-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/7de8eb7e4110e66fb9222b7e6ba5bfed.pdf
f015bec5c637073ae7635282951667bc
PDF Text
Text
ru
I
I '
'\
,
I
i
I
, I
,
i
,
I
,i
I
i
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF
THE PRESIDE,NTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON
,
,
HOLOCAUS~ ASSETS IN THE UNITED STATES
,
I '
,
I
Noveniber 3, 2000 '
�TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
I. INTRODUCTION ...... ............. ~" .. : ................. "............................... 1
A. \;he Creation of the Presidential Advisory Commission on
kHolocaust Assets in the United States ............................................... l
B. he Commission's Work .............................................................. .3
C. The Historical Context.. ................................................................6
D. Overview of the Commission's Findings ............................................9
II.
FINDINGS ..... .......................................................................... 12
I
A. Implementati$n of Restitution Policy in Europe .................................. 12
1. Victims' Ilssets were restituted to countries and organizations, not
.individuails......................................................................... 12
2. German officials were entrusted with restitution responsibilities .......... 14
3. Strict deadlines created a narrow window for claims and some
victims' assets were therefore transferred to Germany and Austria ....... 15
4. Austrian qfficials were entrus~ed with restitution responsibilities ......... 16
5. Political tonsiderations impeded the restitution process ................... 17
6. Problems! at central collecting points and government warehouses
impeded the identification of victims' assets ................................ 18
B. Implementati~n of Re~titution Policy in the United States ..................... 19
,
1. Claims procedures for restitution were flawed ............................... 19
2. Restitutidn efforts of recipient countries were not monitored .............20
3. Duty waslassessed on victims' assets .........................................21
4. The $500~000 lump sum settlement of Office of Alien Property
claims w~s inadequate.......................................................... 21
C. Agreements ~egotiated by the Commission in the Public and Private
"Sectors....... ~ ......................................................................... 21
1. The Libnlry of Congress has agreed to recognize the provenance
of certain! books in its collection that had been looted by the Nazis ...... 21
2. The National Gallery of Art has agreed to mount a plaque
reflectingl the doubtful provenance of a painting in its collection ......... 24
3. The Commission has identified dormant bank accounts and other
unclaimed property of Holocaust victims in the United States, and
significan:t members of the banking industry have agreed to endorse
suggested best practices for the investigation of bank records
regarding: such accounts ........................ ,...............................26
4. The museum community has agreed to full disclosure of
Holocaust-era works and their provenance .................................. 29
I
"
I
I
I
III.
THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS .. .32
IV.
RECOMMENDJATIONS .................... .........
I
,
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINAL DRAFT - NOT FOR CIRCULATION "
I
1112/00
:b.-~9
PU;
36
�I
J.
INTRODUCTION
A.
The Creation of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in
the United States
I
The Presidential Advisory CO,mmission on Holocaust Assets in the United States was created by P.L.
105-186, which was passed with unanimous bi-partisan support in the Congress and signed into law
I
by President Clinton on June ~3, 1998.' The 21-member Commission, chaired. by Edgar M.
Bronfman, is charged by stattite to.:
I
•
"conduct a thorough study and develop a historical record of the collection and
I
I ·
.
.
disposition ofIthe assets [of Holocaust victims f if such assets came into the
I
possession or hontrol
~f the Federa~ government, including the Board of Gove~ors of
I
the Federal
•
R~serve
,
System and any Federal Reserve bank;"
"review comprehensively any research" by others "into the collection and
,
disposition" of assets of Holocaust victims "to the extent that such research focuses
I
on assets that
entities, or
~ame
into the possession or control of private individuals, private
no~- Federal government entities within the United States;" and
i
,
•
"submit a final report to the President that shall contain any recommendation for such
I
legislative,adrpinistrative, or other action as it deems necessary or appropriate." The
I
i
!
I
.
.
A list of the members of the Commission appears as Appendix A.
For purposes of the Commission's work, we have defined "victim" to mean an individual who was deprived of his or her
civil or political rights on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation. We have defined
"Holocaust-era assets" to mean assets that were in existence between' 1933 and 1945, whether or not they belonged to
victims, as defined above. "Victims'; assets'" a-more-Itmltea category co~d of Holocaust-era assets that belonged to
those victims.
.
.
Flli~AL DRAFT - NOT FOR CIRCULAnON
I
2
I
.
1112/00 2:46 PM
�2
President the? "shall submit to the Congress any recommendations" that he
"considers necessary or appropriate." 3
I
Research into the historical catastrophe known as the Holocaust serves several purposes. By
documenting the actual events, it helps to create an irrefutable record that forever locates that period
in world history. By revealing previously unknown details, it assists in extending some measure of
!
justice to those scarred by the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis and their
I
.
collaborators. By promotingianalysis and confronting the question "Why?," historical investigation
I
helps all nations and societie~ decipher lessons for the future conduct of human affairs. For these
reasons, the international cocimunity has found many ways to support and promote Holocaust-era
I
i
research.
I
The Commission believes thdt a review of the American historical record is important because
I
I
Americans should know howlI their government dealt with the assets looted from victims of the Nazis
.
.
I
that came into its possession.; Such an accounting is consistent with the moral imperative to
I
remember, and learn from, th~ darkest period in modern times. This work may also ultimately assist
t
I
.
some victims or their heirs tol recover property stolen from them years ago. Thus, the Commission's
I
very existence is significant, helping our country, in President Clinton's words, to "begin this new
millennium standing on high~r ground. ,,4
I
The U.S. Holocaust Assets Commission Act of 1998, 22 USC 1621 (note). The full text of the statute can be found in
Appendix B.
4 Remarks by President Clinton to the World Jewish Congress's "Partners in History: A Tribute," The Grand Ballroom,
The Pierre Hotel, New York, New york, September 11,2000.
3
�3
This document sets forth the tritical findings of the Commission regarding the collection and
disposition by the United States of the assets of Holocaust victims, and the Commission's policy .
•
I
.
recommendations based on diose findings.
B.
The Commission's Work
The findings grow out of the ~ommission's consideration of extensive original historical research
i
I
(contained in Plunder and Re~titutiol1: The United States and Holocaust Victims' Assets, the Staff
,
Report to the PresidentialAd~isory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States), as well
,
I
as the Commission's hearings and participation in conferences and meetings, the professional
I
.
expertise and personalexperi~nceofthe Commissioners, and other information-gathering efforts.S.
The Commission consideredJhe Staff Report and deliberated over findings and policy
recommendations over the cdufse of nine meetings. At these meetings, the Commissioners sought to
i
advance the understanding of the U.S. government's handling of the assets of victims of the
I
Holocaust by planning and setting the parameters of the research effort. They met with experts on
"
archival research, on tracking financial assets, and on how best to secure the release of classified
!
documents. The Commissio~ appreciates the extremely helpful presentations' by Michael Kurtz,
I
.
Assistant Archivist for Recotd,s Services at the National Archives and member of the Nazi War
Criminal Records Interagency Working Group, and Irwin Nack, Investigative Counsel with the New
i
'
I
'
. York State Banking Departnient. The Commission consulted the Departments of State, Treasury and'
Justice, the New York State Holocaust Claims Processing Office, the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims Against Germany, arid the comptrollers of the State and City of New York, among others.
I
I
!
I
r
.
5
I
For a complete listing of the actiJ,ities of the Commission, see Appendix C.
:
.
�4
i
The Commissioners also revi~wed research papers prepared by the staff and grappled with a wide
range of policy recommendat:ions.
!
In addition to its regular worRing meetings, the Commission held a hearing on art and cultural
J
property in New York City on April 12, 2000. The hearing brought together experts from the
museum community, the art trade and organizations that assist victims in making their claims for
cultural property looted frqm!their families. It facilitated a dialogue on the responsibilities of the art .
J
world toward victims, their h6irs, and the pUblic. 6
I
I
i
The Commission benefited frbm the results of the London Conference on Nazi Gold (December
.
I
I
.
1997) and the Washington Cqnference on Holocaust Assets (December 1998), and participated in the
. Stockholm International Foru~m on the Holocaust (January 2000) and the Vilnius International Forum
on Holocaust-Era Cultural Assets (October 2000). In addition, Commission staff held meetings
I
abroad and in Washington with representatives and scholars from Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Belgium, the Czech Republic; Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico,
the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
!
The Commission staff also convened a panel of outside experts to comment on the draft report. In
I
i
September 2000, Dr. Jeffrey Clarke bfthe Center of Military History, Professor Marion Deshmukh
I
of George Mason University,:Professor Gerald Feldman of the University of California, Berkeley,
I
Professor Peter Hayes of Northwestern University, Dr. Martin Dean of the United States Holocaust
I
Memorial Museum, author L~nn Nicholas, Professor Jonathan Steinberg of the University of
I
i
I
·
.
Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, Hearing on Art and Cultural Property, New
York, NY, April 12,2000.
i
.
6
�5
Pennsylvania, and Dr. Elizabbth White of the Justice Department's o"ffice of Special Investigations
reviewed the staff draft and otfered recommendations.
In addition to overseeing the preparation of the historical report, the Commission worked to develop
suggested "best practices" fo~ banks and corporations that should govern those entities' conduct of
their own investigations. Be~ause the overwhelming majority of foreign assets were originally on
,
. deposit in New York State, the Commission worked with the New York State Bankers Association
and several of its members to encourage them to develop best practices to assure the transparency of
!
the research into various assets of those who may have become victims of the Holocaust. Those
~
;
assets include:IO) dormant b1fnk accounts; (2) interest and dividend payments that might have
accrued to shareholders or bond holders; and (3) dormant safe deposit boxes. These discussions have
resulted in a set of suggested best practices that can be endorsed by banking associations and
I
followed by individual banks!
The Commission, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), and the American Association
of Museums (AAM) agreed that the museum community would affirm its commitment to a series of
standards to govern provenan?e research about art from the Holocaust era, including full disclosure
and publication of that resear~h on the Internet in a central and accessible registry. Commissioners
and staff also held discussions with representatives of the art trade, including the' Art Dealers
Association of America and Christie's Auction House, and hope to conclude a similar agreement
.
I
before the Commission's man:date expires.
tfJ~
"/
I
The Commission has contribJted to ongoing art provenance research in two ways: (I) through the
posting on its website of two
~merican intelligence reports onfe:nann Goering and Adolf Hitler
�i
6
i
I
, I
collections; and (2) through tpe development of a database for outstanding claims for certain items of
,
I '
art and cultural property
coll~cted
,
.
between 1952-1956 by Ardelia Hall, the Arts and Monuments
I
Advisor in the Department o~ State. Hall initially proposed that the claims be published in leading
!
