POST 202: UNIQUE WARTIME PHOTOGRAPH OF MY FATHER’S FIRST COUSIN HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN FROM SZIGETVÁR, HUNGARY

Note: A reader from New Zealand recently sent me a photo likely taken Between January and March 1944 on the estate of Count Mihály Andrássy in Szigetvár, Hungary where British Commonwealth prisoners of war who’d escaped from German stalags were housed before Germany invaded Hungary on March 19, 1944. The photo includes Heinz Loewenstein, my father’s first cousin, along with other POWs whose memoirs and wartime escapades I’ve discussed in multiple posts written about Heinz. In this post I review the historical events that led to the capturing of this astonishing moment. I feel truly privileged to have obtained a copy of it, particularly since I met Heinz as a child and know he was one of my father’s closest relatives. 

Related Posts: 

POST 137: MY FATHER’S FIRST COUSIN HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN: DISCOVERING HIS WHEREABOUTS DURING WORLD WAR II 

POST 137, POSTSCRIPT-MY FATHER’S FIRST COUSIN HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN, DISCOVERING HIS WHEREABOUTS DURING WWII—ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 

POST 163: THE WARTIME ESCAPADES OF HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN, FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S BROTHER 

POST 163, POSTSCRIPT: THE WARTIME ESCAPADES OF HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN, FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S BROTHER: FURTHER FINDINGS 

POST 181: JOE POWELL, ESCAPEE FROM A GERMAN STALAG WITH MY FATHER’S FIRST COUSIN HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN 

POST 194: BRINGING TOGETHER FORENSIC GENEALOGY & ARCHAEOLOGY TO THE STUDY OF MY FATHER’S FIRST COUSIN HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN’S ESCAPE FROM A GERMAN STALAG 

 

I derive pleasure from my blog on multiple levels. Beyond learning about historical events and the geopolitical milieu in which the subjects of my posts lived, I often discover connections between events, people, and places, and occasionally facilitate this among followers of my blog. Readers occasionally send me rare photographs of family members or images of well-known or notorious individuals. The current post is about one such photograph sent to me of my father’s first cousin by Paul London, a gentleman from New Zealand. 

Paul initially reached out to me through my blog in January 2025. He introduced himself as the biographer of the Kiwi soldier Roy Natusch, which immediately caught my attention as I had written about Roy in Post 163 (more on this below) and because he knew and was detained with my father’s first cousin Heinz Löwenstein in Hungary. When Paul initially contacted me, he wrote: 

“While ‘surfing’ the internet the other night, by happenchance I came across your family history website recording details on the lives of Rudolf Loewenstein and his wife Hedwig (née Bruck).   My interest in the Loewenstein family lies with the wartime activities of their son Heinz Kurt (aka as Henry) who in 1944 as an escaped PoW was living on the estate of Count Mihály Andrássy at Szigetvár in southern Hungary with a group of allied evaders under the command of a New Zealand soldier, my late mentor Roy Natusch, who, as you have correctly recorded was himself an escaped PoW and over the course of four years made ten escape attempts before finally making that ‘home run’. During his time in Hungary Roy not only passes himself off as Henry Loewenstein but also masquerades as a recently escaped Dutch officer which the post-war UK tabloids identify Roy as “the Double Dutchman”. I see you too have referred to his book that bears that same name and was released in 1977 and records their movements. For the record, over the past 80 years Roy’s activities have inspired 12 authors to record his clandestine activities in 15 books, with the last being published some 3 years ago in ‘The Flight’ by Tyler Bridges, a former American journalist now university lecturer in New Orleans. For over 20 years I was Roy’s biographer and since his death some 16 years ago I am now the custodian of his archive which I’m currently reviewing and adding to as new and indeed exciting evidence emerges through the release of documents via the likes of those two genealogical sites of Ancestry.com and Findmypast, and lately the British National Archives at Kew Gardens, a repository I use to visit whenever in the UK.” 

Reminding readers about Heinz. 

Heinz Löwenstein and his older brother Fédor Löwenstein (Figure 1) have been the subject of numerous posts. Fédor Löwenstein was an accomplished abstract artist whose works were deemed by the Nazis to be degenerate art resulting in many of his works being destroyed. I’ve detailed in recent posts how I was able to retrieve three of his surviving works in September 2025, from the French Minister of Culture after a 12-year legal tussle.

 

Figure 1. Fédor Löwenstein (left) with his younger brother Heinz

 

For his part, Fédor’s younger brother, Heinz Löwenstein, who I met in Nice, France as a child, was captured by the Wehrmacht during the Battle of Greece in 1941 and incarcerated in various German stalags from which he escaped multiple times. His longest stretch of freedom occurred following his escape from Stalag VIIIB in Poland in September or October of 1943 when he successfully made his way to Hungary. Following his flight there, Heinz was eventually scooped up by Hungarian police and briefly taken to Komárom, Hungary, near the then-Czechoslovakian border. He was not turned back over to the Nazis because Hungary had not yet declared war on Britain. Instead, from Komárom, Heinz was moved to Camp Siklós, then relocated to the remarkably comfortable estate of Count Mihály Andrássy at Szigetvár in southern Hungary. 

In an article titled “The Messenger of Hope,” written by Roy Natusch and edited by Paul first published in October 1993 in the “New Zealand Returned Servicemen’s Association Review,” Roy described the circumstances of internment at Szigetvár: “By the end of 1943, Reg [EDITOR’S NOTE: REGINALD PHEASE, ANOTHER INTERNEE] was on the estate of Count Michael Andrassy in Szigetvár, Hungary, where I had been put in charge of a group of British soldiers who were put under loose government supervision as ‘free internees’—Hungary had not yet declared war on Britain.” 

