Summary of Recommendation regarding Herman Hamburger

The Restitutions Committee has assessed an application for restitution of the painting God Appearing to Abraham at Sichem by Nicolaes (Claes) Moeyaert, which is in the Netherlands Art Property (NK) Collection of the Dutch State. The Committee came to the conclusion on the grounds of the investigation conducted by the Expert Centre Restitution (ECR) that it is highly likely that the artwork came from the private collection of the Jewish art dealer and collector Herman Hamburger. It has also become sufficiently plausible that Hamburger lost possession of the painting as a result of circumstances directly connected with the Nazi regime.

Research has revealed that Herman Hamburger acquired the work by Moeyaert in 1936. The German authorities declared that Hamburger’s possessions in the Netherlands were ‘enemy assets’ because during the occupation he was abroad. On that basis, the Mühlmann Agency, a German looting organization, was able to get hold of the artwork in 1941 by means of a forced sale. The Mühlmann Agency sold the work on and subsequently delivered it to Germany for Hitler’s Führer Museum. It was returned to the Netherlands after the war and taken into the NK Collection.

The Committee has advised the State Secretary for Culture and Media to restitute the painting God Appearing to Abraham at Sichem by Nicolaes Moeyaert to the heir of Herman Hamburger.

1.    The Application

In a letter of 24 September 2021, the Netherlands Cultural Heritage Agency (hereinafter referred to as the RCE) asked the Committee on behalf of the Minister to issue advice about restitution of the painting. This was prompted by the request by XX to the Minister as contained in a letter of 13 August 2021, in which he stated he was the only heir of the former owner. The painting was originally supposedly the property of the businessman and art dealer Herman Hamburger.

3.    Establishing the Facts

The Committee establishes the following facts on the grounds of the investigation into the facts.

The Hamburger family

The Jewish businessman and art dealer Herman Hamburger was born on 12 November 1879 in Utrecht as the youngest son in a family with seven brothers: Alexander (1858-1943), David (1860-unknown), Abraham (1862-1934), Isaac/Izaak (1864-1951), Daniel (1868-1959), Willem (1871-unknown) and Jacob (1875-1918). On 4 June 1920 he married Simonne Marie Heumann. Their only son Gilbert Hamburger was born on 23 June 1921. Simonne Marie Hamburger-Heumann died shortly thereafter, on 2 July 1921. Over the years Herman Hamburger and his brothers settled in France. They were involved in a large number of enterprises in which the bank Daniel Hamburger & Co – established in the late nineteenth century by Herman’s brother Daniel – played a key role. From 1920 their two nephews Gustaaf and Albert Hamburger (sons of Alexander Hamburger) continued with this bank under the name Hamburger & Co Bankierskantoor, also known as Hambo. Members of the Hamburger family were involved in numerous subsidiaries of the bank through (asset) management and shareholding.

The Hamburgers also owned an art gallery, the N.V. tot Uitoefening van den Kunsthandel. It was located at Herengracht 551 in Amsterdam. Formally speaking the business was managed by Albert Hamburger and his uncle Isaac, with Herman as a non-executive director, but it was Herman who ran it on a day-to-day basis. Together with other family members, Herman was also dealing in art in Paris under the name Hamburger Frères.

Herman Hamburger and his son Gilbert both survived the Second World War in France. Isaac Hamburger also survived the war. Albert Hamburger was rounded up in Amsterdam and deported to Auschwitz, where he was murdered on or around 22 October 1943. Gustaaf Hamburger fled the Netherlands and settled in the United States.

After the war Herman Hamburger ran the art gallery again. He died in Amsterdam in 1948 at the age of 69.

The artwork during the occupation

On the grounds of regulation 26/1940 of 24 June 1940, the German occupying forces considered the assets in the Netherlands belonging to Herman Hamburger, who remained in France, as ‘enemy assets’ that could be demanded. The same applied to the possessions of Siegfried Granaat, who had fled to the United Kingdom shortly after the German invasion. Consequently, their goods were in the hands of the Nazi regime at an early stage.

On 23 November 1940, C.H. Oldach was appointed manager (Verwalter) of Siegfried Granaat’s assets on the grounds of the aforementioned regulation. After he had been appointed, Oldach analyzed the ownership situation of the items in Granaat’s home. On 19 February 1941 he sent a report to the General Section of the Enemy Assets Department of the General Commissariat for Finance and Economics. He enclosed an inventory and stated that it emerged unambiguously from it which household effects and artworks belonged to Herman Hamburger and which to Granaat. The inventory lists the painting by Moeyaert as the property of Herman Hamburger.

