Showing posts with label PCHA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PCHA. Show all posts

07 June 2018

Revisiting the WWII looted gold issue

by Marc Masurovsky

[Editor's note: this brief expose was drafted in 2000 as part of the research being conducted at the Presidential Advisory Commission for Holocaust-era Assets (1999-2000).  All of the documents produced by the so-called Gold Team of the PCHA are available for consultation at the William J. Clinton Library in Little Rock, AK.]

The US purchased gold at $35 per troy ounce from 1934 to 1968. The US sold gold during that period at $35 per troy ounce. The main instrumentality through which the US purchased gold was the Exchange Stabilization Fund.

The Exchange Stabilization Fund was established in 1934 under the Gold Reserve Act. The Secretary of the Treasury had exclusive control over the Exchange Stabilization Fund. The only official to whom the Secretary of the Treasury had to answer to for America’s gold policy was the President of the United States. Together, these two individuals shared responsibility for gold bought and sold by the United States government through the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Based on the little evidence that we have seen so far, the President was kept apprised of the evolution of US gold policy, and of gold movements in other parts of the world.

The US government displayed little concern between 1934 and 1968 for the origin of the gold that it purchased from foreign central banks. A handful of officials, however, went on record from the late 1930s to the late 1950s to criticize the absence of an official screening policy of these gold inflows. Before the entry of the United States in the Second World War in December 1941, these officials focused their concerns on whether the United States should accept gold originating from German, Italian, and Japanese mints or gold sold by Germany, Italy, and Japan, that may have originated from other mints and fallen into the possession of the aforementioned Axis powers through acts of duress. These officials were also concerned that the Bank of England may have acquired some of this gold in the late 1930s and resold it to the United States as British gold. The same concerns applied to the Bank of France, the Bank of Belgium, and the Swiss National Bank.

During the Second World War, the United States was a net exporter of gold and therefore there was no issue about gold of dubious provenance entering the Federal Reserve system as an acquisition or an earmark.

At the end of the Second World War, the United States government discouraged the acquisition of gold bullion that may have been looted by the Axis powers from the central banks of countries that they occupied and annexed between 1938 and 1945. In particular, the United States government was reluctant to accept gold bullion minted at the Prussian State Mint in Berlin and by the Degussa smelting and refining company. Many of the bars ended up in the monetary reserves of the neutral countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, and Turkey. There was also suspicion that these bars were shipped to the central banks of Latin American countries, in particular, Argentina.

The United States and its allies negotiated with the neutral countries to persuade them to relinquish these looted bars so that they could be placed in a gold pot from which countries that had lost their gold during the war could reclaim at least a portion of their losses through a claims process administered by the Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold.

These negotiations produced settlements which allowed the signatory countries to resume normal gold trade activities and especially to sell looted gold that they had acquired without fear of having to fight off claims by the governments of formerly occupied countries for the gold that they had lost and which was now in circulation again.

Some of this looted gold was used to obtain economic development loans and was posted as collateral to obtain the needed financing from American commercial banks. Some of this gold was also sold to the Exchange Stabilization Fund in exchange for dollars. This activity lasted from the late 1940s into the early 1960s.

From 1945 to 1955, there were concerns in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and in the Treasury about the presence of Prussian Mint bars in the earmarked accounts of foreign central banks at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. An audit conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1955 revealed that there were more than 2,000 Prussian Mint bars on deposit in the earmarked accounts of foreign central banks at the FRBNY. As of 1956, these same officials were less concerned about Prussian mint bars produced before 1945 than they were about Prussian Mint bars produced after 1945 in the newly-established German Democratic Republic (GDR).

In summary, the United States government did not have a policy in place to screen out gold bullion that it considered to have been fraudulently acquired by foreign central banks. For reasons of international monetary policy and foreign economic considerations, the United States government opted for a non-discriminatory approach to the buying and selling of gold bullion between 1934 and 1968, while gold was valued at the fixed price of $35 per troy ounce of fine gold.

