It is less than a year before the celebration of the hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of World War I, the bloodiest war in human history thereto. As 28th June 2014 approaches, it is more certain that the German government will take part in the organization of the celebration of the centennial in Sarajevo, where Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Austro-Hungarian Crown Prince and his wife. The greatest nightmare of our grandmothers and grandfathers begins to worry us as this date approaches. The question that bothers us is ‘What will the world say?’

When analysing the role of Gavrilo Princip in world history, it is necessary first of all to point out the epistemological error in the dominant but, unfortunately, revisionist interpretation of the assassination in Sarajevo. Almost all the literature dealing with the causes of the First World War on the very first page stresses the murder of Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie as a cause of the war. Despite the fact that, in the subsequent analysis, this conflict, which had an impact on the world, is connected with the clashes between the imperial pretensions of the Great Powers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, there somehow is still a bitter taste when the name of Gavrilo Princip is mentioned.

That the act of murdering a colonial subject by the persecutor is a sign of true self-liberation, we learned from Jean Paul Sartre. Since colonisation during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was followed by the promotion of so-called ‘scientific racism’, according to which colonisation is justified, because it is carried out against those who are unable to manage themselves, colonised people in these areas were placed in the position of an inferior race.

Although Aristotle is often considered the father of ‘scientific racism’, there are a fairly large number of modern, primarily liberal thinkers, who used this concept to justify colonial conquest led by their countries. Thus JS Mill thought it was justified to embark on imperial campaigns, if that would mean that the ‘uncivilized’ would become ‘civilized’. Tocqueville himself, writing about Algeria, articulated the characteristics of the French ideal of ‘civilizing missions’. Only Bentham was against British imperialism, and only because he thought it was not feasible, because he thought that such campaigns are a waste of precious resources. Besides Great Britain and France, there were of course the united Germany, Austria-Hungary and Czarist Russia. Each of these countries favoured imperialist campaigns. Of course, the conflicts of the Great Powers over territory occurred throughout the history of the modern state, and in addition to the countries listed, from 16th century onwards, there were also Spain and the Netherlands. So the world in a historic moment became narrow because the West progressed precisely because the race for world wealth included only a limited number of countries. The West, according to many, progressed only because highly developed countries like China and India were ravaged by exploitation. Suddenly, the exploitative campaigns included too many countries, and it was a matter of time before the conflicts of the Great Powers would escalate. And then, right out of nowhere, appeared a Gavrilo Princip, assassinated an occupation symbol, experienced ‘Sartrian’ self-liberation and started World War I?

It is said that Gavrilo Princip was a nationalist. In the region people do not like him because he was a member of an organization that aimed to unify the Serbs under Austro-Hungarian rule (and other South Slavs). World-wide he is called a terrorist because, in any case and under whatever circumstances, murder is considered a barbaric act – especially the assassination of an heir to the throne. Let’s start with the first charge.

All (successful) anti-colonial movements in the twentieth century, around the world, were movements of ‘national liberation’. As Alan Ryan writes, nationalism is a dangerous gift that colonisers inadvertently gave to the colonised. Even Marx thought that colonial conquests are progressive, in the sense that they may lead to the expansion of the capitalist mode of socio-economic organisation, which would result in the formation of national liberation movements, which would, as those European, firstly free themselves from colonial rule, and then take part in the world socialist revolution. These movements would firstly be national. Liberation from ‘imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism’ (as Lenin’s famous work on this phenomenon was called) starts with the grouping of the nation, the group that, modelled on the Western nation-state, wants to be freed from occupiers, and to then form an independent state. Hence the definition of ‘non-aggressive nationalism’ under the doctrine ‘to each people its own polity’ and a clear distinction in relation to the ‘aggressive nationalism’ which undermines conquests. This classification is reserved for the period of the early twentieth century, and especially for the period of anti-colonial struggle, and is not relevant to the present analysis of nationalism as a primarily retrograde social tendency. This struggle, in all parts of the world, from the beginning of the twentieth century, was often very radical, and, because it was such, it does not mean that it should be classified as ‘aggressive’ – if you use the aforementioned categorisation. In this sense, Gavrilo Princip was a nationalist as, for example, was Simon Bolivar, the symbol of anti-colonial struggle in South America. The same can be said for the other allegation, that Gavrilo Princip was as much a terrorist as, for example, Ernesto Guevara (without any intention to compare their historical or ideological roles). Here we come to what I consider the main epistemological error in the analysis of the historical role of Gavrilo Princip.