On 26 February 1941 an official in the Enemy Assets Department wrote to Oldach saying that he was planning to terminate the management of the assets of Siegfried Granaat, who turned out to be bankrupt. He requested Oldach to contact the Mühlmann Agency, a German looting organization, before that so that the Agency could make a selection of Herman Hamburger’s artworks. Oldach did just that and on 12 May 1941 Eduard Plietsch of the Mühlmann Agency came to Granaat’s premises on Herengracht. It emerges from correspondence that Plietzsch selected ten paintings from Herman Hamburger’s possessions, including the wok by Moeyaert.

Op 9 September 1941 an agreement was subsequently entered into by, on the one hand, S. Zadoks as administrator of Siegfried Granaat and on the other hand Herman Hamburger; with Hambo employee Hubert Bok acting as representative of Hamburger, ‘whose residence and whereabouts are unknown’. Among other things this agreement stated ‘that [Herman] Hamburger gave Granaat a number of items he owned for safekeeping, which items were in the premises where Granaat lived at Heerengracht 512 in Amsterdam. … that the parties know that the “art advisor” Dr Plietzsch according to his statement removed the following 10 paintings belonging to Hamburger from the premises on Heerengracht ….’ This was followed by a summary of the ten paintings, including the work by Moeyaert.

The Mühlmann Agency sold the Moeyaert on for RM 13,270 to the Special Mission Linz, the looting organization that made acquisitions for Hitler’s future Führer Museum in Linz in Austria. In connection with this sale the Agency paid an equivalent sum of NLG 10,000 to N.V. tot Uitoefening van den Kunsthandel, which was under German management.

After the war Herman Hamburger supposedly submitted a claim to the Dutch authorities about Hubert Bok, the employee who had been involved in the sale of Hamburger’s artworks. This resulted in an investigation in connection with suspected collaboration. It can be deduced from the file that Hamburger withdrew the complaint.

Gilbert Hamburger, Gustaaf Hamburger and the SNK/Hergo

There is no specific mention in the correspondence found in the SNK archive from (heirs of) Herman Hamburger of the artwork by Moeyaert. It is possible that this is linked to the fact that the painting did not return to the Netherlands until 1957. There was correspondence, however, about a few other works that the Mühlmann Agency appropriated from Herman Hamburger’s collection managed by Granaat and that were returned after the war. On 24 September 1949 Herman’s son Gilbert Hamburger wrote a letter to the SNK from London in which he stated that two paintings by Jan Davidsz. de Heem and Willem Kalf ‘are reclaimed by my father, the late Herman Hamburger’. He furthermore stated ‘as the only heir of the late Herman Hamburger, that the aforementioned paintings had been part of the Granaat collection, which was purchased by the late Herman Hamburger in around 1936 on the instructions of Mr G. Hamburger and that he had consented to the said paintings being put at the disposal of G. [Gustaaf] Hamburger by your Foundation.’ It emerges from a letter from Gustaaf Hamburger to the SNK at that time that Gilbert Hamburger had authorized him to take receipt of the two paintings.

On 5 December 1952 a Hergo employee wrote a letter to Hamburger & Co’s Bankierskantoor in which he stated that his bureau was holding a portrait of a man by Van Mieris: ‘In my documentation I found a declaration form completed by Herman Hamburger, also regarding Mieris: “portrait of a man”, on which it is stated that the dimensions are “small”, and I also found in my documentation that this painting was supposedly sold for M.3000.-, which sum was deposited at the Deutsche Revisions- und Treuhand A.G. Would you be so kind as to tell me whether Mr Herman Hamburger believes he is entitled to restoration of rights, in which case proof of former ownership will have to be supplied, while in the event of restitution, among other things the selling price will have to be transferred to my Bureau.’

The aforementioned undated note from Hergo refers to the portrait by Van Mieris: ‘According to our information, the painting belonged to HERMAN Hamburger; was with Granaat for safekeeping. … HERMAN Hamburger is dead and Gilbert is supposedly his son and only heir. It emerges from the file that in the past a painting was given back previously, and the son stated that the painting was his property and could be delivered to Mr Gustaaf Hamburger. It was agreed with Somers that he will write to the son in Paris and that we will then receive a declaration that this was also the case with this painting.’

