It has been almost two weeks since I filed my clients’ claims for restitution of the Guelph Treasure (Welfenschatz).
(photo by Detlev Schilke)
Coverage of the case was fast and widespread in English and German. You can watch the entire press conference here. A representative list of the most thorough articles is below, and my firm has compiled a comprehensive list here. A few reflections on the early coverage:
The Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz and Germany have persisted in their refusal to restitute the Welfenschatz. They claimed immediately to the press that my clients had agreed to accept the recommendation of the Advisory Commission, and that their own “extensive” provenance research had established that the collection was not stolen. Both are incorrect. My clients never agreed that the recommendation of the Advisory Commission would be binding; they appeared before the Commission in the hopes that the SPK would do the right thing. That turned out not to be the case, unfortunately, but it does not affect my clients’ rights. The SPK and Germany go to great lengths elsewhere to stress that the Advisory Commission is not an adjudication of any rights, it certainly was not binding arbitration in this case.
Equally wrong is the assertion that the SPK had researched and somehow established that the Nazi provenance of the collection was legitimate. Whatever research the SPK did is unknown, since it presented no evidence to the Advisory Commission. But there is little question that if there were evidence of a fair transaction, my clients would have seen it by now. A secret investigation whose results are not substantiated or explained will carry little weight before any fair-minded tribunal. It certainly bodes ill for the defendants carrying the burden of proof that they will have. And it does not comport whatsoever with the Washington Principles. Indeed, this unilateral, opaque approach is antithetical to the Washington Principles.
The other recurring red herring is the focus on a so-called absence of “new evidence.” This is not an appeal; the Advisory Commission established nothing and no evidence is required to make my clients’ claims in the first instance. To put it bluntly: the Advisory Commission got it wrong in a recommendation that has no effect. Why would there be any new evidence?
It bears noting that some of the coverage, regrettably (and all of it in German, none of it below) has perpetuated long-promulgated stereotypes with references about Jews and money, or questioned why my clients would want “Christian” art, or challenging their victimhood because they were in the business of selling art. These should be beneath any serious discourse in 2015; no one would challenge the persecution of a factory owner who had to sell his or her inventory under duress. Some reports even challenge the good faith of our case by relying on “experts” who refuse to identify themselves.
My clients want justice, and they would not have come this far if they could be dissuaded by name-calling. Their quest will continue.
Media of note:
English
“Germany is Sued in U.S. Court Over Medieval Treasure Acquired by Nazis," The Wall Street Journal
“Heirs Seek Return Of Medieval Art From Germany” Here & Now/NPR and Robin Young
“Jewish Heirs Sue Germany in U.S. Over Medieval Art Treasure," The New York Times
“NM man sues German government over medieval treasure,” KRQE News 13, Santa Fe
“Jewish Heirs Sue Germany Over Nazi Medieval Hoard,” BBC News Europe
“Jewish Heirs Sue Germany in U.S. Over Nazi-Looted Guelph Treasure,” the Observer
“Jewish Dealers' Heirs Turn to U.S. to Recover German Art Trove,” Reuters
“Heirs of Nazi-Era Jewish Art Dealers Sue for Return of Treasure in U.S. Courts,” The Guardian
“Descendants Sue Germany and Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation for $250 Million Welfenschatz,” PrivateArtInvestor
“Germany sued in United States over Nazi-era sale of Guelph Treasure or ‘Welfenschatz,’” artdaily.org
“Claimants to $276 Million Guelph Treasure Once Gifted to Hitler Sue German State,” artnet News
“Heirs of Jewish dealers file suit in US for the return of Guelph Treasure,” The Art Newspaper
“Jewish Heirs Sue Germany to return Art Sold to Nazis,” Haaretz
“Guelph art heirs want recognition from Germany,” Deutsche Welle
“Germany Sued Over Medieval Artifacts Sold To Nazis” Private Wealth
German
“Erben Fordern Welfenschatz Zurück,” (“Heirs Seek the Guelph Treasure Back”) Süddeutsche Zeitung and Deutschlandradio (via Deutsche Presse Agentur)
“Kunsthändler-Erben verklagen die Bundesrepublik,” (“Art Dealer Heirs Sue the Federal Republic”), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
“Noch mal: wie freiwillig war dieser Verkauf?” (“Once Again: How Free-Willed was this Sale?”), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
“Deutschland soll zur Herausgabe des Welfenschatzes gezwungen werden” (“Germany Should be Compelled to Surrender the Guelph Treasure”), Die Erle
“Welfenschatz: Nachfahren melden Ansprüche an” (“Guelph Treasure: Descendants Submit Claims”) 3SAT/ZDF (with video)
