Responsibility

Even before the end of the war, demands were raised to provide financial compensation to those persecuted by the National Socialist regime – including for confiscated art and cultural property. Immediately after the end of the war, the Western occupying powers began returning stolen property, provided that the owners could be easily identified. However, the groups of people persecuted in East and West were assessed and treated differently.

A diagonal view to the right showing shelves with files, their yellowed labels bearing names. On the left, a section of a filing cabinet
A room containing filing cabinets and shelves with folders, Landesamt für Bürger- und Ordnungsangelegenheiten, Abteilung I, Entschädigungsbehörde (State Office for Citizens’ and Public Order Affairs, Department I, Compensation Authority). Berlin State Archives, F Rep. 290-11-03 no. 129 / Photographer: Paul-Heinrich Grönboldt

After the division

Up to 1949, the Western military governments issued regulations in their occupation zones granting persons persecuted under National Socialism a right both to compensation and to the return of their property. The 1949 restitution decree regulated restitution in kind. The Federal Republic of Germany subsequently created mechanisms for Rückerstattung (restitution) and Entschädigung (compensation). Rückerstattung was intended to offset material damage and, ideally, to ensure the return of property. Entschädigung also referred to the non‑material harm inflicted through persecution and disenfranchisement by the National Socialist state.

In the Soviet Occupation Zone/GDR, the compensation for material losses or persecution‑related damage differed fundamentally from both the regulations and the underlying understanding of these issues in the Federal Republic. Property stolen during the National Socialist period that had come into state ownership generally remained as “Volkseigentum” (people’s property). In addition, the GDR established a hierarchy of victims, which also affected the granting of state support. “Kämpfer gegen den Faschismus” (fighters against fascism) – mostly those persecuted for political reasons or active members of the resistance – were given preferential treatment compared to the “Opfer des Faschismus” (victims of fascism). Only those living in the GDR could receive victim pensions or cures.

Printed sheet with text columns and the Berlin city coat of arms (a bear)
Extract from the Verordnungsblatt für Groß‑Berlin, 3 August 1949, containing the ordinance of the Allied Kommandatura Berlin BK/O (49) of 26 July 1949

Restitution in the Federal Republic of Germany

1949: Rückerstattungsanordnung (Restitution Decree) (BK/O (49)):

On 26 July 1949, the Allied Kommandatura issued the order that all identifiable assets were to be returned to persons persecuted under National Socialism. In the Rückerstattungsanordnung (Restitution Decree), the assets were defined as “Sachen und Rechte” (objects and rights). These had to be handed over to the original owners and their legal successors.

Compensation in the Federal Republic of Germany

1953: Bundesentschädigungsgesetz (Federal Compensation Act):

Under the Bundesentschädigungsgesetz persons persecuted under National Socialism or their relatives had the right to submit applications for financial Entschädigung in the following categories:
Damage to life, Damage to body and health, Damage to freedom, Damage to property, Damage to professional advancement, Damage resulting from the loss of insurance and pension benefits.

Entschädigung consisted primarily of pensions and financial compensation for loss of earnings, as well as medical care.

Restitution in the Federal Republic of Germany

1957: Bundesrückerstattungsgesetz (Federal Restitution Act) :

The Bundesrückerstattungsgesetz regulated “Wiedergutmachung” (reparation). At the Wiedergutmachungsämter (Restitution Offices), persons persecuted under National Socialism could apply for the restitution of property that had been stolen from them during the National Socialist period. This did not concern general Entschädigung, but the return or compensation of specific assets. This also included art and cultural property.
In rare cases, the objects were returned. Usually, applicants received a payment as compensation for damages.

Summary

Of the amounts paid out under the various procedures, three‑quarters had been allocated to the Bundesentschädigungsgesetz (Federal Compensation Act) by 1998, as this law generated ongoing payments such as pensions. However, the total sum bore no relation to the damage and suffering inflicted. Most art and cultural objects were never returned to those who had been robbed of them. The search for these objects and the efforts to secure their return continue to this day.

The reality of “Wiedergutmachung”

The terms “Wiedergutmachung” and Entschädigung quickly came under criticism. They can create the impression that the injustice inflicted on people could be “wiedergutgemacht” (made good again), that victims could be entschädigt (compensated) for = damage to their health or the murder of relatives through monetary payments – and that the German state or German society could thereby “reinwaschen” (wash itself clean) of its guilt and responsibility.