In Post 163 Postscript, I described the route Heinz might have followed using the same path that South African Lt. Colonel Charles Telfer Howie who had escaped from the same stalag several weeks earlier had taken. Howie would eventually make his way to Budapest and figure prominently in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to sway the Hungarians to support the Allies. The Nazis who had spies everywhere in Hungary got wind of this and invaded the country on the 19th of March 1944 to stymie Allied plans. Heinz and the other internees housed in Szigetvár were immediately recaptured. An interesting footnote about my father’s first cousin. In Stalag VIIIB and at Szigetvár, he was known as Heinz Löwenstein, surname spelled either “Henry Lowenstein” or “Henry Loewenstein,” but following his recapture in Hungary after the Nazis invaded in March 1944, he miraculously transformed into “Henry Goff” with a new prisoner number. Likely this metamorphosis slipped unnoticed through the “fog of war.” 

In Post 163, using information from a book entitled “The Double Dutchman: A story of wartime escape and intrigue” by Francis Jones, I described some of Roy Natusch’s escapades because they prominently featured Heinz. I quote at length what I previously wrote: 

“The story is primarily about a New Zealand soldier, captured like Heinz Löwenstein during the Battle of Greece in April 1941, by the name of Roy Natusch. (Figure 2) He was interned in Stalag XVIIIA in Wolfsberg, and, like Heinz, escaped from a work camp with two other internees, Lance-Bombardier David ‘Dai’ Tom Davies and Joe Walker.  The work camp from which they fled was located not far from the Hungarian border in a place called Gaas, Austria. The author does not specify the exact date of their get away, but I place it in the Fall or Winter of 1943. Following their nighttime escape, the three internees tried to get as far into Hungary as possible; they were trying to avoid being recaptured by the German-influenced Hungarian border squads who would have handed them back to the Germans.

 

Figure 2. New Zealand soldier Roy Natusch in October 1944, in Italy three days after his repatriation by the Allies following his escape; while only a Corporal, he passed himself off as a Captain and grew a mustache to add a measure of gravitas (photo courtesy of Paul London)

 

 

While Roy Natusch was only a Corporal, with the agreement of his two companions, he passed himself off as a Captain knowing that if the three were captured by the Hungarians an officer would be better treated. Eventually, the three escapees were in fact arrested by Hungarian police or military, and temporarily interned in Komárom, Hungary, near the then-Czechoslovakian border. Had they not been captured by the Hungarians, Roy and his traveling companions had always intended to do a dogleg through Hungary into then-Yugoslavia (i.e., head east into Hungary, then turn southwards towards Yugoslavia), linking up with Tito’s Partisans and being repatriated by the Allies in Italy. This was not to be their fate, at least not immediately. 

As an officer, or at least claiming to be one, Roy quickly came to the attention of the only other escaped Allied officer in Hungary, a real officer, the South African Lieutenant Colonel Charles Telfer Howie hiding in Budapest (i.e., Komárom and Budapest are only about 60 miles apart). Along with a Private by the name of Tom Sanders, Howie had escaped from Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf [today: Łambinowice, Poland]. 

While at Komárom, Roy Natusch was visited by a Colonel Utassy from the Hungarian War Office along with a Foreign Service Officer, presumably to be vetted for possible involvement in a plot to change the course of the war. He eventually made his way to Budapest where he met other members of the Hungarian resistance and was introduced to Lt. Colonel Howie. While Howie could have left Hungary and rejoined the Allies, he consciously decided to remain there. Clandestinely, he was working with the various opposition factions in Hungary to switch them from the Axis to the Allied side. This was a particularly precarious undertaking since Budapest and more generally Hungary had Nazi spies everywhere. Moreover, it was an open secret that as soon as the Soviets got anywhere near Hungary, a day which was quickly approaching, the German troops would invade the country and quickly seize Budapest. 

At the time Natusch met with Lt. Colonel Howie, Germany had not yet invaded Hungary, however. Howie dispatched Natusch to the detention camp in Szigetvár at Count Andrássy’s castle estate with specific orders that the detained British POWs there not attempt to escape to Yugoslavia, or they would be court-marshalled after the war. Sargeant Major Norman McLean was ostensibly in charge of the soldiers. As noted above, Heinz Löwenstein was among the sixteen or so British Commonwealth soldiers confined there and was considered the ‘intellectual of the camp’; here is where Roy Natusch first encountered Heinz. With Heinz’s nod of approval, the soldiers put off their escape attempt, a fateful decision, as it turned out. By the time Natusch and Howie made their request, Heinz, the point of contact because of his fluency in multiple languages, had already contacted a local Hungarian who would have facilitated their escape by accompanying them to the Partisans in Yugoslavia. The distance from Szigetvár to the Yugoslav border was less than 15 miles, although the march to reach Partisan lines once inside Yugoslavia was long and dangerous because the Wehrmacht troops were active in the northern part of the country. 

The British representatives who were supposed to negotiate with the Hungarian opposition were to be dropped by parachute on the plains near Szigetvár, and the British soldiers were expected to gather the inexperienced parachutists and bring them to Budapest. Howie had assured the British soldiers that in the event of a sudden German invasion, he would notify them by phone and/or send one of his men to warn them so they could quickly flee to Yugoslavia to join the Partisans. 