When the United States acquired gold from foreign central banks, it made sure that, before being deposited in the Secretary’s Special Account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, that gold was properly assayed and converted into US Assay Office bars. Hence, there is no question whatsoever about non-US Assay bars being in the possession of the United States government at any given time since the enactment of the Gold Reserve Act and the establishment of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.

When non-US Assay office bars are deposited on earmark in the accounts of foreign central banks at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, they are under nominal control of the United States government as custodian of these bars, much like a bank is the custodian of our funds when we deposit them in a savings or checking account. But the ownership of these assets still lies with the depositor. Thus, if one accepts this model, the United States government did come into the control of non-US assay office bars deposited in earmark accounts of foreign central banks, which were looted by the Nazis, as early as 1939-1940.

Non-US Assay Office bars and coins came under the control of the United States government in the European Theater of Operations, between 1943 and the early 1950s. As American troops swept through the various theaters of operations in Europe to defeat the Axis powers, they came across different categories of assets that had been looted by Axis troops and officials from their victims and the institutions of the countries that they had occupied and incorporated into the Third Reich.

Different procedures were established in the various theaters of military activity that governed the seizure, storage, classification, and disposal of these assets, including gold bullion. Did assets of victims of Nazi persecution fell into the hands of American troops at this particular time? The answer is affirmative. Did American troops know that these assets belonged to victims of the Nazis? The answer varies according to the level of understanding among these troops of the methods used by the Nazis to wrest valuables from their victims and the extent to which these valuables were processed through the Reich’s monetary and financial institutions to gain access to foreign exchange.

With respect to gold bullion, American troops seized over three hundred million dollars (in 1945 dollars) of gold bullion during their campaign of liberation of Europe. There can never be a true accounting of the exact amount of gold found by these troops, their commanding officers, specialized intelligence units like T-Forces and the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), its successor the Strategic Services Unit (SSU), as well as by the Counter-Intelligence Corps of the Army, and many other sub-units deployed in the field to gain control of enemy territory and administer the peace.

Because it was common practice in Europe to hoard gold bullion, American officials uncovered thousands of coins and small bars as belonging to private citizens. Under Military Government Law 53, the bulk of the privately-owned monetary gold was turned over to the US Military Government authorities in Germany in the immediate post-war years. The so-called Law 53 gold, or monetary gold owned by private individuals, was disposed of in many different ways. Some of it was placed in the gold pot and restituted to claimant countries. Some of it was claimed by the IRO, although we do not know whether the IRO actually obtained Law 53 gold. Most of Law 53 gold was infused into the German economy. Did Law 53 gold belong to victims of Nazi persecution? There can be no doubt of that.

American, British and French troops found the bulk of the monetary gold at the Merkers salt mine complex in Thuringia, Germany. According to traditional recounting of the story, Allied troops stumbled on the gold, our research shows that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that senior American officers were aware that a substantial amount of gold that they referred to as “treasure” was located in Thuringia. But they were not sure where the Nazis had hidden it. Also, US intelligence reported that the nascent Nazi resistance movement called Wehrwolf hid gold in many places along the path of incoming American troops. This gold was slated for financing their anti-Allied activities in the period of occupation of Germany and Austria.

In the months preceding and following the defeat of Germany, American troops seized many caches of Wehrwolf wealth, as well as the contents of the Merkers mine, troves of gold coins belonging to sundry German government and security agencies in Germany, Austria, and northern Italy. The American military government authorities established a set of procedures to ensure the proper handling of these gold valuables. There is no doubt, however, that an untold amount of gold bullion ended up in the possession of American troops. That is the nature of war. The post-war black market, if anything, confirms this assertion since gold was the preferred currency of exchange to buy food and items like cigarettes, clothes, and other day-to-day items.

Were there any instances of documented deviations of captured gold bullion while in the custody of American troops and officials of Military Government? We have a few cases, but lack of time and resources has prevented us from conducting an exhaustive search for actual cases of misappropriations. The lack of obvious evidence of such diversions points to a small number of documented cases that researchers might come across in the files of the Theater Provost Marshal or of the Criminal Investigative Branch of the Army.