Major gaps in justice can also be observed in the way the West German authorities dealt with survivors and their descendants during the procedures. Discrimination against certain victim groups, moreover, continued:

Colour photograph of a light, cubic high‑rise building in the style of Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity)
Kathreiner‑Haus, temporary seat of the compensation office, Potsdamer Straße 186, 2009. Wikimedia © Jörg Zägel
  • The burden of proof lay with the applicants. They had to engage again with German bureaucracy, which had previously played a central role in their persecution.
  • The loss in value of objects was rarely acknowledged. Valuations from the time of the seizure were often used as the basis for determining value, or the same experts were consulted who had already appraised stolen artworks during the National Socialist period.
  • There were strict formal requirements (e.g., application deadlines) that had to be met when submitting claims; otherwise, applications were rejected. Many persecuted persons or descendants living abroad had to rely on long and slow postal routes.
  • Many procedures dragged on for years or decades. Some people died before a decision on their Entschädigung was reached and corresponding payments or the return of objects were made.
  • High legal fees placed an additional burden on survivors.
  • Some victim groups were excluded from the regulations, including those persecuted by the National Socialists as “Asoziale” (asocial individuals) and “Berufsverbrecher” (professional criminals), as well as homosexuals. Sinti and Roma continued to be regarded as “kriminell” (criminal) even after 1945 and were discriminated against through the lack of recognition of their persecution and annihilation.

Important sources

Typewritten letter with pre‑printed letterhead, handwritten additions and stamp
Letter from the Berlin Wiedergutmachungsämter (Restitution Offices), 13 April 1972. BLHA, Rep. 36A (II) no. 24496, fol. 81 81

As inadequate as the procedures for “Rückerstattung” (restitution) and “Entschädigung” (compensation) were – and still are – the files created in this context are important sources. They document the theft of financial assets and objects retrospectively from the perspective of those persecuted or their families. In addition to biographies of persecution, these documents often contain more detailed information on art and cultural property. Cross‑references to these post‑war documents are frequently found in the files of the Vermögensverwertungsstelle (Asset Realisation Office).

To understand the forms of dispossession during the National Socialist period even more precisely, and to return as many artworks as possible to the families of those who were robbed, all these documents are therefore significant sources. They provide valuable information for further research into the paths and whereabouts of the artworks, as well as into the biographies of the people concerned. In several cases in this exhibition, access to the Wiedergutmachungsakten (reparation files) made it possible to return artworks to the descendants of those who had been robbed.

Chronicle

When was that again?

1949
26 July 1949 The Allied Kommandatura issues an order requiring that all identifiable assets be returned to victims of National Socialist persecution. Extract from the Verordnungsblatt für Groß‑Berlin, 3 August 1949, containing the ordinance of the Allied Kommandatura Berlin BK/O (49) of 26 July 1949
1953
18 September 1953 The Bundesgesetz zur Entschädigung für Opfer der nationalsozialistischen Verfolgung (Federal Law on Compensation for Victims of National Socialist Persecution) is enacted in the Federal Republic of Germany. Claims could also be made for “Schaden an Vermögen” (damage to property). Letter from the Berlin Wiedergutmachungsämter (Restitution Offices), 13 April 1972. BLHA, Rep. 36A (II) no. 24496, fol. 81 81

This is just a small excerpt. You can find more information in the timeline.

View the entire chronicle

Story

Recha Storck

The efforts of Recha Storck’s descendants to obtain Entschädigung (compensation) and Rückerstattung (restitution) for the losses suffered during the National Socialist period began in the 1950s.

Between return…

Recha Strock's niece and nephew attempted to report at least the loss of the household furnishings to the post‑war authorities.

As no trace of their aunt – who had been deported to the Auschwitz extermination camp – could be found, the Berlin district court determined 30 April 1944 as her date of death.

What followed were proceedings that lasted more than five years. The descendants found themselves confronted with a German authority for whom the loss of their close family members played virtually no role.

All my many inquiries about Mrs Storck have so far unfortunately been in vain

Hanna Lutze, former housekeeper of Recha Storck, to her niece Mathilde Scheurembrandt, née Stiller, 20 June 1946. Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep. 025-03 No. 883/5, fol. 104
Transcript of a letter typed in italic typeface on a typewriter
Letter from the furniture dealer Ernst Kunst to Walter Conrad, 2 December 1943. LAB, B Rep. 025‑03 no. 883/50, fol. 12

However, the procedure concerning the stolen household furnishings yielded important insights for provenance research:

The “Bombengeschädigter” (bombing victim) Walter Conrad acquired most of the high‑quality furnishings belonging to Recha Storck. Through the furniture store Ernst Kunst, which had been commissioned by the Hauptwirtschaftsamt (Main Economic Office) to sell household furnishings to bombing victims, he purchased the items for 16,751 reichsmarks.