As it turned out, Germany’s invasion of Hungary took place on the 19th of March 1944, and came from three directions, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Germany. As expected, the Wehrmacht immediately headed for Budapest and the internment camp at Szigetvár where they recaptured all the British soldiers, including Natusch and Löwenstein. The warning the soldiers had been awaiting from Lt. Colonel Howie never arrived because the phone lines were immediately cut throughout the country upon Germany’s invasion, and the man Howie sent to warn the soldiers instead fled to Romania. 

Because of Natusch’s knowledge of ‘The Mission’ (i.e., the Allies plan to try and peel off Hungary from the Axis alliance) and the players involved, he was a wanted man. Under torture, Natusch could have divulged the names of no fewer than eleven co-conspirators. For this reason, it was imperative he avoid being captured by the Gestapo. Fortunately, he managed to escape at Szigetvár despite being guarded by seven Wehrmacht soldiers. Following his getaway and subsequent travails, he eventually made his way back to Budapest in the company of another British escapee, and reestablished contact with Lt. Colonel Howie who was in hiding. In Budapest, through contacts he had there, he connected with some Dutch soldiers, including a Lieutenant Eddie van Hootegem. The latter would wind up giving him his identity card, so for a period this was his alias. However, when he and two other Dutch officers (Lieutenant Frank Brackel & Lieutenant Joob Sengor) were arrested in Budapest and taken to Buda prison, together they crafted an elaborate explanation for why the purported Dutch soldier “Eddie” was unable to speak Dutch. 

Suspicious of his explanation, the Germans transferred Roy Natusch, now Eddie van Hootegem, along with a contingent of almost a hundred Hungarians, Poles, French, and Jews, and non-descripts, by train from Buda prison. The Wehrmacht intended to take Roy/Eddie to an Oflag, a prisoner of war camp for officers established by the Germans during WWII, in Neubrandenburg, about 120 miles north of Berlin. This presented a major problem for Roy since they would ultimately have discovered he was Natusch, not van Hootegem. 

On their way to Neubrandenburg, however, the prisoners were unloaded in Stalag XVIIA [Kaisersteinbruch, Austria]. Roy once again had the good fortune to run into Heinz Löwenstein there, who had by now assumed his own alias, the previously mentioned “Henry Goff.” As a side note, Francis Jones, author of “The Double Dutchman,” incorrectly claims Heinz’s alias was ‘Henry Lewis.’ Regardless, Roy had learned from his time in Szigetvár that Heinz was a master forger, so he asked him to prepare a set of papers so that he could pass as an Italian. 

Below is how Francis Jones describes the episode and the results: 

Henry Lowenstein appeared a few hours later and got past the guards without difficulty. “Here you are, sir,” he said. “It’s finished.” He glanced around nervously. “Best hide it. I’m not sure about these guards” Natusch put the slim package he’d been given into his breast pocket. The Palestinian was as jumpy as a cat. “I’m sorry I couldn’t do anything for your friends [EDITOR’S NOTE: THE AFOREMENTIONED BRACKEL & SENGOR]” he went on, “but there was only enough material for you.” Pride of craftsmanship calmed some of Henry’s agitation. “You’ll find a passport there, properly stamped,” he announced, “a travel warrant, also stamped, and a couple of letters. You’re Mario Brioni, sir. That’s if you want to be Italian. I’d better go now, sir. Good luck.” He shook hands with Natusch, gave Frank and Joob a half-bow, and left. 

The New Zealander passed the little folder to his two friends without a word and stayed on the alert whilst they examined him it. The verdict came quickly. “It’s perfect,” Frank said slowly. His eyes were wide with admiration. “This is first-class work.” Joob Sengor, taking longer over his examination, agreed, and with that, Natusch was really satisfied. Joob was a protégé of the great Bentinck [EDITOR’S NOTE: A DUTCH FORGER], and a connoisseur of forgery. He put the documents back into his pocket and breathed thanks once again to the ever-helpful Henry Lowenstein.’ 

What the Germans had failed to do in Budapest, namely check his photo and fingerprint files in Berlin, they would certainly have done in the Oflag in Neubrandenburg; obviously, they would quickly have learned his real identity and turned him over to the Gestapo for interrogation. This meant that Natusch couldn’t risk facing new interrogators and had planned to jump off the train en route to the Oflag and change his identity from Eddie van Hootegem to Mario Brioni, who happened to be a fictitious Italian traveling legitimately. Incidentally, Roy had opted for an Italian surname because he spoke passable Italian and thought he could fool most Germans. 

Roy’s intention after he jumped from the train was to travel in the opposite direction along the same line from Stettin [today: Szczecin, Poland] towards Hegyeshalom, near the Austrian-Hungarian border. Stettin lay 30 miles east of Neubrandenburg, which made the revised journey feasible. Roy was concerned that if his luck failed some attentive German might check and discover there was no such person as Mario Brioni. If this happened, he knew that he could no longer be Eddie van Hootegem, a Dutchman who didn’t speak Dutch, and certainly not be himself. Heinz Löwenstein again came to his rescue and offered him his own identity since he now went by Henry Goff. Roy jumped at the offer, so Löwenstein gave him his identity tag. This was the last interaction between Heinz and Roy documented by Francis Jones. 