On 7 September 1953 Hambo wrote to Hergo about the Van Mieris: ‘We furthermore enclose a statement by Mr Gilbert Hamburger, only son and heir of the late Mr Herman Hamburger, concerning the release of the painting to Mr Gustaaf Hamburger.’

Shortly after that, Gustaaf Hamburger asserted he was the original owner of the Van Mieris. That emerges from a unilateral statement of 9 October 1953 in which Gustaaf states that ‘before the aforementioned painting [by Van Mieris] came into the hands of the Germans, he had been the only rightful owner’. He had this statement registered at a tax office on 16 November 1953. A few weeks before that, on 23 October 1953, he authorized Hambo to receive the portrait of a man by Van Mieris, which happened on 16 December 1953.

4.    Substantive Assessment of the Application

The Committee has established that the requirements in section 1 a to e of the assessment framework have been met and that the application is therefore eligible for substantive handling.

Pursuant to section 2 of the assessment framework, the Committee must assess whether it is highly plausible that the painting NK 3401 was the property of Herman Hamburger and on the grounds of section 3 whether it is sufficiently plausible that possession of the painting was lost involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime. To this end the Committee finds as follows:

Ownership requirements (section 2 of the assessment framework)

Documentation dating from the nineteen-thirties that was found during the investigation indicates that Herman Hamburger had been the rightful owner of the painting God Appearing to Abraham at Sichem by Nicolaes Moeyaert since 1936. After the purchase, the work remained in the home of Siegfried Granaat at Herengracht 512 in Amsterdam. It emerges from communications from the lawyer J. Jolles and the manager (Verwalter) C.H. Oldach, as well as from an agreement between S. Zadoks and Herman Hamburger, who was in France, all drawn up in 1941, that Herman Hamburger was still owner of the artwork during the German occupation of the Netherlands. Shortly after the war, Herman Hamburger furthermore completed SNK forms concerning the work by Moeyaert and other works with a comparable provenance. After his death in 1948, his son Gilbert Hamburger issued authorizations for release of a few of these works and stated that his father had purchased them around 1936. The undated internal Hergo note also indicates that the Moeyaert was the property of Herman Hamburger. This note about a painting with a comparable provenance, in which Herman emerges as former owner, reveals that contact was established with R.G. Somers, Gustaaf Hamburger’s authorized agent (‘It was agreed with Somers that he will write to the son in Paris and that we will then receive a declaration that this was also the case with this painting.’). This involvement of Somers indicates that confirmation came from Gustaaf’s side that Herman Hamburger (and/or his branch of the family) was the owner.

Although it was asserted later that Herman Hamburger had not been rightful owner of, among other things, the artwork by Moeyaert, and only acted as ‘trustee’, in the Committee’s opinion there are insufficient grounds to support this interpretation. Dutch law does not recognize the concept of the ‘trust’, so no trust can be formed under Dutch law. It would furthermore have been expected that if Herman Hamburger did not purchase the artwork in 1936 in his personal capacity, this would have subsequently been specified in the relevant sources dating from the nineteen-thirties and -forties. The Committee gives greater weight to the contemporaneous sources from the period when Herman Hamburger was still alive than to sources postdating his lifetime, such as Gustaaf Hamburger’s unilateral ownership declaration in 1953 referred to above, and the sometimes contradictory documentation relating to the compensation claims submitted to the German State. It is true that Herman’s son Gilbert Hamburger stated in 1949 that the purchase by his father in 1936 had been ‘on the instructions of Mr G. Hamburger’. Such instructions, however, do not alter the fact that his father became the owner as a result of the transaction.

On the grounds of this information the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly likely that the artwork came from the private collection of Herman Hamburger. This means that the ownership requirement of section 2 of the assessment framework has been met.

The consequence of this is that the Committee now has to evaluate whether, with regard to the artwork, there was involuntary loss of possession as a result of circumstances directly associated with the Nazi regime.

Conclusion with regard to the restitution application

The Committee concludes that it is highly plausible that the artwork God Appearing to Abraham at Sichem by Nicolaes Moeyaert came from the collection of Herman Hamburger, and that it is sufficiently plausible that he lost possession of the work in 1941 involuntarily as a result of circumstances directly related to the Nazi regime.

In view of sections 2 and 3 of the assessment framework (criterion 3.1 and part 2 at the end of section 3), the upshot of all this is that the Committee will recommend that the artwork should be restituted to the Applicant.