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

Note: Following the restitution of Fédor Löwenstein’s three surviving Nazi-confiscated paintings to me, the Centre Pompidou’s Musee National d’Art Moderne (MNAM) sent me a dossier with documents about their history. In this post, I highlight some of the findings about the paintings’ dramatic and involved past and explain how an archivist and curator discovered they were looted art. 

Related Posts: 

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

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

POST 162: FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH MARCELLE RIVIER, HIS ONETIME GIRLFRIEND 

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

 

Inasmuch as great art should ever belong to a single individual, the three paintings confiscated by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux on December 5, 1940, from my father’s first cousin Fédor Löwenstein that survived their destructive onslaught are now mine. In Post 189, I discussed the Restitution Ceremony that took place at the Centre Pompidou in Paris on September 16, 2025, where the formal turnover of the paintings took place, an event eleven years in the making. (Figure 1)

 

Figure 1. Mme. Christelle Creff, Head of the Museums of France Department, and me signing the “Discharge Agreement” handing over official title of Fédor Löwenstein’s three surviving paintings (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Following the handover, Dr. Camille Morando, the person at the Centre Pompidou responsible for the documentation of the museum’s collections, sent me a digital file with documents detailing the history of the three paintings. Being a nerd for this type of information, I spent some time reviewing and making sense of it. Most of it is written in French, a language I’m reasonably fluent in. I thought I would share with readers insights and findings from the portfolio.

First, let me review some of what is known about Fédor Löwenstein. (Figure 2) Readers are referred to earlier posts for more detail. Though born in 1901 in Munich, Germany, he is typically referred as a Czechoslovakian artist because his father’s family hailed from there and he held Czechoslovak nationality. Since his two younger siblings were born in Danzig, Germany (today: Gdańsk, Poland), respectively, in 1902 and 1905, Fédor likely never lived in Czechoslovakia. Regardless, there is no question he felt an affinity for his father’s homeland.

 

Figure 2. The artist Fédor Löwenstein (1901-1946) (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

The Munich Agreement of 1938, a pact between Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy, that allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland, a German-speaking border region of Czechoslovakia, was intended to prevent a war. It failed. Following the pact, Fédor painted “La Chute,” The Fall (Figure 3), in the style of Picasso’s Guernica. This iconic work reflected his anguish at the betrayal of Czechoslovakia.

 

Figure 3. Fédor Löwenstein’s painting “La Chute” (The Fall), marking the dismantling of Czechoslovakia because of the Munich Agreement

 

Fédor studied at “L’ecole des arts decoratif de Berlin” (School of Decorative Arts in Berlin) then at “l’Academie des Beaux-Arts de Dresde” (Academy of Fine Arts in Dresden). In 1923 he moved to France where he spent the remainder of his life. Fédor Löwenstein was one of many Czechoslovak artists who lived and worked in Paris during what was known as the First Czechoslovak Republic that existed from 1918 to 1938. 

Following his arrival in Paris, Fédor started exhibiting at the Autumn Salon in the mid-1920s, first under the name of Fédor Lovest, of Czech nationality, then later as Fédor Loevenstein of Czechoslovakia. He mostly exhibited still lifes, though in 1927 and 1933, he added paintings of nudes. 

The fact that Fédor painted nudes is personally intriguing. Let me explain. Between the 1950s and 1980s, my parents would regularly visit Nice, France, where Fédor Löwenstein died in 1946, but where Fédor’s younger sister, Jeanne “Hansi” Goff, née Löwenstein, lived until her death in 1986. (Figure 4) During one of those visits, Hansi gave my father a pastel of a nude that to this day hangs in my mother’s bedroom. The work is framed so the signature is concealed, but it is logical to consider it might have been drawn by Fédor. One day, I intend to find out.

 

Figure 4. My parents visiting Fédor Löwenstein’s sister, Hansi Goff, née Löwenstein, in her apartment in Nice, France in October 1981

 

With his closest friends among the Czechoslovak artists, he regularly displayed his paintings between 1936-1938 with this group. His French friends included Robert and Sonia Delaunay, as well as students from the circle of his mentor André Lhote. Lhote ran a summer art academy in the medieval hilltop village of Mirmande in the Drôme department of southeastern France, where Fedor spent time in 1935 and 1938, then again later as discussed below. 

The Nazis captured France in about six weeks (10 May- 25 June 1940) during the Battle of France, starting with the invasion on May 10, 1940, and culminating with the fall of Paris on June 14. This was followed by the signing of an armistice on June 22, 1940, which effectively divided and occupied the country. This resulted in the establishment in the south of the so-called “Free Zone,” the collaborationist Vichy French government led by Marshal Philippe Petain. 

Shortly before the occupation of Paris, on the advice of Marcelle Rivier, one of Lhote’s students since 1928 and later Fédor’s lover (Figure 5), he relocated to Mirmande in the Free Zone. However, before leaving, Fédor made a final attempt to ship twenty-five of his canvases by boat from the Port of Bordeaux. They were destined for an exhibition at the Nierendorf Gallery in New York. They never made it there as I’ll explain.

 

Figure 5. Marcelle Rivier and Fédor Löwenstein with Fédor’s mother, my great-aunt Hedwig Löwenstein, née Bruck

 

Fédor’s works are characterized as a blend of Cubism and abstract art. A 2014 catalog accompanying an exhibition in Bordeaux of three of his surviving works ponders the question whether the ongoing war was responsible for the evolution of Fédor’s painting style or whether the war accelerated a development already in process. Regardless, two of Löwenstein’s supporters from the Paris art scene, Robert Delaunay and André Lhote, are quoted in “Ce Soir” in 1937 characterizing him as “one of the most inspiring abstract painters.” (Pravdova 2016: p. 60, footnote 6) 

In Mirmande Fédor continued working in difficult conditions. Then, on November 11, 1942, German troops occupied Vichy France in Operation Case Anton. No longer safe in Mirmande, in early 1943, disguised as a peasant woman and with the help of Marcelle Rivier and other members of the French Resistance, he was taken to Notre-Dame d’Aiguebelle Abbey, a Trappist monastery located 50km south of Mirmande. Concealed Jews were put to work there on various maintenance tasks related to upkeep of the monastery. In Löwenstein’s case, he painted tiles, a task for which he had no enthusiasm and was ill-suited. He eventually escaped from a work party he’d been assigned to and returned to Mirmande in Spring 1943, obviously feeling it was safe again. 

By Fall 1943, Fédor was sick with an unknown ailment. He secretly traveled to Paris to consult a renowned hematologist at the Curie Institute using the pseudonym “Lauriston.” His condition remained undiagnosed and he continued to deteriorate. He seemed largely unconcerned with being arrested while in Paris because of his fluency in French and the fact that he was discrete about his Jewish background. In truth, he appears to have traveled to Paris several times during the Nazi occupation. 

An article included in the dossier given to me by Dr. Morando is the catalog mentioned above that was written for an exposition at the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux (Figure 6) in 2014 in which Löwenstein’s three martyred works were featured. It includes an intriguing footnote (number 24) suggesting Fédor used the pseudonym “Lauriston” as a cynical poke at the Gestapo since they had their Paris headquarters at “93 de la rue Lauriston.”

 

Figure 6. Cover page of the 2014 exhibition catalog from the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux that featured Fédor Löwenstein’s three orphaned paintings

 

Family pictures I obtained in 2014 from the archives of the Stadtmuseum in Spandau, located outside Berlin, where the personal papers of two of Fédor’s aunts are archived, were taken in Nice. Given his declining health, it is clear he’d decided to spend his final days with his family there. The pictures were taken after the war ended because his youngest brother Heinz, who spent the entire war imprisoned or escaping from German stalags and was liberated sometime between March and May 1945, appears alongside Fédor in the postwar images. (Figures 7-8) Regular followers will recall the multiple posts I’ve written about Fédor’s brother Heinz. (Post 137; Post 137, Postscript; Post 163; Post 163, Postscript; Post 181; Post 194)

 

Figure 7. March 1946 photo of Fédor Löwenstein (seated) with his sister Hansi, his brother Heinz, and his mother Hedwig in Nice, France, several months before his death in August 1946

 

 

Figure 8. Photo of Fédor Löwenstein with his brother Heinz in military uniform taken in Nice, France on the 24th of October 1945

 

Fédor died in Nice on August 4, 1946, of Hodgkin lymphoma and was buried in the Cimetière Caucade. His mother passed away in 1949 and was entombed alongside her son. While their graves were eventually “evacuated” after the family stopped making payments required to keep them interred, their respective headstones survive as reminders of their existence. (Figure 9)

 

Figure 9. Hedwig and Fédor Löwenstein’s surviving headstones in the Cimetière Caucade in Nice, France

 

Included in the dossier that Dr. Morando sent me is the first page of a letter that was written to Mme. Sonia Delaunay on August 21, 1946, following Fedor’s death.  Recall the Delaunays were friends and supporters of his from his days in Paris. Written by someone named “Ullmann,” the person told Mme. Delaunay that Fédor had passed away and wrote that “Je perds un ami et le monde un artiste dont la valeur sera peut-etre un jour reconnue.” Translated, “I lose a friend and the world an artist whose importance may one day be recognized.” This day has finally arrived. 

With the above as background, having woven in historical events with findings from the file sent by Dr. Morando, let me briefly chronicle the paintings’ journey as documented in the dossier. 

The Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR), the “Special Task Force” headed by Adolf Hitler’s leading ideologue Alfred Rosenberg, was one of the main Nazi agencies engaged in the plunder of cultural valuables in Nazi-occupied countries during the Second World War. A particularly notorious operation by the ERR was the seizure of art from French Jewish and a number of Belgian collections from 1940 to 1944. 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. 

The twenty-five pieces of art Fédor Löwenstein tried to ship to New York on the eve of Germany’s capture of Paris are recorded as having been seized by the ERR at Hanger H at the Port of Bordeaux on December 5, 1940. Fedor had a premonition they would never arrive, a concern he expressed in writing to his girlfriend Marcelle Rivier. Following their seizure Fédor’s artworks were sent to the Jeu de Paume. (Figure 10)

 

Figure 10. Plan view of the fifteen rooms at the Jeu de Paume, including room 15, “salle des martyrs”

 

At the Jeu de Paume, the paintings were relegated to the so-called “salle des martyrs,” a space where works rejected by Nazi esthetics of the time, “degenerate art” as they were referred to, were stored pending destruction. The fact that this fate awaited the three paintings I recovered in September 2025 is evidenced by the large red crosses chalked across their surfaces. They were slated to be “vernichtet,” destroyed. And yet, by some miracle, three of Löwenstein’s paintings confiscated in 1940 survived. 