As fate would have it, when Roy jumped off the train at the stop before Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland], he was seriously hurt. Knowing he would be recaptured because of his injuries he ditched the identifications for both Mario Brioni and Heinz Löwenstein. He was arrested at the train station near Breslau by one of the three guards escorting him to the Dutch Oflag in Neubrandenburg. On the 2nd of August 1944 two guards from there came to collect Roy. Because his Hungarian civil papers were in order, upon his arrival in the Oflag he continued to pass himself off as Eddie van Hootegem. However, eventually he gave up the ghost and admitted to his interrogators that he was Roy Natusch, an escapee from Stalag XVIIIA in Wolfsberg. Fortunately, the Germans didn’t immediately make the connection that he was wanted by the Gestapo; consequently, they sent him back to Stalag XVIIIA where he’d originally escaped from years before. Knowing he was still in danger, he quickly had himself assigned to a work party in a place called Radkersburg near the Yugoslavian border. With help from the Hungarian resistance, he escaped across the border and after a dangerous journey through German lines reached the Partisans. From there he was eventually repatriated in Italy.” 

 According to Paul, Roy spoke admiringly of Heinz: 

“Roy talked very highly of him and was amazed at his skills to forge documents most accurately and prior to his death Roy often wondered what became of Henry and thought he may have settled in Palestine after the war.  We did go ‘looking’, but sadly with little success and now reading your various blogs confirms the reason why.” 

As previously noted, I’ve reviewed what I previously wrote not only because Heinz Löwenstein escaped several times on his own, but he also figured prominently in the escape of other prisoners-of-war. 

As it specifically relates to Heinz’s “loose government supervision” in Hungary on the estate of Count Andrássy, Paul recently came into possession of what I can only characterize as an exceptionally rare photograph of some of the internees detained there, including Heinz. (Figure 3a-b)

 

Figure 3a. Copy of original photo taken on the estate of Count Mihály Andrássy in Szigetvár, Hungary between January and March 1944, including Heinz Löwenstein

 

 

Figure 3b. AI-enhanced black-and-white copy of the original photo taken on the estate of Count Mihály Andrássy in Szigetvár, Hungary

 

Paul recently completed a world cruise where he had several opportunities to meet up with several fellow Second World War researchers he’s been associated with over the past 35 years. One Kiwi expat now living in Atlanta, Georgia flew down to Miami to meet Paul when his cruise ship berthed there and subsequently put him in touch with the son (Buster Beckett) of another internee whose father was also housed on Count Andrassy’s estate in Szigetvár at the same time as Heinz. Buster’s father was Private Doug “Joe” Beckett. Dai Davies, mentioned above as one of POWs who escaped from Stalag XVIIIA (Wolfsberg) with Roy Natusch and Joe Walker, gave Joe Beckett the attached group photo taken on Count Andrássy’s estate of the “guests” detained there. Dai Davies identified as many of the detainees as he could. (Figure 4)

 

Figure 4. Dai Davies’ identification of 11 of the 18 individuals photographed on the estate of Count Mihály Andrássy in Szigetvár, Hungary; Count Andrássy may be the gentleman in the suit in the center of the group

 

 

Let me review what I discussed in Post 137. The evidence that Heinz Löwenstein escaped from Stalag VIIIB in Poland and successfully reached Hungary comes from War Office Record WO 224/95. This document was sent to me by my English friend, Brian Cooper, who specializes in the study of British Commonwealth Second World War POWs. It places Heinz at Szigetvár on the estate of Count Andrássy no later than November 8, 1943. Quoting what I previously wrote: 

“Record WO 224/95 is a Visit Report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) written on the 16th of November detailing prison conditions at the Camp Siklós Hungarian detention center inspected on the 8th of November 1943. While referred to as Camp Siklós the holding facility had in fact been moved from Siklós to Szigetvár on the 12th of August 1943 due to the poor conditions prevailing at Siklós. Attached to this report is a list of 16 army personnel (Figure 5), presumably, all POW escapees, including ‘Henry Lowenstein.’ It’s unclear at what point Heinz was arrested in Hungary but no later than the 8th of November he was in Hungarian hands. Szigetvár, incidentally, was the castle estate of Count Mihály Andrássy, and incarceration conditions there were excellent.

 

 

Figure 5. Page 4 of report written by the International Committee of the Red Cross on November 16, based on a November 8, 1943 visit 1943 to Camp Siklós (Szigetvár), War Office record WO 224/95, listing the 16 British Commonwealth POWs housed at Count Andrássy’s estate

 

The ICRC visit to Camp Siklós (Szigetvár) was conducted in its capacity as a Protecting Power which was formalized in the Geneva Convention of 1929. Protecting powers were allowed to inspect prisoners of war camps, interview prisoners in private, communicate freely with prisoners, and supply books for the prison library. The term ‘Protecting Power’ is simply defined. It is a state which has accepted the responsibility of protecting the interests of another state in the territory of a third, with which, for some reason, such as war, the second state does not maintain diplomatic relations.” 

The photograph given by Dai Davies to Joe Beckett, both pictured, includes eighteen people, eleven of whom are identified. (see Figure 4) I suspect, though have no way to confirm this, the unidentified gentleman in the center of the photo nattily dressed in a suit was Count Mihály Andrássy. Only five of the people whose names appear on the ICRC list are identified in the picture, namely, Corporal Joe Crolla, Private John Bisset, Private Henry Loewenstein, Private Reginald Mathews, and Private John McAteer. It’s probable that some of the unnamed individuals correspond to other people on the ICRC list. It’s not clear why there isn’t greater overlap between the ICRC list and the photograph. 