'
U.S. art magazines, but this plan was never implemented and only a few experts are aware of the
i
information she collected. This information has not been widely consulted in the last.45 years.
I
Posting this database in a sea~chable form on the Internet will help museum officials to research the
..
I
provenance of works in their collections and help claimants recover lost or stolen art works. The
.
I ·'
,
,
,
'
Commission;s database coulq become the first step toward the realization of the more comprehensive
,
. I
claims database it recommends below.
Finally, the Commission wishes to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of members of the
I
I
stafe Their dedication and h~rd work multiplied their talents as historians, policy analysts,
diplomats and managers. Beqause of their unique work as a team, the Commission believes that the
goal of expanding the world'~ knowledge and understanding of the role of the United States in its
I
,
management of Holocaust era: assets has been well met. The Commission here thanks each of them
for their efforts.
C.
.
The Historical Context .
,
I
I
I
There has been an increased focus on the Holocaust and its consequences in recent years. Many
,
,
factors have contributed to this heightened awareness, including the intransigence of Swiss banks, the
activities of European insuranFe companies, the recognition of the experiences of slave and forced
laborers, the fall of communis'm and the commitment to democratic and open societies in formerly
7
For a list of staff contrib~ting to
Commission's work, see Appendix D.
�7
1.
communist countries. There ~s also a general sense that the closing of the millennium demands that
Western society seek to effect the maximum measure ofjustice possible for the victims of Nazi
I
'
crimes. As a result, many governments, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals
began or renewed efforts to g~rapple with aspects of their records regarding the collection and
,
.
restitution of the assets of Holocaust victims.
I
Research has helped to shed l;ight on this history. The United States carried out pioneering studies on
the role ofthe neutral countries in supporting the German war effort and on the fate of gold looted by
the Nazis from central banks and individuals. s Policy makers from countries as diverse as Argentina,
i
France, Lithuania, and Swed~n realized the importance of revisiting painful episodes from their pasts
if history was to be properly
.convened commissions to
~erved.
Numerous other countries in Europe and Latin America
ex~mine the records of their governments, banks, and other institutions. 9
i
In 1997, many of these countries gathered for the London Conference on Nazi Gold, and the
following year the United States convened the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, the
i
I
.
first major international gath~ring to address the fate of the entire spectrum of looted assets,
including art and cultural proberty.IO The Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, held in
,
I
January 2000, and the
Vilniu~
International Forum onHolocaust-Eni Looted Cultural Assets, held in
October 2000, were the latest major meetings of concerned nations to reflect the continued
U.S. Department of State, PrelimiJary Study on U.S. and Allied Efforts To Recover'and Restore Gold and Other Assets
Stolen of Hidden by Germany During World War II, coordinated by Stuart E. Eizenstat and prepared by William Z. Siany
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office), May 1997; U.S. Department of State, U.S. and Allied Wartime and
Postwar Relations and Negotiations :with Argentina. Portugal, Spain. Sweden, and Turkey of Looted Gold and German
External Assets and U.S. Concerns About the Fate of the Wart'ime Ustasha Treasury, coordinated by Stuart E. Eizenstat
and prepared by William Z. Siany (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office), June 1998.
9 For a list of countries and commissions addressing the issue of assets of Holocaust victims, see Appendix E.
10 Nazi Gold: Transcript of The London Conference (London: The Stationary Office), 1997; ~~~~~=
Washington Conference on HolocaJst-Era Assets(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office), 1998.
,
,
.
8
�8
commitment of the world to focus attention on the Holocaust and increase efforts to recognize the
I
I
scope of its crimes.
i
I
The United States has been an.d remains a leader in these international efforts. The work of the
I
I
'
Presidential Advisory Commission continues this country's quest for the truth, and demonstrates that
I
I·
the United States has asked of itself no less than it has asked of the international community.
The Commission's goal is to describe, as completely and as clearly as the documentary evidence
1
permits, the record of the United States government in dealing with victims' assets during the
Holocaust and subsequent years. The Commission is not a restitution commission charged with
.
I
.
j
locating and returning assets. I Rather, Congress directed it to write the history of the collection and
I
I
r
disposition of assets that cam into the possession and control of the Federal government of the
I
United States. In so doing, th1e Commission is mindful of the point emphasized more than 40 years
I
I
I
ago by the Conference on JevYish Material Claims Against Germany that "the compensation sought
I
I
I
was for material losses suffered by Nazi victims and was not in reparation for moral wrongs inflicted.
I
Those wrongs were irreparable in their totality .... "II
While the Commission has fo'cused its recommendations to the President on themes that directly
address aspects of our government's record in handling the assets of Holocaust victims, it does not
I
believe that the examination qfthe role of the United States during the Holocaust era should be
I
limited to the topics addresse4 by the Commission. Fortunately, the work of research, remembrance
and education -- without limit~tion as to scope -- is being conducted by otherinstitutions both within
and outside the Federal government. The work of the Congress, the National Archives and Records
�9
Administration, the' Office of'Holocaust Issues in the Department 'of State, the President's Special
,.
Envoy on Holocaust Issues, the Office of Special Investigations of the Department of Justice, the
i
Inter-Agency Working
.
i
Grou~
on the Declassification of Nazi Era Documents, the U.S. Holocaust
i
Memorial Museum, and many private organizations, individual scholars and advocates all contribute
r
I
to a broader understanding
D.
o~ the
Holocaust and America's role during that period.
Overview of the Commission's Findings
,
,
The Commission has concluded that United States forces in Europe made extraordinary efforts to
locate, safeguard, identify and restitute assets taken by the Nazis and their collaborators from victims
I
of the Holocaust. Because of the enormity of Nazi crimes, the undertaking by U.S. agencies to
preserve, protect, and return looted assets was unparalleled in history and willingly carried out by a
. victorious power committed to righting the. wrongs of a defeated enemy regime. U.S. military and
,
I'
civilian personnel encounterqd a myriad of obstacles under the very difficult circumstances
!.
I
prevailing in post-war Europe. Their achievements were nothing short of heroic.
I
I
Nevertheless, the restitution policy formulated in Washington, D.C. and implemented in the countries
I
in Europe occupied by the Upited States could never fully address the unimaginable dimension and
complexity of restituting ass~ts to victims of the Holocaust. For the most part, the inadequacies in
both policy and implementation reveal that U.s. authorities were driven by necessity. They were'
often unable to restitute all of the victims' assets under their control because of practical concerns that
1
.
commingled with conflicting interests, priorities and political considerations. Restitution competed
!
'
.
with, and was often subordi~ated to, the desire to bring American troops home, the need to rebuild
,
I
devastated European econon}ies and provide humanitarian assistance to millions of displaced
II
Five Years Later. Activities of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, i 959.
I
�10
persons, and the Cold War. These shortcomings can be partially explained as an unintended
!
I
consequence of adherence tolinternationallegal principles, but the Commission's research has also
' I
.
I
revealed that, when it came to assigning scarce manpower and resources, the United States accorded
I
.
,
a relatively low priority to restoring the looted assets and lost property rights ofindividual victims
i
and their heirs.
.
.
I
With respect to many types of assets, the United States followed international legal tradition and
j
undertook only to restore property to national governments, which it assumed would be responsible
for satisfying the claims of t~eir citizens. When the United States recognized that this arrangement
I
excluded those who no longer had a nation to represent their interests, or who had fallen victim to the
ruthless efficiency of Nazi genocide and whose property had been rendered heirless and
unidentifiable, it designated dertain "successor organizations" to sell heirless and unclaimed property
I
•
I
and apply the proceeds to the: care, resettlement, and rehabilitation of victims. This innovation'
!
seemed to present an attractive alternative to the difficult and resource-intensive job of tracing
I
I
individual ownership, but its :adoption led many assets to be too hastily labeled as heirless or
i
.
unidentifiable, with the result that they were assigned to the successor organizations, rather than
I,
returned to their rightful owners.
f
Far more regrettable is the United States' failure to adequately assist victims, heirs, and successor
!
' .
organizations to identify victims' assets, instead relying upon them to present their own claims, often
I
I
within unrealistically short d~adlines, with the result that much victim property was never recovered.
I
.
Even when property was returned to individual owners or their heirs, it was often only after
protracted, expensive, and in~ensitive administrative proceedings that yielded settlements far less
than the full value of the assets concerned.
�11
,r
While the overall record of the United States is one in which its citizens can legitimately take pride,
even the most. far-sighted anq best-intentioned policies intended to restitute stolen property to its
:
country of origin failed to realize the goal of returning property to the victims who suffered the loss.
Indeed, there remain today many survivors or heirs of survivors who have not had restored to them
that which the Nazis looted. iAnd, in large part, it will remain forever impossible to return the actual
I
I
assets stolen from them over !fifty years ago.
The uniqueness of the
Holoc~ust
does not negate its ability to offer lessons for the behavior of
government in other contexts~ and the Commission also believes that it is important that these
I
findings lead our government to develop policies to promote the preservation and resti.tution of the
i
assets of victims of persecution associated with future armed conflicts.
I
It is an enduring strength of American democracy that we can look honestly at the results of our
!
I
actions, address their implica~ions, and assess accountability and responsibility. In setting forth the
following findings, the Comrltission does not imply that failures of policies to accomplish their goals
are attributable to bad motive~ on the part of any official, agent or institution of the United States.
Where combinations of policy and circumstance led to results that can be improved upon now, the
Commission suggests ways to achieve these improvements. Where new facts have come to light that
I
argue for changes in policy, the Commission proposes appropriate changes. The findings that are
I
associated with particular policy recommendations are meantto locate those recommendations in the
historical context and not to mechanistically quantify or assign dollar values to perceived historical
shortcomings in U.S. policy making or implementation.
!
�12
The Commission believes th~t this history, viewed as a whole, suggests that a series of actions to be
taken now are appropriate to provide a modicum of justice to Holocaust victims and their heirs. It is
I
the desire to do justice, we b¢lieve, that animates American policy in this area, including this
Commission's recommendations.
I
I
II.
FINDINGS
A.
Implementa~ion of Restitution Policy in Europe
,
1.
Victims' assets were restituted to countries and organizations, not
individuals.
i
United States authorities generally restituted those victims' assets that came under U.S. control to the
national government of their ~ountry of origin or to international relief or successor organizations,
i
rather than to the individual ~wner or heir. This was a pragmatic but flawed solution to the idealistic
aim of returning stolen assets: to individuals.
I
I
.!