The documentation on the three Löwenstein paintings suggests that after being shuttled back and forth between the Louvre and the Jeu de Paume during the Nazi era, they wound up at the Louvre where they languished for many years. The many moves between the Louvre and the Jeu de Paume occurred for various reasons including the obsession by the Nazis to remove or destroy the degenerate art before a planned visit to the Jeu de Paume by Nazi dignitaries. It is well known that the space of the Jeu de Paume was rehung to highlight artworks for high-ranking Nazis who would regularly visit to “shop.” Hermann Göring, for example, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, is known to have visited the Jeu de Paume twenty times between November 1940 and November 1942 to select paintings for his personal collection. (Figure 11)

 

Figure 11. Hermann Göring on one of his multiple visits to the Jeu de Paume to “shop” for paintings for his personal collection

 

Some paintings considered to be degenerate were not destroyed because they could be traded to dealers or collectors for works more in line with the Nazi aesthetic. As Prévet & Thierry note, “These works, whose style was disapproved of by Nazi aesthetics, were often preserved only because of their market value and the possibilities they offered for exchange with older works that conformed more closely to official aesthetics.” (2012:34) 

In any case, this is likely how many works of unknown provenance wound up in the Louvre. 

The status of Löwenstein’s paintings was not “legally” resolved until 1973. Through administrative machinations, they were officially added to the modern art collections of the National Museum of Modern Art (Musee National d’Art Moderne) as an “anonymous donation.” Shortly before the museum’s relocation in 1977, the paintings were moved to the reserves of the Centre Pompidou where my wife and I first saw them in 2024. (Figure 12)

 

Figure 12. In April 2024, Christian Briend (Head Curator), my wife Ann Finan, my lawyer Caroline Gaffodio, and David Zivie (Minister of Culture) visiting the reserves of the Centre Pompidou where Fédor Löwenstein’s three martyred artworks were then stored

 

The identification of the three paintings, now mine, Les Arbres, Composition, and Les Peupliers, as looted art 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. It is worth briefly relating how these two men were able to recognize Löwenstein’s paintings as looted art. 

As Didier Schulmann, former Director of the Kandinsky Library at the Centre Pompidou (Figure 13), wrote in 2012, it was a case of the “purloined letter syndrome,” based on Edgar Allan Poe’s short story of the same name, where the answer was right in front of people. (Schulmann 2012: 29).

 

Figure 13. In September 2025, Didier Schulmann, former Director of the Centre Pompidou’s Kandinsky Library

 

Preserved in the Archives of the National Museum are thirteen negatives showing views of the rooms at the Jeu de Paume taken during the Nazi occupation exhibiting numerous pieces of art seized by the ERR; these include two negatives specifically showing the “salle des martyrs” (Figures 14-15) where the works deemed degenerate were hung. Using these negatives, Prévet & Bajou describe the process they followed:

 

Figure 14. View 1 of the Jeu de Paume’s “salle des martyrs” (ERR photograph)

 

 

Figure 15. View 2 of the Jeu de Paume’s “salle des martyrs” (ERR photograph)

 

“This work initially involved a detailed digitization of the negatives, work by work. Each operation was accompanied by specific brightness adjustments to optimize the legibility of each artwork. Next, we performed an anamorphosis (Figure 16) to correct the distortions related to perspective. From this stage, it was then possible to identify a number of works and confirm attributions suggested elsewhere.”

 

Figure 16. From the French Minister of Culture’s “POP” website showing the correction using anamorphosis on Fédor Löwenstein’s “Composition” painting

 

Next, they referred to a list that the noted art historian Rose Valland recorded in her notebook on March 10, 1942 (Figure 17), of modern art displayed in the Jeu de Paume 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. Ergo, Didier Schulmann’s remark cited above of the “purloined letter syndrome.”

 

Figure 17. Extract from historian Rose Valland’s notebook dated March 10, 1942, listing eleven paintings in the “Löwenstein collection”; Rose mistakenly thought he was a collector rather than a painter

 

Prévet & Bajou continue: 

“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. 

This is how we were able to identify works by Fédor Löwenstein, whose works were looted in December 1940 in Bordeaux. In a list from March 1942, Rose Valland enumerates eleven of the twenty-five works looted from the artist (six watercolors being grouped together as one lot) (see Figure 17), and she mentions two others, around 1944, not explicitly in the ‘Aulnay train,’ but at least remaining in Paris. At least two canvases are visible in one of the photographs, but had never been linked to this artist, particularly because the Germans intended to destroy them. [EDITOR’S NOTE: These paintings correspond to “La Ville Moderne” and an untitled work (see discussion and figures below)] 

The connection between visible works and those of a little-known artist, believed to have been destroyed according to the ERR (Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg) records, was made possible in part by a preliminary study of Löwenstein ‘s style, some of whose works appear similar to those of Paul Klee, but also by comparing the works still to be identified with those of Löwenstein listed in the ERR records. Comparing our hypotheses with the online catalog of the National Museum of Modern Art (MNAM) allowed us to find mention of three works by this artist (Figure 18), which were not illustrated at the time, one of which was clearly visible in one of the two photographs of the ‘room of martyrs.’” (2012: 34-35) [EDITOR’S NOTE: The visible painting was Fédor Löwenstein’s Composition] (Figure 19)

 

Figure 18. 1973 inventory page from the MNAM database listing Fédor Löwenstein’s three paintings among their holdings at the time

 

Figure 19. View of the “salle des martyrs” highlighting Fédor Löwenstein’s “Composition” hanging there

 

Let me make a few observations related to the above. 

The address of the website which reproduces all the records compiled by the ERR during the looting is: http://www.errproject.org/jeudepaume

The so-called “Aulnay train” was a train loaded with looted art the Germans had designated for urgent shipment on August 2, 1944, from Paris as the city was about to fall to Allied troops (i.e., the Allies liberated Paris on August 25, 1944). It was supposed to be the last shipment, but alerted by Rose Valland, the Societe nationale des chemins de fer francais (SNCF), the National Company of the French Railways, blocked the train on August 27 at the train station of Aulnay-sous-Bois; as a result many of the artworks the train contained were restored to their rightful owners. None of Löwenstein’s works, however, were aboard this train since the Germans had already decided to destroy them. As a related aside, none of Löwenstein’s artworks was individually photographed by the Germans, likely for the same reason that the Germans intended to destroy his works. 

Based on a comment in Rose Valland’s notebook, footnote number 40 in the catalog accompanying the 2014 Löwenstein exhibit in Bordeaux implies Rose Valland didn’t realize Löwenstein was a painter but rather thought he was a collector. (see Fédor Löwenstein (1901-1946), trois œuvres martyres (exh. cat)) 

Two of the Löwenstein’s paintings show “signs of laceration along the edges, where they were torn from their stretchers.” (Ministère de la Culture 2025) Documentation in the MNAM dossier sent by Dr. Morando indicates these edges have been repaired. However, since the red crosses bear witness to the “dramatic marks of history,” their “stigmata” remain. (Ministère de la Culture 2025) (Figure 20)

 

Figure 20. Fédor Löwenstein’s “Composition” painting with a large “X” scrawled across the canvas indicating it was to be “vernichtet,” destroyed (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

The Löwenstein painting Prévet & Bajou refer to as clearly visible in one of the ERR photos of the “salle des martyrs” is the one titled “Composition (Paysage).” Fascinatingly, it is tucked in a corner alongside works by Georges Braque, Marc Chagall, Pablo Picasso, Marie Laurencin, Fernand Léger, and Henri Matisse. Clearly, lofty company to be grouped with! (see Figure 15) 

To remind readers, I filed my claim with the French Minister of Culture for compensation and restitution of Löwenstein’s artworks in 2014 with Florence Saragoza’s assistance; Florence was the curator of the 2014 exhibit at the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux where the martyred works were first shown. The claim mentioned 25 art pieces but over the years I never got a clear answer where this figure came from. A footnote in the French original of the paragraphs quoted above finally provided the answer. The web address to the database developed by Marc Masurovski, cited above, includes the two original pages of the list developed by the ERR listing the names, dates, art medium, and dimensions of the 25 artworks seized from Fédor Löwenstein. (Figures 21a-c) The paintings are catalogued under ERR record numbers Löwenstein 4 (Composition), 15 (Les Peupliers), and 19 (Les Arbres). These correspond to the three paintings I retrieved in September 2025. As readers can see, all 25 of Löwenstein’s listed works were crossed out, and marked “Vernichtet” (“destroyed”), even the three that survived. 

 

Figure 21a. Table 1 in the “ERR Project” database listing “Private French Jewish Collections Processed by the ERR at the Jeu de Paume” with a link to the two pages listing artworks seized by the ERR from Fédor Löwenstein

 

Figure 21b. Page 1 from “ERR Archival Guide, Appendix 1” listing the 25 pieces of art confiscated from Fédor Löwenstein by the Nazi’s ERR taskforce in December 1940

 

 

Figure 21c. Page 2 from “ERR Archival Guide, Appendix 1” listing the 25 pieces of art confiscated from Fédor Löwenstein by the Nazi’s ERR taskforce in December 1940

 

The online catalog of the National Museum of Modern Art cited by Prévet & Bajou (http://collection.centrepompidou.fr.artworks) no longer includes the three Löwenstein paintings in their inventory. 

One last observation about Prévet & Bajou’s discoveries. In the second picture taken by the ERR in the “salle des martyrs,” the curators discovered two other canvases in Löwenstein’s style, the first corresponds to the painting entitled “La Ville Moderne,” the Modern City (Figure 22), the second is untitled because too little of it is visible. (Figure 23)

 

 

Figure 22a. Fédor Löwenstein’s painting titled “La Ville Moderne,” The Modern City, seen in the “salle des martyrs,” which has disappeared and is presumed to have been destroyed

 

Figure 22b. Page from the French Minister of Culture’s “POP” website about Fédor Löwenstein’s “La Ville Moderne”

 

Figure 23. A fragment of an untitled work from the “salle des martyrs” believed to have been painted by Fédor Löwenstein and destroyed by the Nazis

 

Alain Prévet recounts the astonishing discovery: “No one had recognized the Löwensteins before. It was through studying the negatives of these two images, preserved in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that we were able to identify them.” 