There are, however, several rumors of massive diversions of gold bullion by senior American officers which still warrant further investigation, owing to the magnitude of the amounts involved and the number of individuals involved. One concerns the so-called Mittenwald cache that was uncovered in southern Germany by American troops in early June 1945. The other pertains to gold bullion uncovered by the Third Army in Thuringia in April 1945 and illegally shipped from Europe to the United States in the summer of 1945. These two allegations deserve to be further investigated, only because of the fact that much has been written about them already and some form of closure is required to either confirm or infirm these rumors that cast a pall of suspicion on the US Armed forces.

Did victim gold come into the control of United States troops? The answer is affirmative. Victim gold was abundantly present at the Merkers as well as in more than forty other caches that the United States Army uncovered throughout the theater of operations. How did the United States government determine that the captured gold belonged to Nazi victims? US officials relied on captured German documents to reach these conclusions. In many cases, they assumed that this gold belonged to victims because of the circumstances surrounding its seizure—Axis police and security officials on the run often fled with booty seized from their victims that was easy to carry, namely gold coins, small bars (coin bars), jewels, precious stones, and cash.

How much control did US troops exert over these captured items? The level of control varied from military region to military region throughout the US zones of occupation. There were a number of irregularities noted in Austria where US intelligence operatives were divided over whether to recycle these captured valuables to finance their clandestine operations or if these valuables should be turned over to the proper finance authorities of US military government. As stated earlier, the conditions were ripe for small-scale thefts to occur, owing to varying levels of accountability or lack thereof. But, for the most part, we believe that these valuables were handled properly, for want of any serious evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

US officials, for the most part, considered captured gold bullion as monetary gold, therefore not subject to restitution to individuals or to organizations that provided relief and rehabilitation support to survivors of the Holocaust and to refugees in search of new homes. The Law 53 gold is a case in point. The most controversial aspect of this question involves the hundreds of tons of gold bullion seized by US troops at Merkers and other caches. Although this gold had been incorporated into the monetary reserves of the Third Reich, a cloud of suspicion as to its true origin has not been lifted since its capture.

The Slany report has devoted an entire chapter to this question. Its authors attempted to resolve this sensitive question in as balanced a way as possible. No one disputes the fact that victim gold was incorporated into the monetary reserves of the Third Reich. The argument centers on how much gold was incorporated into these reserves. Again, lack of time and adequate resources has prevented us from reaching some form of closure. We believe that a moral obligation exists to attain such closure. That is why we will make a recommendation along those lines to pursue the research effort into this question. To that end, we will propose a number of methodologies by which to reach a satisfactory level of closure. Hopefully, the symbolic value of such an effort is not lost on our colleagues and on the commissioners. To us, this gold is a constant reminder of the Shoah, how the personal belongings of millions of individuals who perished in the Holocaust became monetized into gold bars and coins to allow the Third Reich to prolong its policy of military conquest and extermination of those individuals whom they stripped of their personal belongings. The presence of these bars and coins in the reserves of central banks throughout the world, including our own, are a testament to the perversity of Nazi policies. We simply owe it to the victims to get the truth out.

The Allies determined that close to two-thirds of the bars found at Merkers were likely to contain traces of victim gold, some in larger quantities than others, depending on the quality of the melt performed either at the Prussian Mint or at the facilities of Degussa, the largest smelting and refining operation in Germany, and perhaps in Europe.

Useful links:




10 February 2016

Thoughts about provenance research, 1995-2016


by Marc Masurovsky

It has been almost twenty years, yes, 20, two times 10, 4 times 5, since “provenance research” entered the public sphere in the context of Holocaust-related matters.

Up to that time, no one uttered those two words who was not an art historian or an art expert and only in the most guarded ways. Provenance research had always been the exclusive province of art historians and, by extension, museum professionals and stewards of art collections.

Several events, when viewed cumulatively, can be blamed for upsetting the apple cart of provenance.

