3. Establishing the Facts
The Committee establishes the following facts on the grounds of the investigation into the facts conducted by the het ECR.
The Cramer family
Gustav Max Cramer (hereinafter also referred to as Gustav Cramer) was born on 3 June 1881 in Felsberg, near the city of Kassel, Germany. He was the elder son of the antiques dealer Max Cramer (born in 1854) and Bernhardine Loewenstein (years of birth and death unknown), both of Jewish descent. Gustav Cramer had a younger brother, Hugo Cramer (1885-1950). As far as we know, Hugo Cramer was unmarried and had no children. On 19 March 1919 Gustav Cramer married Gertrud Reisewitz, who was born in Friedenau, Germany, on 3 October 1894 and who was, as far as we know, not Jewish. The Cramers had two children: Hans Max Cramer (1920-2012) and Margot Snyder-Cramer (1924-2019). Margot Snyder-Cramer had three children: CC, DD and EE, all of whom currently live in XX. Hans Max Cramer had two daughters, AA and BB, who jointly submitted the application for restitution of the Portrait Bust.
Gustav Cramer before the war: Kassel, Berlin and The Hague
Gustav Cramer went to work in his father’s art dealership, which had a good reputation in Kassel and the surrounding area. Gustav Cramer remained in Kassel until 1933. Between 1933 and 1938 he lived in Berlin, where he continued to deal in art temporarily. In 1935 Gustav Cramer found it necessary to close down the art business as a result of anti-Jewish regulations, or as he described it: ‘because of Hitler terrorism’.
On 29 April 1936 at the Commercial Register in Amsterdam, Gustav Cramer registered the establishment of a branch of the Berlin-based firm of Gustav Cramer. His brother Hugo Cramer, who was living in Amsterdam at that moment, was named as managing director. In the autumn of 1938 Hugo was removed from the register in Amsterdam because of his emigration to the United States. Gustav Cramer and his family fled to the Netherlands in April 1938. They settled at Javastraat 38 in The Hague, where Gustav reopened the G. Cramer Oude Kunst art gallery. On 14 May 1938 Gustav Cramer, as ‘the firm’s owner’, registered at the Commercial Register in Amsterdam the relocation of the firm to Javastraat in The Hague. It was stated on the letterhead of G. Cramer Oude Kunst that the art dealership was a limited partnership.
Half-Jews, quarter-Jews and mixed marriages – consequences for Gustav Cramer and family
After the country had been occupied, the German administration drove the Jewish population further and further towards the margins of society. Jews were isolated from the rest of the community through a rapid succession of anti-Semitic measures. The introduction of an obligation to register, with the intention of creating an accurate record of Jewish residents in the Netherlands, was a crucial step in this process. Regulation 6/41 of 10 January 1941 issued by the occupying authorities stipulated that individuals who were at least ‘quarter-Jewish’, in other words with at least one Jewish grandparent, had to register with the population register. Evasion of that obligation was punishable with a long prison sentence and seizure of property.
Detailed definitions for the classification of people in the occupied area who could not be described as ‘fully Jewish’ were worked out during the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942. People of Jewish descent were classified into different categories based on those definitions. It was beyond question inside the Nazi regime that individuals with three or four Jewish grandparents were subjected completely to the anti-Jewish measures. There was, though, disagreement inside the Nazi bureaucracy about the treatment of the categories of people who were of partial Jewish descent because they had one or more grandparents who were not Jewish (Mischlinge) or were married to a non-Jewish partner (Mischehen).
Gustav Cramer qualified as a ‘full Jew’, but according to Nazi yardsticks his wife was classified as ‘Aryan’, and consequently Gustav was put into the Mischehen category. According to Nazi methodology, this meant that his children were ‘half-Jews’. This impacted the degree to which anti-Jewish measures were applicable to Gustav Cramer and his family. Formally speaking, people in mixed marriages and their children were in a better starting position as regards implementation of anti-Jewish measures, but that certainly did not mean that they were left alone. The position of people in mixed marriages and their offspring remained extremely unsure during the years of the occupation. The occupation administration was continuously working enthusiastically on classifications, registrations and restrictive measures. Plans to take additional measures against Jews in mixed marriages were ongoing. They included sterilization, more liberal divorce options and being put to work in labour camps. The Applicants stated in this context that the authorities put their grandmother Gertrud Cramer-Reisewitz under pressure to have her marriage to Gustav Cramer dissolved. This did not happen, however.
