortly after the war, most of those in the
late forties and fifties. So there are those cases as well. But
more recently there are just those three instances. There will
be more cases, I am not permitted to disclose these cases, I have
been spoken to in confidence by individuals, but I know that there
are some other claims in the works in the United States and there
are going to be some very interesting developments in the near
future. One legal case which I think is very interesting, and
the Committee should hear about, involves the Seattle Art Museum,
where, because the Matisse was clearly looted from the Rosenberg
family, taken by the ERR in France, the Seattle Museum decided
fairly early on that they would return the work to the Rosenberg
heirs. They wanted legal recourse, they wanted to get their money
back, if you will, and they tried to sue the dealer who had sold
it originally, the Knoedler Gallery, and they filed suit in the
State of Washington; and the suit was thrown out of court, was
dismissed, because, the judge said, the museum had not purchased
it directly from Knoedler, it was purchased by a benefactor, the
Bloedel family, who had given it to the museum. The Bloedel family
was willing to participate and assist the museum in the suit and
signed some affidavits and documents, and the Seattle Art Museum
has recently filed suit against the Knoedler Gallery in New York,
in the State of New York. And this is a trial that is currently
under way, and I think it is a very important trial, whether museums
can actually sue the dealers for selling these works that were
looted, and we are waiting to see the results.
391. And then, finally, Mr Chairman, what do
you consider to be `in good faith', as not a legal gentlemen?
(Professor Petropoulos) I do not know. I am perhaps
very idealistic and very naive. I think that good faith
should not be that important in these legal proceedings. I think
the issue is good title, and I believe that, for a stolen work,
one can never have good title for a stolen work, and whether it
is bought in good faith or bad faith that that work should go
back to the rightful owners, and I think that we should focus
our attention on good title. Maybe that is an area where we can
implement some legal reforms. In America, there is such a thing
as good title insurance for other types of acquisitions, you can
buy title insurance for houses, for other major acquisitions,
perhaps this is an area where the insurance industry can step
forward in offering title insurance for art works, I do not know;
again, maybe this is naive, but I think that the real issue
is good title. And I think that the situation in certain countries,
such as Switzerland, where one can have good title to stolen works,
is very problematic and is wrong, and I would like to see that
changed so that one can never have good title for a stolen work.
Mr Fearn: Thank you very much indeed.
Chairman: Professor Petropoulos, thank
you very much indeed. An extraordinarily interesting session,
for which we are most grateful.
13 Note by Witness: The Commission for Art Recovery
is no longer adding to its claims database. The disposition of
the material already collected remains unclear. Back
|
