Nazi Criminals, Holocaust Era Stolen Art and Memorials

Art Stolen by the Nazis

During the era of the Third Reich, the Nazis looted goods and many priceless works of art from their victims. Although we are sixty years removed from the downfall of the Nazis, the issue of stolen art is still being discussed today. Much of the controversy surrounding art stolen by the Nazis develops when a museum is attempting to sell or buy a piece of art whose provenance is in question. Museums were not always as conscientious of the ways in which they acquired objects as they are today; it was only much more recently that museums began to require records of ownership. There are individuals and families today who continue to seek the return of art looted by the Nazis, however museums have been known to challenge claims by said people, staking their own claims of ownership by referencing decades of care. (See NY Times online article listed at the bottom of this blog which discusses one family's pursuit of its stolen art.)

Nazi War Criminals

Much was made of hunting down Nazi war criminals in the decades immediately following the end of World War II; unfortunately not all Nazi criminals were tried and convicted of their crimes at Nuremberg. Many Nazis escaped to places located in South America where they lived in exile until they dies or were caught. Simon Wiesenthal, a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust, became (in addition to an author and researcher) a Nazi hunter; perhaps the most famous Nazi criminal Wiesenthal was able to track down was Adolf Eichman, an administrator of the "Final Solution". Although said criminals would be well into their old ale now, one still sees the occasional article discussing the discovery of a Nazi war criminal. (See articles listed at the bottom of this blog.)

Source:

"Nazi Hunting: Simon Wiesenthal." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 10 June 2013. Web. 22 July 2013.

"The Search for Perpetrators." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 10 June 2013. Web. 22 July 2013.


Memorials/ Monuments*

Professor James Young is supportive of the new-age memorials termed “counter-monuments”. Counter-monuments by definition and practice are often abstract and are controversial in nature; counter-monuments challenge the visitor to become the memorial itself by provoking thought and reflection. Young, like many younger generations of German artists who also support the counter-monument movement, believes that the greatest way to honor the victims of the Holocaust and to ensure that such events are never repeated, is to imprint the memory of remembrance on peoples’ minds. Counter-monuments frequently create controversy, and because controversy almost guarantees that the public will take note of the story, Young and others who think like him, see the incitement of the public through new and often contentious means as the only way to create successful memorials. In response to one such counter-monument installed in Hamburg, one reporter wrote that it was the “fingerprint of the conscience of Germany” which was reflected in the response that many had to the “disappearing” memorial, in essence the memorial was successful because it caused the public to examine its feelings regarding German participation in the Holocaust.

The idea of the preservation of such concentration camps as Auschwitz, is not one which is entirely supported by Young. Professor Young believes that it is impossible to accurately convey to the visitor what life was like at the camps by maintaining the buildings and preserving the layouts. He notes that it is important to mark the passage of time, by perhaps allowing weeds to grow up, while at the same time performing enough maintenance on the buildings to make sure that they will continue to stand. His is idea behind such thinking is to show that while the past is ever present, Germany has made attempts to move on and no longer wishes to be identified solely by its actions during the Holocaust. Auschwitz because it has been preserved almost in its entirety, does not elicit a response simply because of its appearance, but rather because most visitors are already aware of its reputation. The online virtual tour does not reflect the camp’s grim past and the sunny appearance of the photographs make it difficult to see anything other than rows of brick buildings; it is  worthy to note that the preservation of the camp as it was constructed by the Nazis could be interpreted as symbolic of the rigorous and fanatic nature of order during the Nazi regime.

The Topf and Sons Place of Remembrance memorial is an interesting memorial because in its initial stages the idea for the memorial was supported by a great-grandson of a founder of the company. This type of memorial is more in line with Young’s belief that it is important to show the past while also demonstrating the evolving nature of the future in memorials. This particular memorial, opened in 2011 and located in the administrative building of the former company, uses educational initiatives and also economic activities to reflect the past and future; it also demonstrates cooperation between private individuals and also the government. I am more apt to call this type of memorial effective because it does not seek to lose the memory of the company’s involvement in the extermination of thousands to the pages of history but rather presents it in such a way that both acknowledges and seeks reconciliation with the events. Memorials which do not provoke deep thinking and reflection are not effective because they are forgotten by the visitor almost as soon as he or she leaves them behind. I believe that an important part of remembrance is an acknowledgment by the perpetrators, as well as an honoring of the victims.

* This section of the blog entry is a copy of a blog entry from July 17, 2013 titled: "The Ways of Remembrance: Memorials to the Holocaust in Germany".