I
"External restitution," as it was known, refers to the process whereby U.S. authorities returned
,
~
I
certain categories of assets --:-lcultural property, securities, machinery, heavy agricultural and
.
.
i
industrial equipment, locomo;tives, rolling stock, barges, transportation equipment, and
.communication and power equipment -- found in Germany or Austria to the governments of the
,
i
countries from which they were stolen. Assets were restituted once the country of origin could be
,
.
identified, and missions sent by other governments helped to identify assets that were subject to
restitution. In cases where as:sets were restituted in this manner, the nicipient government bore the
I
responsibility to locate the rightful owner and to restitute the property turned over to it by U.S.
�13
authorities. The Commission has found no evidence that the United States monitored the recipient
I
<::ountries' compliance with
a)
..
t~ese
responsibilities.
I Currencies were returned to the government of issue;
One anomaly in the external testitutlon process involved currencies. Currencies that appeared to
i
have been seized by Germany in defeated countries were returned to the government of is~ue rather
than to the country from whi~h they were seized. In most cases it was impossible to establish
i
whether currencies were
loot~d or acquired legitimately from a country before or during the period of
I
I
I
German occupation. This policY precluded the restitution of this type of asset to individual victims
I
or successor organizations bepause, by definition, any currency could be restituted to the government
of issue.
There were two exceptions tOI this broad policy: first, the Soviet Union received Hungarian,
Romanian, Bulgarian, and
Fi~nish
currencies; and second, the currency held in the Melmer account
of looted victims.' assets recovered from the Merkers mine was turned over to the InterI
I
Governmental Committee on ~efugees (IGCR).
I
. b)
•
,
! Victims' assets were turned over to humanitarian
: organizations.
In cases where assets were rdtituted or,released to successor or relief organizations, individual
concerns were not ignored;
th~y
,
were, however, subordinated to collective needs. Property that was
'
I
identified as having been loot~d from Jews or Jewish communal institutions, but was heirless and
I
I
unclaimed, was released to the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization (JRSO). The JRSO was
I
the only successor organization designated by U.S. authorities to claim heirless Jewish property.
�14
The United States, as a signatory to the Paris Reparations Agreement (january 194<;», turned over all
captured "non-monetary" gold in its possession to an agency known successively as the Inter
I
Governmental Committee on: Refugees (IGCR), the Preparatory Commission for the International
I
Refugee Organization (PCIRb), and finally the International Refugee Organization (IRO). A general
I
humanitarian impulse" intersecting with fiscal concerns noted by the Department of State, influenced
I
the American decision to adopt a broad definition of "non-monetary" gold as valuable personal
"
property (other than cultural broperty) that had been looted by the Nazis and was unidentifiable, so
I
I
that the IGCR might amass the sums necessary to address the needs of refugees and displaced
persons. These decisions ch~nneled needed funds to the refugee organization and also had the effect
I
I
of decreasing the financial bJ,rden on the United St~tes of supporting the refugees.
iI
2.
Genrian officials were entrusted with restitution responsibilities.
I
U.S. officials repeatedly emphasized that in Germany the administration of restitution to victims
I
("internal restitution") shoul:d be handled by Germans. This policy caused delays in restitution to
individual claimants. Not sJrprisingly, many Germans who "owned" property that might have
I
I
been looted hesitated beforeiacceding to claims brought against "their" property. By the end of
I
the war, victims' assets permeated the German economy. The first Lander (German state)
I
I
representatives charged
wit~ drafting restitution legislation knew as early as 1946 that such laws
.1
I
'
would prove unpopular and refused to enact measures that reflected the U.S. Government's
,
insistence on a presumption :of duress (i.e., U.S. authorities presumed that any transfer of
,
property from persecutees frbm September 15, 1935 to May 8, 1945 was done under duress). In
1949, German "owners" sought to delay proceedings evidently because they believed the severity
I
•
of the law would soon be mitigated after the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany
in May of that year. Many qerman citizens affected by the laws believed that the U.S. Military
�15
,
'
.
Government would ultimately amend them, so they undertook efforts to delay any restitution .
. Some Germans in .possession of Aryanized property waited until the last possible moment to
respond to restitution notic~s and then requested postponements of hearings.
In addition, some German restitution officials fOlmerly had served the defeated Reich; U.S.
authorities relied on the problematic denazification process to identify them. American Property
.
I
,
'
. '
Division officers in Bavaria! and Baden-Wuerttemberg noted in 1949 that there was resistance to
.restitution laws. American bfficials were aware that cases involving influential people were
I
'
,
'.
.
.
being postponed and that th+ restitution program might follow along the lines of denazification -
I
the more prolonged the prodedure, the more favorable the decision for the person in possession
.
!
,
.
of Aryanized property. Pro¢eliural obstacles and the dragging out of the restitution process
forced sollie claimants to se~tle for less than they were due and discouraged others from seeking
restitution at all.
1
3.
Stricti deadlines created a narrow window for claims and some victims'
assets; were therefore transferred to Germany and Austria.
I
UnitedStates Military Law 59, promulgated in November 1947, provided the legal basis for
internal restitution.
The law enabled persecutees -to demand the return of property that had been
I
i'
transferred during the Nazi ~egime. It also defined the procedure for implementing the '
, restitution of ide~tifi~ble prJperty in the U.S. Zone in Germany. Military Law 59 promised "full
and speedy" recovery, but t~eregulations adopted by the Office of Property Control undercut
both. Strict adherence to the December 31, 1948 deadline for filing petitions for restitution
(extended to May 1, ·1949 for incomplete submissions) together with the lengthy, cumbersome,
,
,
.and expensive procedures prFvented many rightful owners from asserting their rights. United
�16
States officials consistently iendeavored to wrap up operations as quickly as they could -
I
,
sometimes to the detriment pfthe restitution process. The U.S. Military Government placed the
!
I
burden of initiating and proYing claims on the victims and their heirs, who were struggling to
survive and rebuild their sh*ttered lives. The last of the collecting points was closed in 1952 and
,
unrestituted assets, including identifiable cultural property of known national origin, were
transferred to the governments of Germany and Austria. Some of these objects were later found
,
to belong to victims.
4.
I
Austrian officials were entrusted with restitution responsibilities.
Austria held a unique positioh in the post-war period. In signi~g the Moscow Declaration
(November 1, 1943) the
AlIi~s
stated their intention to regard Austria as the "first free country to fall
a victim to Hitlerite aggression," and to "see re-established a free and independent Austria." They
declared, however, that Austria -- despite its status as a "liberated" nation -- still had "a
I
responsibility, which she canpot evade, for participation in the war" at the, side of Nazi Germany.
i
Because of the Moscow Decl,aration, Austria held a very ambiguous post-war status as both a victim
and a victimizer.
"Internal restitution" efforts
ip Austria differed from those in Germany.
In Germany, American
officials initially directedint~rnal restitution, but in Austriaa new democratically-elected
government was responsible for enacting and implementing internal restitution policy. The Austrian
government began to pass legislation concerning internal restitution soon after the end of the war, but
,
,
it was created piecemeal and ,took years to complete. Although the Allied powers maintained .a
supervisory role they entrusted Austrian bureaucrats, many of whom had served the German Reich,
I
I
i
I
i
�17
!.
,
,
with the task of restituting viptims' assets that had been Aryanized while Austria was a part of the
Reich (1938-1945).
The Allies also sought to ensure that Austria fulfilled its obligation to return property looted from
victims as the occupation en1ed. They could, by unanimous consent, annul legislation passed by the
Austrian parliament. In the ~arly 1950s, for example, when the Austrian parliament attempted to
weaken certain aspects of the restitution legislation (allowing Aryanizers to reclaim enterprises
I
,
' .
already restituted, for instance), the Allied Commission objected. The Austrian parliament,
therefore, never enacted this
~'Reacquisition
Law," as it was known.
I
I
I
I
Austrian authorities were dir~cted to return property to former owners, or grant compensation when
I
restitution was "impossible.": Austrian control over the slow and restrictive restitution process
I
I
impeded the return of assets to victims.
.
!
5.
Politi:cal considerations impeded the restitution process.
I
I
Cold War political considerations that first became paramount in the late 1940s sometimes resulted
in inconsistent restitution policy. A great deal of cultural property was restituted to the Soviet Union,
i
but there were cases where c~ltural property was not returned to Eastern bloc countries. The
decisions to place in trust with the Austrians artworks that clearly came from Hungary and not to
I
return library collections and !cultural objects to the Baltic States are examples of this. The fact that
!
Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were former Axis countries and that treaties between them and the
!
U.S. were not concluded for
~everal
years delayed restitution substantially.
�18
6.
Problems at central collecting points and government warehouses
impeded identification of victims' assets.
i
Military and civilian guards' were not always able to prevent the theft of victims' assets from
I
I ,
'
temporary repositories and yentral collecting points. The U.S. armed forces had strict and
sensible regulations against [theft, but security at some facilities was lax or unavailable at times.
,
Because property control officers did not always take detailed inventories, it was impossible for
them to determine the extent of theft. Inventory and valuation of assets at central collecting
!
points differed from facility!to facility and were hindered by the lack of appointed experts to
,
I
review asset collections. Troop redeployment, supply shortages, damaged facilities, and lack of
!
,
transportation also resulted 1n collections thid were left unguarded and unprotected;
I
I
The huge amount of assets in Germany overWhelmed the skeletal staff charged with their
i
protection. The Monuments~ Fine Arts, & Archives (MFA&A) section of the U.S. Army,
I
:
charged with locating and p~eserving cultural property, was particularly understaffed. The
Office of the Military Goverpor, United States (OMGUS) was forced to rely on German civilians
i
to do much of the accounting and sorting of assets. More consistent and thorough inventories
.
,
j
would have made restitutionlmore practicable and would have facilitated more precise valuation
of looted assets.
I
Better policy implementation in Germany and Austria would have prevented identifiable
victims' assets from being stored in disorganized and poorly secured military warehouses and
i
I
'
, facilities where they were oc~asionally subject to theft and requisitioning by U.S. servicemen
and civilian employees. Thel"Gold Train" episode shows in concrete terms some of the effects
!
�I
I
19
I
.
.
of inadequate personnel, in~dequate security, and a lack of command sensitivity to the restitution
of victims' assets.
B.
Implementation of Restitution Policy in the United States
Claims procedures for restitution were flawed.
1. .
I
i
a)
!
The Alien Property Custodian prolonged adjudications.
Pursuant to a series of Executive Orders issued in 1941 and 1942, any property within the United
I
States owned or controlled by a designated enemy country or national thereof could be transferred or .
vested in the Alien Property Custodian (operating within the Executive Office of the President), as
I
the Custodian deemed necessary for the national interest. No exception was made for assets
I
belonging to foreign nationals who were victims of the Holocaust. After the war, and until April
,
.