The obligation on Jews to wear a clearly visible yellow star on their clothing was introduced in the Netherlands on 24 April 1942. Unlike the stipulations in the German Reich, no exception was made in the Netherlands for ‘full-Jews’ in mixed marriages. With effect from 2 May 1942, they were also no longer permitted to appear in public without a yellow star. During May 1942, however, the Reichs Commissioner for the Netherlands Arthur Seyss-Inquart created the possibility of exempting people of exceptional economic importance to Germany from this obligatory star. Such an exemption was also granted to Gustav Cramer. He obtained it because of his activities on behalf of the Special Mission Linz (Sonderauftrag Linz). See below for more information.
Mass deportations of Jews from Western Europe to the death camps started in the summer of 1942. The introduction of the obligatory Star of David and the deportations prompted further discussions inside the occupation administration about the position of Mischlinge and Mischehen. The upshot of these discussions was that Ferdinand Hugo aus der Fünten, the de facto head of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration (Zentralstelle für Jüdische Auswanderung) in Amsterdam, notified the Jewish Council on 7 July 1942 that people in mixed marriages and half-Jews would not be deported. Nothing was said about whether this was a temporary or permanent exception.
A letter that Gustav Cramer wrote on 12 August 1943 to his friend the German art dealer Dr Karl Haberstock reveals how cornered he felt. In the letter he gave a detailed description of the threatening situation he and his family were in and asked Haberstock for help. Among other things Gustav Cramer wrote: ‘Die Kinder müssen innerhalb eines kurzen Termins nach Deutschland, wenn nicht freiwillig, würden sie verhaftet und kommen in ein Straflager’ [‘The children must go to Germany soon. If they do not go voluntarily, they will be arrested and sent to a prison camp.’]. How precarious the position of the Cramer -Reisewitz family actually also emerges from the fact that ultimately a quarter of Dutch Jews in mixed marriages were nevertheless deported. The exemptions granted offered temporary respite, but in the end it turned out that it was only postponement of deportation for many.
Gustav Cramer’s art dealership during the war
Regulation 189/40 of 22 October 1940 was very alarming for Jewish business people such as Gustav Cramer. Under this regulation the occupying forces made it obligatory for businesses with Jewish proprietors to be registered with a German government department, the Companies Inspectorate (Wirtschaftsprüfstelle). Many feared, with justification, that this was a prelude to subsequent expropriation measures. And, indeed, in March 1941 the occupying forces promulgated a regulation for ‘the removal of Jews from the business community’ and in the following months Jewish businesses were put under the control of a Verwalter (administrator) or Treuhänder (trustee), thus cheating the original owners out of these enterprises.
An exchange of letters dated 10 and 21 October 1941 between Dr Hans Posse (1879–1942) – the German museum director who had been instructed in 1939 to acquire artworks on behalf of Adolf Hitler for the Führer Museum to be built in Linz – and the German diplomat F.W. Wickel, who was working in the Netherlands, reveals that Gustav Cramer had asked the authorities for permission to hand over his business to his son. Although that request was rejected, it emerges from the correspondence that Gustav Cramer received permission to continue running his business himself, for a year in the first instance. No indications were found during the investigation that Gustav Cramer’s business was put under German control during the occupation.
Gustav Cramer and the Special Mission Linz – activities in exchange for protection
In 1939 Hitler issued instructions to Dr Hans Posse, director of the Gemäldegalerie Dresden, to put together an art collection for the Führer Museum, which was to be in Linz. The small organization he was in charge of went about acquiring artworks. Some of his subordinates were employees of the Gemäldegalerie Dresden. This organization was also known as the Sonderauftrag Linz (Special Mission Linz). Initially, the purpose of these activities was obscured – Posse would introduce himself as the director of the Dresden museum and purchase objects in a private capacity. The Gemäldegalerie Dresden’s facilities, for example storage space, was used to catalogue and store objects that had been acquired.
