Journal of Contemporary History

Introducing the Journal of Contemporary History Special Issue ‘The Restitution of Looted Art in the 20th Century’, this article proposes a framework for writing the history of looting and restitution in transnational and global perspective. By comparing and contextualizing instances of looting and restitution in different geographical and temporal contexts, it aims to overcome existing historiographical fragmentations and move past the overwhelming focus on the specificities of Nazi looting through an extended timeframe that inserts the Second World War into a longer perspective from the nineteenth century up to present day restitution practices. Particular emphasis is put on the interlinked histories of denazification and decolonization. Problematizing existing analytical, chronological and geographical frameworks, the article suggests how a combination of comparative, entangled and global history approaches can open up promising new avenues of research. It draws out similarities, differences and connections between processes of looting and restitution in order to discuss the extent to which looting and restitution were shaped by – and shaped – changing global networks.

Who are to be the successors of European Jewry? This question faced Jewish leaders after the Holocaust, in terms both legal – inheriting heirless property – as well as spiritual – carrying forward Jewish culture. Looted Jewish property was never merely a matter of inheritance. Instead, disputes revolved around the future of Jewish life. While Jewish restitution organizations sought control of former communal property to use around the world, some German-Jewish émigrés and survivors in Germany sought to establish themselves as direct successors to former Jewish communities and institutions. Such debates set the stage and the stakes for mass archival transfer to Israel/Palestine in the 1950s. The fate of the German Jewish communal archives highlights the nature of postwar restitution debates as proxy for the issue of the continuation of Jewish culture and history, calling into question the nature of restitution itself. As opposed to policies of proportional allocation to meet the needs of radically diminished Jewish communities, wholesale transfer of archives reflected a belief in a radical rupture in German Jewish existence as well as Israel’s position as successor to European Jewry. The fate of the archives, which broke with archival practices of provenance, concretized and validated the historical rupture represented by the Holocaust.

This article discusses art dealers who trafficked in looted art during the Third Reich and how they re-established networks and continued their trade in the postwar period. I argue that these dealers worked within a series of overlapping networks. A primary network was centered in Munich, with dealers such as Dr. Bruno Lohse (Göring’s art agent in Paris during the war); Maria Almas Dietrich, Karl Haberstock, Walter Andreas Hofer, and Adolf Wüster. These individuals worked closely with colleagues in Austria, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein (states contiguous with Bavaria) in the postwar years. Many of the individuals in outer appendages of the networks had not been complicit in the Nazis’ plundering program, yet they trafficked in looted works and formed dealer networks that extended to Paris, London, and New York. Both the recently discovered Gurlitt cache – over 1400 pictures located in Munich, Salzburg, and Kornwestheim – and the annotated Weinmüller auction catalogues help illuminate aspects of these networks. Art dealers played a key role in the looting operations during the Third Reich and in the transfer of non-restituted objects in the postwar period. The current generation of the profession may be the key to advancing our understanding of a still incomplete history.

Research on the circulation of artworks between Europe and the Americas superficially examined the role played by Portugal-based individuals in the trade of looted art in the immediate postwar period. Since then, however, cultural studies have ignored the interactions between Portuguese museums and collectors, and refugees and expatriates involved in the trade, as well as the role played by Portugal in the transatlantic circulation of artworks. This article has two goals: first, to examine the lack of academic engagement in the study of the transactions and provenance of artworks in Portugal between 1933 and 1945; second, to ascertain the existence and demonstrate the utility of Portuguese sources in conducting this study, by focusing on what they reveal about art dealer Karl Buchholz. Through an outline of the main areas of research, this article discusses Portuguese academic practice and museum practice. It identifies and contextualizes biases and opens the door for academic attention to Nazi-era provenance research. Portuguese sources illustrating the activity of Karl Buchholz in Portugal between 1943–5 enable a reconstruction of the chronology of his exhibitions in Lisbon and a partial identification of the artworks exhibited.

France was massively affected by Nazi looting and plundering, and was also probably one of the most successful countries in securing the return of cultural property. Drawing on recently opened Archives, this article reflects on the entangled history of the ‘recovery’ of works of art in Soviet occupation zones, in Poland, Czechoslovakia and in the GDR, focusing on the French investigations in the East. The micro history of this fieldwork allows for an interpretation of looting and restitution as a transnational moment of political and memory construction. The article first presents the organization of missions in the changing landscape of Europe, leading to the beginning of an East-West relationship on the ground. Then it analyses French and Soviet visions of the notion of looting, restitution and cultural property and finally concludes by attempting to interpret a loss of memory.

This article evaluates the US ‘Monuments Men’ operations in Korea, focusing on wartime and postwar efforts undertaken by the government of the USA to preserve and restore artwork seized by Japan. The Asian initiative, conceived a year after the European model was established, likewise drew upon cultural, intellectual, and academic resources. Yet fundamental differences in personnel, perceptions of Korean cultural backwardness, prevailing imperialist attitudes, and Cold War sensibilities rendered a very different kind of project. Ultimately the ‘Monuments Men’ succeeded primarily in preserving the cultural patrimony of Japan, but it failed to recover any plundered objects from Korea, or the rest of Asia for that matter. Focusing on the US deliberations regarding repatriation of Korean looted art, this article lays bare both the US preoccupation with maintaining the national interests of its newest ally, and exposes an understanding of East Asian cultural hierarchy that privileged Japan’s artistic achievement and modern society above all.