In the files of the Wiedergutmachungsämter (Restitution Offices) are letters, witness statements, and sworn declarations from those involved, as well as neighbours and acquaintances. They paint an ambivalent picture of Walter Conrad’s role in the purchase of the furniture. According to his own account, Conrad had acquired the furnishings in consultation with the owner of the Villa Storck at that time, a nephew of Adolf Eduard Storck, holding them in trust for Recha Storck – for her possible return. The nephew confirmed that he had been in contact with Conrad, but denied that Conrad had acted on his behalf.

The central piece of evidence in the proceedings was the file of the Vermögensverwertungsstelle (Asset Realisation Office) and the Inventar und Bewertung (inventory and valuation) form it contained. However, the limited information on this valuation list made it difficult to match the items with those still in Walter Conrad’s possession in 1950.

During an on‑site inspection in 1954 at the Villa Storck, staff of the Berlin Wiedergutmachungsämter documented those items that could be clearly attributed to the property of Recha Storck. These included oil paintings by Adolf Eduard Storck.

In April 1955, the Wiedergutmachungskammer (Restitution Chamber) at the Berlin regional court ruled that Walter Conrad had to return the remaining furnishings belonging to Recha Storck to her descendants.

…and loss

However, not all items could be returned:

Among other things, a Blüthner grand piano and a library containing around 300 books remained unaccounted for. These objects were not part of the group purchased by Walter Conrad but had been “verwertet” (liquidated) elsewhere.

Whether they are still held by private individuals or public institutions could not be determined on the basis of the available documents. The descendants received compensation for these lost objects.

Pre‑printed inventory form, filled in by typewriter.
The document Inventar und Bewertung (inventory and valuation) in the case of Recha Storck, 22 October 1943. BLHA, Rep. 36A (II) no. 37426, fol. 28

Story

Hugo Loewy

Hugo Loewy was murdered in Treblinka. After the war, his family searched in vain for his belongings.

Family Loewy

The last traces that can be found of Hugo Loewy are entries in various bureaucratic documents: his name on a transport list to the Theresienstadt ghetto dated 2 September 1942, as well as the transport card for that deportation. The 80‑year‑old Hugo Loewy was presumably murdered immediately after his arrival at the Treblinka extermination camp in September 1942 – older people were not selected for forced labour there.

Reverse side of a handwritten postcard
Postcard from Sylvia to Fritz Loewy in Warsaw, 13 December 1942 2008.001.004. 2008.001.004. Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre, Loewy Postcard Collection, RA043

His son Fritz Loewy had fled to Oslo in August 1940, believing he would be safe there. However, National Socialist troops occupied Norway in the spring of 1940. Loewy was captured and deported to Auschwitz on 26 November 1942. Like his father, he was murdered.

Hugo Loewy’s daughter‑in‑law, Sylvia Loewy‑Garai, survived only because of her American citizenship. After her husband’s deportation, she persistently searched for him, long after he had been murdered, as evidenced by numerous postcards she wrote to him at addresses where he might possibly be found.

Hugo Loewy’s daughter, Käthe Löwenstein, survived in exile together with her husband Hans Löwenstein.

Postcard with a handwritten address, postmarks, stamps, and notes
Postcard from Sylvia to Fritz Loewy in Opatów, Sandomierz, 9 January 1943 2008.001.024. 2008.001.004. Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre, Loewy Postcard Collection, RA043
Reverse side of a handwritten postcard with an additional handwritten note
Postcard from Sylvia to Fritz Loewy in Opatów, Sandomierz, “Empf. unbekannt in Opatów” (recipient unknown in Opatów), 9 January 1943 2008.001.024. 2008.001.004. Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre, Loewy Postcard Collection, RA043

The restitution procedure

Hugo Loewy’s daughter‑in‑law, Sylvia Loewy‑Garai, submitted an application for “Rückerstattung” (restitution) to the Berlin Wiedergutmachungsämter (Restitution Offices) in 1953. She was supported by Loewy’s daughter, Käthe Löwenstein. Both acted as heirs of Hugo Loewy.

Both Sylvia Loewy‑Garai and Käthe Löwenstein were still living abroad after fleeing National Socialist persecution when they submitted the restitution application. As was customary, they appointed a representative in Germany to act on their behalf during the proceedings.