Interestingly, Heinz Löwenstein is identified as a “document forger.” He is kneeling in the lower right of the photo. Having multiple photos of him and having met him earlier in life, I can confirm this is Heinz. As I discussed and illustrated in Post 163, by happenstance, Brian found a group picture on Facebook of so-called Palestinian POWs taken at Stalag VIIIB that also includes an extremely haggard and gaunt looking Heinz Löwenstein. (Figure 6) It is remarkable how much healthier Heinz appears in the photo taken at Szigetvár. (Figure 7) In Roy’s article “The Messenger of Hope,” when he again encountered Heinz in Stalag XVIIA [Kaisersteinbruch, Austria] and Heinz gave Roy Natusch his identity papers (since he was now going by “Henry Goff”), he “. . .noticed how thin and exhausted Henry Loewenstein was from the privations of the Belgrade prison.”

 

Figure 6. Group photo that Brian Cooper found on Facebook of so-called Palestinian POWs at Lamsdorf, astonishingly including Heinz Löwenstein

 

Figure 7. Closeup of Heinz Löwenstein taken on the estate of Count Mihály Andrássy in Szigetvár, Hungary between January and March 1944

 

Returning to the picture Paul London shared with me, it is fascinating to see images of some of the prisoners Heinz was interned with as well as individuals who wrote their own memoirs or were the subject of books that mentioned Heinz. The internees appear even more realistic in the AI-enhanced photo Paul was able to get a family friend to reproduce. (Figure 8)

 

Figure 8. AI-enhanced color copy of the original photo taken on the estate of Count Mihály Andrássy in Szigetvár, Hungary

 

Paul recently shared some dialogue from an unfinished documentary two brothers were producing on Roy Natusch during which they interviewed Dai Davies talking about Heinz Löwenstein: 

“Tell us about Henry Lowenstein. 

01:57:59:16 Henry Lowenstein was a totally different fellow. Very quiet chap, very, I think was well educated. Very intelligent chap, knew his stuff. And he was a master forger. He could forge every kind of thing. And he must have been able to speak German fluently, I assumed because some of the passes he made with the Nazi emblem on them, the eagle and the swastika. And with instructions that so-and-so should be doing this or that or should be going here. They were fantastic. 

01:58:47:13 And I don’t know how he did it, but he did it and he was a wonderfully educated fellow and a nice fellow. He had a way of speaking which irritated some people. I think it was because he was either French or some other nationality but I know he spoke German perfectly. But because of the way he spoke, he irritated some of our boys. But he was very, very intelligent. 

What were the tools of his trade as a forger? 

01:59:36:09 Well I don’t know where he got them from. He used to make ink on his own. I never found out how he made the ink. He used to make ink. And then he’d have a pen made out of timber or something like that, or a piece of a bone. He was a proper genius in that field. I think he would have made a fortune in the Bank of England. 

So he used calligraphy? 

02:00:06:09 Oh beautiful. And you see the way that the Germans write, they’ve got a hand-writing which is totally different to ours and he wrote in that style. 

02:00:42:03 Lowenstein was a master artist trade. He had the gothic style of writing and everything, marvelous. Lowenstein was a gentleman in my opinion and I don’t know what happened to him.” 

Ending this post quoting from someone who knew Heinz Löwenstein seems appropriate.

 

REFERENCES 

Davies, D.T.A. & Ioan Wyn Evans. All for Freedom: A True Story of Escape from the Nazis. Gomer Press, 2016. 

Jones, Francis S. The Double Dutchman: A story of wartime escape and intrigue. The Dunmore Press Limited, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 1977. 

Natusch, R. (1993). The Messenger of Hope. New Zealand Returned Servicemen’s Association Review.

 

POST 201: EXHIBIT OF FÉDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S THREE RESCUED PAINTINGS AT THE MUSÉE D’ART ET D’HISTOIRE DU JUDAÏSME (MAHJ) IN PARIS

Note: Three of my father’s first cousin’s surviving paintings, among a lot of 25 seized by the Nazis in December 1940 at the Port of Bordeaux, are currently on display in Paris at the musée d’art et d’histoire du Judaïsme (MAHJ). I participated in a round table discussion on the opening night on February 18, 2026. A comment by a high-level official during the event that the French Minister of Culture correctly followed French civil law in adjudicating the case prompts me to more fully explain my frustration with how my claim was handled, even though I now own the paintings. 

Related Posts: 

POST 105: FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S NAZI-CONFISCATED ART: RESTITUTION DENIED 

POST 160: UPDATE ON COMPENSATION CLAIM AGAINST THE FRENCH MINISTRY OF CULTURE INVOLVING NAZI-CONFISCATED FAMILY ART  

POST 189: CEREMONY FOR THE RESTITUTION OF THREE PAINTINGS LOOTED FROM MY FATHER’S COUSIN FÉDOR LÖWENSTEIN DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR: SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 

POST 189, POSTSCRIPT: CEREMONY FOR THE RESTITUTION OF THREE PAINTINGS LOOTED FROM MY FATHER’S COUSIN FÉDOR LÖWENSTEIN DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR: SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 (CLARIFICATION) 

POST 197: THE HISTORY OF FÉDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S SURVIVING CONFISCATED PAINTINGS

 

As I related in Post 189, I am now the owner of three surviving paintings rendered by Fédor Löwenstein, my father’s first cousin. These works were among 25 seized from him by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux on December 5, 1940, and the only ones thought to have survived the Nazi onslaught to destroy his so-called “degenerate art.” They were restituted to me at a ceremony that took place at The Centre Pompidou in Paris on September 16, 2025. Since taking possession of the paintings, I’ve agreed to loan them to two or three French museums over the next few years for displays on spoliated art from the Nazi era. 