In May 1962 French museum administrators removed over 300 works of art from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Algiers and transported them, under military escort, to the Louvre in Paris. The artwork, however, no longer belonged to France. Under the terms of the Evian Accords it had become the official property of the Algerian state-to-be and the incoming nationalist government wanted it back. This article will examine not only the French decision to act in contravention of the Evian Accords and the ensuing negotiations that took place between France and Algeria, but also the cultural complexities of post-colonial restitution. What does it mean for artwork produced by some of France’s most iconic artists – Monet, Delacroix, Courbet – to become the cultural property of a former colony? Moreover, what is at stake when a former colony demands the repatriation of artwork emblematic of the former colonizer, deeming it a valuable part of the nation’s cultural heritage? The negotiations undertaken to repatriate French art to Algeria expose the kinds of awkward cultural refashioning precipitated by the process of decolonization and epitomizes the lingering connections of colonial disentanglement that do not fit neatly into the common narrative of the ‘end of empire'.

This article questions how the return of cultural property from metropolitan centers of former colonial powers to the successor states of former colonies have been considered positive – if rare – examples of post-colonial redress. Highlighting UNESCO-driven publicity about the transfer of materials from the Netherlands to Indonesia, and tracing nearly 30 years of diplomacy between these countries, demonstrates that the return of cultural property depended on the ability of Dutch officials to vindicate the Netherlands’ historical and contemporary cultural roles in the former East Indies. More than anything, returns were influenced by the determination of Dutch officials to find and maintain a secure cultural role in Indonesia in the future. This article also considers how Dutch policies were initially independent from, but later coincided with, the anti-colonial activism that emerged within the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) around the issue of cultural property return to former colonies. Yet, rather than reveal a mediating role for UNESCO, this article re-positions the return debate within a broader framework of shifting post-colonial cultural relations negotiated bilaterally between the Netherlands – as a former colonial power – and the leaders of the newly independent state of Indonesia.

US attitudes towards restitution and the problem of looted antiquities have shifted since 1970, as pressure builds to change norms for the acquisition of unprovenanced artefacts that have fueled a transnational trade in stolen objects and the depredation of archaeological sites worldwide. This article traces several triggers for change and initial steps towards a revised policy while also cataloguing areas of resistance. It examines the mechanisms of US government policy for international heritage protection and suggests that domestic legislation of the 1990s protecting the heritage of Native Americans has played a significant role in changing museum attitudes and policies. The new transparency for indigenous artifacts has produced museum displays that address their ownership history, larger social context and the distinctly different values assigned them by various groups. For classical antiquities, in contrast, attention to aesthetics still trumps such vital contextual information. This article suggests a different approach, one that showcases the biography of the object, its various lives or contexts, and the way different stakeholders have valued it over time. By drawing attention to restitution and the looting of heritage sites, such an approach better explains the history of the work of art and the continued importance of antiquity today.

During the summer of 1975, a year after the Carnation Revolution, thousands of Portuguese men and women took to the streets in order to prevent what they feared could be a communist takeover. A military-led government had trumpeted the transition to socialism and the Armed Forces Movement was discussing the dissolution of the recently elected constitutional convention. This article offers a new account of the significance and political impact of the anti-communist rallies, demonstrations and riots during 1975 and provides an interpretation of the mechanisms by which anticommunist mobilization empowered moderate leaders and reversed the balance of power within the military, playing a crucial role in the triumph of electoral democracy.

In 1945 Europe was a vast graveyard. The diaspora of the dead was perhaps most prominent in Germany, where the dead of the four occupying forces were spread across the country. As the allies worked through the postwar settlement with Germany, they considered another pressing question: How to treat the dead? The case of occupied Germany highlights different approaches to commemoration. Soviet officials commemorated the war dead as symbols of the collective sacrifice of the USSR in Eastern Europe, while the western allies desired to identify and rebury fallen soldiers to meet the expectations of their domestic audiences.

Despite these differences, the politics of the sacred surrounding the dead necessitated that the allies engage one another. As the occupation regimes of France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America embarked on their mission to retrieve their dead from the Soviet zone, USSR officials reacted with skepticism and hostility. But rather than rejecting what they viewed as attempts at espionage, Soviet officers traded the western dead for their own sacred mission – the chance to return living Soviet repatriates from the western zones of occupation. Even as animosity grew in the emerging Cold War, occupation officials made uneasy compromises across the iron curtain.

This article is a study of the national holiday of 12 October, one of the most long-lasting and least transitory of the symbolic components of Spanish nationalism. Transnational in nature, this celebration of Spain’s existence constitutes an exception among similar national holidays, in that it is based upon the country’s role in the Americas and nostalgia for empire as founding elements of national identity. By analysing the changing ways in which this anniversary was celebrated in the course of the twentieth century, in rituals and language, the article highlights both the different imaginaries that were evoked and the roles played by particular actors and institutions in different stages of the construction of the national state and the definition of the regional and local identities of which it is composed. Our analysis of the progress of this celebration, from its inception in the late nineteenth century to the present day, as first Fiesta de la Raza, then Día de la Hispanidad and now just ‘National Day’, suggests that its durability, which has been maintained for nearly a century, stems from the notably ductile nature of the myths associated with it. Adaptable to regimes and political challenges of varied kinds, this commemoration melds together the inheritance of liberalism, the national-Catholic tradition and ‘regionalized nationalism’, all of which have been key elements in Spanish political history in the twentieth century.