1/ the January 1995 “Spoils of War” International conference sponsored by the Bard [College] Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts. Although focused in part on Soviet “takings” of cultural objects which were located in their zone of military occupation in the waning months of WWII, the conference was an opportunity to revisit the massive looting of art objects by all sides, mostly by the Axis powers, during the Nazi era, the Holocaust and WWII. Implicit was the understanding that the provenance history of these mislaid, stolen, plundered, displaced art objects had been severely disrupted as a result of war, occupation, and genocide. In attendance were art historians, lawyers and government officials from a variety of countries.

2/ The Swiss bank crisis regarding Jewish dormant accounts emerged in 1995 initially pitting the World Jewish Congress and its president, Edgar Bronfman, against the Swiss Bankers Association. It exploded into a series of landmark hearings organized by Republican Senator Alfons d’Amato, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and the launching of a class action suit by 22 American lawyers representing Holocaust survivors and their heirs whose assets were on deposit in Swiss banks. What did this have to do with provenance research? Writ large, the Swiss bank crisis paved the way for a more public discussion of the fate of Jewish assets held in various parts of Europe by institutions, financial and cultural, which had no business holding on to them. If anything, the debate over Swiss banking misdeeds called into question the illicit ownership of tangible assets misappropriated from their rightful owners, Jewish victims of Nazism.

3/ The “Eizenstat reports” of 1996 and 1997 on the (mis)handling of gold looted by the Nazis, sold and/or deposited in Swiss banks and in financial institutions in other so-called “neutral countries” during WWII. Although not focused on art, we can argue that the "provenance" of the gold looted by the Nazis lay at the center of the US government study of "looted gold" and the Swiss role in recycling it.

4/ the September 1997 international conference in Washington, DC on the “legal and moral consequences of art restitution” organized by Ori Z. Soltes, director of the Klutznick Museum of B’nai B’rith in Washington, DC, placed looted art and the challenges of postwar restitution squarely in the forefront of public debate over looted art. That conference witnessed the birth of the Holocaust Art Restitution Project (HARP).

4a/ The World Jewish Congress (WJC) announced the establishment of its own looted art project, the “Commission for Art Recovery", chaired by Ronald S. Lauder.

5/ the seizure of “Portrait of Wally” and “Night City III” by Egon Schiele at the Museum of Modern Art in January 1998 opened wide the doors on how looted art is able to travel, claimed and unrestituted, for decades and end up on loan at an eminent New York cultural institution.

6/ the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets of December 1998 which produced the much heralded and reviled non-binding “Washington Principles”, acting as guidelines for handling “looted art”. Provenance research lay at the core of these principles.

7/ the legislating of a Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets (PCHA) which saw the light of day in June 1998, and opened its doors in spring of 1999. Art was one of three “assets” to be investigated by an executive commission until 2001. Excluded from consideration were looted art objects in the United States, a critical failure of the PCHA.

8/ the American Association of Museums and the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) enacted their own guidelines on how to handle art objects in their collections.

9/ the AAM published a “Guide to Provenance Research” co-authored by Nancy Yeide of the National Gallery of Art, Amy Walsh of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, and Konstantin Akinsha, author of “Beautiful Loot.”

In the space of five years, art historians found themselves “sharing” provenance research and with attorneys, government officials, non-art historians, researchers, Holocaust claimants and their advocates, and NGO’s concerned with the location, identification and restitution of art objects misappropriated between 1933 and 1945.

Once viewed as a discrete task limited to the scholarly documentation of the history of art objects, provenance research became politicized overnight with battle lines drawn over how far such research would go and what the ultimate goal of provenance research should be. Is it really about documenting and verifying who has good title to an object? Or should such questions not haunt an art historian’s quest for information about an object?

The debate still rages, the camps have solidified, alliances between American and German museum professionals are the latest incarnation of this struggle as museum professionals and “provenance researchers” on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean cement their strategic partnerships within the museum world. Outside that sphere are those who advocate a more ecumenical and interdisciplinary approach to provenance research, closely connected with political, economic and social history, the upheavals that they document, and using such research to right some wrongs and inject ethics into the stewardship of collections while shedding light on the mechanics of cultural plunder and helping to (re)write the history of art as seen through the distorted prism of mass conflict, dictatorship and genocide. Not pretty but necessary.