Special Mission Linz acquired art in the Netherlands primarily by purchases at sales, through the art trade, or from private collections either directly or via intermediaries and brokers. Starting in May 1942, Posse was assisted in the Netherlands by the German art historian Dr Erhard Göpel (1906-1966), who was appointed to an administrative department of the Reichs Commissariat. Göpel knew the Netherlands well and had many connections in the Dutch art world. Over time, Special Mission Linz used a network of Jewish experts and art dealers, some of them German refugees, for the purchase of art on the Dutch market, for example from private collections. In return for these activities, they were given various temporary exemptions from anti-Jewish measures.
These Jewish experts facilitated the execution of Göpel’s work in a variety of ways. It was clear to the Jewish experts, dealers and brokers that their own lives, and those of their family members, depended continuously on the willingness of their principals and the degree to which they were able to fulfil the expectations. The literature reveals that the personal relationships between the Jews involved and their German principals were complex in some cases. Thanks to their specific know-how and the efforts of the Special Mission Linz employees, a small group of Jewish art experts managed to survive the war, but usually not without being permanently scarred by stress during the years of the occupation and the loss of family members. The ordeal for some of them did not stop with the liberation of the Netherlands. They had to deal with incomprehension about the position they had found themselves in and being reproached for collaborating.
The investigation results indicate that Gustav Cramer was also involved in acquiring artworks on behalf of Special Mission Linz as an expert, purchaser and intermediary. It furthermore emerged that Gustav Cramer drew the attention of Posse, and later also Göpel, to interesting objects held by collectors in the Netherlands and Berlin, and that he acted for other parties, including German art dealers, as an agent. After the war Gustav Cramer told the Netherlands Art Property Foundation (Stichting Nederlands Kunstbezit – SNK) that during the occupation Göpel had forced him to prepare false invoices. As a result, later on it would not become clear whether Dutch nationals had sold artworks to the occupying forces completely voluntarily. Gustav Cramer stressed that all those involved at the time recognized that resistance to such practices was not possible. In April 2000 Hans Max Cramer, Gustav Cramer’s son, gave his views about the fake invoices in an interview:
(…) In de late periode van de oorlog was het heel makkelijk in de kunstwereld mensen te vinden die in een levensgevaarlijke positie verkeerden. Hun werd gevraagd voor Göpel en verkoper een rekening te schrijven – ze hadden noch het verkochte schilderij ooit gezien, noch geld of provisie ontvangen, maar het effect was driedubbel: verkoper kreeg zijn centen, het Hitler-Museum zijn kunstwerk en de afgever van de neprekening een officiële Duitse ‘Bescheinigung’ dat hij voor het leveren van kunstwerken van economisch belang voor de bezetter was en daarom weer enkele maanden van deportatie gevrijwaard zou worden.
[It was very easy during the latter part of the war to find people in the art world who were in a life-threatening position. Göpel and the vendor asked them to write an invoice. They had never seen the sold painting, and they received neither money nor commission. The upshot was that the vendor received his proceeds, the Hitler Museum got its artwork, and the issuer of the fake invoice received an official German ‘certificate’ stating that he had supplied artworks of economic importance to the occupying forces and was therefore exempt from deportation for a few months.]
According to the Applicants, their father once described the precarious and very lonely position that the Cramer family was in during the war as follows: ‘Voor de Nederlanders waren wij Nazi’s want wij waren Duitsers, voor de Nazi’s waren we Joden, voor de Joden waren wij geen Joden’. [Dutch people thought we were Nazis because we were German, as far as the Nazis were concerned we were Jews, while Jews did not consider us to be Jewish.]
Gustav Cramer’s exemptions from anti-Jewish measures
During the occupation Gustav Cramer received several exemptions from anti-Jewish measures in exchange for his activities on behalf of Special Mission Linz and his intermediation in art purchases by Germans on the Dutch and German art markets. These exemptions were granted on the grounds of Gustav Cramer’s role in mediating the acquisition and supply of artworks of exceptional economic importance to the occupying forces, and therefore he needed to be safeguarded from deportation.