Once Löwenstein’s three paintings were positively identified as looted works, they were removed from the inventory of the MNAM (Musee National d’Art Moderne) in 2011 and transferred to the register of artworks confiscated by the Nazis, called the MNR (Musée Nationaux Recuperation) pending their return to heirs. Since their restitution in September 2025, they have now been removed from the MNR database. (Figures 24a-b)

 

Figure 24a. Left side page of MNR database showing the removal of the three Löwenstein paintings from their inventory
Figure 24b. Right side page of MNR database showing the removal of the three Löwenstein paintings from their inventory and the date of their restitution to me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Briefly, some history on the MNR. At the end of the Second World War, roughly 61,000 artworks looted from French territory were recovered in Germany and returned to France. About three-quarters of them were restored to their rightful owners, 13,000 were sold by the French state, and roughly 2,200 were placed under the care of national museums, often regional institutions. Legally, the French state is only a temporary custodian of these works. As such, they are not considered part of the permanent public collections of France’s national museums. This latter group, made up of approximately 2,200 artworks as just stated, are referred to by the acronym MNR, Musée Nationaux Recuperation. The MNR designation signals a complex history. At the MNAM, where these three surviving Löwenstein paintings resided until Prévet & Bajou came along were labeled as R26P (Les Peupliers), R27P (Les Arbres), and R28P (Composition), not by MNR numbers since they were only recognized as looted works in 2010. 

It is pointless to imagine how well-known Fédor Löwenstein might have become during his life if circumstances had been different. However, in an article written in 2016 by Anna Pravdova, entitled “Vernichtet! Three rescued paintings by Fédor Löwenstein,” published in the “Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague,” she notes an intriguing fact. Following his death, the property of the Nierendorf Gallery in New York, where Fédor had intended his consignment of 25 paintings to be shipped, was purchased in its entirety by the Guggenheim Museum. It’s enormously satisfying that by dint of owning Fédor’s surviving paintings, I am playing a role in helping my ancestor gain the recognition he never obtained in life, even though his artworks may never hang in the Guggenheim. 

REFERENCES 

Löwenstein, Fédor. Fédor Löwenstein (exh. cat.), 1962, Gallerie Blumenthal, Paris. (includes André Lhote quote from Ce Soir, Nov. 27, 1937) 

Löwenstein, Fédor. Fédor Löwenstein (1901-1946), trois œuvres martyres (exh. cat), 15 Mai-24 Août 2014, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Bordeaux. 

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

Pravdová, A. (2016). Vernichtet! Three rescued paintings by Fédor Löwenstein. Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague, XXVI, 55-60. 

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. 

Saragoza, F. (ed.) (2012). L’Art victime de la guerre. Destin des œuvres d’art en Aquitaine pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, Bordeaux. 

Schulmann, Didier. (2012). Fédor Löwenstein, le pillage et la liquidation des ateliers des artistas juifs pendant l’occupation, in Saragoza (ed.), 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. 29-32.

 

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)

Note: Mr. David Zivie, my contact at the French Ministry of Culture clarified the roles of the “Mission for the Research and Restitution of Cultural Property Looted between 1933 and 1945 (MR2S),” which he heads, and the “Commission pour la restitution des biens et l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations antisémites (CIVS),” which is attached to the Prime Minister’s office. Both are involved in reparation for looting of art and books confiscated by the Nazis in France during the Second World War but are separate entities doing different work.

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

 

I am grateful to my contact at the French Ministry of Culture, Mr. David Zivie (Figure 1), for having read Post 189 where I discussed the restitution of three paintings looted from my father’s cousin Fédor Löwenstein during the Second World War. David was directly involved in my eleven-year compensation claim and was instrumental in facilitating a positive resolution of the matter.

 

Figure 1. David Zivie and me at the Musée de l’Orangerie on September 17th, 2025; David is head of the French Ministry of Culture’s MR2S department

 

In perusing Post 189, David noted several errors I made regarding the relationship of the organizational structure that he heads within the French Ministry of Culture, the so-called “Mission for the Research and Restitution of Cultural Property Looted between 1933 and 1945 (MR2S)” and the independent “Commission pour la restitution des biens et l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations antisémites (CIVS).” Each has distinct responsibilities as it relates to resolving claims for reparation for Nazi looting of art and books, which David explained in detail. Being a stickler for accuracy compels me to write this postscript, while at the same time acknowledging it may be of scant interest to most readers. 

I first learned about my father’s first cousin, Fédor Löwenstein, in 2014 after scrutinizing the personal papers of two of my renowned great aunts archived at the Stadtmuseum in Spandau outside Berlin. Through further research I learned Fédor was an accomplished painter and unexpectedly discovered that the French Ministry of Culture was looking for heirs to restore three paintings confiscated by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux on December 5, 1940, that had survived. Having eluded the Nazi onslaught to destroy so-called “degenerate art,” the works were erroneously catalogued in 1973 as an “anonymous donation” and absorbed into the collections of the Louvre. It was not until December 2010 that two astute curators recognized Löwenstein’s works as looted art, whereupon the French Ministry of Culture ostensibly began the process of seeking the rightful heirs. I say “ostensibly” because I reached out to the Ministry before they ever tried to find me. 

Following my discovery in 2014, I contacted Mme. Florence Saragoza, the curator of an exhibit featuring Loewenstein’s three “martyred” works held at the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux that year. Seemingly, this exhibit was a public effort on the part of the French Government to find rightful heirs. Coincidentally, 2014 was the year my wife and I spent 13 weeks visiting places in Europe related to my Jewish relatives’ diaspora. As I’ve detailed in Post 105 and Post 160, Florence helped me file a claim for the paintings in October 2014 in a case that was finally resolved in 2025. 

Following submission of my compensation claim in 2014, the following year my wife and I traveled to Paris to introduce ourselves to staff of the CIVS and discuss my claim. One of the staffers we met was Mme. Muriel De Bastier (Figure 2), a lady I’m still in contact with, who at the time worked for the CIVS but who now works for MR2S. Since Muriel has worked for both organizations I conflated them, ergo my confusion.

 

Figure 2. Mme. Muriel De Bastier and Mlle. Eleonore Claret in June 2015 in Paris. At the time Mme. De Bastier worked for the CIVS in the French Prime Minister’s office

 

As David clarified, the CIVS is an independent commission “attached” to the office of the Prime Minister. By contrast, the Mission for the Research and Restitution of Cultural Property Looted between 1933 and 1945 (MR2S), headed by David Zivie, is a department of the Ministry of Culture. MR2S is dedicated to researching and promoting the “policy of reparation” for looting. 

MR2S conducts research on their own initiative but also at the request of CIVS. The results of their research are then sent to the CIVS. The report to the CIVS attempts to clarify the facts and events surrounding Nazi looting during the Second World War, and to evaluate the looted works. 

Using the report, the so-called CIVS “rapporteur” then proposes a solution and makes a recommendation on how to proceed to the entire CIVS commission during a hearing, a so-called “séance.” Accompanied by my lawyer, I attended such a hearing in April 2024 in Paris. 

As a representative of the Ministry of Culture, MR2S participates in CIVS hearings, like when I attended. However, as MR2S is not part of the CIVS, they do not participate in the deliberations. 

Following the hearing, the CIVS issues opinions on cases of spoliation (i.e., “the action of taking goods or property from someone by illegal or unethical means”) and recommends repatriation measures. 

Relying upon the CIVS’s guidance, the Prime Minister issues “un décision,” recommending restitution and/or compensation. The Ministry of Culture then implements the CIVS’s recommendations and the Prime Minister’s decision by organizing the restitution of art and books. 

The Ministry of Culture, that’s to say MR2S, also tries to find original solutions, as in the case of my compensation claim. As I’ve discussed ad nauseum in earlier posts, France is governed by Civil law as opposed to Common law. Despite being the closest surviving heir to Fédor Löwenstein, according to France’s legal system the rights of two so-called “légataires universels,” universal legatees, trumped mine. This required some delicate negotiations to obtain ownership of Fedor Loewenstein’s surviving paintings. It also required the Ministry of Culture to participate in discussions with the Musée d’art et d’histoire du Judaïsme (mahJ) to have the paintings displayed there following restitution of the paintings to fulfill conditions of the agreement signed with the legatees. 

So, the MR2S (Ministry of Culture) and the CIVS are two links in the same process but are two organizations that do different work.

POST 196: DR. WALTER ROTHHOLZ’S FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT OF JEWISH MISTREATMENT IN THE GRINI CONCENTRATION CAMP IN NORWAY

Note: In a follow-up to a post published in 2019, I present the testimony submitted by Dr. Walter Rothholz, my second cousin once removed, about the mistreatment of Jews held at a Nazi detention center in Bærum, Norway. I also discuss the “White Buses” mission negotiated between Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler and the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte in the closing months of the war, a humanitarian effort that resulted in over 15,000 people being saved from German concentration camps, many of them Scandinavians.

Related Posts:

POST 65: GERMANY’S LAST EMPEROR, WILHELM II, PICTURED WITH UNKNOWN FAMILY MEMBER 

POST 66: DR. WALTER ROTHHOLZ, INTERNEE IN NAZI-OCCUPIED NORWAY

This post tiers off Post 66 written in 2019 about Dr. Walter Rothholz (1893-1978) (Figure 1), my second cousin once removed, who was interned in Nazi-occupied Norway from the 2nd of December 1942 until the 2nd of May 1945. Walter provided testimony on the 4th of October 1945, five months after his liberation from the Nazi Grini concentration camp/detention center in Bærum, Norway, a suburb southwest of Oslo, describing the mistreatment of Jews there. It was sent to me by Hans Peter Lindemann, a Norwegian gentleman from Oslo, whose grandmother, Emmi Skau, née Gronemann (1907-1979), coincidentally was among the seven Jews released from Grini in early 1945, a group that included Dr. Rothholz.

 

Figure 1. Dr. Walter Rothholz (1893-1978) in 1964

 

Along with 45 surviving Jews at the nearby Berg concentration camp, approximately 90-100 kilometers (55-63 miles) away from Grini, Walter and Emmi were sent to Sweden. It was indirectly part of the “White Buses” mission agreement negotiated between Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler and the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte in the closing months of the war. More on this below. 