01 July 2013

1998: Year Zero of Art Restitution?


Highlights from that fateful year include, but are not limited to:

-the seizure of two paintings by Egon Schiele at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which prompted some soul searching in Austrian government and museum circles, the outcome of which was the world’s only Art Restitution Law;

Logo, Source: PCHA
-Congressional hearings in Washington, DC, on the role of the US government in facilitating or hampering the restitution of assets looted from Jews and other victims of the Third Reich;

–the establishment of a Presidential Commission to examine the role played by the US government in the recovery and return of property stolen from Jews between 1933 and 1945,

–the recently established Holocaust Claims Processing Office (HCPO), a component of the New York State Banking Department broadened its mandate to include looted art claims,

–the organization of a landmark international conference aimed at creating a new consensus regarding the dispensation of justice in matters of plunder against Jews and other victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution,

–passage of the Holocaust Victims Redress Act and the aborted introduction of legislation to tighten due diligence practices in American museums (an attempt that was scuttled by then Congressman Schumer’s ambition to become Senator or his close relationships with New York museums, hard to say…).

What a year!

03 December 2012

Funeral for the idea of a US Commission on Looted Art at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, on November 27, 2012

Absurdity funeral, Francisco Goya
Source: Wikipaintings
No one likes to be the bearer of bad news. US Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, Douglas Davidson, is no exception.

Davidson’s highly anticipated delivery at the “Fair and Just Solutions” International Symposium held in The Hague, Netherlands, on November 27, 2012, was cryptically dubbed “New Developments.” Fitting irony: the symposium was held at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

What new developments might have arisen in American government circles which had eluded most specialists and “insiders” in the contentious field of restitution of art stolen during the Holocaust and the Nazi years? It could certainly not be the creation of a US Commission on Looted Art, since the person who gave rise to this idea was former Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, envoy extraordinaire on all matters pertaining to the Holocaust since the Clinton years.

The idea for a US Commission on Looted Art was first announced at the end of the Holocaust-Era Assets Conference held in Prague in late June 2009. This conference, which produced its own declaration—The Terezin Declaration—was the “follow-up” conference to the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets held in Washington, DC, in early December 1998, which brought us the now-ubiquitous and oft-cited Washington Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art.

Since the Fall of 2009, the US Department of State, in concert with Ambassador Eizenstat and then Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues, Christian Kennedy, organized a series of “town meetings” whose purpose was to foster dialogue amongst all parties interested in the creation of a commission which would provide resolution mechanisms for claims filed by individuals whose families had suffered cultural losses at the hands of the Nazis and their Fascist allies more than sixty-five years ago and who wished to recover their lost property from American museums.

The sense one gleaned from these town meetings was that Ambassador Eizenstat was intent upon keeping his word—the creation of a US Commission on Looted Art—no matter what this Commission looked like and what it actually accomplished, as long as he could not be blamed for having made an empty promise.

The body language during those town meetings was unmistakable: any US Commission on Looted Art would require the approval of American museums, their directors and legal advisors in order to pass muster. That alone signified that this Commission might end up being a dead letter owing to museums’ steadfast refusal to acknowledge the validity of Holocaust-era claims for looted objects in their collections.

As for Ambassador Eizenstat, his constant references to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust-Era Assets (PCHA) from 1998-2000, the London Conference on Looted Gold of the late 1990s, created the impression in those town meetings that his ideas about Holocaust justice had not evolved since 1998.  During those meetings, Eizenstat would make continual reference to the so-called International Committee of Eminent Persons, a group of … well, eminent persons who sat around and pontificated about matters which involved complex historical evidence, complex forensic evidence, and far more complexity than anyone might be ready and willing to absorb in order to decide the fate of a family’s claims for property lost during the Holocaust.