Artworks and other property

Sylvia Loewy‑Garai gave a statement at a Wiedergutmachungsamt (Restitution Office) detailing the furnishings of her father‑in‑law’s apartment, supplemented with a list of the confiscated and sold items. These also included the paintings. They are listed on the back of the letter, each with details regarding dimensions and frame type.

The Wiedergutmachungsämter attempted to contact some of the former buyers, such as Käthe Malzbender, the wife of the auditor Ludwig Malzbender, and SS‑Obersturmführer Johannes Schertl. Their efforts, however, were unsuccessful.

Typewritten document listing various items, front
List of the confiscated household furnishings and artworks of Hugo Loewy. 22 December 1953. Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep. 025‑08 no. 4119/51, fol. 11
Typewritten document listing various items, reverse
List of the confiscated household furnishings and artworks of Hugo Loewy. 22 December 1953. Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep. 025‑08 no. 4119/51, fol. 11v

After the restitution and compensation procedures were concluded, the offices made payments to the heirs. The artworks, however, have not been recovered to this day. They are presumably still in private ownership.

An online search produced a possible lead: in 2012, the auction house Ketterer sold a painting by Franz Skarbina titled Durchgang in der Fischerstrasse (Berlin) (Passageway in Fischerstrasse, Berlin), whose date and dimensions match the painting from the property of Hugo Loewy. Whether it is indeed the missing work cannot be said with certainty. After the auction, the painting again entered private ownership.

Sylvia Loewy‑Garai died in 1977 in Oslo, almost thirty-five years after her husband.

Story

Edith und Max Michaelis

From 1948 onwards, Johanna Christensen, Edith Michaelis’s sister, sought “Wiedergutmachung” and Entschädigung for her sister’s confiscated belongings.

“Wiedergutmachung”?

In 1948, Edith Michaelis’s sister submitted applications for “Wiedergutmachung” (restitution) and compensation to the Wiedergutmachungsämter (Restitution Offices). Born on 21 January 1890 in Berlin as Johanna Neustadt, and previously married to Ludwig Lewin, Michaelis was a dentist with a practice at Olivaer Platz, very close to her sister’s apartment at Kurfürstendamm 185. Persecuted by the National Socialist authorities as Jewish, she was prohibited from continuing her profession from 1937 onwards. She therefore decided to flee to Denmark with her daughter in the same year.

Johanna Christensen was the only surviving heir of her sister Edith Michaelis. At the time of the applications, however, she had no information about the whereabouts of her sister and brother‑in‑law and did not know whether they were still alive.

Index card, filled in by typewriter and by hand
Index card of the Central Location Index concerning Max and Edith Michaelis, September 1947. Request for information submitted by Johanna Christensen, sister of Edith Michaelis. Arolsen Archives, CLI M.18 – Documentation of the Central Location Index of the Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) in New York, DocID: 131659256

Despite all enquiries I have never heard from them again and must now assume that they were killed.

Johanna Christensen in the restitution proceedings, June 1948. Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep. 025‑01 no. 2266/51 with 2267/51, fol. 2

Based on the information provided by Johanna Christensen, who despite her enquiries had found no sign of life from her sister and brother‑in‑law, the Charlottenburg District Court declared Max and Edith Michaelis dead on 15 January 1948. The court recorded 1 January 1944 as the date of death.

Johanna Christensen died in 1953. In 1955, her daughter resumed the restitution proceedings. They were not concluded until nine years later.

The “Haushaltsvorstand” (head of household)

In the restitution proceedings, it was established, among other things, that the objects stolen by the Vermögensverwertungsstelle (Asset Realisation Office) had been the property of Edith Michaelis.

His [Max Michaelis] new home, at Kurstendamm [sic] 185, was completely furnished with the furniture belonging to Mrs. Michaelis which she had inherited from her first husband, Mr. Ludwig Lewin.

Affidavit by Curt Albu, a friend of the Michaelises’, September 1949. Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep. 025‑08 no. 2975/55, fol. 7

My grandfather and the father of the late Mrs Edith Michaelis were brothers. I therefore knew Mrs Michaelis from early childhood. As I grew up, I continued to visit regularly in the home of Mrs Michaelis’s first husband, Ludwig Lewin, and later also in the Michaelis household. I was therefore well acquainted with the furnishings of the Lewin apartment […] and I can […] confirm that Mrs Edith Michaelis brought these furnishings into her second marriage.