Walter Rothholz and Emmi Skau, as it turns out, were born and grew up meters apart in Stettin, Germany (today: Szczecin, Poland). It’s unclear whether they knew one another, though it’s likely their families were aware of each other. Walter’s father, Dr. Hermann Rothholz, was an ear, nose, and throat specialist in Stettin, while Han Peter’s grandmother’s maternal uncle, Dr. Alfred Peyser, was also an ear, nose, and throat doctor. 

Before quoting Walter’s words on the treatment of Jews detained in Grini, let me explain the White Buses mission. Ignorant of this humanitarian operation prior to Hans Peter Lindemann’s email, Walter Rothholz benefited indirectly from this action. Knowing my family’s history can be of limited interest to followers, I try to frame the events that impacted them in the context of the geopolitical climate of the time. I reckon this will be of broader interest to readers. 

During the Second World War, many Scandinavians, mostly Norwegians and Danes, were deported and imprisoned by the Nazi regime. They were imprisoned for various reasons. Some were Jewish, some held opposing political views, others were part of the resistance, and some were Danish border police. Many of the deportees were sent to concentration camps and labor camps in Germany. 

By 1944, it became clear Germany was losing on the battlefield and that the Second World War would soon come to an end. This raised concerns in Sweden about the safety of the Scandinavians held in the concentration camps and labor camps; the Swedes feared the Germans might liquidate all their prisoners. Thus, in early 1945, as the war was nearing its end, the Swedish government asked the Swedish Red Cross to help rescue Scandinavian inmates. 

One sidebar. Sweden was the only Nordic country that remained neutral during the Second World War. Not only did Sweden remain neutral, but they provided Nazi Germany with crucial raw materials, primarily high-quality iron ore, which was indispensable for German steel production, along with other strategic goods like ball bearings and timber; they also facilitated troop movements through its territory. Sweden’s neutrality involved a delicate balancing act, trading with both Allies and Axis countries. Its economic support for Germany, especially early on, was crucial to Germany’s war effort. Some historians have argued Sweden’s early support prolonged the war. Notwithstanding the merits of this claim, Sweden’s neutrality would have positioned it as a logical intermediary between the Allies and Germany had any negotiations ever taken place. 

Back to the topic at hand. White Buses was a Swedish humanitarian operation aimed at freeing Scandinavians held in German concentration camps in Nazi Germany in the waning days of the Second World War. Though the goal was to rescue Scandinavian prisoners, slightly less than half of the 15,345 people estimated to have been removed from concentration camps and transported to Sweden in March and April 1945 were of other nationalities. The number of Jews among those rescued has never been determined as the former prisoners were registered by nationality rather than by ethnic group or religion. 

The Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte, a nephew of Sweden’s King Gustav V, negotiated the humanitarian operation primarily with Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler. While Hermann Göring was officially designated as Hitler’s second-in-command, Heinrich Himmler was generally considered the second most powerful man in Germany after Adolf Hitler during the Second World War. This stemmed from the fact that Himmler came to preside over a vast empire that included the SS, the Gestapo, the Reich Security Main Office (RHSA), and the concentration camp system. 

Realizing the war was lost, Himmler attempted to open peace talks with the Allies in March 1945 without Hitler’s knowledge. The negotiations with the Swedes on the White Buses mission was similarly conducted without Hitler’s awareness as he opposed prisoner or inmate releases. When Hitler found out about Himmler’s machinations on April 28, 1945, he was furious, stripped Himmler of all his offices and ranks, and ordered his arrest. Himmler attempted to go into hiding but was captured by British forces. 

The buses used to transport the prisoners from German concentration camps were painted white with red crosses painted on the roof, side, front, and back, ergo how the mission got its name. They were thus marked so they would not be mistaken for military targets by the Allies. Those freed from the various concentration camps were transported by the white buses and trucks and gathered at the Neuengamme concentration camp near Lübeck, Germany. Swedish ships took most of the former prisoners onward to Malmö, Sweden though the Danes continued by land on the white buses to Denmark. 

The White Buses mission, notwithstanding that it was deemed a humanitarian success and saved the lives of many who would otherwise have died of malnutrition and/or deprivation or been executed in a final paroxysm of Nazi violence, is not without its detractors. 

The key criticisms of the mission are:

(1) Nationality Bias: The initial mandate focused on rescuing Danish and Norwegian prisoners, leading to accusations that other nationalities, especially Jews and Eastern Europeans, were neglected or abandoned.

(2) Cooperation with the Nazis: The Swedish Red Cross, led by Count Bernadotte, negotiated directly with Himmler raising the obvious moral quandary of compromising with the enemy, specifically the odious architect of the Holocaust.

(3) Selective Rescue: Volunteers initially had to leave people behind who were not on an approved list though the operation was later expanded.

(4) Moral Trade-Off: As already discussed, some felt that Sweden’s neutrality and trade had already prolonged the war, making the rescue efforts ethically complex even though they saved lives. 

As noted above, the agreement between the Swedish Red Cross and Himmler required gathering the prisoners at the Neuengamme concentration camp. At some point, the Germans announced the camp was full and could no longer receive any more prisoners from other camps. The Germans demanded that the Swedes, using their buses and other vehicles, transport around 2,000 non-Scandinavian prisoners to other camps. The Swedish drivers initially refused this request. However, because the Germans insisted the transfer of Scandinavian prisoners could not continue unless space was made in Neuengamme, higher unidentified, presumably Swedish, authorities ordered the drivers to cooperate and so the transports began. 

The outcome is that between March 27 and 29, 1945, about 2,000 French, Russian, and Polish prisoners were transported to concentration camps in Hannover and Braunschweig. Each bus was escorted by two SS guards, one condition of the agreement between the Swedish Red Cross and the Germans. Many prisoners were obviously seriously ill, weak, or dying, and several died during the journey. Cruel to the bitter end, German guards beat some of these prisoners to death. 

Readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether the moral compromises that were made during the White Buses mission were worth it. 

Earlier I alluded to the fact that my relative Dr. Walter Rothholz benefited indirectly from the White Buses mission. Recall that Walter was freed from Grini concentration camp in Norway, not transferred from a camp in Germany. Walter explains this in his testimony of October 1945 quoted below but suffice it to say that because he was married to a non-Jewish Norwegian woman, Else Marie “Elsemai” Bølling (1915-1976) (Figure 2), he was therefore exempt from deportation to a German concentration camp. However, he’d already been stripped of his German nationality through the Reich Citizenship Law of September 15, 1935, and by the Eleventh Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law of November 25, 1941, and thus was deemed “stateless.”

 

Figure 2. Else Marie “Elsemai” Rothholz, née Bølling (1915-1976) in 1964, Dr. Walter Rothholz’s wife

 

Knowing Walter was interned in Norway, I became curious why he was transported to Sweden shortly before liberation on May 2, 1945. Jewish internees liberated from Norway on May 7, 1945, like those from Grini, were sent to Sweden in 1945 because neutral Sweden provided sanctuary and a crucial staging ground for rescue efforts, especially through the Swedish Red Cross. 

It appears that prior to liberation the Swedish Red Cross and Count Bernadotte had not only negotiated the release of Scandinavian prisoners from Germany but had also negotiated safe passage for Scandinavian Jews from Nazi camps in Norway like Berg and Grini to safety. 

Following arrival in Sweden, the former prisoners were quarantined and then sent to refugee centers, like Kjesäter, for treatment and care as “The Rescued of 1945,” with the goal of eventual repatriation to their home countries or resettlement elsewhere. In essence, Sweden served as a vital humanitarian haven and a place for former prisoners to recover from years of starvation and inhumane treatment. 

After May 1945, Norway began prosecuting thousands for collaborating with the Germans. Grini and other Norwegian camps became holding facilities for these accused collaborators. These people were processed within Norway for treason. The primary reason for holding people at Grini post-liberation was to detain collaborators for trial, not to deport them to Sweden or elsewhere. 

Below is the testimony Dr. Walter Rothholz provided in October 1945 (Figures 3a-c):

 

Figure 3a. Page 1 of Dr. Rothholz’s October 1945 testimony describing the mistreatment of Jews at Grini typed in Norwegian

 

Figure 3b. Page 2 of Dr. Rothholz’s October 1945 testimony describing the mistreatment of Jews at Grini typed in Norwegian

 

Figure 3c. Page 3 of Dr. Rothholz’s October 1945 testimony describing the mistreatment of Jews at Grini typed in Norwegian

 

Walter Rothholz witness testimony 4 October 1945, at Victoria Terrasse, translated with Google translate 

Questioned at Vict. Terrasse on 4.10.45: Walter Rothholz, born 24.4.95 in Stettin, Dr. Juris, lives at St. Hallvards vei 8, Jar, tel. 35020, familiar with the case and the responsibility to testify, willing to explain himself and explained 

regarding the mistreatment of Jews at Grini 

“I came to Grini on 2.12.42 and was there until 2.5.45, when I, together with 6 ladies, was sent to Sweden at the expense of the Swedish Red Cross. When I came to Grini there were about 25-26 Jews there. We lived in rooms 1 and 2 in barracks 6. The rest of the rooms in this barracks were inhabited by Norwegians. 

In Jan.–Feb. 1943 I participated in two punishment exercises. The first began at about 19 in the evening and was held with the entire barracks 6, both Jews and Norwegians, while the second was held less than 14 days later and then with only Jews from 2:30 to 5:30 at night. Both of these exercises were held on the old roll call square. 

The first exercise lasted about an hour. It was very hard and I remember that many of the prisoners were quite upset afterwards. However, I cannot with the best of my ability remember who was in command, whether it was ZEIDLER or someone else, nor can I remember which Germans were present. However, I believe that Feldwebel FIEDLER was not there. 

The Jews this time were treated better by the one who conducted the exercise than the Norwegians for the reason that we Jews understood the commands and could immediately obey them, which was not always the case with the Norwegians. I saw that several Norwegians were beaten and kicked during this exercise, but I cannot remember any names. I do not remember that Prof. Jaroczy was beaten. I lived in the same barracks as him, and I have no recollection that he had any signs of abuse after the exercise. Nor do I remember that he spoke of having been abused. 