,
.
1955, a Holocaust victim could file a claim for the return of property taken by the Alien Property
Custodian. Because of the eipense and difficulty in filing, as well as for other reasons, many victims
,
I
,
,
.
did not submit claims before the deadline and therefore did not recover their frozen assets. Others
did not recover the full value iof their assets.
In the treatment of a claimant: as victim there appears to have been no noticeable relaxation of
I
applicable rules or procedures. In some cases the prqcess was sufficiently prolonged that the initial
claimant died while the claim; was still pending. In those circumstances, the Alien Property
I
Custodian conducted additional investigations of each heir and cases that might have been on the
I
brink of conclusion were furtl1er delayed. In 1953, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee delving into the
,
•.
I
i
activities of the Office of Alien Property (OAP) sharply criticized the agency for lack of good
I
I
.•
.
.business practices in the way , conducted its own affairs and handled the assets under its control.
lit
I
The report particularly singled out the "inefficient and dilatory" manner in which claims were
j
�20
processed. Of approximatel~ 15,000 title claims only about 6,000 had been processed. The average
length for resolving a claim
in 1952 was 46;6 months and the average over the entire period was 31.7
months.
b)
Victims' assets may have been used to pay U.S. war claims.
,
,
i
.
During the war assets of som:e Holocaust victims were caught up in the freezing mechanisms of the
U.S. Treasury Department. tlthough clear distinctions were drawn between foreign nationals
,
considered enemies and thos~ considered non-enemies, among enemy assets no distinction could be
.
i
. drawn between victims and perpetrators until after the war. In 1946, special provisions were made
for the return of vested property to those who had been persecuted during the war. After 1946, when
I
German and Japanese assets
who had been persecuted.
'
~vere"vested,
,
a special effort was made not to vest the assets of those
N~vertheless, compensation for U.S. assets lost in Europe took
,
I
precedence over compensatiqn for foreign-owned assets frozen in the United States. Congress
i
,"
regarded frozen German assets as a source from which to pay U.S. war claims for damages suffered
by American businesses and individuals. The U.S. War Claims Commission received more than
. $200 million from liquidated:aerman and Japanese assets. Thus, U.S. war claims were paid in part
!
by German assets that likely ,ncluded victims' assets.
,
I
2.
Restit,ution efforts, of recipient countries were not monitored .
.
There is evidence that the United States assumed that its western allies to which it restituted looted
assets would return those ass6ts to their rightful individual owners (or the heirs of those owners).
!
~
".
.
.
There is little contemporaneous documentation of efforts by the recipient countries to effect
,
'
"
individual restitution and no qocumentation that the United States monitored the process. None of
,
"
the national historical commissions consulted by the Commission reported having found evidence of
i.
�21
,
inventories of assets receiveq by their governments from the United States, or of agreements with the
United States to effect individual restitution.
3.
Duty!was assessed on victims' assets.
The International Refugee Organization of the United Nations was required to pay customs duties of
!
at least $120,000 between 1949 and 1952 on assets broughtinto the United States to be sold for the
benefit of refugees, thereby reducing the funds available to care for those displaced persons.
,
;
4.
The $500,000 lump sum settlement of Office of Alien Property claims was
.
lOa d!,
~quate.
;
I
Attempts by representatives ¢fvictims to achieve a settlement of heirless Office of Alien Property
i
claims began in 1948. At th~t time, legislation was introduced that valued those claims at $3 million
based on extensive research into 'OAP records by the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization
(JRSO), the organization responsible for material claims on behalf of Jewish victims and their heirs.
,
This legislation met with resistance. It was not until October 1962 that Congress amended the
Trading with the Enemy Act:to authorize the payment of $500,000 out of the War Claims Fund to the
JRSO. According to former ~fficials, the JRSO reluctantly accepted the $500,000 as a lump sum
settlement of all claims it made for unclaimed property vested in the Office of Alien Property.
.
..K"
:
.
.
.
:A"'''!
C.
I
Agreements:Negotiated By the Commission in the Public and Private Sectors
1.
The ~ibrary of Congress has agreed to recognize the provenance of certain
books in its colJection that had been looted by the Nazis.
As a result of its research int<? the history of the Jewish Cultural Reconstruction, Inc. OCR), a
successor organization created in 1947 to preserve cultural assets of the Jewish people: the
,
Commission learned that betWeen July 1, 1949 and January 31, 1952 the JCR transferred to libraries
in the United States approximately 158,000 items. Among the libraries that received the books were
I
•
Harvard University, Johns Hbpkins University, New York University, the University ofIowa,
I
�22
Brandeis University, HebreJ College, and the Jewish Institute of Religion. Several of these are able
to identify the books that they received. Others are not.
According to documents exaiTIined by the Commission and passed on to the Library of Congress, the
I
JCR sent 5,708 books and periodicals to the Library, of which 107 were defined by the JCR as rare.
I
I
The Commission also suspeCted that other items looted by the Nazis had made their way to the
I
j
Library of Congress throughlother channels.
On August 6, 1999
Commis~ion staff met with James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress, to alert
,<
him to the presence of these \:looks and to discuss appropriate steps to identify and recognize the
i
,
existence of these books. Th:e Commission and the Library agreed that it would not be feasible to
I
I
sample the Library's entire cbllection of over 25 million volumes, thus precluding the possibility of
estimating the number of loot~d books that ended up in the general collection. They agreed to
I
sample the Library's Hebraicicollection of approximately 165,000 volumes -- the most likely
I
<
<
I
<
recipient of JCR books -- to t,ry to determine how many JCR books were still in that collection in the
Library of Congress.
This procedure sampled the approximately 125,000 items in the Hebraic collection that could have
I
been looted because they were published before 1945 and were in Europe between 1933 and 1945.
The survey revealed that neaily 2,300 of the 125,000 items came from the JCR, while 200 more were
i
I
clearly looted from Jewish vi~tims of the Holocaust and came to the Library by other means.
i
This effort yielded several important results. First, it added considerably to the Library's own
knowledge of the origins of its Hebraic collection. Until the Commission instigated this exercise, the
�;
,.
23
,.
I
I
Library believed that it had few books and periodicals of this nature. The Library now knows that it
I
,
,
holds at least 2,300 items frdm the JCR in its Hebraic collection, and it is reasonable to assume that
iI
I
additional books in other languages were placed in other collections throughout the library.
Second; contrary to what haq been previously thought, many of the items received from the JCR are
important examples of Hebraica, including numerous volumes of Talmudic manuscripts, machzors
i
(holiday prayer books used on the Jewish New Year and Day of Atonement) and other religious
,
i
texts .. Notably, researchers found nearly all of the 107 books that were designated for the. Library of
Congress on the JCR's rare ~ook list. The Library also possesses secular items frorinhe JCR, such
I
.
I
as a Yiddish translation of Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain, that have important historical value.
Finally, the sampling revealed that many of the items received from the JCR did not have the
commemorative bookplate t~at the JCR requested receiving institutions to affix, although the Library
still has the bookplates it received 50 years ago from the JCR.
I
I
To recogniz~ the unique pro~enance of the JCR books and other items that were looted by the Nazis,
~
.1fj
the Library has agreed to establish a "virtual library" of JCR titles and related books. This
vi~al
library will allow the public to search for JCR and related items on-line and to examine the volumes
,
in person in the Library's Af:ican and Middle Eastern Reading Room. The Library will also give
I
priority to cataloging any of the remaining books that have been identified as belonging to this
.
:
.
collection.
I
Additionally, the Library is developing a collection "name"field, which will serve to aggregate all
the records for the JCR collection within the ,virtual library. This step will enable users to click on a
~ FfI- k",~dl" 1M1r, ~~ &b~~ ~~S~l~ ~ r
�24
I
single link that will lead them to every title in this special collection. The Library will also make this
list of titles available to agen~cies, organizations and individuals involved in the restitution of
,
Holocaust-era assets and will restitute any of these volumes upon establishment of a legitimate claim.
,
a
,
The Library will also insert copy of the original JCR bookplate in each volume from which it was
omitted.
The Library will include selected volumes from the collection of JCR and related books in a major
,
I
permanent exhibition of the Library's international treasures, scheduled to open in February of2001.
,
The captions used in this sec~ion of the exhibit will highlight the unique history of the volumes
,
I
displayed. Finally, the Library will mount a display of JCR books in the African and Middle Eastern
i
Reading Roo~ in 2002 to m~rk the 50th anniversary of the completion of the JCR's work.
,
2.
The National Gallery of Art has agreed to mount a plaque reflecting the
doub~ful provenance of a painting in its collection.
Shortly after the Commission: began operations, its staff contacted National Gallery of Art director
Earl A. Powell, III, about obttning access to the Gallery's documentation for its Holocaust-era art,
i.e., works in the collection
c~eated
before 1945, acquired after 1932 and which were or could have
been in Europe between those, dates. Members of the Commission staff met with Gallery staff on
,
, June 21, 1999 to share info~ation and to facilitate Commission access to research resources beyond
those already available on the' Gallery's website.
i
In February 2000, Commission staff suggested that the Gallery add a "provenance" search field to its
,
I
website database to allow thoJe using the site to search proper names in the chain oftitle of
Holocaust-era works in the Gdllery collection. Because provenance infom1ation had already been
,
,
�25
~
"
" I
incorporated into the" collection's database, the
Gall~ry
"
"
was able to quickly add this feature. The
"provenance" search feature :was unveiled at the Commission's meeting on February 29.
I
i
In April 2000, Mr. Powell arid his staff met with members of the Commission's Committee on Art
I
"
!
and Cultural Property and Commission staff.to discuss policies for disclosure of Holoc~ust-era art of
incomplete or questionable provenance and to demonstrate the National Gallery's provenance
I
research procedures.
I
The National Gallery of Art turrently has in its possession twelve paintings that it identifies as
having incomplete provenan~e from the World War II era. While inclusion on the list of incomplete
,
provenance does not prove tliat a painting was necessarily looted from a Holocaust victim, there is
:
,
'
evidence that Frans Snyder's~Still Life with Fruit and Game was looted. The Gallery's investigation
I
I
"
"
into the painting's history revealed that the donor had purchased the work from Baron von Pollnitz, a
Luftwaffe officer, who received the painting from Karl Haberstock, a principal Nazi art dealer.
There are indications that the! painting may have come from the collection of Caroline Stem in Paris
that was confiscated by the ~azis. There are no documents that prove how Haberstock acquired the
I
painting.