The first of these exhibits opened at the musée d’art et d’histoire du Judaïsme (mahJ) in Paris on February 18, 2026, and I was asked to participate in a round table discussion that evening. The paintings will be exhibited there until March 31, 2028, although one of the paintings, Composition, Landscape, will be transferred to l’Orangerie as part of a larger exhibit there on spoliated works before the end of the exhibit at mahJ. An exhibit at Le centre national Jean-Moulin in Bordeaux, the city where Fédor Löwenstein’s paintings were confiscated in 1940, is then possible later in 2028. 

Mme Pascale Samuel, the curator for modern and contemporary art at mahJ, opened the evening’s event and explained the purpose of the exhibit. (Figure 1) M. Didier Schulmann, former Director of The Centre Pompidou’s Kandinsky Library, moderated the evening’s discussion and explained the circumstances that led to the three surviving Löwenstein paintings being recognized as Nazi-looted art. (Figures 2-3)

 

Figure 1. Mme Pascale Samuel, the curator for modern and contemporary art at mahJ, on February 18, 2026, speaking at the opening of the exhibit on spoliated art and introducing panelists from left to right, Didier Schulmann, interpreter, me, and Florence Saragoza

 

 

Figure 2. M. Didier Schulmann, moderator of the panel discussion and former Director of the Kandinsky Library

 

 

Figure 3. M. Didier Schulmann and me having a discussion in front of the Fédor Löwenstein exhibit at mahJ

 

 M. Schulmann explained how the status of Löwenstein’s paintings was “legalized” in 1973 through administrative machinations. That year they were officially added to the modern art collections of the National Museum of Modern Art (Musée National d’Art Moderne (MNAM)) as an “anonymous donation.” Recognition of the three paintings as looted art, however, did not take place until December 2010. This was thanks to the work of archivists and curators, namely, Alain Prévet, head of the Archives of the National Museums, and Thierry Bajou, chief curator of artifacts of the French Museums. Didier reviewed how these two men were able to recognize Löwenstein’s paintings as looted art. I had the honor of meeting M. Prévet at the opening of the mahJ exhibit. (Figure 4)

 

Figure 4. M. Alain Prévet speaking with Mme Camille Roperche, Journalist Director, currently producing a 50-minute documentary for Canal+ on my Fédor Löwenstein claim

 

 

Preserved in the Archives of the National Museum are thirteen negatives showing views of the rooms at the Jeu de Paume (Figure 5) taken during the Nazi occupation exhibiting numerous pieces of art seized by the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR). The ERR was the “Special Task Force” headed by Adolf Hitler’s leading ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and the main Nazi agency engaged in the plunder of cultural valuables in Nazi-occupied countries during the Second World War. The plunder was brought to the Jeu de Paume building in the Tuileries Gardens in Paris for processing by the ERR’s “Special Staff for Pictorial Art,” the so-called the Sonderstab Bildende Kunst.

 

Figure 5. The backside of the Jeu de Paume as it looks today

 

Using the thirteen negatives, Prévet & Bajou undertook a detailed digitization of the visible paintings work by work. Each operation was accompanied by specific brightness adjustments to optimize the legibility of each artwork. Next, they performed a so-called anamorphosis to correct the distortions related to perspective. From this stage, it was then possible to identify several works and confirm attributions suggested elsewhere.

M. Schulmann explained that Prévet & Bajou referred to a list that the noted art historian Rose Valland then working at the Jeu de Paume recorded in her notebook on March 10, 1942, of modern art displayed on this date. It was the translation of a list drawn up by the German authorities that provided a brief description of the pieces of art with dimensions and the name of the owners from whom the artworks had been confiscated. Ironically, while this list was known to historians, astonishingly no one had ever cross referenced it with the photographs of the Jeu de Paume before Alain Prévet and Thierry Bajou did so. 

As Prévet & Bajou describe elsewhere: 

“We also used a website recently launched by a team of American researchers led by Marc Masurovski, which reproduces all the records compiled by the ERR during the looting. This website provides a directory of the looted individuals and the works that passed through the Jeu de Paume, enriched with photographs of the seized works, when available, taken by ERR agents. We found most of the works visible on the negatives there, but some of them, now identified, remain known only through these negatives when they were not specifically photographed by the Germans.” 

Didier Schulmann clarified how Prévet & Bajou’s discovery appropriately led to the removal of the three surviving Loewenstein paintings from the database of the MNAM and their incorporation into the database of the Musées nationaux récupération (MNR). 

A digression to explain MNR artworks. Between 1940 and 1945, approximately 100,000 cultural assets were looted in France, primarily from Jewish families, by the Nazi regime and the Vichy Government, or were sold under duress. Many of these items were transferred to Germany. At the end of the Second World War, approximately 60,000 works recovered in Germany or in territories controlled by the Third Reich were returned to France, as various clues (archives, inscriptions, etc.) suggested that they originated there. 

Of the roughly 60,000 objects returned from Germany, 45,000 looted assets were restituted to their owners by the commission de récupération artistique (CRA) (Artistic Recovery Commission) between 1945 and 1950. Of the approximately 15,000 works that were neither claimed nor restituted, the administration, acting through “selection committees,” selected more than 2,200 based on various criteria (notably artistic merit), entrusting them to the care of the national museums and often deposited in regional institutions. These constitute the works known as “Musées Nationaux Récupération.” 

Not all MNR works are necessarily looted works. In fact, all objects originating in France were brought back from Germany to France after the Second World War, regardless of how they’d left France and reached Germany. The reality is that some of these objects had not been looted but were items sold on the art market during the Occupation by owners who were neither threatened nor persecuted or pieces commissioned by Germans. The proportion of looted works within the entire body of MNR items remains unknown. The provenance of most of these works remains unclear. By the Minister of Culture’s own estimates, 85% of the MNR works and objects still have incomplete provenance with their owners on the eve of the war unknown. 