Affidavit by Ida Liebmann, June 1960. LAB B Rep. 025‑08 no. 2975/55, fol. 45

Although the furnishings of the apartment at Kurfürstendamm 185 belonged to Edith Michaelis, the file at the Vermögensverwertungsstelle was kept under the name of her husband, Max Michaelis, because the National Socialist authorities defined him as the head of household. “Haushaltsvorstand” (head of household) was the term used for the person – usually the husband – under whose name the National Socialist financial administration recorded a household. The names of other household members, especially wives, as well as children and other relatives, were often included in the files, though no separate files were created for them. This special status of men was not unique to the National Socialist period – before and long after, administrative files were kept in this way.

The evidence showing that the stolen objects were the property of Edith Michaelis demonstrates that the National Socialist authorities were primarily concerned with liquidating these items as quickly as possible. A precise determination of ownership played no role.

Identifying buyers

In the restitution proceedings, attempts were made to identify the buyers who had appeared in the private sales at the time and to involve them in the proceedings. This succeeded in only one case.

Letters sent to the buyers Gottfried Kornfeld and Sophie Überreiter, for example, were returned to the Wiedergutmachungsämter marked as undeliverable. This ended the authorities’ attempts to trace these individuals.

A response was received from the antiquarian bookseller Gustav Schmidt, who had acquired the large Michaelis library through the expert Max Niederlechner. He rejected a restitution claim, arguing that the purchase had taken place a long time ago and that he could no longer determine which books had been involved. He also stated that his stock had been “durch Kriegseinwirkung mit mehreren tausend anderen Büchern vollständig vernichtet worden” (completely destroyed by wartime events together with several thousand other books). The authorities accepted this explanation, and no further correspondence took place, with the result that the heirs ultimately did not recover any of the books.

Kornfeld und Überreiter

Through research conducted by the provenance researchers in the OFP project, more could be learned about the buyers Kornfeld and Überreiter. Court files found in the Landesarchiv Berlin show that several proceedings were brought against Sophie Überreiter after the war, in which she was also convicted. She had profited extensively from the National Socialist system of injustice, for example by acquiring several properties from Jewish owners who had been forced to sell. According to statements in restitution proceedings against her, these forced sales were accompanied by threats. In these transactions, Überreiter acted together with the merchant Leo Spiegel, with whom she stated she was in a relationship. Research in the digitally available Berlin address directories shows that Leo Spiegel lived at Flensburger Straße 20. The same address appears in the private sale of 2 July 1942 from the Michaelis household to a Gottfried Kornfeld. No entry for a Gottfried Kornfeld at Flensburger Straße 20 can be found in the Berlin address directories. It therefore seems likely that the buyer may have been Leo Spiegel acting under another name. Another indication may be the payment made on 8 July 1942 to the Oberfinanzkasse (Chief Finance Treasury), recorded as being made by “Kornfeld Pariser Str. 55” for both private sales. Sophie Überreiter was registered as living at Pariser Straße 55 by 1943 at the latest, as confirmed by the Berlin address directory.


Letterhead with handwritten notes
Letterhead of Sophie Überreiter in a letter to the Vermögensverwertungsstelle, 16 June 1942. BLHA Rep. 36A (II) 27713, fol. 189

After the war, Leo Spiegel and Sophie Überreiter lived in Bavaria, in Prien am Chiemsee, where the Wiedergutmachungsämter were able to locate them. The Berlin Regional Court ruled that properties they had acquired during the National Socialist period had to be returned, which was carried out. Sophie Überreiter was temporarily imprisoned – correspondence from this period bears the address of a penal institution. Later, the trail of Spiegel and Überreiter disappears.

It could not be determined where the artworks, books, and other objects from the Michaelis household acquired by Sophie Überreiter – and presumably also by Leo Spiegel – are located today. They are likely still in private ownership.

Story

Fritz Kurt Lomnitz

After the war, Fritz Kurt Lomnitz attempted to obtain compensation from Cuba for his property that had been seized in Germany. This also included his works of art.

Survival in exile

Typewritten letter with pre‑printed letterhead, handwritten additions and stamp
Letter from the Berlin Wiedergutmachungsämter (Restitution Offices), 13 April 1972. BLHA, Rep. 36A (II) no. 24496, fol. 81 81

Fritz Kurt Lomnitz survived persecution through his early emigration, first to the United States and then to Cuba. “Völlig mittellos” (completely destitute) and with a “Mangel an Sprachkenntnissen” (lack of language skills), as he later described to the Wiedergutmachungsamt (Restitution Office), it was in Cuba that he established a fruit‑trading business. From Havana, he submitted his application for “Rückerstattung” (restitution) to the Berlin reparation office in 1950.