I
"
At the urging of the Commission, the National Gallery of Art has agreed to mount a plaque reflecting
,
the doubtful provenance of tHis painting. Discussions about the content of the message are
continuing.
�26
i
I
3.
The Commission has identified dormant bank accounts . and other
I
unclaimed property of Holocaust victims in the United States, and
significant members of the banking industry have agreed to endorse
suggested best practices for the investigation of bank records regarding
such 'accounts.
i
To determine whether banks ;in the United States held accounts of Holocaust victims that became
dormant and escheated to the' states, the Commission conducted a pilot project matching the names of
a limited list of Holocaust vi~tims with a list of escheated property maintained by the State of New
York.
In the United States, dormani accounts do not remain in the possession of the bank but rather escheat
to the state in which the bank: is located. Consequently, the Commission matched the names of
I
"
I
Holocaust victims from Holland and Belgium, as well as a list of respondents to the German census
I
I
of 1939 that required Jews tOlreport their property, against the names of account holders whose
accounts had escheated to the, State of New York. The Office of the Comptroller of New York State
I
,
created this database as a public service at the Commission's request.
I
This procedure matched nearly 400,000 names with over a million unclaimed property records and
yielded eighteen matches
i
of~ames
of victims with dormant bank accounts in the State of New York.
1
A preliminary search has revealed that the value of these accounts ranges from a few dollars to five
.
i
thousand dollars.
The Commission has also sou'ght to assess whether people who ultimately became victims of the
Holocaust held stocks and bORds issued by American companies. Therefore, the Commission
conducted another cross match, comparing the list of Dutch, Belgian and German victims against a
,
I
database comprised oflists of;escheated property from 48 states~md the District of Columbia
I
'
,
I
�27
"i
maintained byACS Unclainied Property Clearinghouse, Inc., a third party storage and automation
I
I
"
.
facility operating under conttact with many states. 12 ACS performed this cro~s match as a public
"
I
,
•
service ~t the Commission's Irequest. The results of this cross match are still preliminary, but
indicate that other unclaimed property belonging to Holocaust victims can be identified.
Overall, the demonstration
c~nfirmed the need for the use of more sophisticated software that is
sensitive to the differences in spelling and pronunciation of common names if the cross match is to
I
1·
capture all of the potential matches and eliminate any false matches. Because the Commission was
I
.
!
unable to research each mat~h in depth or·to ensure that the databases used were complete, the
number of matches obtained!should be viewed as a floor,not a ceiling. The Commission's pilot
project was intended to dem9nstrate the feasibility and value of conducting a comprehensive cross
I
match using more complete l!ists of victims' names and escheated property. That effort was
successful, and the Commiss'ion hopes tei broaden the search for such acco).mts by repeating this
exerCise with more compreh~nsive lists and the participation of more states.
To facilitate" additional searches for dormant accounts, the Commission, in discussions with The
I
I .
.
Chase Manhattan Bank, Citigroup, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA held under the auspices of the New
York Bankers Association, has reached an agreement defining suggested best practices to be used by
banks when they search for :8:olocaust assets. These suggested best practices will be submitted to the
board of the New York Bankers Association for its approval.
.
"
1
Although both the operation ~f state abandoned property laws and the wartime freezing of foreignI
,
owned assets make it most
I
li~ely
i
12
that information about Holocaust victims' assets originally
California and Indiana did not p~rticipate in the database cross-match.
�28
i'
I
I
deposited in banks will be found in state or federal archives, banks themselves may have information
I
r
I
that can assist in identifying br clarifying the fate of such assets.
.
. .
.
Under these suggested b~st practices, banks will first define the universe of accounts to be located as
'
"
any account opened at the bJnk or any of its predecessors in interest before 1945 by a depositor
whose address at any'time brtween 1933 and 1945 was in Germany, or a European country occupied
by or allied with Germany, and that went dormant after 1933.
, Banks will then revie~ all RFcords (defined as any recording in any foim of information about an
I ,
'
, account in the defined universe) that could contain any information about such accounts, including
I
'
I
but not limited to transactional customer records, abandoned property procedures and records, safe
i
,
' I
~ecords,
deposit box procedures and
i
'
'
,
and escheatment procedures and records.
' ,
I,
,i ' ,
,
Banks will examine applicable docurnent retention policies, both current and contemporaneous, for
.
,
I
I
'
"
possible sources of Records 'and, notwithstanding the provisions of such polities, determine whether
"
I
I
,
'
I
transactional customer recorfis (paper, microfiIin, microfiche) exist and review whatever records of
I
the bank and its predecessor~ in interest still exist. If Records exist, banks will collect and review
1
them and attempt to
iden~ifY,accounts
in the defined universe. Records will be maintained in a
segregated file.
I
" "
.
Banks will contact outside dmnsel and accounting firms that worked for the bank and its '
,
I
predecessors in interest from 1933 to the preset:J.t to determine if they have any Records. They will
collect and review any such Records and attempt to' identify accounts in the defined universe. These
Records (or copies thereof) will be maintained in the same file.
I
i
�.1
29
Any identification of an·acc?unt in the defined universe will be reported to the appropriate unclaimed
property official of the state to which the account would have escheated. The bank will report
,
publicly onthe conclusions 9f its review, including to the extent possible the number and value (but
I
,
.
not the identity of the accou~t holder) of any accounts identified.
The Commission believes th'at once such a comprehensive search has been completed in accordance
i
,
with these practices, banks should not be required to make repetitive individual searches.
4.
i
The plUseum community has agreed to full disclosure of Holocaust-era
works and their provenan·ce.
I
Holocaust-era cultural prop~rty -- that is, works created before 1945, transferred after 1932 and
before 1946, and which werb or could have been in continental Europe between those dates -- is
found in museums, libraries,~ galleries, and private collections in the United States.
\
As early as 1946, the State Department notified museums and other institutions that stolen art was
entering the country, but in the years following the war it was not the standard practice for museums,
collectors, and dealers to in\jestigate the provenance of works they acquired. At the same time, few
I
.
families whose assets were stolen had the information or the resources -- financial or psychological -
I
I
to locate and pursue claims for lost property.
I
Although U.S. law provides!that good title cannot be conveyed to stolen property, if the current
,
possessor of a stolen work ckn successfully argue that a claimant's action to recover it is time-barred
;
under a statute of limitations, the goal of restitution can be defeated. Another potential impediment
to restitution was raised in aiU.S. Government effort to restitute Holocaust-era art by means of a
�30
I
forfeiture action, United Sta{es v. Portrait of Wally. 13 In that case, a federal district court in New
York held that U.S. forces
c~arged
with recovering stolen items were acting on behalf of the true
I
I
owners and that such recove~ prohibited continued treatment of the item as stolen property.
I
Nothing in the Commission's research indicates that the U.S. Army was acting on behalf of owners
!
or their heirs ..
I
i
While most claims for restit~tion of looted cultural property have been successfully resolved, the
process of resolution has sometimes required lengthy and expensive litigation. Because survivors are
:
.
,
generally in the last years ofitheir lives, any delays are prejudicial. Claimant and museum
I
representatives agree that alt~rnative dispute resolution mechanisms for such claims would be
I
beneficial.
American museums have committed themselves to provide public access to information about
. I
Holocaust-era works in theirlcollections. At the Commission's hearing in New York on April 12,
I·
2000 several museum directors reaffirmed their policies for disclosure of provenance for Holocaust
,
,
era works in their collection~.· The policies were developed separately by the individual museums,
and therefore differed in scope and methodology.
.,'
[n an effort to forge a comm~n poliCy in response to the Commissioners' concerns, the directors
:
,
present agreed to full disclosure, which means:)(I) all Holocaust-era works will be identified and
I
I
disclosed and all provenance~ information in the possession of the museums regarding those works
I
'
will be disclosed; (2)' such prpvenance information will be disclosed, even where there are no known
gaps; and (3) provenance resbrch by museums will be a continuing process with <;ldditional
!
,
13
. '
I
105 F. Supp. 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
:
.
�31
I
information disclosed as it bbcomes known. They also agreed to restitution where claims are clearly
established. Indeed some mvseums, notably,<the Seattle Art Musuem, the North Carolina Museum of
I
Art and the Denver Art Museum have returned valuable works in their collections to the heirs of the
I
'
original owners. The Boston!Fine Arts Museum recently settled a claim under a part purchase, part
,
donation agreement with theiheirs that allowed the museum to keep the painting. Members of the
Commission noted that gaps lin provenance do not create a presumption that a work was looted but
I
merely present an opportUnitY for claimants to come forward with the understanding that they would
have to meet the burden of proof currently required by law.
I
Following discussions with individual museums and their representatives the American Association
I
I
of Museums (A AM) and the,;Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), the Commission finds
that the museum community ,is committed to full disclosure as that term is defined above. The
.
;
.
Commis'sion acknowledges the commitment of the museum community to full disclosure and
restitution as set forth in the l:etters froin the AAM and the AAMD ~EllHEI@8 iR
I
'
APp<ilREli~~The
!
Commission recognizes that provenance research is difficult, costly' and time consuming, often
involving access to records t~at are hard to obtain' or that may be nonexistent, and that few, if any,
I
museums have the resources Ihow to accomplish this.
The museum community has begun to develop tools to achieve full disclosure and will participate in
.
I
the process of creating a sear?hable central registry of Holocaust-era cultural property held by
I
'
I
American museums, beginning with European paintings and ludaica. This searchable central
registry will allow interested parties to access the pool of available information from one Internet
site. By taking these steps, tqe museum community has g~eatly enhanced the search for truth and
justice.
�32
The Commission is also hol~ing continuing discussions with other representatives of interested
I
parties involved in the art trade with the aim of initiating a process that will result in the creation of
parallel standards for the
III.
co~duct
of those parties.
THE CONTEXT OF THE COMlVIISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS
n,#1
~~
'Y~
I
A research effort of this scope inevitably identifies new avenues of inquiry that must be left for
I
,
others to pursue. A number of areas that have been investigated preliminarily by the Commission's
;
.
staff merit further research. These include:
I'
• the disposition of the assets seized by the Nazis from the Roma and Sinti,
I
.
I
handicapped or homosexual victims of the Holocaust that came into the
possessio'n or control of United States authorities;
• the impast of the Cold War on American policy, including when and how Cold
War conSIderations entered into specific restitution decisions, such as those
,
relating t6 the return of assets from the Hungarian Gold Train, and the restitution
,
of variouJ libraries to the Baltic states;
.
.