Gustav Cramer was granted exceptions from the beginning of 1941 to 3 February 1944. In each case they were temporary exemptions, and he was not told whether they would be extended. Needless to say, in such circumstances the Nazis were assured of Gustav Cramer’s efforts as an art expert. Gustav Cramer knew, after all, that his own life, and those of his family members, depended continuously on the willingness of his principals and the degree to which he was able to fulfil the expectations. According to the Applicants, Gustav Cramer tried, even in those dire circumstances, to act in good faith as much as possible.
People in parts of the occupation administration were not at all happy about exemptions for Jews and there were repeated attempts to reduce the number of exceptional cases. This is illustrated by the result of a meeting on 18 October 1943 at a senior level in the Dutch occupation administration. It was on that day that Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, Göpel and a few other top Nazi officials met. On the agenda was the development of the ‘Jewish Question’ in the Netherlands and a discussion about the position of Jews in mixed marriages. Documentation relating to this meeting that has survived reveals that Seyss-Inquart went through a list of ‘non-Aryans’ who had been given exemption from wearing a Star of David. On the list there were about ninety people, including ‘für den Sonderauftrag Museum Linz vom Sterntragen befreiten Juden’ [‘the Jews who were exempted from wearing the star for the Special Mission Linz Museum’]. During the meeting Seyss-Inquart decided that the exemptions applicable in this group until then could be retained in only three cases. Gustav Cramer was one of this group of three Jewish art experts.
It emerged from the investigation that on 3 February 1944 Gustav Cramer was once again granted one of these exemptions; the reason being: ‘Wird weiter für Sonderauftrag Linz benötigt’ [‘Will continue to be required for Special Mission Linz’]. The investigation did not reveal until when this exemption was valid, but it was probably once again temporary in nature. Gustav Cramer and his family did not wait and see what the future held in stock for them in this regard. According to the Applicants they went into hiding during the last months of the war in a concealed space in the loft of their home at Javastraat 38 in The Hague.
Gustav Cramer and his family survived the war. After the liberation an investigation was launched into Gustav Cramer under the auspices of special criminal jurisdiction. This did not result in a prosecution, however.
Information about the Portrait Bust
The Portrait Bust is a bronze sculpture, by an unknown artist, on a marble base with dimensions 70 x 60 x 31 cm, dated approximately 1700-1724. The Portrait Bust has been in the NK Collection since 1947 and is currently in the RCE’s depot in the CollectieCentrum Nederland (Dutch National Collection Centre) in Amersfoort, under inventory number NK 135.
The Portrait Bust, which is sometimes also erroneously referred to in the literature as the ‘Vitellius Bust’, was acquired in 1750 by William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, during a sale of the collection of Count Van Wassenaar-Obdam of The Hague. The work later became part of the collection of the Hessian State Museum (Hessisches Landesmuseum) in Kassel. The Portrait Bust is referred to in the 1927 Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts as ‘is one of the most splendid pieces of these Baroque replicas’. The quality of the Portrait Bust is also emphasized in other publications.
Provenance research into the Portrait Bust
Declaration forms completed by Gustav Cramer
The SNK’s tasks after the war included tracking down artworks and returning them from Germany. This required information about what had been lost. In order to acquire documentation needed for these tasks, the post-war military authorities issued a regulation obliging everyone with knowledge about art in enemy possession to provide information to the SNK. This declaration obligation applied to former owners and also to everyone who knew of artworks that ended up in enemy hands after 10 May 1940, irrespective of their own involvement and regardless of how the art ceased being in the possession of the owner. In support of this objective, pre-printed declaration forms were issued on which data could be provided about the work of art and the nature of the loss of possession.
Information collected in this way helped in tracking down artworks in Germany and was used by the Dutch authorities when submitting claims to the allied collecting points on the grounds of which the artworks could be brought back to the Netherlands. The fact that someone provided the SNK with information about an artwork by completing a declaration form did not imply that the person concerned was asking the SNK for restitution or was necessarily its owner.