From the perspective of the historical role, it is completely irrelevant whether Young Bosnia, of which Princip was a member, wanted to liberate the Serbs and then the others, or just the Serbs, or all the South Slavs (although the first would be the most likely). Also, it is less important whether this organisation was working in conjunction with the Serbian ‘Freedom or Death’ (although it was), and that the main ideologist of the Young Bosnia, Vladimir Gaćinović, was a follower of Russian anarchism (Kropotkin and Bakunin), and was a friend of Trotsky, whom he met in Switzerland. It is less important whether Gavrilo Princip, if he had by chance survived and lived in free Bosnia, would perhaps at some point have changed his mind regarding his beliefs (which we cannot precisely define anyway), as did the Egyptian anti-colonial fighter named Sayyid Qutb, who at first was considered a hero, and then was killed by Nasser Regime because he did not support military dictatorship but advocated the Sharia (he wrote a book called ‘Social Justice in Islam’ in 1949). So, for the analysis of the historical significance of the assassination in Sarajevo and its perpetrator, variables such as the character of Young Bosnia, its connection with the ‘Freedom or Death’, or the beliefs of Princip, are totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is- the historical context in which this event took place, because the assassination was an expression of the anti-imperial struggle of people who had lived under foreign rule for centuries. The people who were treated by the Great Powers in a ‘scientific racist’ manner, through Gavrilo Princip, experienced self-liberation. The people who still speak the same language, and are of different religions and ethnicities, has waited for a hundred years for another Princip in this modern empire that, as Hardt and Negri say in their Empire, is not formed on the basis of power itself, but on the ability to present power as being in the service of peace.

Nazi looted art works discovered in Munich

By Verena Nees 
13 November 2013

Two weeks ago, the German FOCUS magazine revealed that, while conducting the authorised search of a flat in Munich-Schwabing on February 28, 2012, police found and seized about 1,400 paintings and prints, most of which probably consisted of Nazi-looted property that was considered lost.

Among the works are paintings by Picasso, Chagall, Matisse, Nolde, Renoir, Toulouse-Lautrec, Liebermann, Beckmann, Otto Dix, as well as artists of the Dada, Expressionism, Surrealism and Cubism movements, outlawed by the Nazis as “degenerate art”. There are also works by artists from earlier centuries, such as Dürer and Spitzweg.

The flat is owned by the almost 80-year-old Cornelius Gurlitt, son of Nazi art dealer Hildebrand Gurlitt, who apparently harboured this huge collection of paintings until his death in 1956.

His son Cornelius, who is not an art dealer, ostensibly lived from the proceeds of the sale of some of these works on the art market. On September 22, 2010, customs officers had searched him on a train from Zurich to Munich, found €9,000 in cash in his bag and arrested him on suspicion of tax evasion.

In December 2011, Gurlitt was nevertheless easily able to auction off a gouache painting until then considered lost—The Lion Tamer, by expressionist painter Max Beckmann—at the Lempertz auction house in Cologne. A search warrant issued a few months later led to the confiscation of 121 framed and 1,285 unframed works of art from his flat.

A fierce debate about the Nazi art theft has been triggered by this large-scale recovery of valuable art works in the middle of Munich almost 70 years after the war and nearly 80 years after the Nazis’ “degenerate art” propaganda offensive. More remarkable still is the fact that the public prosecutor had been secretly in possession of the confiscated pictures since February 2012 and is even now unwilling to publish a complete list of the works found.

The federal government was informed of the matter several months ago, according to spokesman Steffen Seibert. But the general public, relatives of the former Jewish owners and public museums throughout Europe, from which the Nazis seized works of art, were—and continue to be—denied the right to inspect the collection.

At a press conference on November 4, Augsburg senior prosecutor Reinhard Nemetz justified this by claiming that proceedings against Cornelius Gurlitt for tax evasion and embezzlement had not yet been completed. “Priority is given to the investigations. I can’t speculate about who may be the owners of any of these objects”, he said, adding that people believing they are entitled to any of the works are welcome to register their claim.

