Law on Confiscation of the Products of Degenerate Art

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law on confiscation of products of degenerate art of May 31, 1938 ( RGBl. I, p. 612) allowed the retroactive and compensation-free confiscation of “degenerate” art that had previously been “seized” from museums or publicly accessible collections. The collection in favor of the German Reich was limited to works of art that were owned by Reich citizens or domestic legal entities at the time of confiscation and did not apply to “ the Land of Austria ”.

The confiscation was ordered by the “ Führer and Reich Chancellor ”, who also had to dispose of the objects that had become property of the Reich. He could delegate these powers to other bodies. Exceptionally, compensation should be possible to compensate for hardship .

occurrence

After a conversation between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels on July 24, 1937, Hitler decided to commission a commission headed by Adolf Ziegler to remove the "works of the decay" from all museums and public collections. Hermann Göring had previously given Bernhard Rust a similar assignment , but was slowed down by Hitler, who "obviously did not want to give up the scepter". 

The ordered and carried out seizure was initially based solely on a “ Fuehrer's order ”. Even in the “ Third Reich ”, however, efforts were made to legally protect and cover up encroachments on property rights through laws. In this case, the initiative came from Goebbels, who relied on Karl Haberstock 's expertise . 

implementation

The property rights of foreigners should be preserved; however, in some cases this was ignored. The hardship regulation was not reserved for private individuals, and individual museums also received compensation.

No use was made of the possibilities mentioned in the law to issue further ordinances and to transfer powers.

In explanations, it was stated how to proceed with the confiscated works:
"The confiscated works will disintegrate,
a) into those (predominantly foreigners) that can be used internationally, ie can be repaid by exchanging high-quality German art or foreign currency ,
b) in those that will have to be kept for teaching exhibitions of degenerate art,
c) in absolutely worthless ones, which will have to be destroyed. " 

validity

The Law on Confiscation of the Products of Degenerate Art was not repealed by the Allied Control Council. It existed until 1968 and only became invalid when it was not included in the collection of the Federal Law Gazette. Its legal validity was confirmed in September 1948 following a recommendation by the Museum Council of Northwest Germany that the works concerned should not be reclaimed.

This raised the question of whether the seizures that had been carried out on the basis of this law were also to be regarded as legally valid . Legal discussions differentiate between seizure from museums, i.e. from public property, and seizure from private property. Regarding the losses suffered by museums, the view prevailed in the immediate post-war period that the seizure law would retain its effect : the state, as the owner, could do anything with its property. In accordance with the above-mentioned decision of the Monument and Museum Council of Northwest Germany, no reclaims were made by the German museums in order to maintain legal peace .

In the case of expropriation of private property without compensation, however, the validity of the law is disputed. In long-term restitution proceedings , different judgments were made, but no return.

In some cases, the view is taken that the seizure measures carried out on the basis of this law are to be regarded as void using the Radbruch formula . According to another opinion, however, the legal injustice caused by the confiscation law cannot be classified at the morally high threshold of Radbruch, because the confiscation of the works of art was directed against all owners without distinction, it was “ultimately even on the criteria of race, nationality, religion and political opinion not arrived."

Web links

Wikisource: Law on Confiscation of the Products of Degenerate Art  - Sources and Full Texts

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Hans Hennig Kunze: Restitution 'Degenerate Art' - Property Law and International Private Law. Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-11016-818-9 , p. 42.
  2. ↑ Hans Hennig Kunze: Restitution 'Degenerate Art', p. 43 in note 122.
  3. ↑ Hans Hennig Kunze: Restitution 'Degenerate Art' , p. 43.
  4. ↑ Hans Hennig Kunze: Restitution 'Degenerate Art', p. 44.
  5. ^ Bildungsserver Berlin Brandenburg, accessed on March 26, 2009
  6. ^ Collection of the Federal Law Gazette, Part III, December 31, 1968; see. Hans Henning Kunze: Restitution of Degenerate Art, Property Law and International Private Law, Berlin, 2000 p. 262.
  7. ↑ Hans Henning Kunze: Restitution Degenerate Art, Property Law and International Private Law, Berlin, 2000, p. 64 f., Decision of the Monument and Museum Council of Northwest Germany of September 1948 , there in the appendix, p. 272; see also: Manfred F. Fischer: 50 years of unification of state monument preservation in the Federal Republic of Germany
  8. ↑ Hans Henning Kunze Conclusion, p. 261ff.
  9. ↑ Anette Hipp: Protection of cultural assets in Germany. Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-1101-6877-4 , p. 53.
  10. ↑ Carl-Heinz Heuer: The property law problem of “degenerate” art, in: Information brochure research center “Degenerate Art” , Berlin and Hamburg, no year ( memento of December 2, 2013 in the Internet Archive ), accessed on November 18, 2013.