His villa at Lassenstraße 1a was now located in the British Sector of Berlin and was inhabited by his stepdaughter from his first marriage, who had acquired it from Lomnitz in 1940 under the National Socialist policy of “Arisierung” (Aryanisation). He had reached a settlement with her, meaning he did not receive compensation for the loss of the house. In the 1980s, the Berlin actor and entertainer Harald Juhnke purchased the building and lived there until shortly before his death. A few years ago, it was demolished; today, a new building stands on the site, bearing a Berlin memorial plaque for Harald Juhnke. There is no reference to the Lomnitz family, who lived there and were later driven out of the city.

Regarding the household furnishings, Lomnitz submitted a sworn declaration to the Wiedergutmachungsämter. In the document, he listed not only furnishings but also artworks. He estimated their total value at least 45,000 deutsche marks and firmly rejected the authority’s initial restitution offer of 900 marks.

Fritz Kurt Lomnitz eventually received partial restitution after years of negotiation.

The applicant hereby states that, according to the law as he knew it in imperial Germany and in the Germany of Ebert, reparation consists in restoring the condition that would exist if the harmful intervention had not occurred.

Anwalt von Fritz Kurt Lomnitz im WGA-Verfahren, 18. Juni 1953, Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep. 025-05, Nr. 2128/50, Bl. 16R

The path of the Französischer Infanterist (French Infantryman)

Normally, it is difficult to identify buyers at an auction when only their surname is recorded in the documents. Like the reparation offices before them, provenance researchers are therefore rarely successful in such cases. In the case of the painting Französischer Infanterist (French Infantryman), however, the name “Ohloff” could be assigned to a specific person. Information from the file of the Vermögensverwertungsstelle (Asset Realisation Office) made it possible to locate the painting, attributed to Anton von Werner, in the Berlinische Galerie.

Information from the file of the Vermögensverwertungsstelle (Asset Realisation Office) made it possible to locate the painting, attributed to Anton von Werner, in the Berlinische Galerie. Fortunately, the museum had published its own research findings on the work. Anton von Werner had created the small oil painting as a study for a larger history painting. After its creation, it remained in the artist’s estate. When Fritz Kurt Lomnitz acquired it remains unknown.

Colour photograph of an oil painting showing a man in a blue‑and‑red uniform against a sandy‑coloured background, his arms held as if in an embrace
Anton von Werner, Französischer Infanterist, 1882, oil on cardboard. Berlinische Galerie, Museum of Modern Art, BG‑M‑SG 6549/92
Reverse of a framed oil painting. Wood, several labels (partially damaged), and markings on the wood
Reverse of the oil painting Französischer Infanterist by Anton von Werner, 1882. Berlinische Galerie, Museum of Modern Art, BG‑M‑SG 6549/92

The museum published information on provenance marks found on the reverse of the painting, namely, remnants of a label with a name, an address, and a telephone number. While the name and address are largely scraped off, the telephone number remains legible.

By comparing the number with Berlin telephone directories from the 1970s onwards, the provenance researcher at the Berlinische Galerie identified the visible fragments as the address of the Berlin art dealer Johanna Ohlhoff in 1940.

Extract from a telephone directory page, name in bold, two‑line address and contact details
Entry for Johanna Ohlhoff in the 1940 telephone directory. Amtliches Fernsprechbuch für den Bezirk der Reichspostdirektion Berlin, 1940 edition, p. 913
A section of a label on the back of a painting, partially scraped off
Label on the back of the oil painting Französischer Infanterist by Anton von Werner, 1882. Berlinische Galerie, Museum of Modern Art, BG‑M‑SG 6549/92
Extract from an address book page, showing the name “Kunsthandlung Johanna Ohlhoff” in a boxed entry with address and contact details
Entry for the art dealership Johanna Ohlhoff in the 1940 Berlin address book. Berliner Adressbuch 1940, Part II, p. 315

The findings from the Berlinische Galerie’s research and the files of the Vermögensverwertungsstelle could now be combined.

  • Johanna Ohlhoff had run her own art dealership since 1935 and appeared as a buyer at several auctions held by the Reich financial administration. At the auction of the property of Fritz Kurt Lomnitz, she purchased four artworks.
  • The Berlinische Galerie acquired the painting Französischer Infanterist from the estate of the sculptor Waldemar Grzimek, who died in West Berlin in 1984. No provenance information was recorded at the time.
  • There is no further direct trace on the painting itself that links it to its former owner, Lomnitz. The museum therefore had no indication of who the original owner might have been.