The model proposed by Ambassador Eizenstat—occasional meetings of such a grouping of eminent persons who would be asked to review “meritorious” cases brought before them with respect to looted art in American museums—required that the reviewers of such cases be impartial and not at all connected with the issue of looted art and its postwar restitution.  That suggestion alone even raised the hackles of American museum lawyers who rightfully argued in tandem with art restitution lawyers, specialists, researchers, and claimants, that the adjudication process for looted art claims would be badly served if the fate of those cases rested on a poor understanding of historical research.

Good research alone was—is, and will always be—the “ad minima” guarantee for any "reasonable" approach to a looted art case. For that to happen, any US commission on looted art worth its pound of salt would have to rely heavily on professional, methodical, and empirical historical research into the circumstances of Holocaust-era thefts and misappropriations of art objects from Jewish homes and businesses.

In this time and age, research budgets do not fall within the purview of the US government, especially when the day-to-day business of members of Congress and Federal officials is to slice and dice budgets. Holocaust research? Forget about it…

Hence, the financing model for a hypothetical US Commission on Looted Art would require some form of partnership with the private sector or a system—as yet undefined—of grant-making that would allow for case-based research to occur as a precondition to reach any decision on a looted art case brought before such a Commission.

At the time of its death, the US Commission on Looted Art, as described by Ambassador Davidson at The Hague, was supposed to consist of two branches—research and adjudication—both separate and distinct so as to preserve their integrity and impartiality. That’s as far as anyone went. At least, that’s as much as we will know for a long time to come.

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012, shortly before noon, Ambassador Davidson became the inevitable bearer of bad news, announcing to a surprised and somewhat puzzled international audience that the US government was hoisting the white flag of surrender on the mast of its errant flagship, the "USS Restitution", thereby abandoning all efforts to promote a government-supported mechanism to resolve looted art cases.

Quoting Cicero frequently, Ambassador Davidson waxed eloquently at the Commission’s funeral for an idea that, like the late Generalissimo Francisco Franco of Spain, took a very long time to die.

Needless to say, many delegates from the five standing committees (British, French, Dutch, Austrian, German) dealing with art restitution matters in Western and Central Europe expressed their dismay over the American refusal to share in this unprecedented international effort—however limited—to heal the wounds of genocide by providing mechanisms to allow claimants to be heard and to receive justice-either through compensation or restitution.

What does the future hold?

For families seeking redress in the United States for a historical crime committed within the framework of a genocide, the verdict is: lengthy, tedious and bankrupting legal proceedings in the complex and often unfriendly American legal system which worships private property.

Two questions to consider:

1/ does this decision to abandon the creation of a US Commission on Looted Art mean that the US government is likewise forgoing any public efforts to address historical crimes of cultural plunder? Does this mean that cultural plunder is, once more, relegated to the category of an unfortunate plague of history during which one must “roll with the punches” thus returning the civilized world to its colonial past--somewhere us somewhere in the 19th century?

If so, this bodes badly for the fate of S.2212, which is currently pending in the US Senate, a bill that, if passed, will allow looted art to enter the United States, unfettered by legal claims for the return of those stolen objects, while on US territory.  Since the US presents a more favorable climate under which such claims can be filed, the passage of S.2212 will be the last nail in the coffin of restitution efforts as we know them in the United States.

2/ what role did American Jewish organizations play in the decision to abandon the idea of a US Commission on Looted Art? Now that the post-mortem of the Commission’s demise is upon us, someone will have to examine the critical role played by the organized American Jewish community in ignoring and oftentimes opposing restitution of art looted during the Holocaust years. In fact, one could rightfully argue that, notable exceptions like the Claims Conference aside, the systemic refusal of the leadership of the American Jewish community to defend the rights of Jewish families to recover art stolen from them during the Nazi years and the Holocaust has made it possible for American politicians to cast the principle of cultural restitution as marginal and irrelevant. Hence, if there is blame to assign—this is not an enjoyable assignment—it must be spread equally between Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat and the leadership of the organized American Jewish community.

What now?

Annex:

Links to the five standing committees in Europe which address art restitution matters:

Austria: Beirat of the Commission for Provenance Research
France: Commission pour l'indemnisation des victimes de spoliations
Netherlands: Dutch Restitutions Committee
United Kingdom: Spoliation Advisory Panel