No indication was given regarding Cornelius Gurlitt’s whereabouts. “I don’t know where he is, because that’s not a matter we’re dealing with”, Nemetz said. No investigations have been carried out by the judicial authority either in Salzburg, where Gurlitt owns a house and—according to press reports—also rents a flat, nor in the home of his sister.

Nemetz’s assertion that informing the public about the trove would threaten the preservation of the art works was criticised by Berlin art expert and lawyer Peter Raue as “verging on insolence”. A list of images published on the Internet would enable museums and relatives of former Jewish owners to help resolve questions of ownership.

The Israeli Haaretz newspaper wrote that the works found in Munich were “only the tip of the iceberg”. According to the Culture and Media Advisor to the German government, there were about 80 German art dealers who had acted like Hildebrand Gurlitt.

Alfred Weidinger, vice director of the Vienna Belvedere Palace Museum, told the Austrian APA news agency: “It was no secret that this collection existed. Basically, every important art dealer in southern Germany knew it existed—and knew how much of it there was, too”.

Weidinger claimed the collection would have been found much earlier, if the relevant German authorities had carried out their investigations more carefully. “If they didn’t know until 2013 that there was a Gurlitt collection in Munich, they weren’t doing their job properly”, he said.

In a FOCUS Online video interview, Lempertz auction house legal adviser Karl-Sax Feddersen defended the auction of the Beckmann painting from Gurlitt’s collection as “a normal affair”. He admitted that Gurlitt was known to the house: “The name Gurlitt—Gurlitt was a colourful character who did business even in those crazy times (sic). If you are familiar with the background, you will of course understand that there can be problems in this respect”. But the auction house reconciled itself to the inheritance of the Beckmann picture.

“Degenerate Art”

In 1937 the Nazis launched their “Degenerate Art” campaign with a touring exhibition in Munich and later in other major cities in Germany and Austria. In preparing for the exhibition more than 21,000 works of modern art were confiscated from German museums. After the war began, another 600,000 works of art were stolen in the occupied countries of Europe.

The propaganda exhibition, “Degenerate Art”, displayed to the public for the last time many modern masterpieces that had been confiscated from museums. It attracted a record number of over 2 million visitors. The confiscated works were then stored in depots in Berlin—for example, in the Victoria warehouse in Kreuzberg, in the Schönhausen Palace in Berlin-Niederschönhausen and also in the basement of the wartime propaganda ministry, where a number of leading Nazis like Hermann Göring stored valuable appropriated works they later privately sold.

In May 1938, the confiscation of the art works was legitimised by the “Law on Sequestration of Products of Degenerate Art”.

A total of 1,004 paintings and 3,825 graphics, officially declared to be unusable eminent pictures, were burned in the courtyard of Berlin’s main fire station on March 20, 1939. Some 125 works, chosen by a “Commission for the Liquidation of Products of Degenerate Art” under the direction of Hermann Göring, were scheduled for an auction in Switzerland, which was to be transacted by the Theodor Fischer auction house in Lucerne.

Joseph Goebbels’s propaganda ministry then commissioned qualified art experts to sell other works of art in order to obtain foreign currency for the imperial treasury and the war. Among these art sellers were Ferdinand Möller, Karl Buchholz, Bernhard A. Böhmer and others, including the Dresden art historian, Hildebrand Gurlitt.

Although Gurlitt had a Jewish grandmother and was involved in modern art prior to 1933 as director of the Zwickau Museum and head of the Hamburg Art House, he rose to become one of the Nazis’ most successful art dealers after Hitler’s seizure of power.

From 1942, Gurlitt operated in France and the Netherlands on behalf of Hitler’s “Special Mission Linz”, cooperating there with Erhard Göpel and Bruno Lohse. The commission involved the gathering of looted art objects for a monumental “Führer Museum” in Linz.

Bruno Lohse, SS lieutenant colonel and deputy head of a special staff for visual arts at the notorious Task Force of Reich Leader Alfred Rosenberg (ERR) in Paris, organized—among other cultural crimes—the destruction of Alphonse Schloss’s famous Jewish collection in southern France. The collection contained numerous Dutch masterpieces of the 17th century, including some by Rembrandt, Brueghel, Rubens and Frans Hals. Hermann Göring selected hundreds of paintings from those confiscated in the ERR’s Jeu de Paume headquarters for his personal collection. Apparently, Gurlitt also had access to this collection and was in a position to exploit it for himself. Only a few of the works were to resurface after the war.