• the effect:ofthe creation of the State ofIsrael during the period in which
restitutio~
was being implemented, and its development's effect on decisions
regardinglthe disposition of unidentifiable victims' assets;
I.
I
• the possibility that looted art from Europe was trafficked through Latin America
to the Uniited States both during and after the war, thus escaping the scrutiny of
the U.S. Customs Service;
�33
•
the possibility that Switzerland became, after the war, a haven for looted art that
I
eventually found its way into American collections;
1
i
•
the effects of currency reform and exchange controls on restitution; and
•
the perc~ntage of victim gold in Reichsbank gold bars .
. I,
I
In additio,n to identifying such corollary inquiries, the Commission staff also decided in several
instances that further resear~h on particular topics addressed in its report could not be justified
because of time and resourc~ constraints. This was particularly the case where the archival records in
the U.S. were incomplete an~ supplementary information was believed to be available in foreign
1
I
.
archives, access to which is often more restricted than in the United States.
,
I
Perhaps the most significant :example in the area of necessary compromise between research goals
and the time and resources available to complete them came in the area of valuation of victims'
assets that passed, through U.:S. hands. The question "How much was, and is, it worth?" appears
simple, but is in fact extreme]y complex. Important but highly technical and difficult questions
relating to the effects of currency reform and exchange controls affect the answer. Moreover, in
many cases the U.S. documehts are inadequate to specify the exact identity or quantity of assets
handled (as in descriptions of stocks and securities by their height in inches), making valuation a
guessing game at best.
,
I
I, '
,
In all of these areas, and othe1rs, further research may yield additional valuable information. The
I
I
Commission believes that an :evaluation of the likely returns on further investment in such research
.
I
should be made, particularly in light of recent developments signaling the opening of access to
I
important new archival sourc¢s, primarily in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union.
�34
. The single most imp!nt n\,earch task that remains to be undertaken -- and one that the
!
.
Commission firmly believes, must be completed-- is the integration of this Commission's research
findings and those of all the !other historical commissions that have been at work on related issues.
,
I
Such an effort, complex and: expensive though it may be, must be made in order to get the full benefit
I
of the extraordinary scope of Holocaust research that has been completed around the world in recent
,.
years.
At its first meeting, the Commission determined that research by others into the way victims' assets
were handled by the non-federal sectors was only in its infancy, and that therefore the greatest
,
I
contribution the Commission could make to this effort was to promote the adoption of standards and
I
I,
best practices that agencies Of state and local governments, a~d private institutions and companies,
I
I
.
should follow to pursue theit own research into the three asset categories of gold, non-gold financial
assets, and art and other culthral property. Because gold
,
~as almost exclusively the responsibility of
the Federal government, the ¢ommission focused on the role of banks and state governments in
handling the accounts (and l~ter esc heated assets) of Holocaust victims, and the role of museums, art
i
dealers, auction houses and collectors in transactions involving cultural property that may have been
taken from those victims.
Matching records. of escheat~d property with names of victims has demonstrated that additional
research has the potential to ~dentify specific assets and their original owners. This could not have
.
been accomplished without t~e cooperation offered by the New York State Comptroller's Office in
automating its unclaimed prqperty records, and by the states and ACS Unclaimed Property
Clearinghouse, Inc. The groimdbreaking agreement with the New York Bankers' Association
�35
establishes benchmarks forlbanks all' over the country that will enable government officials, potential
claimants, scholars, and ot~er interested parties to judge the commitment of those institutions to
I
identify Holocaust-era assets that may have belonged to victims. The resultant uniformity and
transparency in research m~thodology will be an aid to scholarship as well as to the restitution
process.
In the area of best practices,: additional standards still need to be developed -- for example, for the art
trade and for business ente~rises whose sec:urities may have been owned by Holocaust victims. A
means of monitoring and publicizing compliance with the standards that are developed must also be
I
devised. Where
database~
I
ate needed, they have to be maintained. Technical assistance resources
must be made available.
I
If coordination of all of these tasks is to be accomplished, two conditions must be met. First, there
must be a single institutional! focus to coordinate this agenda to prevent the dissipation of
responsibility and loss of priority that is the inevitable result of many discrete projects spread among
I
several much larger entities with different missions. Second, the Federal government must continue
I
.
,
to provide leadership to assuf:e that these tasks are accomplished. This is not to say that all of these
I
tasks can or should be undert~ken by the Federal government -- indeed many can only be .
I
accomplished by non-Federal entities. The Commission addressed the fundamental question of how
i
I
the Federal government can b.est lead and support efforts to be made by a range of institutions, public
1
I
and private. In fashioning itsirecommendations to the President, the Commission has made the
I
.
answer to this question its highest priority.
I
�36
IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States makes the
!
.
following recommendations to the President of the United States, pursuant to the Commission's
statutory mandate:
I
A.
The President should urge Congress to establish a Foundation to promote further research
and education in the area ~f Holocaust-era assets and restitution policy and to promote innovative
solutions to contemporary restitution policy issues. The Foundation should be authorized to
accept private contributions as well as appropriated funds, and should sunset after 10 years.
Contributions to the Foundation should be tax deductible. The President should request Congress
to provide a one-time apprbpriation adequate to fully carry out the Foundation's functions.
The Foundation sh~uld coor,dinate its activities with governmental and non-governmental
organizations and individuals and provide that any ofits responsibilities that are ongoing at the
time ofthe Foundation's s~nset will devolve to another entity.
Specifically, the
FOl.~ndation
should undertake the following, among other purposes:
!
I
i
1. Provide centralized repositories for research and infom1ation about Holocaust-era assets.
• The Foundation should be responsible for the compilation and publication of a report
that integrates, [synthesizes, and supplements as necessary the research on Holocaust-era
assets prepared by various countries' commissions on the Holocaust.
• The Foundatio~ should review the degree to which foreign governments have
implemented tne principles adopted at the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era
Assets and the Yilnius International Forum on Holocaust Era Looted Cultural Property,
and should enc9urage the signatories that have not yet implemented those principles to
do so.
'
• The Foundation should provide for coordinated and centralized dissemination of
information about restitution programs, working with such organizations as the
Conference on ~aterial Claims Against Germany and others.
2, Promote the development of tools to assist individuals and institutions to determine the
ownership of Holocaust vic~i!11s' assets.
,
• The Foundationl should make grants.to 'encourage the creation and expansion of
mechanisms -- ihcluding publicizing the availability of such resources -- to assist
claimants in obtaining speedy resolution of claims. Such grants should not be used for
attorneys' fees. :
.
�37
I
• The Foundati'on should encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) by
making grants to enable claimants who cannot otherwise afford such services to make
use of them. :Such grants should not be used for attorneys' fees.
• The Foundation should provide a grant to an appropriate institution or institutions to
establish and maintain a computerized, searchable database of Holocaust victims' claims
for the restitution of personal property, giving consideration to the long-term
sustainability :of the database.
,
,
• To implement the agreement with the American Association of Museums and the
Association of Art Museum Directors, the Foundation should cooperate with the
museum comr,nunity to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a searchable
central registry of Holocaust-era cultural property in the United States, beginning with
European paintings and Judaica. This registry, with uniform standards for data
inclusion and 'completeness, will make all object and provenance information accessible
by Internet search from a single site. Museums should disclose all currently known
object and provenance information as soon as practicable and continue to supplement
this information as it becomes available. Congress should provide funds to assist in the
establishment;and maintenance of the registry.
• The Foundati6n should support the museum community in its efforts to implement full
disclosure of Holocaust-era provenance research, beginning with European paintings
and Judaica. :
• The FoundatiQn should regularly publish lists of Holocaust-era artworks returned to
" claimants by museums in the United States.
• The Foundatidn should cooperate with an appropriate institution, such as the Institute
for Museum aMd Library Services, to fund grants to museums, libraries, universities,
and other institutions holding Holocaust cultural property for the conduct of satisfactory
provenance re&earch. These awards are to be conditioned oJ! the recipients' acceptance
of the standards for provenance research developed in accordance with these
recommendatibns.
• The Foundation should fund a cross-match of records developed by the states of
unclaimed, property from the Holocaust era that has escheated against databases of
victims' names, including the database of victims, maintained by Yad Vashem, the
Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Israel and others. The
results should be widely publicized to enable people with legitimate claims to seek
return of their assets .
. 3. Work with the private sector to develop and promote common standards and best practices
for research on Holocaust-eia assets.
I
• The Foundation should promote and monitor banks' implementation of the suggested
best practices developed in co'njunction with the New York Bankers Association.
�38
i
• The Foundation should monitor the implementation of the Commission's agreement
with the museum community regarding full disclosure.
• In cooperatiop with the private sector, the Foundation should promote the development
of common standards and best practices for research by U.S. corporations into their own
records conc~rning the circumstances under which they did business in Germany in the
period preced,ing December 1941.
B.
The Federal government should promote the review ofHolocaust-era assets in federal,
I
state and private institutions, and the return ofsuch assets to victims or their heirs.
I
I
•
• Building on the Commission's work with the Library of Congress, the National Gallery
of Art, and th~ Army museums, the President should require other federal institutions,
including military bases and other installations maintained by the Department of
Defense in the United States and abroad, to inspect their holdings for Holocaust-era
assets. In the event that an asset located in a federal institution is found to be a looted
asset for which no claim by a legitimate owner is known, the asset should be left where
it is located and its history acknowledged with immediate appropriate public notice and
recognition that remains in place until such time as a successful claim is made with .
respect to that asset. The federal institution should make diligent attempts to identify
the rightful owner or his heirs and return the asset.
,
• The President ~hould commend the Library of Congress for recognizing the unique
provenance oqhe bO,?ks it received from the Jewish Cultural Reconstruction (JCR) as
well as other items that were looted by the Nazis. The Library has agreed to establish a
'·'virtuallibraryl' of JCR titles and related books to enable the public to search for JCR
and related iterVs on-line; to examine the volumes in-person in the Library's African
and Middle Eastern Reading Room; to catalogue any of the remaining books that have
been identified 'as belonging to this collection; to develop a collection "name" field to
aggregate all the records for the JCR collection within the virtual library; to make this
list of titles available to agencies, organizations and individuals involved in the
restitution ofH610caust~era assets; and to restitute any of these volumes upon
establishment of a legitimate claim. Finally, the Library will include selected volumes
I
from the collection of JCR and related books in a major permanent exhibition of the
Library's internfltional treasures, scheduled to open in February 2001. In addition, the
Library will mo~nt a display in 2002 to mark the 50 th anniversary of the completion of
the JCR's work.:
• The Foundation :should urge other libraries in receipt of books from the JCR to follow
the example of the Library of Congress with regard to the identification and recognition
of those books that remain in their collections.