Work identity

It is not known when or where Fritz Kurt Lomnitz acquired the painting. What is certain is that it was in his possession when it was confiscated and subsequently “verwertet” (liquidated). Since the buyer’s name “Ohloff” recorded in the auction minutes of Union on 6 May 1941 can be plausibly matched with the identified address label of Johanna Ohlhoff, the Berlinische Galerie did not question the work identity. The heirs of Fritz Kurt Lomnitz were therefore identified, and a fair and just solution was agreed with them: Thanks to the generosity of the heirs, the painting is to remain in Berlin.

The other artworks from the Lomnitz family’s property that could be identified at all have so far not been located – partly because identifying the buyers is impossible, and partly because the very limited object descriptions in the sources make it extremely difficult to clearly identify and search for the artworks.

Story

Oskar Skaller

The restitution procedure in the Skaller case makes it particularly clear that the Wiedergutmachungsämter (Restitution Offices) were more interested in concluding proceedings quickly than in thoroughly clarifying the theft of assets.

Restitution in the name of the parents

Oskar and Lea Skaller died within a short time of one another in 1944, after an arduous flight via England to South Africa. Their daughters, Hanna Judith Warner, née Skaller, and Marianne Cassirer, née Skaller, survived in exile.

In the 1950s, they submitted claims for “Rückerstattung” (restitution) for the property stolen from their parents.

The artworks confiscated from the architect Wilhelm Wagner by the Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, Gestapo), primarily Persian ceramics, also became part of the restitution proceedings.

The files of the Vermögensverwertungsstelle (Asset Realisation Office) served as evidence of the theft and sale of the objects by the financial administration.

Settlement instead of return

Although some buyers were known by name, the authorities refrained from locating them.

Wilhelm Wagner submitted a sworn declaration during the proceedings regarding his purchase of the Skaller household furnishings. In it, he listed the individual items he had acquired. However, he did not mention the “14 Stücke antike Keramik” (fourteen pieces of antique ceramics) that he had purchased exclusively from the Vermögensverwertungsstelle in 1943. He was not called again as a witness or questioned further during the proceedings.

However, on the list […] a doll is mentioned which, according to my findings, is located in the Islamic Department of the Museum of Ethnology in the Eastern sector.

Sworn declaration by Hanna Judith Warner, née Skaller, 11 February 1960. Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep. 025-08, Nr. 2121/55, Bl. 66

The authorities did not follow up on this clue regarding the possible whereabouts of one of the ceramics. The museum holding the “Puppe” (doll) was located in East Berlin and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Wiedergutmachungsämter.

After eleven years, several expert reports and repeated submissions by the applicants, all proceedings ended in 1961, when the sisters agreed to a settlement regarding the removal goods and the lost artworks.

None of the missing objects was returned to the Skaller sisters during the proceedings.

And today?

To this day, most of the objects from the Skaller family’s property documented in the files of the Vermögensverwertungsstelle are considered missing.

The often imprecise descriptions of the items – such as the Persian ceramics – in the expert reports produced during the National Socialist period make precise identification, and thus restitution, difficult.

The descendants of Oskar and Lea Skaller continue to search for their art collection. Several of the missing artworks are listed in search notices in the Lost Art Database of the German Lost Art Foundation. There is still no trace of the Persian ceramics.

Screenshot from the Lost Art Database showing the entries relating to Oskar Skaller.
Search notices relating to Oskar Skaller in the Lost Art Database of the German Lost Art Foundation, as of 3 December 2025.
Colour photograph of a landscape‑format oil painting depicting a reclining nude woman with blonde hair.
Lovis Corinth, Liegender weiblicher Akt, 1915, oil on wood, 58 × 115 cm. Würth Collection, Inv. 20434, photo: Walter Bayer.

From time to time, other objects from the Skaller collection appear on the art market. In 2023, for example, the painting Liegender weiblicher Akt (Reclining Female Nude) by Lovis Corinth – purchased by Dr Conrad Doebbecke from the Vermögensverwertungsstelle – surfaced in the Munich art trade.

Before the auction, an agreement was reached between the descendants of Oskar and Lea Skaller and the owner at the time through the mediation of the Neumeister auction house. Today, the painting is held in the Würth Collection.

Story

Paul Jakob Eisner

The first application for “Wiedergutmachung” (restitution) and Entschädigung (compensation) was submitted by Paul Jakob Eisner from Argentina, where he had fled to escape the Nazis.