The SNK declaration forms had two fields that could relate to the ownership of an artwork: field 8 and field 14. Field 8 (Provenance ) was intended for stating what the object’s history was. Field 14 related to a pre-printed sentence (Original possession, custody or otherwise) followed by a space for a name. The person completing the form was expected to cross out the non-relevant words in the pre-printed sentence and in so doing to provide clarity about the ownership situation. Field 15 of the SNK declaration form could also be used to provide information about the way in which possession was lost as well as what qualification was attached to the loss of possession by the person who completed the form. There was a pre-printed sentence here too and the person submitting the form was expected to cross out irrelevant words: Ad 15. Doorhalen hetgeen niet van toepassing is, zoodat b.v. gelezen wordt: “Is door confiscatie in het bezit gekomen van”. [15. Cross out what is not applicable, for example so that the sentence reads: ‘Came into the possession of … as a result of confiscation’.]
After the liberation, Gustav Cramer completed numerous declaration forms concerning artworks that had ended up in the hands of the Germans during the occupation. Altogether some 35 forms completed and signed by Gustav Cramer were found in the SNK archive. In most of the forms he made no comment about whether it was a matter of a forced or involuntary sale. In many cases Gustav Cramer stated nothing about the ownership situation or the loss of possession relating to the objects.
On 15 October 1945 Gustav Cramer, on behalf of Gustav Cramer Oude Kunst c.v., completed a declaration form about the Portrait Bust. Gustav Cramer stated the following about the provenance of the Portrait Bust in field 8 of the form: ‘Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Kassel / sinds méér dan 20 jaar in eigen bezit’ [‘Staatliche Kunstsammlungen (Hessian State Art Collection) Kassel / in own possession for over 20 years.’]. Regarding the ownership situation (field 14), Gustav Cramer used a typewriter to cross out the words ‘use, custody or otherwise’ so that ‘Was originally owned by’ was legible. In response to this question he stated: ‘Gustav Cramer, Javastraat 38, The Hague and Dr Hugo Cramer, 1977 Broadway, New York 23 N.Y’. It can be deduced from this that the Portrait Bust was the joint property of Gustav Cramer and his brother Hugo Cramer in New York. Gustav Cramer also stated on forms relating to other artworks that they were the joint property of his brother and himself. As regards the way in which possession was lost (field 15) Gustav Cramer used a typewriter to cross out all qualifications of the circumstances ‘Confiscation, theft, forced or voluntary’ so that only ‘Is door (…) verkoop in bezit gekomen van Hans W. Lange, Kunstversteigerungen, Berlin W 9, Bellevuestr. 7’ [‘Came into the possession of Hans W. Lange, art auctions, Berlin W 9, Bellevuestr. 7 by means of sale’] was legible. Gustav Cramer wrote the following about the sale in a note: Eind december 1941 verkocht. Het stuk bevindt zich nu waarschijnlijk weer in de Staatliche Kunstsammlungen te Kassel’ [‘Sale at the end of December 1941. The object is probably now back in the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen (Hessian State Art Collection) in Kassel’].
Correspondence between Cramer and the SNK about the Portrait Bust
In 1947 Gustav Cramer corresponded several times with the SNK about the Portrait Bust in which he gave further information concerning his earlier SNK declaration. In a letter of 21 January 1947 Gustav Cramer stated unambiguously that he had had to sell the Portrait Bust in 1941 involuntarily:
Tijdens de bezetting was ik gedwongen ook een brons, portret-bust, Italiaansch omstreeks 1600, voorstellende de keizer Vitellius naar Duitschland te verkopen, die – evenals mijn twee Italiaansche schilderijen van Lorenzo Lotto en Francesco Guardi – sinds ongeveer 25 jaren in mijn bezit waren. Ik merk op, dat ik de volgende mededeelingen, die – zooals ik veronderstel – tot het vinden van het stuk kunnen leiden, niet doe om deze bust voor mij terug te krijgen, maar ik zou ertoe willen bijdragen het stuk voor Holland zeker te stellen.
[During the occupation I was forced to also sell a bronze portrait bust, Italian, dating from about 1600, of Emperor Vitellius to Germany – as well as my two Italian paintings by Lorenzo Lotto and Francesco Guardi – which had been in my possession for approximately 25 years. I would like to point out that I make the following statements that may – I assume – result in finding the piece not to get this bust back for me but because I want to contribute to securing the piece for Holland.]