The second exercise took place about 14 days later. Then only the Jews were present. We were woken up in the middle of the night and had to stand at the old roll call square. I cannot say who woke us up, but when we got beyond the barracks and ran towards the roll call square we were beaten by the driver SCHLEGEL, who had positioned himself there and punched some one or two who he thought were coming too late. 

When we got to the roll call square I seem to remember that ZEIDLER was there, as was apparently Feldwebel FIEDLER. I cannot say who else was there. HEILMANN was not there at first, but came later. 

Before the exercise began ZEIDLER took the Jew BLUMENFELD out of the line. Then, as far as I remember, he handed over the command to FIEDLER and himself went out with BLUMENFELD and disappeared for a while. I did not hear if he said anything to FIEDLER when he gave the latter the command. 

The exercise began at 2:30 and lasted until 5:30. During this whole time, we were chased back and forth across the roll call area in a chorus, ‘Hinlegen’, ‘Auf’, ‘Hinlegen’, ‘Auf’, ‘Laufen’. [EDITOR’S NOTE: ‘LIE DOWN’, ‘UP’, ‘LIE DOWN’, ‘UP’, ‘RUN’] Once during the exercise, FIEDLER heard someone talking to each other, he then became even more furious, lined us up and asked who had spoken, at first no one wanted to say anything, but eventually someone pointed to a Lurje from Oslo. FIEDLER then went up to Lurje and hit him several times in the face. I cannot say whether FIEDLER hit with a clenched fist, but he hit him so hard that Lurje fell over. Lurje was then ordered to run around and immediately knock him down again. How many times this was knocked down, I cannot say, but it was several times. 

During the exercise, Prof. Jaroczy came to say that he was a front-line soldier from the last world war and that for that reason he thought he was subjected to brutal treatment. When FIEDLER heard this, he was completely furious, went over to Jaroczy and the latter then received the same treatment as Lurje. He was first knocked down and while he was lying down FIEDLER kicked and stomped on him everywhere. He then had to get up again, was knocked down and kicked and stomped on again. Whether he was knocked down as many as 12 times, I dare not say, but I will not rule out the possibility of it either. 

I did not directly see FIEDLER directly mistreat anyone during the exercise, but he kicked right and left with his shaft boots when he walked between us during a “Hinlegen” [EDITORS’S NOTE: ‘LIE DOWN’]. I for one also got a kick from his boots in passing, and they hurt quite a bit. When ZEIDLER had been gone for an hour he came back. I was then called forward and he read me an anti-Semitic song that he said I should get the Jews to sing. The song itself was only one verse and it ended with ‘und dann nicht mehr’ [EDITOR’S NOTE:AND THEN NO LONGER’. When he had instructed this, ZEIDLER disappeared and FIEDLER was to make sure that we practiced correctly. After a while ZEIDLER came back and we had to sing the verse for him too and kept singing the verse over and over for at least half an hour. 

ZEIDLER then disappeared again and was gone for a while. During that time FIEDLER was again doing ‘hinlegen’ [EDITOR’S NOTE: ‘LIE DOWN’] etc. HEILMANN was then present but he did not like it and I saw that he tried several times to slow down FIEDLER, who was still just as furious. Then HEILMANN left too. 

During the time between ZEIDLER’s return after being gone for about an hour, and at 5:30 when the exercise ended, ZEIDLER was only partially present. He came earlier to see that everything was going as it should. FIEDLER drove us the whole time, either we had exercises or we had to sing the aforementioned song, but it was not as hard as the first hour. 

As far as I could see, ZEIDLER did not hit us once during the entire exercise. He made speeches to us and mocked the Jews for being unintelligent and cowardly, etc., but he did not hit. 

When the exercise was over, 6-7 of the oldest ones were so badly injured that we had to carry them from the square to the barracks. In the barracks we were received by BLUMENFELD whom I had not seen since he was taken away by ZEIDLER at the beginning of the exercise. Where he had been during that time I do not know. 

The next morning 5-6 of the Jews were in bed, including Jaroczy, Lurje, Rothkopf and Pintzow. The latter was over 60 years old. They all looked bad, their faces swollen and bloody. Rothkopf had, among other things, been hit on the nose at the beginning of the exercise so that the blood flowed. For this reason, his nose became completely blocked, but he still had to do the exercise at the same time as the rest of us. It was probably FIEDLER who had hit Rotkopf too, but I did not see it. Dr. Poulsson and Dr. Halvorsen came to see them, and one of them determined that Rotkopf had suffered a concussion. 

The rest of us who had not been so ill that we had to stay in bed had to go out to work as usual in the morning. I heard that WARNECKE had been to the barracks in the morning and recorded a report on what had happened, but I was not there at the time. A couple of days later, ZEIDLER came into the barracks and asked if the exercise had been so terribly hard, but he did not get any answer. 

The morning after the exercise, the entire roll call area was covered in bloodstains. 

I remember that Frau FIEDLER was present during the exercise, but I did not see her hitting or kicking any of the prisoners. When I noticed her, she was standing on the main stairs and shouting: ‘Schneller, schneller!’ [EDITOR’S NOTE: ‘FASTER, FASTER’] 

Apart from these two exercises, I do not remember that the Jews were subjected to any mistreatment. They were of course treated worse than the Norwegians, were constantly subjected to insults, etc., but violence was not used against them. 

I remember that ZEIDLER decided that we should work on both Christmas days in 1942, when other prisoners had the day off. Moreover, it was impossible for us to receive visitors. I know that my wife was at Vict. Terrasse in Feb. or March 1943 and that she had been granted a visitor’s permit there. When she came to Grini with this, she was placed and rejected by ZEIDLER. The same was twice the case with the wife of a Jew named BLUMENAU, she too was rejected by ZEIDLER after permission had been granted at Terrassen. 

Most of the Jews were sent from Grini to Germany on 1 Feb. 1943, only about 10-14 days after the last penal exercise, and many of them were not completely recovered from the treatment they had received when they were sent. Only those Jews who were married to Norwegian or German women avoided being sent. 

For the above reason I was not sent to Germany and remained at Grini until just before the capitulation. At one time or another during this time I spoke to ZEIDLER about the treatment the Jews had been subjected to. This did not only apply to Grini, but in general. ZEIDLER then said: ‘Ja, das haben wir getan, und wir entschuldigen uns nicht dafür’ [EDITORS’S NOTE: YES, WE DID THAT, AND WE MAKE NO APOLOGIES FOR IT’]. 

At Grini the Jews were not allowed to go to hospital. If any of us got sick, we had to stay in the barracks. Fortunately, no one got so sick that the matter was brought to the fore, but the order was that no Jews were to be admitted to the hospital. 

The Jews were also given the worst and heaviest work, they were preferably put to dig ditches and do other heavy work. It was completely impossible for a Jew to enter a workshop or kitchen. In 1944 things improved, and Jews could then enter workshops, such as broom making, etc. The latter was, for example, the case with me. 

I have never seen ZEIDLER and DENZER beat prisoners. On the other hand, I saw both HEILMANN, KUNZE and POHL beat, but I cannot remember any names or cases. It was especially when they thought that the prisoners were cheating their way out of work, or that they had caught them in some violation of the camp regulations. They beat both with their hands and with the sticks they were carrying. 

The first day I arrived at Grini, I was beaten by KUNTZE right at the reception. When he heard that I knew German, he put me in charge of the other prisoners ‘Augen rechts’ and ‘Augen links’ [EDITORS’S NOTE: ‘EYES RIGHT’ AND ‘EYES LEFT’]. When some of them did the exercise wrong, it affected me and I was hit in the face with a clenched fist. 

Adopted

Walter Rothholz” 

While the affidavit speaks for itself, let me explain a few things. 

According to Walter’s statement, he and six women were sent to Sweden at the expense of the Swedish Red Cross on May 2, 1945, five days before the formal German surrender in Norway on May 7th. This is the clearest evidence we have that the prisoners at Grini were released before liberation day because of the agreement Count Bernadotte and Himmler negotiated on behalf of Scandinavians held in German concentration camps. 

The Grini detention center in occupied Norway was primarily administered by Gestapo and SS personnel. The camp commander at Grini at the time of liberation was a German SS officer whom Walter merely identifies as “Zeidler.” His full name was Alfred Zeidler, and he held the rank of SS-Hauptsturmführer; he was the last commander of the Grini detention center, a position he held from July 1942 until the end of WWII in May 1945. This encompassed the entire time Walter was imprisoned. Upon being appointed commander, Zeidler promised the prisoners they would get used to “Prussian discipline,” something clearly reflected by the two “punishment exercises” Walter was forced to endure. 

On the day of German surrender in Norway, May 7, 1945, Zeidler handed over command as he’d been ordered. Later he attempted to disguise himself as a regular member of the German army, the Wehrmacht, along with a group of 75 other members of the Gestapo but was apprehended. Though sentenced to a life of forced labor in 1947, he was released in 1953 after an all-too-short incarceration. 

Walter Rothholz mentions the name “Denzer.” This seemingly is Julius Denzer, who along with Alfred Zeidler and Hellmuth Reinhard, were the three primary commanders who oversaw the Grini concentration camp. Denzer was transferred from Grini to another camp, Tromsdalen, in August 1944. 

Another name Walter mentions is “Heilmann.” This corresponds to Eugen Wilhelm Heilmann, who was a guard at the Grini detention center. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment after the war, but, like Alfred Zeidler, was released early on the 7th of September 1951. On page 62 of Odd Bergfald’s book entitled “Hellmuth Reinhard, soldat eller morder?,”the author details the evidence Walter provided in Heilmann’s trial. During his trial, when Heilmann pretended he knew nothing about Auschwitz and the open mass grave he’d boasted having seen during a wartime visit there implying this was the fate that awaited Norwegian Jews, Walter Rothholz was called to testify to the contrary that Heilmann knew precisely what would happen to deportees. 

As Walter Rothholz testifies, as a Jew married to a non-Jewish Norwegian woman, he was not deported to a German concentration camp when most other Jews were sent from Grini to Germany on the 1st of February 1943. In 1936, Walter had married Else Marie “Elsemai” Bølling, a move that permitted him to emigrate to Norway in 1939, seemingly escaping the Nazi scourge. However, after the Nazis invaded Norway on April 9, 1940, as part of “Operation Weserübung,” Walter was eventually arrested on October 26, 1942 (Bergfald: p. 62). Regardless, the Nazis offered “privileged” status to “mixed marriages” such as Walter’s. Compared to other Norwegian Jews, many such couples survived. Walter was later granted Norwegian citizenship. 