The 13,000 works remaining in the early 1950s after restitution and selections as MNR works were sold by the State (via the Administration of State Property). 

As just discussed, the acronym MNR refers to the group of approximately 2,200 artworks. On museum wall labels, the MNR designation signals the complex history of the works. At the Musée National d’Art Moderne, where the three surviving Löwenstein paintings were stored prior to their restitution, these works were not labeled MNR, but “RxP,” specifically, R26P (Les Peupliers), R27P (Les Arbres), and R28P (Composition). 

As I explained in Post 189, Postscript, there are two separate entities involved in the reparation of works looted by the Nazis in France during the Second World War. One is part of the French Ministry of Culture and is known as the “Mission for the Research and Restitution of Cultural Property Looted between 1933 and 1945,” Mission de recherche et des restitution des biens culturels spolies entre 1933 et 1945 (MR2S) and is headed by M. David Zivie. The second is the independent “Commission pour la restitution des biens et l’indeminisation des victimes de spoliations antisemites (CIVS)” attached to the office of the French Prime Minister. It is worth noting that MR2S was created in April 2019, five years after I initially submitted my claim for reparations to the Ministry of Culture. 

MR2S is dedicated to researching and promoting the “policy of reparation” for looting. They undertake proactive research but also do investigations at the request of CIVS. The results of MR2S research are sent to the CIVS, who deliberate and issue opinions and recommend repatriation measures. The Ministry of Culture implements the CIVS’s recommendations and the Prime Minister’s decision by organizing the restitution of looted assets. 

The Minister of Culture’s “Press kit—Restitution of three paintings by Fedor Loewenstein looted during the Second World War,” issued on the occasion of the Restitution Ceremony on September 16, 2025, notes the following regarding the number of looted works returned: “The number of works looted during the Nazi period that have returned since 1950, or that have been the subject of an agreement with the rights holders, now stands at 221, including 200 MNR or equivalent items, 20 works from national or territorial public connections and 1 book from national collections. Of this total, 57 items have been returned as part of proactive research by the administration, museums and libraries over the past ten years.” 

The Press kit further asserts: “This restitution is the result of the proactive research work of the Ministry of Culture, which identified the owner of the three works and wished to find its beneficiaries in order to return them to them. At the same time, the restitution had been requested by a member of the painter’s family, who wanted to make the artist known and to disseminate his work. The Minister of Culture thanks Fyodor Löwenstein’s second cousin for the upcoming loan of these three works, which will be exhibited at the Museum of Jewish Art and History from February 19, 2026.” Obviously, the last part refers to me and my efforts over the last twelve years. 

Let me briefly summarize what was discussed by the second panelist, Mme Florence Saragoza, current Director at the Musée national du château de Pau, famous as the birthplace of King Henry IV of France that showcases collections from his time. 

Regular followers will recognize Florence’s name. She helped me file my compensation claim in 2014. She is someone I hold in great esteem and now consider a friend. I refer readers to earlier posts, specifically, Posts 189, 189 Postscript, and 197, for detailed background on Florence’s connection and involvement with Fédor Löwenstein’s paintings. As I’ve discussed elsewhere, after learning in 2014 that the three surviving Löwenstein paintings were first displayed at the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux that year and that Florence had been the curator, I reached out to her. Coincidentally, at the time, Florence was the Director of the Musée Crozatier, an archaeological museum in le Puy-en-Velay; regular readers know I’m a retired archaeologist. Following her stint at the Musée Crozatier, Florence was the Director of the Toulouse Lautrec Museum in Albi. 

During the evening presentation at mahJ, Florence told audience members some of Fédor Löwenstein’s personal history and his evolution as an artist, how she collected information about him and visited the house in Mirmande where Fedor took refuge during the Second World War that was once owned by his girlfriend, Marcelle Rivier, but is now owned by a couple who cared for Marcelle in her later years. I had the pleasure of meeting this couple, M. and Mme Sapet (Figure 6), during the opening of the exhibit, who own some of Löwenstein’s artworks including his iconic painting, “La Chute,” The Fall. Florence discussed the 2014 Bordeaux exhibit she arranged and her involvement two years before that as then-curator at the Minister of Culture in an exhibit on art looted from the Aquitaine region of southwestern France, an area of many Nazi confiscations.

 

 

Figure 6. Me speaking with M. & Mme Sapet from Mirmande, owners of several Fédor Löwenstein paintings, including his iconic painting, “La Chute”

 

 

In my presentation I focused on how I’d learned about Fédor Löwenstein (1901-1946) through photos and a letter I discovered in the archives of the Stadtmuseum in Spandau outside Berlin written by his sister on October 30, 1946, to their aunt discussing the posthumous sale of one of Fédor’s paintings for a large sum of money. Upon further investigation I learned that Fédor had been an accomplished artist whose works were deemed by the Nazis to be degenerate art, meaning many had been confiscated by them and consigned for destruction. 

I went on to explain how I learned that three of the 25 paintings seized by the Nazis had survived their destructive onslaught, and that the French Minister of Culture was looking for heirs to whom to restore them. I briefly summarized my twelve-year ordeal to recover them, and how I ultimately prevailed. I expressed my frustration that while I eventually obtained the surviving paintings, I was forced to relinquish the substantial compensation the France’s Minister of Culture was offering for the 22 paintings that are lost and presumed to have been destroyed and spend a considerable sum in legal fees. 