In the same letter he also elaborated upon how he had acquired the Portrait Bust:
Zooals ik boven opmerkte, heb ik het stuk ruim 25 jaar geleden door een ruil uit het museum van de toenmalige directeur Dr. Boehlau verworven. Zijn opvolger, Dr. Luthmer had herhaaldelijk getracht het hooginteressante en belangrijke stuk terug te koopen, heb echter altijd geweigerd het stuk te verkopen.
[As I remarked above, I obtained the piece from the museum of the then director Dr Boehlau some 25 years ago through an exchange. His successor, Dr Luthmer, tried repeatedly to buy back the highly interesting and important piece, but I always refused to sell it.]
Gustav Cramer described the loss of possession of the Portrait Bust during the occupation thus:
Tijdens de oorlog kwam de Berlijnsche kunsthandelaar Lange naar mij en ik moest de bronsbuste natuurlijk afstaan. Lange heeft mij eens bij een later verblijf in Den Haag gezegd, dat hij de brons naar Kassel verkocht had en ze weer in het museum aldaar stond.
[During the war I was visited by the Berlin art dealer Lange and needless to say I had to part with the bronze bust. Lange told me later on while he was staying in The Hague that he had sold the bronze to Kassel and that it was once again in the museum.]
The name ‘Lange’ in this quotation refers to the Berlin art dealer and auctioneer Hans W. Lange (1904-1945), with whom Gustav Cramer maintained a business relationship and corresponded regularly during the war. Documents found during the investigation reveal that on 17 January 1942 Lange brought the Portrait Bust to the attention of the Hessian State Museum in Kassel with an asking price of 5,000 reichsmarks. The museum purchased the Portrait Bust.
In a letter to the SNK of 20 May 1947 Gustav Cramer revealed more about the acquisition of the Portrait Bust from the Hessian State Museum. He stated that he had acquired it in the nineteen-twenties. Gustav Cramer felt it necessary to write this letter because he had heard from the recovery authorities in Wiesbaden that the museum’s director had apparently claimed that the Portrait Bust had allegedly been in the museum’s possession without interruption since 1750. Gustav Cramer wanted to set the record straight. In his letter he enclosed a 1938 newspaper report which revealed that the Portrait Bust had been on show in his premises in The Hague.
On 17 April 1950 the SNK sent Gustav Cramer a list of artworks with the request to indicate whether the listed objects were his property or had been sold during the occupation through his intermediation. Gustav Cramer replied on 21 April 1951: ‘Van de genoemde stukken was slechts de bronsbust van Vitellius mijn eigendom. Ik heb de bust destijds moeten verkopen, omdat men van Duitse zijde wist, dat ik de bust vroeger uit een Duits museum had verworven’. [‘The only one of the pieces you listed that was my property was the bronze bust of Vitellius. I had to sell the bust at the time because people on the German side knew that I had acquired the bust previously from a German museum.’]
Recovery of the Portrait Bust
With help from Gustav Cramer, the Dutch recovery officers were able to trace the Portrait Bust in Germany. On 6 June 1947 the recovery officer Keezer in Wiesbaden reported that the Portrait Bust had been found. Op 21 August 1947 the investigation officer Dr R.F.P. de Beaufort wrote the following in a letter to Keezer: ‘In 1922 in het bezit was van de Kunsthandel Cramer te ’s-Gravenhage, die het in 1941 aan Lange te Berlijn verkocht. (…) Wanneer de Museumdirectie nu beweert, dat het van 1880 of zoo ongeveer in het bezit van het Museum is geweest, vergeten zij, dat zij het vrijwillig lang geleden hebben verkocht en pas in de oorlog terugkregen. Het moet dus terug naar Nederland’. [‘In 1922 it was in the possession of the Cramer art dealership in The Hague, which sold it in 1941 to Lange in Berlin. … If the museum management now contends that it has been in the museum since 1880 or thereabouts, they are forgetting that they sold it willingly long ago and did not get it back until during the war. It therefore must return to the Netherlands.’]
The Hessian State Museum handed the Portrait Bust over to the recovery authorities of the collecting point in Wiesbaden on 19 August 1947. The Portrait Bust was returned to the Netherlands on 10 September 1947 Since then the Portrait Bust has been in the custody of the Dutch State and the work is part of the NK Collection under inventory number NK 135.
