A new chapter is about to begin in the story of art looting during World War II. Up until now, attention has centered on the Nazis’ systematic, pitiless theft of art treasures from occupied countries and from Jews destined for extermination camps. The return of this art to its rightful owners is no simple matter, especially where entire families have vanished; not until last year, for example, did the Belvedere in Vienna return to Maria Altmann the five Gustav Klimt paintings that had been extorted from her uncle in 1938. (The most ravishing of these, the portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer, subsequently was sold to Ronald S. Lauder, the cosmetics tycoon, for $135 million.) The critical success of the 2006 documentary The Rape of Europa, which looked both at art theft and recovery efforts, shows that public interest remains strong.
Less well-known is that, at the close of the war, Germany’s art treasures were plundered just as ruthlessly and (perhaps) just as systematically. On the part of the western allies, this consisted of individual thievery, such as the American army lieutenant who stole $200 million worth of art treasures from the cathedral of Quedlinburg. On the part of the Soviet Union, however, art plunder was conducted as a matter of state policy, and viewed as the legitimate spoils of war. Some 180,000 items were lost, chiefly to the Soviet Union, and now Germany has at last begun to ask, quietly and discreetly, for the return of that art.
The key player is the SPK, or Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz). The SPK is the steward for the art and culture for the former state of Prussia, from which the lion’s share of the missing art was taken. Since official requests for the return of the art have been fruitless, the SPK has sought to appeal to the Russian public directly. It is publishing six catalogues of the missing art, hoping to call attention to the missing work, and perhaps to prompt owners of individual items to come forward. The first catalogue is devoted to sculpture and lists 1,611 items—which, if recovered, “would represent one of the most important sculptural collections of Europe.”
It is understandable that it has taken so long for Germany to assert its claim to its lost art. Until 1990, there was no unified German state to make a claim, nor was the German Democratic Republic in a position to make demands of the Soviet Union. Moreover, there was a widespread feeling that these cultural losses were justifiable reparations for the unimaginable barbarity of the war Germany had launched. To demand the missing art would have been out of keeping with the self-abnegating sensibility of postwar Germany.
But recently, a different historical perspective has emerged. The unofficial taboo against dwelling on the sufferings of the German people during the war gradually lifted, and on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the end of the war, the German media gave extraordinary coverage to the suffering of the German refugees from the east. Such an elegiac sensibility is not all that different from that in the United States, where World War II is now receding from living memory into history. In Germany, however, this new cultural assertiveness seems a sign that the upcoming generation will not be restrained by the war guilt that has played a major role in European affairs for the past half century.
It is particularly ironic that stolen Prussian art should again incite brooding over German nationhood. Much of this same art was already looted once before, under Napoleon, who shipped it westward rather than eastward. Although Napoleon seized merely the private collection of the Prussian king, that art was transformed, by the ensuing swell of German patriotism, into national cultural patrimony. Berlin’s Altes Museum was built to house the collection, which became the basis of one of the world’s first public art museums. One can admire the scrupulous and poignant inventory of lost art treasures that the SPK has now compiled, even while recognizing that some of its distant political ramifications are unsettling, or even incendiary.
so you’re saying it would be better if india would either nuke or constantly threaten to nuke pakistan to “keep them in line” and that is the best way to procure peace for the region.
jewish people have been persecuted for centuries. why are jews like max boot offering advice as to how to avoid these types of disasters? it’s rather counter intuitive.
shouldn’t we be asking christians or buddhists what to do? people who have solved problems between different groups before? rather than inflame them
no offense to the jewish people it’s just not really your strong suit here as evidenced by Mr boots ridiculous advice
also was that anti semetic? it wasn’t supposed to be
You people are missing something so obvious that your failure to miss it can’t be accidental. The area in question is so small that anyone’s use of nukes there will kill everyone. Jews, Palestinians. All of ‘em will be crispy critters. This is why Israel’s development of nukes was a tragic error.
Similarly, Israel’s conceit with that Berlin Wall (oops, “security fence”) ignores basic physical realities on the ground. Reaching a peace settlement is not a matter of soft-headed people singing Kumbaya, it’s a matter of survival. But, you see, neither side wants to survive. They are bent on death, and soon enough their fondest dreams will come true. They are all under the sway of a death cult. It’s happened before.
I don’t know about the security fence but israels nuclear program undoubdetly changed the regions dynamic for the worse.