I explained that my claim was trumped by those of two so-called universal legatees because inheritance laws in France are governed by civil law rather than common law. Simply put, this means that the inheritance rights of non-blood heirs can prevail over those of blood relatives, such as myself, if blood relatives, some not yet even born, are not specifically named in wills. I was deemed by the Minister of Culture to be a third level heir and was forced to argue I should be eligible for what amounts to a finder’s fee. 

The French Minister of Culture issued their initial rejection of my compensation claim in early 2020 just as Covid was taking hold. Perhaps on account of the timing and my frustration with the decision, I was very slow to react and almost missed the deadline to appeal. Eventually as a cathartic release, I used my blog as a platform to write a post very pointedly expressing my unhappiness (see Post 105). One of my distant cousins read this post and suggested I contact her lawyer in New York. It turns out that she and her extended family are involved in their own longstanding compensation claim involving her great-uncle’s enormous collection of art looted by the Nazis from his art salon in Berlin and/or sold under duress at greatly depreciated prices. My cousin’s lawyer has had great success over the years obtaining compensation for her and her family. 

Realizing I had nothing to lose, I followed her suggestion. My cousin’s lawyer was extremely gracious though unable to help knowing I would need a French lawyer to pursue my claim. Instead, he referred me to one of his colleagues, an American-trained French-born lawyer, also specializing in compensation claims involving Nazi seizures. This colleague in turn put me in touch with one of his colleagues in France, a lawyer with whom he collaborates closely on claims cases in that country and someone I wound up hiring. This is an example of successfully using my blog to promote my own endeavors. 

As noted above, the French Minister of Culture’s rejection of my claim happened because France is governed by civil law vs. common law; a commenter aptly noted the French Ministry was constrained in the decision they could render by this fact. Had I anticipated this comment by a high-level French official, I would have emphasized the following point. As I understand things, the French Ministry of Culture, specifically MR2S, not only implements the CIVS’s recommendations and the Prime Minister’s decision for restitutions but they also try to find original solutions for resolving claims such as mine. Without belaboring the point, the creative resolution to my compensation claim was advanced by me and my lawyer, not by the CIVS or MR2S. 

I initiated the compensation claim without an awareness of the existence of the two universal legatees. When the Minister of Culture eventually learned of their existence, they offered them the opportunity to subrogate my case, that’s to say, claim it as their own. This was clearly an offer that was too good for the legatees to turn down. 

Let me return to an issue I alluded to above, namely, the Minister of Culture’s proactive efforts to find Fédor Löwenstein’s rightful heirs. The 2014 exhibit at the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux along with the exhibition catalog represented an effort to ferret out potential legal heirs. However, at the time I contacted Florence Saragoza, the Minister of Culture had not progressed in identifying any. Had I not accidentally discovered the letter written by Fédor’s sister on October 30, 1946, at the Stadtmuseum and filed my claim, it’s unclear how long it would have taken for the Minister of Culture to initiate their proactive search. Given the high-profile nature of the Löwenstein paintings and the unique circumstances that led to their discovery as looted art, it is possible that such a proactive search would have been initiated sooner rather than later but my claim clearly accelerated the forensic search for heirs. 

And in fact, in 2015 I was contacted by the Minister’s forensic genealogist who’d only been contracted by the Minister of Culture following the submission of my claim the prior year. The genealogist asked me to furnish any genealogical information I had. Thinking I was boosting my own case, I naively provided a large file of documents and photographs proving my close ancestral relationship to Fédor Löwenstein; this included multiple primary source documents I obtained at great financial cost by personally visiting the archives where these documents are kept, documents that are not otherwise available online. 

Readers may wonder why I feel so much frustration with how my claim was handled given that I ultimately prevailed in retrieving Fédor Löwenstein’s surviving paintings after only 12 years. This is a legitimate question particularly since some Jewish descendants whose ancestors’ artworks were seized never attain any such closure or their claims are litigated for multiple generations without any resolution. I read about such cases all the time. One hurdle I cleared that many other claimants never get past is that the French Minister of Culture acknowledged the Löwenstein paintings were looted art that should be returned to rightful heirs. 

Beyond the large financial burden imposed on me and the compensation monies I forewent, I ultimately undertook an enormous amount of work and effort on behalf of two universal legatees who never spent a dime, never acknowledged nor thanked me for my work, and were unaware of Lowenstein’s existence and significance. Furthermore, my displeasure is also rooted in France’s treatment of my family during the Second World War. This resulted in my aunt being murdered by the Nazis with the complicity of the Vichy French, and my father being denied the opportunity to work as a dentist in France after the Second World War even though he’d admirably served in the French Foreign Legion for five years during this time. As a retired archaeologist whose interest has always been rooted in the past, I am here to resoundingly state that the past matters and cannot be forgotten, notwithstanding what some deniers of history would bloviate about. I was heartened by the fact that a former unnamed member of the Prime Minister’s CIVS commission came up to me after the panel discussion to tell me that several members of the commission argued in favor of my position. This is affirmation that my frustration is warranted. 

REFERENCES 

Ministère de la Culture. (2025, September 16). Tracking the ghost paintings of Fédor Löwenstein, lost to Nazi looting. [Press release]. 

Prévet, A, Bajou, T. La récente identification de tableaux spoliés à l’artiste Fédor Löwenstein, in Florence Saragoza (ed.), L’Art victime de la guerre. Destin des œuvres d’art en Aquitaine pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Bordeaux, 2012, p. 33-35