As previously noted, Walter was transported to Sweden with six women. He mentions that upon his arrival at Grini there were 25 or 26 Jews there. Since Walter makes no further mention of them after they were beaten, one can assume that unlike him they were deported to German concentration camps and murdered. 

In closing, I would only say that reading firsthand accounts of historical events is perhaps as close as we’ll come to knowing what happened at the time. What makes Walter’s testimony very believable is how dispassionate he is about describing his experiences and what he witnessed. 

REFERENCE 

Bergfald, O. (1967). Hellmuth Reinhard, soldat eller morder? Unknown binding.

POST 195: RATIBOR’S NATIVE SON CLAUS OGERMAN, RENOWNED GERMAN CONDUCTOR, COMPOSER, MUSICAL ARRANGER


Note: This post again proves, as an unknown writer much wiser than me once said, that there’s a short story to be found on every street corner. When the short story happens to be about my father’s hometown of Ratibor and involves one of its famous native sons, Claus Ogerman, who came to America and became one of the most prolific 20th century musical arrangers working with a string of singers who are household names, the tale is even more tantalizing. But it’s topped off by a curious discovery I made comparing two photographs sent to me by separate individuals that serendipitously overlap and relate to Claus.
 

Related Posts: 

POST 72: FAMILY CABINET CARDS FROM RATIBOR & BERLIN PHOTO STUDIOS 

POST 138: INTRIGUING DISCOVERIES ABOUT RATIBOR’S HELIOS PHOTO STUDIO

POST 190: FURTHER CONNECTIONS WITH RATIBOR’S “PHOTO-HELIOS” STUDIO, A MANUFACTURER OF CABINET CARDS

A reader recently sent me a photograph taken on the Rynek, the Market Square, in Ratibor (today: Racibórz, Poland), my father’s hometown, probably in the early to mid-1940s. The photo was sent to me by “Monika,” a lady I introduced to readers in Post 190. Monika stumbled upon Post 138 while researching photo studios that once existed in Ratibor. Her interest stems from the fact that for a brief period between 1942 and 1944 her father, Leopold “Leo” Simon (Figures 1a-b), lived in Ratibor and apprenticed in a photo shop. From Post 138, she discovered the studio where Leo briefly worked was “Photo-Helios,” which has been the subject of several posts.

 

Figure 1a. Monika’s father, Leopold “Leo” Simon, who apprenticed in Ratibor’s “Photo-Helios” between 1942 and 1944

 

 

Figure 1b. Backside of photo of Leopold “Leo” Simon showing it was taken on the 15th of November 1944 in Ratibor

 

Post 138 included photos taken inside “Photo-Helios” of staff that once worked there that were sent to me by a lady named Jessica Nastos, whose great-grandmother also once worked there. As I also discussed in Post 138, the original proprietors of Photo-Helios were Hans and Emma Ogermann. The group photos included staff as well as Emma Ogermann and someone I assumed was her husband, Hans. To her surprise and delight, Monika realized it was her father Leo and informed me I’d misidentified him. (Figures 2a-b)

 

Figure 2a. Group photo taken inside of “Photo-Helios” of staffers working there

 

 

Figure 2b. Closeup of Leopold “Leo” Simon from group photo whom I’m misidentified as Hans Ogermann

 

A brief digression. Following publication of Post 72 dealing with cabinet cards from Ratibor and Berlin, Jakub “Kuba” Stankiewicz, the Director of Jazz Studies at the prestigious Karol Lipiński University of Music in Wrocław, contacted me. A gentleman I now consider a friend whom I met in August in Racibórz (Figure 3), Kuba explained that Ratibor’s famous native son, Claus Ogerman (Figure 4), born Klaus Ogermann, was the son of Hans and Emma Ogermann, owners of Photo-Helios. I refer readers to Post 138 for more background.

 

Figure 3. Kuba Stankiewicz and me in August 2025 in Racibórz

 

 

Figure 4. Claus Ogerman (1930-2016) (photo credit: by httpswww.imdb.comnamenm0644659, Fair use, httpsen.wikipedia.orgwindex.phpcurid=58608757)

 

Continuing. Monika is a professional photographer, as was her father. Being the curator of some of her father’s surviving pictures, I was curious whether any might have been taken during the short period Leo Simon lived in Ratibor between 1942 and 1944. She could only find one, but it is a remarkable photo as I will explain. 

The photograph (Figure 5) is hauntingly alluring made so by the fact the picture was taken at night, and the surface of the image is “crazed,” that is, it has a network of fine cracks and fissures, like those in glazed pottery, old paint, or concrete. These were likely caused by drying or improper storage. Regardless, the structural integrity of the photo has not been compromised, and the architectural elements recognizable.

 

Figure 5. Photo of Ratibor’s Market Square, likely taken by Monika’s father Leopold “Leo” Simon, in the early to mid-1940s

 

The picture shows Ratibor’s Rynek during the Second World War before most of the buildings surrounding the extant market square were destroyed by the invading Red Army in 1945. The photo looks towards the south. The Christmas tree proves the picture was taken during the holiday season. Two recognizable architectural features appear that still exist today. These include the Virgin Mary Column (Kolumna Matki Boskiej w Raciborzu) to the right of the Christmas tree, and the so-called Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Parafia Wniebowzięcia Najświętszej Maryi) in the background. 

The Virgin Mary Column (Figure 6) was built between 1725 and 1727 by a renowned Baroque sculptor Johann Melchior Österreich as a votive offering to thank St. Mary for saving the town from a cholera epidemic. The column incorporates images of angels and figures of St. Florian (patron saint of fire), St. Sebastian (patron saint of epidemics), and St. Marcel (patron saint of Racibórz). According to prophecy, Racibórz will be flooded should anyone dig up the column’s plinth.

 

Figure 6. The Virgin Mary Column in Racibórz as it looks today

 

The Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Figure 7) is one of the oldest Upper Silesian parish churches and the only one that preserves features of early Silesian Gothic architecture. It is Racibórz’s oldest and most significant church with a history dating back to 1205. The Racibórz parish was probably founded in the mid-thirteenth century during the foundation of the town, which took place around 1240.

 

Figure 7. The Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Racibórz as it looks today

 

Let me switch gears and discuss a separate photograph sent to me by Michał Fita, the former Vice-Mayor of Racibórz. Michał is a collector of Claus Ogerman discography. My wife Ann Finan and I met him at the same time we met Kuba Stankiewicz in Racibórz in August. (Figure 8) This is when I donated memorabilia from the former Bruck family establishment, the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel, to the local museum, the Muzeum w Raciborzu. 

 

Figure 8. Group photo from left to right of Michał Fita, me, Kuba Stankiewicz, and my wife Ann Finan in Racibórz in August 2025

 

Adjacent the restaurant on market square where my wife and I met Kuba and Michał for lunch, the city of Racibórz has erected an interpretive sign incorporating a photo looking towards the nearby corner where Claus Ogerman’s childhood home once stood. (Figure 9) Recently, Michał sent me a high-quality copy of this photo with an arrow pointing towards the apartment building where Claus grew up. (Figure 10) As readers can see, the house was located on the Rynek in front the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

Figure 9. Interpretive panel on Raciborz’s Market Square (Rynek) showing the no-longer existing apartment building where Claus Ogerman grew up

 

Figure 10. High-quality closeup photo sent to me by Michał Fita showing the same apartment building where Claus Ogerman grew up

 

Once I realized the photo sent by Monika was also taken on the Rynek (Figures 11-12), I compared it to the one sent by Michał and serendipitously noticed there is overlap between them. The photo sent by Michał does not show the Virgin Mary Column meaning it was shot closer to the apartment building where Claus grew up; the column is centrally located in the square. However, both photos include the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and appear to have been taken looking roughly towards the south.

 

Figure 11. 1927-28 Ratibor map with red arrow pointing towards the Rynek, Market Square, referred to as the “Ring”

 

 

Figure 12. Present-day map of Racibórz looking towards the north showing the Rynek and the outline of the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

 

 

In Monika’s photo, readers can clearly see the complete sign for the business establishment “Kaufhaus Silbermann,” seemingly owned by “D. Silbermann.” Barely visible to the right of this establishment is one named “Gebruder Freund.” In Michał’s photo, only the last five letters of Kaufmann Silbermann’s sign are visible, “rmann,” though the complete sign for “Gebrüder Freund” is legible. 

To the right of the Christmas tree in Monika’s picture, “Feinkost” can clearly be read below most of the Paul Ackermann store sign. Examining Michał’s photo, these same signs can be seen.

In Monika’s picture, the building that stands in the hazy glow between the Christmas tree and the Virgin Mary Column is the apartment building where Claus grew up. Few details can be made out. 

The cars visible in Michał’s photo appear to date from the late 1920s-early 1930s, so the photo was likely taken at least 10 years before Monika’s image. 

Curiously enough, Jan Krajczok, another Polish friend from Rybnik, a town 16 miles to the east of Racibórz, sent me yet another historic photo showing the Rynek. (Figure 13) As readers can see, the photo is an aerial shot, in this instance looking roughly towards the north. It is an equally compelling image to the ones sent by Monika and Michał. I’ve pointed out Claus’ childhood home. In this picture, readers can clearly make out the Virgin Mary Column and the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Oderstrasse, the street where the Bruck’s Hotel once stood, can also be seen caddy corner from the Ogerman home on the Rynek (i.e., the Ogerman home was on the south corner of the market square and Oderstrasse (see Figure 13) entered the square from the north). While difficult to point out to readers, I believe I can make out the roof of the former Bruck’s Hotel.

 

Figure 13. Historic aerial photo of Ratibor looking towards the north showing the Virgin Mary Column in the center of the Market Square and the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the center-right of the picture. Red arrow in the foreground points to apartment building where Claus Ogermann grew up and the red arrow in the background points to start of Oderstrasse

 

Admittedly, this post will be of limited interest to readers. Nonetheless, I find myself drawn to finding connections between random occurrences such as two historic photos of Ratibor suddenly materializing in my inbox that overlap and happen to show the childhood home of one of the city’s famous native sons. 

In the spirit of the holidays and given the who’s who of famous singers for whom Claus did musical arrangements and compositions, I thought I would include YouTube links to a few of his productions. 