Two questions for Max Boot:
1) Can you point to even a single instance where Iran restrained itself in the slightest for lack of supposed “free rein to sponsor terrorist groups and engage in other noxious activities”? What terrorist sponsorship or other noxious activity would Iran feel free to engage in, that it doesn’t already feel free to engage in today?
2) If Israel and America wouldn’t go to war with a nuclear-armed state, does that mean that Iran also wouldn’t go to war with Israel? And if not, what are we to make of the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas?
It seems as though, less than two decades after the end of the Cold War, everyone has forgotten the lessons of Mutual Assured Destruction. The US and the Soviet Union endured forty years of nuclear standoff, and despite the latter’s ideological ambitions of global domination, the two never really even came close to nuking each other. Yet both were repeatedly and quite uninhibitedly involved in hot wars with each other’s proxies, clearly undeterred by their opponents’ supposed nuclear umbrella. In retrospect, it’s clear that between the two nuclear-armed opponents, nuclear weapons were–and are–of use only in protecting against existential threats, where nuclear retaliation is in any event no worse than the impending destruction. As protection against peripheral conventional conflict, they pose no credible threat, since the cost of nuclear retaliation will inevitably be greater than the cost of losing the conventional conflict.
Iran will thus gain little from its acquisition of nuclear weapons. The non-nuclear opponents who feel threatened by Iran’s nukes are all weak enough to already feel plenty threatened already by its conventional weapons and terrorist proxies. And Iran’s nuclear opponents–that is, Israel and America–need not fear Iranian nuclear attack, because Iran would lose more from the inevitable retaliation than it would gain from the attack.
Consider, for example, the current dust-up in Gaza. Is there anyone who seriously believes that Iran would defend Hamas by threatening Israel with nuclear attack? Or that if it did, Israel would consider this attack credible enough to back off its operations against Hamas?
Iran is already doing more than enough troublemaking in the world, and its enemies far less than enough in response, without nuclear weapons even entering into the picture. The addition of a highly unlikely scenario of MAD threats realized changes very little. What’s needed to thwart Iran is not nuclear hysteria, but rather plain old fashioned conventional containment and rollback.
Max–Bideyuke !! Exactly!! I hope the Obama staff understands this, or should I say feels this?
Your issue is different than you think it is. The Israelis and their Bund have taken away all hope from the Palestinians, hence the resort to suicide bombings. You can’t effectively threaten people who are willing, and in fact eager, to die. Nuclear proliferation is such that a non-state actor, i.e., terrorist, will get hold of one or more of them.
It won’t come from Iran, which has a central government. It will come from the former Soviet Union or Pakistan. A suicide bomber will set one off somewhere in Israel. Tens of thousands of people will die, Jews and Arabs alike. The reason will be lack of hope. When you take away people’s hope, this is what you can expect.
Peace isn’t a matter of everyone sitting down and liking each other. It’s a matter of enough tolerance to prevent murder. Technology gives unprecedented leverage to killers, yet no one wants to recognize it. In that sense, along with other dimensions, Israel is no different than its enemies. When — not if — all of this happens, it will be the utterly predictable result of failure all around.
this war is the last gasp of the neo cons. enjoy the carnage while you can boot, no one is going to let you do it again.
and get a real job you government toadie
Mr. Hartland, Hamas began suicide bombings in Israel during the Oslo years of the 1990s, when many Palestinians felt more hopeful than they had in years. Also, could you identify the “lack of hope” that caused Muhammad Atta to fly his plane into the World Trade Center?
Also, could you identify the “lack of hope” that caused Muhammad Atta to fly his plane into the World Trade Center?
I’m not sure, although maybe you could ask Odigo. If you’re on the preferred list, maybe they’ll give you 2 hours warning before the next attack.
It’s strange. You look around the world, and you see Lutherans, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, Bhuddists, Hindus, Shintus, etc. living side by side with little violence.
And yet, everyone who lives within earshot of Islamists winds up in a tragedy of terrorism, bloodshed and death. A few weeks ago it was the Indians in Mumbia, then the Israelis came under rocket attack by Hams. Only the Israeli’s decided to fight back. Perhaps you’re right, maybe the difference lies in Pakistan’s nukes and Iran’s lack thereof.
Either way, Obama was right when he commented on the Mumbai attacks by saying Radical Islam is the problem. That holds true for the Middle East as well.