I
• The President should commend the National Gallery of Art for its research into the
provenance of Hplocaust-era art in its collection. In the event that an asset located in
the National Gallery is found to be a: looted asset for which no claim by a legitimate
owner is known,:.the asset should be left where it is located and its history
acknowledged with immediate appropriate publicnotice and recognition that remains in
�39
place untils*h time as a successful claim is made with respect to that asset. The'
National Gallery should make diligent attempts to identify the rightfui owner or his
heirs and return the asset.
.
I
I
.
• The President should require the Department of Defense to develop, in concert with
veterans' service organizations, a program to promote the voluntary return of victims'
assets that m~y have been taken by former members of the armed forces as war
•
!
souvemrs.
I
• In light of the success of the Commission's pilot project regarding dormant financial
assets, the Federal government should encourage states to automate, in a uniform
manner, recotds of unclaimed property from the Holocaust era that has escheated to
them, or that IS otherwise the subject of their regulatory jurisdiction.
I
• The. Federal government should encourage private institutions holding Holocaust-era
assets to mak~ diligent attempts to locate the rightful owners or their heirs and return
any assets for!which legitimate claims can be established.
I
C.
The Federal goveritment should preserve archivalrecords ofthe Holocaust era and
I
facilitate research into such records.
,
• The Federal g9vernment should establish an appropriately funded and comprehensive
preservation initiative with regard to Holocaust-era records under its control.
• The Federal g6vernment should establish and maintain maximum public access to
national archi~es containing documents and other materials related to Holocaust-era
assets by providing Federal funds to support the development and publication of
research guide~ and finding aids for Holocaust-era materials by the National Archives
and Records Aidministration (NARA) and other federal and non-federal institutions.
I
.
I
• The Nazi War ~riminal Records Interagency Working Group (lWG) should be fully
funded to continue its operations until January 2005 .
•
t
I
D.
The Department ofDefense should be prepared to address similar issues in future
conflicts. ~
..
• The Department of Defense should review existing policies, orders, directives and
regulations governing the control of and accountability for the national and individual
property that may come under U.S. Military control when the military is deployed on
operations in foreign countries to ensure that such policies, orders, directives, and .
regulations are both adequate and appropriate. The Department of Defense should
establish or enhance such policies, orders, regulations, and directives as required to
ensure their efr:cacy.
..
I
61
• The Departmen't of Defense should review the training provided to U.S. Service
members and D,epartment of Defense civilians regarding the handling, control and
accountability of property of foreign governments and their nationals that U.S. forces
�40
,
may encount:er during operational deployments. Such training -- especially pre
deployment training -- should sensitize deploying forces to the moral and legal
imperatives associated with the proper handling and safeguarding of national and
personal ass~ts consistent with operational requirements.
I
• The Department of Defense should be encouraged to work cooperatively with the
Foundation ~nd other relevant institutions to develop or refine training for U.S. service
members and Department of Defense civilians to prepare U.S. forces to meet the
challenges a~d responsibilities while deployed on operational missions overseas when
they encounter national and/or individual property. Such training should ensure that
deploying U.S. forces understand and can apply the critical lessons learned from their
I
'
actions during World War II.
E.
The United States should continue its leadership to promote the international community's
commitment to addressing .asset restitution issues.
• The United States should establish as a factor in its bilateral relations with nations to
,
which the United States restituted looted assets the identification and publication of
information rbgarding the degree to which the governments of those nations restituted
such assets to; the rightful owners or their heirs.
• The President: should maintain the positions of Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues at
the State Department with the rank of Ambassador-and Special Representative of the
President and ISecretary of State for Holocaust Issues. The Office of Holocaust Issues at
the State Department should be maintained with adequate resources to assist these
• •
I
pOSItIOns.
,
• The Presidentlshould instruct the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues at the State
Department to continue to encourage foreign governments to make their archives open
-and accessible and to cooperate with the worldwide archival reproduction program of
the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, as well as to restitute communal and
personal prop6rty in a nondiscriminatory, way.
,
F.
The President should urge Congress to pass legislation that removes impediments to the
identification and restituti~n ofHolocaust victims' assets.
• The President should urge Congress to amend the Federal Immunity from Seizure Act
to provide that; an importer of Holocaust-era cultural property seeking immunity from
seizure of that 'property must provide notice of the application to a designated
organization representing Holocaust victims and/or their heirs. The application for
immunity sh04ld state that the works for which immunity is sought are not the subject
of a claim listed on the comprehensive claims database proposed in these
recommendations.
• The President ~hould urge Congress to amend the National Stolen Property Act to
preclude as a d,efense in a forfeiture action involving the Act that the Holocaust-era art
�. ,'"
41
orcultural'pf:0perty lost its status as stolen property (a) when it was recovered by law
enforcementior military authorities or (b) when title was transferred in a country whose
laws provide, that stolen property loses its status as such when a sale or transfer occurs.
• The President should urge Congress to reopen the claims process for victims and their
heirs whose property was vested in the Alien Property Custodian but not returned.
.
Congress shquld authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to adjudicate
any such clai:ms and should provicle an appropriation adequate to fund any awards.
�-I
~.
.~ ....:~ I ...;..,-11.)
. . . ~~.... I -."
II
...
�I
)
�.
~
...
~'lll
,:."
.i!'j~~
~
1'1
III . .
!
,f/SlBc
. , '
.
·--tJ~~·~. '1'
~~
0LQ_~_' -~
h.(.
~
. . .""---.- ' - - - - - - -
��:w
l
I
i
I
'
~...-~---
..•
- - - - ,- .~~-, Le-- :A I '" :- .
-q~Ud"A
. .'
.
~.
'~
--t.~.lil· !_V~v.HL~_~ -M-~+ ~~
0P
•
.
e
III
-
9~1111/A h~,
j
.
,Dl
.
~
~~nlf/~;,~-VJl~.
----~tr·--'-vv~--~I)I~v-
I
.
.'
.
~O-~
&.3-oim~ I,,~ I ; 17',. _
+-~~--
'.~, ~-~--------..,.---
~llt""'M'1
---'-----'--+I(!./VI' --~L._b~_~_ _ _ _ _----;-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.~-~-~
'A'A.,.
r
.
,
. .I
i"
".
.
.
.
,
,
.
�-, IIJ-~W~I:!·_·~.
II
" "!j
tv.', ~Il~"
---=:y~
DA
l
'-III
Lj...,Ll_"- - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - -
.~ ~ ~-::-' fL+_~--,~-"(~ 96
n "
~"'\~I"~.
"
0
"
'. : . "
'1t l."
~
~-/-~ct6-PJJ.(J.-!
11
- /
"
•
1..11
i
--.-------ll~I;----~--~----~------~-----~-------------1
"
..
III
.
' ~
'
---..,-------~---'--------------I
1++-11- ,
~V-a1;t-=-f~~-<kC-h ~
--m ".0
'"
I~l'l pf AT~ ~"
,II
Iii
"","',
£j
...
.
,-~ 4-~
""
-------'---'-------,..--.
_'~~~_,
"~'tUJ.Y_e~~_.~._·_~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'_~--'--'--~,I,i
"
,
_
,
e
___
,
,
1'1,'
t
", '
'
"
""
"
,-'"-~,~'...::...--"---:-~-----:-----~~-,,
(Ii'
"" , ,
: "'
(2)
~ ,'~_,~"'~----_----..:...~--,-------_-
".~ '~,~,~: ~ ~t- p~",_._~_
!!
11
I'
,
.
't
.
. '
,.",
___'___ _ __
~
(~~frv\~ Vf~~~~
-=-6-=-:,
"
~I AlAB~ ~ w.. ~J~-------~
---------'--I·H:--'-'"-------'----------:----------.:--~~__;__---I
�1
•
"r
... lOC·-~
~~~/
. ,WOJ\~~
,.
,
t
I·
.
�H+---"--------'-----,-----,-:..---------------------·--·
~--, ....•
ii
III
�!I
I'
II
.1
Iil
i:
II
"
I
I
I!I
Ii
..
�. [I.
•.-..
I
i
'~-..
.
.
I
I:
O~~··
I
~Um~~
I
~-~~~~ ~_&~~-~
.
.
.
"~L'f~~_io_·,~-~-~~fW-~~
-
~
~
II
\
I
,
I
I
I
i
\
I
Ii
Iii
I
III
.'
....
.
I.
{ I
--'----~._\_I~ _:...~.~-~-~~
'I .....
____
_
. i~_.~~_L~n~
--~-----+H----~-----'.~
II
J0
9~
'.'. riA.:t~
~. ~~~_~_ _
�OCT-19-2000
16:43 .
GENERAL COUNSEL
212 708 9856
I
-
~.
The Museum of 'Modern Art
,
.
I
FAX
Cove~
Page
Octobar 19, 2000
Stephen W. Clark
To:
Kenneth Klothen
I
From:
Fax:
(202) 371-5678
I
Fax:
2121708-9856
Tel:
Tel:
2121708-9791
Address:
Total pages:
Subject:
C
Draft Report .
Ken. I was just about ready to', send this'letter when AAM sent m~ a revised draft showing
changes made by Bill Singer. !I agree with all of his proposed changes.
11 West 53 Street, New York, NewYor!< 10019
P.01/06
�OCT-19-2000
GENERAL COUNSEL
15:43
212 71218 9855
P.12I2/1215
The Museum of: Modern Art
Stephen W Clark
Associate General Counsel
October 19, 2000
Mr, Kenneth Klothen
Executive Director
,
Presidential Commission on htolocaust Assets in the U.S.
901 15th Street, NW Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Ken:
Thank you again for arranging to meet yesterday with our museum group. It was a useful and
productive exchange. The directors and trustees of America's most prominent museums have
repeatedly expressed personal and institutional commitment to full disclosure of information about
works'in our collections. I was glad to have an opportunity yesterday to assure you, Bill Singer,
, ¥
'
,
and other Commission members that our commitment to this goal has not wavered,
,
•
•
j
~
•
1
•
i
We also appreciated the oppo~unity to help revise the Commission's draft findings with respect to ,
looted cultural property. At th~ risk of taking one too many kicKs at the can, I have an additional
suggestion, along with a couple of catches on typos and unwieldy language -- the latter no doubt
the result of our committee effort yesterday. I have attached a marked up version of the draft with
my suggestion and corrections:. You will see that I tinkered with the parf about Portrait 2f Wally,
purely with the hope of makingjit read a i,ittle better. I have no objection to the substance of that
portion of what we wrote yeste~ay, but it didn't seem entirely clear as I reread it.