As is now known, Hildebrandt Gurlitt also participated in an October 1943 visit by Erhard Göpel to expressionist painter Max Beckmann, who was living in exile in Amsterdam. The two art dealers talked Beckmann into selling his pictures. In the postwar period, this was portrayed as an heroic feat on part of Göpel, who allegedly wanted to secure Beckmann’s financial livelihood. Such euphemistic accounts survive even today on Wikipedia.

No legal consequences after 1945

After the war, the raids conducted by the Nazi looters went unpunished. Hildebrand Gurlitt and many others continued to work as art dealers. Gurlitt participated in denazification proceedings that exonerated him, partly because of his Jewish grandmother.

Gurlitt claimed during his interrogation that most of the works in his collection were burned in the bombing of Dresden, shortly before the war ended. In the 1960s, his widow repeated this claim, which the discovery of the Munich trove has now proved to be a lie.

Approximately a hundred works, found and confiscated by the Americans during Gurlitt’s arrest at the von Pölnitz family castle in northern Bavaria, were described by Gurlitt as “a private collection”. His demand for their return proved successful. The Allies also handed collections back to many other Nazi art dealers.

In the postwar period, Hildebrand Gurlitt again dealt in modern art, heading the Düsseldorf Art Association until his death in 1956. He was revered in polite society to such an extent that a street in Düsseldorf was named after him.

Following the war, other Nazi art dealers also managed to pursue their former profession undisturbed or attain honourable positions in the cultural sector, as did Ferdinand Möller and Erhard Göpel. The latter was an editor at the Prestel publishing company from 1948, as well as art critic for theSüddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit newspapers. His museum career at the Bavarian State Picture Collection failed only because his advocates had themselves been connected with “Special Mission Linz”—as was attested by the director general of the collection, Ernst Buchner, formerly one of Hitler’s most important art advisers.

Hermann Voss, head of “Special Mission Linz”, was appointed director of the Dresden State Art Collections by Goebbels in 1943 and removed from the post by the Soviet occupiers in 1945. Only when he fled to the West was he arrested and interrogated by the American occupation authorities. However, he was able to evade conviction and eventually even managed to rise to the position of Bavarian state government adviser on the sale of works of art.

In the latest issue of Die Zeit, US historian and expert on Nazi looted art Jonathan Petropoulos declared that trading in stolen art is once again flourishing, particularly in Munich, where a network of former Nazis is active. He pointed out that those involved included Bruno Lohse, Andreas Hofer, Karl Haberstock and Hildebrand Gurlitt.

When former SS officer Bruno Lohse died at the age of 95 in 2007, stolen paintings by Claude Monet, Auguste Renoir and Camille Pissarro were discovered in his Zurich safe, which was managed under the code name of a certain “Schönart” company based in Liechtenstein.

The German judiciary, itself riddled with former Nazi attorneys, showed no interest in pursuing the art dealers and museum directors who were involved in Nazi art theft. “The parties concerned were able to continue their lives unmolested and became a normal part of the West German art scene”, says Petropoulos.

When two members of the Task Force of Reich Leader Alfred Rosenberg, Robert Scholz and Walter Andreas Hofer, were sentenced to ten years’ incarceration in Paris in 1950, the Federal Republic refused to extradite them.

To this day, works that the Nazis seized from public museums and passed on to their licensed art dealers—including Gurlitt—in order to be resold are regarded as property lawfully acquired through purchase. The transactions made at the time under conditions of force were never declared annulled. The “Law on Sequestration of Products of Degenerate Art” was not revoked after 1945, and art dealers consequently had free rein to trade in the stolen works of art.

The current conduct of the office of the public prosecutor has to be seen in this context. It wants to avoid an open debate about the recently discovered paintings and the behaviour of the post-war German judiciary in relation to art theft perpetrated by the Hitler regime. At the same time, it wants to protect stakeholders in the art market, who are still enriching themselves through the sale of art works plundered by the Nazis.