Frank Sinatra’s major collaboration with Claus Ogerman was on the iconic 1967 bossa nova album, “Francis Albert Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim,” where Ogerman served as the orchestrator and conductor. The album was a commercial success and was nominated for Album of the Year at the Grammys. 

The Girl from Ipanema

 Change Partners

 Barbra Streisand and Claus collaborated on her acclaimed 1976 album, “Classical Barbra.” Ogerman arranged the orchestral scores, conducted the Columbia Symphony Orchestra, and composed the song “I Loved You,” featuring lyrics from a Pushkin poem.

After moving to the United States in 1959, beyond working with Sinatra and Streisand, he also worked with:

Bill Evans

Wes Montgomery

Kai Winding

Ogerman also arranged many pop hits, including Solomon Burke’s “Cry To Me” and Lesley Gore’s “It’s My Party,” “Judy’s Turn to Cry,” “She’s a Fool,” and “Maybe I Know.” Ogerman charted under his own name in 1965, including the album “Watusi Trumpets.” Ogerman also arranged and conducted Diana Krall’s 2001 album “The Look of Love.” (Figure 14)

 

Figure 14. Diana Krall in the middle between Michał Fita and Kuba Stankiewicz in Zabrze, Poland in October 2025

 

 

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


Note: In this lengthy post, I bring together two of my passions, archaeology and forensic genealogy, to examine my father’s first cousin’s escape from a German stalag in October 1943. A recent visit to see the ongoing archaeological work at the former British lager where he was interned, located in Łambinowice, Poland, allowed me to stand atop the escape tunnel through which he escaped. This gave me another opportunity to time travel.

Related Posts:

POST 16: TRACKING MY GREAT-AUNT HEDWIG LÖWENSTEIN, NÉE BRUCK, & HER FAMILY THROUGH FIVE COUNTRIES

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

 

This post brings together two of my passions, archaeology and forensic genealogy. While my professional work as an archaeologist was primarily administrative, the skills I learned as a field archaeologist have come in very handy in doing forensic genealogy. It’s simply a different type of “digging.” 

Let me explain the genesis of this post and in the process reintroduce my English friend, Brian Cooper (Figure 1), who has been instrumental in my learning as much as I have about one of my father’s first cousins, Heinz Löwenstein (1905-1979). (Figure 2) What has always drawn me to Heinz’s story was that I met him as a child. His wartime exploits were alluded to in tantalizingly vague enough ways they conjured childlike fantasies that he helped Jewish internees escape from detention camps. As implausible as this seems in retrospect, his actual Houdini-like escapades are nonetheless movie-worthy.

 

Figure 1. Mr. Brian Cooper in June 2023

 

 

Figure 2. Heinz Löwenstein in July 1965 in Rheinfall, Switzerland

 

Heinz has been the subject of multiple earlier posts, as has his older brother Fedor Löwenstein (1901-1946). (Figure 3) To quickly remind readers about Fedor, he was an accomplished artist whose works were deemed by the Nazis to be “degenerate art,” meaning they destroyed many of them. I most recently wrote about Fedor Löwenstein in Post 189. In that publication, I detailed the culmination of an eleven-year struggle involving the French Ministry of Culture to retrieve three of his surviving paintings confiscated by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux in December 1940. For years the artworks were warehoused and languished in the National Museum of Modern Art in Paris, unrecognized as looted art until 2010.

 

Figure 3. Heinz Löwenstein (right) with his older brother Fedor

 

Back to Heinz Löwenstein. I invite readers to peruse or reread earlier posts for the background about him, specifically, Post 137, Post 137, Postscript, Post 163, Post 163, Postscript, and Post 181. However, let me briefly review Heinz’s wartime experiences and incarceration including how Brian and I first became acquainted. 

Brian Cooper specializes in the study of British and Commonwealth World War II prisoners of war. For many years, Brian has been researching the fate of his uncle, Harold William Jackson from the 2nd Battalion Northamptonshire Regiment, who was taken prisoner in 1940 in France. (Figure 4) Following his capture, his uncle was interned in Stalag VIIIB, later renumbered Stalag 344, in Lamsdorf, Silesia, then part of Germany (today: Łambinowice, Poland). Brian’s uncle’s fate is unknown though it seems unlikely he died in Lamsdorf or attempting to escape from there. What appears more probable is that he died during the latter stages of the Second World War when the Nazis began marching still able-bodied prisoners of war westward as the Red Army was on the verge of liberating Lamsdorf in January 1945. Brian remains hopeful that a fellow inmate may have recorded in his postwar memoirs his uncle’s death as prisoners were being force marched, a hope that remains unfulfilled.

 

Figure 4. The German Record card (WO 416/193/291), “Personalkarte,” for Henry William Jackson, Brian’s uncle, showing he was captured in Lille, France on the 25th of May 1940, and interned in Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf, Silesia, like Heinz Löwenstein

 

Brian first emailed me in February 2023. At the time, he intriguingly mentioned he’d come across a prisoner named “Heinz Loewenstein” (spelled “oe” without an umlaugh over the “o”) in connection with his research on his uncle and other Commonwealth prisoners of war incarcerated in Stalag VIIIB/344. Having found “Heinz Löwenstein” mentioned in Post 16, Brian naturally wondered whether “his” Heinz Loewenstein was the same person as “my” Heinz Löwenstein. Two clues in my publication convinced him they were one and the same person. Firstly, his Heinz Loewenstein used the alias “Henry Goff,” a surname I’d mentioned in Post 16. “Goff” as it turns out was Heinz’s older sister Jeanne “Hansi” Goff, née Löwenstein’s (1902-1986) (Figure 5) married name. It was a sensible alias for Heinz, one he could easily have remembered if questioned under duress. Secondly, Brian discovered that my Heinz Löwenstein had the identical date of birth, the 8th of March 1905, as the prisoner of war records indicate for the Heinz he’d been researching.

 

Figure 5. Heinz Löwenstein’s older sister Jeanne “Hansi” Goff, née Löwenstein in Monte Carlo in October 1941

 

Having resolved to our satisfaction that we were dealing with the same individual, Brian used the primary source documents he’d collected to develop a detailed timeline of Heinz’s activities and whereabouts during the Second World War. As I wrote in Post 137, Brian found these records in the United Kingdom’s National Archives: “Specifically, records created or inherited by the War Office’s Armed Forces Services containing ‘German Record cards of British and Commonwealth Prisoners of War and some Civilian Internees, Second World War,’ found in Catalogue WO (for War Office) 416 are pertinent.” The National Archives includes records mentioning both Heinz Löwenstein (spelled “Loewenstein”) and his alias “Henry Goff.” 

The most informative German Record card for tracking Heinz Löwenstein’s family background and emplacements during his captivity is his Personalkarte, his personnel card, record number WO 416/412/223. (Figures 6a-d) It includes his photograph, his father’s first name, his mother’s maiden name, his religion, and his date and place of birth, information all previously known to me. It also includes details previously unknown to me, such as his service number, his service (i.e., Palestinian Army), his regiment (i.e., Corps of Signals), his profession (i.e., electrician), place (i.e., Greece) and date of capture (29th April 1941), his POW number (i.e., 8576), and the Stalag he was initially interned (i.e., Stalag XVIIIA (Wolfsberg, Austria)).

 

Figure 6a. Page 1 of German War record WO 416/412/223 for “Heinz Loewenstein,” referred to as his “Personalkarte”

 

Figure 6b. Page 2 of German War record WO 416/412/223 for “Heinz Loewenstein,” referred to as his “Personalkarte”

 

Figure 6c. Page 3 of German War record WO 416/412/223 for “Heinz Loewenstein,” referred to as his “Personalkarte”

 

Figure 6d. Page 4 of German War record WO 416/412/223 for “Heinz Loewenstein,” referred to as his “Personalkarte”

 

Knowing the place and date of Heinz’s capture confirms he was taken prisoner during the Battle of Greece, also known as the “German invasion of Greece” or “Operation Marita.” Brian surmises he was ensnared in or near Kalamata on the Peloponnesian Peninsula. As I described in Post 137, he was likely quickly moved to the prison compound at Corinth, then perhaps a month later transferred to Salonika via Athens and the Brallos Pass. The “Salonika Transit Camp Frontstalag 183” was known to be a gateway to the Central European stalags. 

As just mentioned, Heinz was initially imprisoned in Stalag XVIIIA in Wolfsberg, Austria after being transported by cattle truck from the Salonika Transit Camp. A map found in John Borrie’s book, “Despite Captivity: A Doctor’s Life as Prisoner of War,” indicates roughly the route by which the author arrived in Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf via Wolfsberg from Salonika, probably the identical path which brought Heinz to the same stalag. (Figure 7)

 

Figure 7. A map from John Borrie’s book “Despite Captivity” showing the train route the cattle truck he was transported on took to travel from Salonika to Lamsdorf, Silesia in October 1941

 

Obviously, Brian’s interest in Heinz Löwenstein is that both Heinz and Brian’s uncle were interned in Stalag VIIIB/344, though there is no evidence their paths crossed. 

As I discussed in detail in Post 137, between September 1941, likely shortly after Heinz’s arrival at Stalag VIIIB/344, and June 1943, Heinz was assigned to work at eight detached work labor camps affiliated with Stalag VIIIB/344; assigning and using prisoners of war as labor in work camps was a common practice. 

Most attempted and/or successful prisoner escapes took place from these work camps as these were easier to flee from. In Heinz’s case, his Personalkarte notes three attempted escapes, including one from a labor camp designated as “E479” in Tarnowitz. In Post 137, I quoted at length from a book by Cyril Rofe, “Against the Wind,” where Heinz’s remarkable flight and eventual recapture in Danzig, Germany (today: Gdańsk, Poland) with a man named Joe Powell (Figure 8) was described. What facilitated Heinz’s escapes was his fluency in German since he’d been born in Danzig. What Rofe states and what the entries on Heinz’s Personalkarte confirm is that the repercussions for his attempted escapes were minimal, typically no more than seven days in solitary confinement.

 

Figure 8. Joe Powell in his airman’s uniform circa 1942

 

An illegible notation on Heinz’s Personalkarte dated the 15th of September 1943 (see Figure 6d) suggests a fourth escape, a successful one. As I learned, thanks once again to Brian, and discussed in detail in Post 137, record number WO 224/95 from the UK National Archives places “Heinz Loewenstein” among 20 POW escapees interned at Camp Siklós in Hungary in November 1943. As a related aside, we know from elsewhere that the holding facility at Camp Siklós, where sanitary conditions were deplorable, had by then been relocated to the nearby castle estate of Count Mihály Andrássy in Szigetvár in August 1943, where conditions were excellent. 