My suggestion: the first paraglCiph of Seytion 5 seems awkward and isolated. It is a true statement,
• but I am concerned that, standipg alone as it does, it leaves the distinct impression that American
institutions are loaded with never-restituted Nazi loot. Based on our experience, and taking into
!
(
,
account the historical and geographical f<j1ctors to which Philippe de Montebello testified at the
Commission's April 12 hearing In New York, large numbers offuture claims seem unlikely. I
propose leaving the first senten~e as it stands and adding the following:
Some of this property w,as never I,ooted and some was restituted to its rightful owners after
, the War and arrived leg~timately in American collections. With strong support from the
museum community, which has efllphatically declared its intolerance of holding tainted
works. the Commission iecommends conducting and broadly dissemInating ongoing
research of the provenance of works in museum coilections.
I
11 West 53
'
Street. New York. N,Y. 1?019 Tel: f 12-708-9791 Fax: 212-708-9856 Stephen_Clarkgmoma.org
�OCT-19-2000
16:43
,
GENERAL COUNSEL
212 708 9856
P.03/06
i
\
My intention in proposing these additional sentences is to provide some contt;,xt for the subsequent
, report, to indicate from the,'l)tart that'the'Commission and the museum have a unity of purpose on
" Holocaust-era cultural property. and;to make the crLJclal distinction that not all material fitting this
definition of Holocaust-era ',cultural property is necessarily a problem.
,
'
"
Please feel free to call me
to discuss these last-minute thoughts.
I'
),
Paga2
�.
,
--~ ..
i
'
"
~n~~ ~'dJ~X/;~.:
!
.
'
. Sfl1,rh'/~
VV\;t{ ~/r
"I
Ix
J-o In'lYV / Wnd.
f-\-J"6lvvl~ ~
'
,
\.
(fiy,~~Y': ~\do~' ~ lM'\~
~.~-6~
~?
~.. ~~
.
~
.¥J
...
&.AA.. ~
.!l1:~
~",
atJ
~,
~..h:M
;
,
I
I.
!.
~b irs ~ tM~ ~
el \ '-
')oD (0lJl) ,ltwyJ
",
0Nv\
I
I\.t
~ f\.R~1/1Jt
\
tA~Vtfflffi - .~ ~u .@ t'YlM'iJ{.WvV1
~
t-l1 fY\
~
~~
~rJt$'E>'~
~'~'.'
�OCT-19-2000
,
16:43
GENERAL COUNSEL
212 708 9856
P.04/06
Insert on pagel 31
5. Looted cultural property is present in the United States.
I
Holocaust-era cultural propeIo/ - that is~ works created before 1945, transferred after 1932 and
before 1946, and which were o! could h~ve been in continental Europe between those dates - is
foUnd in museums, libraries, g~leries, $d private collections in the United States.{§ome of thiS
CNU. ..ft)
property was never looted and some was resti.tijted to its rightful owners after the War
and arrived legitimately in ~merican: collection~ith strong support from the museum
community, which has emphatically!declared its intolerance of holding tainted works,
the Commission recommends condycting and broadly disseminating ongoing research
of the provenance of works in museum cOllectioni}
V'fNUV't
J
,
As early as 1946, the State Department notified museums and other institutions that stolen art
was entering the country, but iniyears foflowing the war, it was not the standard practice for
I.
I
,
!
I
'
i
I
.
!
museums, collectors, and dealers to inve~tigate the provenance of works they acquired. At the
.
same time, few families .whose assets were stolen had the infonnation or the resources - financial
•
I
or psychological - to locate and ipursue claims for lost property.
,
. Although U.S. law provides t~a(good titl~cannoi be conveyed to stolen property, a claim for
I
reSlitution can be defeated if the ,current ppssessor of a stolen work can successfully argue that an
i
olaimflllt's action to recover it is time-barred under a statute of limitations, the goal EtC re~
ea:n~e
Elefeete4. In
I
•
United8'1aie~ 'f'. "~1'11~16:lW8J1y.
effort.to restitute Holocaust-era
~ by means
0
Additionally, in a recent U.S. Government
fa furfei tiIre at:tionEi.ederal district court in New
,
York Feeefttly diss'Iisaea 8: 16rfeihtre aetio~ reg8fd:iftg Ii Holeeaest era 'Jlork, heldiHg held that
I
I
,
U.S. forces charged with recovering stolen items were acting on behalf ofthe true owners and
that such recovery prohibited continued tr~atment ofthe item as stolen property. Nothing in'the
•
.
I
o
~\
_A ...
-4
�OCT-19-2000
16:43
GENERAL COUNSEL
,
,
212 708 9856
P.05/06
Commission's research indifates tha~ the U.S. Anuy was acting on behalf ofowners or their
heirs. ' ]
While most cla~s for resti~tion of l?oted cultural property have been successfully resolved, the
process of resolution h,as sometimes required lengthy and expensive litigation. Because '
1
,
.
,
I
I
'
I
,
'
survivors are generally in the last yem;s of their lives, any delays are prejudicial. Claimant and
museum rep:resentatives agree that alt~ative dispute resolution mechanisms forsuch claims
would be beneficial.
The museum community has ~eommitted itselfto provide public access to information about
,
i
Holocaust~era works
.
,
in their collectiotiS. At the Commission's hearing in New York on April
I
' I
.
,
12, 2000, several museum dir~tors re~ffirmed their policies for disclosure of provenance for
,
Holocaust~era works in their c,ollection~. The policies were developed separately by the
I
.
individual museums, and ther~fore diff~ed in scope and methodology.
I
In an effort to forge a common policy in response to the Commissioners' concerns, the directors
\
't
.
present agreed to full disclosure in which (1) all Holocaust-era works will be identified and all
,
:
provenance infonnation in the possessio,n of the museums regarding those works will be
.1
disclosed; (2) such provenance~infonnatlon will be disclosed, even where there are no known
I
gaps.,; and (3) provenance research will ,be a continuing process. Members ofthe Commission
.
.
I
noted that gaps in provenance do not crefrte a presumption that a work was looted but merely
present an opportunity for cl~a.nts to come forwardwitb the understanding that they would
have to meet the burd~ of proof currenVy required by law_
T,
1/
�OCT-19-2000
P.06/06
212 708 9856
,GENERAL' COUNSEL
,
16:43
}4'ollowing discussions with individual museums ' and their representatives the American
.
I
Association of Museums; (AAM) ~d the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), the
.
\
\
.
Commission finds that 111;e museUlp. com.munity is committed to full disclosure. The Commission
i
recognizes that provenan~e researCh is difficult, costly and time consuming, often involving
I .
.
,
access to records that ar hard to optain or may be nonexistent, and that few, if any, museums
have the resources
to: accomplish this.
I
1
I
The museum cOll;lmunity ~ begun, to develop tools to achieve full disclosure on the internet and I"
will participate in the process of cre~ating a searchable central registry of Holocaust-era cultural
property held l,>y American: museums, beginning with European paintings and Judaica. This
.
I
"
searchable central registry will allow interested parties to access the pool of available
infonnation from one internet site. ~y taking these steps, the museum 'community has greatly
.:
I
enhanced the search for truth and justice.
,
.
The Commission is also hol9ing continuing discussions with other representatives ofinterested
parties involved in the art trade with the aim of initiating a process that will result in the creation
\
.
.
)
ofparallel standards for the conduct, of those parties.
I
TOTAL P.06
I
,
'
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States, formed in 1998, was charged with investigating what happened to the assets of victims of the Holocaust that ended up in the possession of the United States Federal government. The final report of the Commission, <a href="http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/pcha/PlunderRestitution.html/html/Home_Contents.html"> “Plunder and Restitution: Findings and Recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States and Staff Report"</a> was submitted to President Clinton in December 2000.</p>
<p>Chairman - Edgar Bronfman<br /> Executive Director - Kenneth Klothen</p>
<p>The collection consists of 19 series. The first fifteen series of the collection are composed mostly of photocopied federal records. These records were reproduced at the National Archives and Records Administration by commission members for their research. The records relate to Holocaust assets created between the mid 1930’s and early 1950’s by a variety of U. S. Government agencies and foreign sources.</p>
<p>Subseries:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Art+and+Cultural+Property+">Art and Cultural Property</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Gold+">Gold</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Gold+Team+Review+Form+Binders+">Gold Team Review Form Binders</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Art+and+Cultural+Property+and+%E2%80%9COthers%E2%80%9D+Review+Form+Binders">Art and Cultural Property and “Others” Review Form Binders</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Non-Gold+Financial+Assets+Review+Form+Binders">Non-Gold Financial Assets Review Form Binders</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=History+Associates+Binder+">History Associates Binder</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Non-Gold+Financial+Assets+Review+Form+Binders+%282%29">Non-Gold Financial Assets Review Form Binders (2)</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Financial+Assets+Documents">Financial Assets Documents</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=RG+84%2C+Foreign+Service+Posts+of+the+State+Department%E2%80%94Turkey">RG 84, Foreign Service Posts of the State Department—Turkey</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Financial+Assets+Documents">Financial Assets Documents</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?search=&advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=%5BJewish+Restitution+Successor+Organization+%28JRSO%29%2C+Oral+Histories%5D&range=&collection=20&type=&user=&tags=&public=&featured=&exhibit=&submit_search=Search+for+items">[Jewish Restitution Successor Organization (JRSO), Oral Histories]</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=PCHA+Secondary+Sources">PCHA Secondary Sources</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Researcher+Notes">Researcher Notes</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Unnumbered+Documents+from+Archives+II+and+Various+Notes">Unnumbered Documents from Archives II and Various Notes</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=RG+260%2C+Finance+Inventory+Forms">RG 260, Finance Inventory Forms</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Reparations">Reparations</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Chase+National+Bank">Chase National Bank</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Administrative+Files">Administrative Files</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=Art+%26+Cultural+Property+Theft">Art & Cultural Property Theft</a></p>
<p>Topics covered by these records include the recovery of confiscated art and cultural property; the reparation of gold and other financial assets; and the investigation of events surrounding capture of the Hungarian Gold Train at the close of World War II. These files contain memoranda, correspondence, inventories, reports, and secondary source material related to the final disposition of art and cultural property, gold, and other financial assets confiscated during the Holocaust.</p>
<p>For more information concerning this collection consult the<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/35992"> finding aid</a>.</p>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/35992" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1040718" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
2954 folders
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Revisions - Findings and Recommendations [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States
Art & Cultural Property Theft
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 165
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/Holocaust-Assets.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/description/6997222" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/24/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
6997222-revisions-findings-recommendations-1
6997222