Black‑and‑white photograph of a destroyed residential building, with further ruins on the left. The building in the foreground has no windows and no roof
Photograph of the building Große Querallee 2, the former home of Paul Jakob Eisner and his family, destroyed during the war, 1950. Landesarchiv Berlin, B Rep. 202 (photos) no. 94‑03839; photographer: Möbius & Willmanowski

"Wiedergutmachung" (restitution)

In the 1950s, Paul Jakob Eisner submitted applications for “Wiedergutmachung” (restitution) and Entschädigung (compensation) from Buenos Aires. He also travelled to Germany to advocate personally for the swift processing of these proceedings.

The Wiedergutmachungsbehörden (Restitution Authorities) attempted to identify individuals who, according to the record of the auction of Eisner’s property on 2 April 1941, had acquired objects. However, the persons located by the office stated that they could not remember anything, had not purchased any objects at the auction, or that the items had been lost due to wartime circumstances. As a result, no restitutions were made. Efforts to trace the auction held by Hans W. Lange on 19 May 1941 were likewise unsuccessful.

Paul Jakob Eisner died on 29 July 1965 during a stay in Kreuzlingen, Switzerland. He did not live to see the conclusion of either his “Wiedergutmachung” or his Entschädigung process, which continued into the late 1960s. Following his death, his sister Berta took over the proceedings until her own death on 5 November 1965, after which her children continued these efforts until a settlement was reached.

Locating a painting

Research into a single painting from Paul Jakob Eisner’s possessions illustrates the paths such an object could take after its seizure. The case of Paul Jakob Eisner also shows what possibilities arise today as museums and other public institutions increasingly make their collections available online. This allows interested individuals and researchers worldwide to engage with this cultural heritage. It also more transparently conveys how this heritage entered these institutions. For provenance research and the effort to fulfil legitimate restitution claims, this represents a major step forward.

From the Potsdam files, the OFP researchers could not determine who had acquired the still life by Ludwig Adam Kunz at Hans W. Lange’s auction. However, research in databases such as that of the Deutsches Historisches Museum (DHM) allowed them to establish that the painting had been entered in 1941 into the inventory of the "Sonderauftrag Linz" (Special Commission Linz) under Linz number 1951. The DHM data also shows that the art dealer Maria Almas‑Dietrich had acquired the painting. As part of the "Sonderauftrag Linz", Almas‑Dietrich regularly purchased artworks at auctions for inclusion in a planned "Führermuseum" in Linz.

The further path of the painting could also be traced in the DHM database: after the war, the Western Allies found the painting in the storage site at the Altaussee salt mine and transported it to the Central Collecting Point in Munich, where it was registered, photographed, and assigned Munich number 11772 on 24 October 1945.

At the time of registration at the Central Collecting Point, the rightful owner – Paul Jakob Eisner – could not be identified by the staff on site. The painting was therefore transferred to the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization (JRSO) in Nuremberg on 7 June 1949.

Black‑and‑white photograph of a painting. The artwork depicts dead birds, a lobster, and fruit.
Reproduction of a still life by Ludwig Adam Kunz, produced at the Central Collecting Point, 24 October 1945. Federal Art Administration, Berlin, Registry, Photographic Archive of the Central Collecting Point, Munich, Ref. no. 11772
  • Index card labelled “Property Card”. Various fields are filled in by different hands.
    Property Card for the still life by Ludwig Adam Kunz, 24 October 1945. BArch, B 323/666, fol. 267
  • Index card filled in by different hands
    Reverse side of the property card for the still life by Ludwig Adam Kunz, 24 October 1945. BArch, B 323/666, fol. 267v
    Screenshot from the Lost Art database showing the entry for the still life by Ludwig Adam Kunz
    Record of the discovery of Ludwig Adam Kunz’s still life in the Lost Art database of the German Centre for Lost Cultural Property, as at 13 March 2026

    Provenance research successful

    It was only in the early 2020s, almost sixty years after Eisner’s death, that specialised provenance research databases made it possible to locate the painting. A search entry in the Lost Art database provided information on the provenance and whereabouts of the work: the still life by Ludwig Adam Kunz had been transferred by the JRSO to the Bezalel National Museum, predecessor of today’s Israel Museum in Jerusalem. The provenance researchers in the OFP project informed the museum, and shortly afterwards, with the help of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, an heir of the Eisner family was identified.

    The museum restituted the painting by Ludwig Adam Kunz to the heirs in 2023. Thus, eighty-three years after its seizure by the National Socialists, the painting was able to return to the ownership of the family.

    Here you can find out more about the case of Paul Jakob Eisner