In any case, record WO 224/95 is an inspection report written on the 16th of November 1943 by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in its capacity as a Protecting Power based on an 8th of November examination of the holding facility at Szigetvár. The fact that “Heinz Loewenstein’s” name is listed (Figure 9) in the report among the 20 POWs being held there confirms he successfully made it to Hungary following a fourth escape attempt from Stalag VIIIB/344. In Post 163, Postscript, I discussed the means and likely route by which Heinz ultimately wound up at Szigetvár.

 

Figure 9. “Annex” to the report written by the International Committee of the Red Cross on November 16, 1943, listing “Heinz Loewenstein” as one of the POWs interned at Count Mihály Andrássy’s castle

 

A little background. A state of war did not exist between Hungary and the Allies until March 19, 1944, when the Nazis invaded and occupied Hungary. Before the Nazi invasion, any escaping Allied prisoners caught in Hungary by the authorities would expect no more than internment within the country; there was no concern that any POWs would be returned to German control. This explains Heinz’s detention at Count Andrássy’s estate in Szigetvár, Hungary. However, upon the German occupation of Hungary on March 19th, the Wehrmacht immediately headed there and recaptured most of the POWs detained there. This unfortunately included Heinz Löwenstein. 

A little more background. The British and Commonwealth POWs at Szigetvár had always intended to reach the Allied lines by linking up with local partisans who would guide them through the treacherous terrain to the south in then-northern Yugoslavia occupied by the Germans to safe areas further south where they could then be flown out to southern Italy and beyond. Written accounts confirm that the multi-lingual Heinz had already been tasked and had established contact with the Hungarian partisans, and that the POWs at Szigetvár were at most weeks away from fleeing Hungary. 

Things got complicated, however, following South African Lt. Col. Charles Telfer Howie’s escape from Stalag VIIIB/344 after he successfully reached Budapest, Hungary; I wrote about Howie’s escape from Stalag VIIIB/344 in Post 163, Postscript and write more about it below. Before the Germans invaded Hungary on March 19th, Howie was actively working with the underground to try and “flip” Hungary to the Allies. While their efforts were ultimately undermined by spies and the Nazi-affiliated Arrow Cross Party, the POWs at Szigetvár were supposed to have played a critical role. An Allied negotiating team had been expected to land near Szigetvár and be rounded up with their help; the POWs were threatened with a post-WWII court martial if they tried to escape before the negotiating team arrived. Howie, however, had promised to warn the British POWs at Szigetvár if the Germans invaded, but the message alerting them to the German occupation was never delivered and the POWs were retaken. More about this can be found in Post 163, Postscript. 

As I alluded to above and discussed in Post 137, the ICRC’s inspection report listed Heinz under his given name. This is a list that would presumably have been available to or seized by the Germans when they occupied Szigetvár on March 19, 1944, and recaptured the escaped POWs detained there. For this reason, it is an enduring mystery how Heinz magically “transformed” into his doppelgänger “Henry Goff” and was later assigned a brand-new POW number. Given how meticulous the Germans were about record keeping, logically this should not have happened. 

Brian continues to play a pivotal role in terms of finding relevant written accounts and uncovering postwar interrogation reports discussing the escape of British POWs from Stalag VIIIB/344. Let me get into these now as I will eventually tie them into recent archaeological discoveries that support the written accounts. 

Brian interacts with Facebook in a way that I don’t. I’m not directly involved in social media, no doubt to my detriment. Let me provide two examples. 

A few years ago, Brian discovered some group pictures of Commonwealth POWs interned in Stalag VIIIB/344 that someone had posted on Facebook. I continue to be amazed that one of these photographs includes a barely recognizable photo of an understandably very haggard-looking Heinz Löwenstein. (Figure 10) It was likely taken between 1941 and 1943. Heinz, born in 1905, would have been among the older POWs. And, in fact, some POW accounts describe him as an “elder statesman.”

 

Figure 10. Group photo found by Brian Cooper on Facebook of British POWs at Lamsdorf, astonishingly including my father’s first cousin Heinz Löwenstein

 

The second instance where Brian found pertinent information on Facebook was precisely on the 24th of July 2025. It involved a post by a Polish gentleman named Cuba Kubacki on a private group chat that Brian is active on. Brian sent me a screen shot of Cuba’s English-language post. (Figure 11)

 

Figure 11. Screenshot of Cuba Kubacki’s Facebook postdated July 24, 2025, describing the work of the “Wataha Group” at the British lager at Lamsdorf

 

As followers can read, Cuba is part of a research and exploration group called “Wataha” (formerly “Wataha Grupa Badawczo Ekspolacyjna”). (Figures 12-13) The group is working under permit in collaboration with archaeologists conducting research in the former prisoner of war camp in Łambinowice, currently focused on the section of the camp that housed British POWs. Using metal detectors, the group has found a vast number of artifacts lost or left behind by the prisoners; these are being precisely mapped, then handed over to the Central Museum of Prisoners of War in Łambinowice-Opole (“Centralne Muzeum Jencow Wojennych”) for curation. Łambinowice is today a “Site of National Remembrance.”

 

Figure 12. Patch of the “Wataha” Group

 

Figure 13. Members of the “Wataha” Group

 

Just a brief history on Łambinowice. In the 1860s, the Prussian Army established an artillery range near the village of Lamsdorf (today: Łambinowice, Poland). During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, between 3,500 and 4,000 French soldiers were detained at Lamsdorf, several dozen of whom died. During WWI, the POW camp at Lamsdorf was one of the largest camps in the territory of Germany with 90,000 soldiers of various nationalities interned here, about 7,000 of whom died. After the Treaty of Versailles, the camp was decommissioned. 

It was recommissioned in 1939 to house Polish prisoners following the German invasion of Poland which started the Second World War in September 1939. Later during the war, over 300,000 POWs of different nationalities were kept at the camp, including Brits, Poles, French, Yugoslavians, Belgians, Italians, Americans, and Russians. The most numerous were the soldiers of the Red Army. In 1941, a separate camp, Stalag VIIIF was set up for the roughly 200,000 Soviet POWs; about 40,000 of them died. 

Polish insurgents, including women and children, were brought to the camp in October 1943 after the Germans had crushed the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. The camp was liberated on the 17th of March 1945. 

In 1945-1946, the camp was used by the Soviet-installed Polish Ministry of Public Security to house some 8,000-9,000 Germans, both POWs and civilian. Polish army personnel being repatriated from POW camps were also processed through Łambinowice and sometimes held there for several months. Some were later released, others sent to Gulags in Siberia. About 1,000-1500 German prisoners died from things such as malnutrition and violence. 

In 1968 the area of the former camp and the POW cemeteries at Łambinowice were recognized as a Monument of National Remembrance, altered later to a Site of National Remembrance. 

Ongoing archaeological work has been focused on searching for the escape tunnels within the British part of the camp. What obviously caught my attention in Cuba’s post was his mention of Heinz Löwenstein. Though not specifically cited, it is clear Cuba had stumbled on my blog and the posts about Heinz. He had obviously found the map of the escape tunnel from Barrack 19B included in Claerwen Howie’s book that I reproduced in Post 163, Postscript. (Figure 14)

 

Figure 14. A diagram (not to scale) showing the escape tunnel by Hut 19, as well as other features of the camp enclosure (from Claerwen Howie’s book)

 

Knowing my wife and I would be in southwestern Poland in August, and that Łambinowice is only 100km (~62 miles) from Wrocław, one of our destinations (Figure 15), I asked Brian to put me in touch with Cuba Kubacki. In very short order Cuba and I were in direct contact, and he gladly agreed to meet us at Łambinowice on August 23rd to give us a guided tour of the site.

 

Figure 15. Map showing the distance from Wrocław to Łambinowice

 

In the interim, Cuba and I stayed in touch, and he continued to send me photographs of the Wataha Group’s work. (Figure 16) He also sent a link with astonishing photos secretly taken by one of the POWs while the escape tunnel from Barrack 19B was under construction. I’ll discuss the source of these photographs when I introduce a firsthand account of the construction of the escape tunnel Brian found in a book by John Mellor entitled “Forgotten Heroes: The Canadians at Dieppe.”

 

Figure 16. Members of the Wataha Group excavating and screening dirt from the ruins of one of the POW barracks

 

As planned, my wife and I met Cuba and his colleague Aram at Łambinowice on August 23rd and were given a general tour of the extensive site and introduced to the current director of the museum, Michal Jabacki. Among other things, the museum includes a 3D model of the site allowing visitors to visualize the layout of the various prisoner “lagers” (i.e., term referring to labor or concentration camp). (Figure 17)

 

Figure 17. At the Central Museum of Prisoners of War in Łambinowice-Opole from left to right, Aram, Cuba Kubacki, Michal Jibacki, and my wife Ann Finan in front of the 3D model of Lamsdorf

 

Cuba’s July 24th Facebook post mentioned the anomalies the metal detectorists had found near the British lager that they were getting ready to examine; the Wataha Group thought these pointed to the existence of perhaps two escape tunnels likely including the one from Hut 19B and another from Hut 20B. (Figure 18) They were excavating the anomaly they believe is from Hut 19B when we visited so we had an opportunity to see for ourselves what they’d exposed.

 

Figure 18. Map drawn from various POW diaries showing the probable location of escape tunnels emanating from Hut 19b and Hut 20B

 

A brief interjection. The prisoner barracks in the British lager lie in ruins. However, wartime aerial photographs survive showing their original layout. Using these photographs, the metal detectorists have outlined and mapped the former barracks. This is enabling them to narrow their search for the escape tunnels, most pertinently the one from Barrack 19B. 

Let me quote from John Mellor’s book a section discussing the construction of the escape tunnel from Barrack 19B that Brian Cooper found: 

At the early meetings of the escape committee, various plans were discussed and in most cases discarded as being impractical. Sgt. Larry Palls [sic] of the Essex Scottish, who was of Dutch descent, belonged to an intelligence section of the Canadian Army. Initially, he was elected Chairman of the Escape Committee. Bill Lee was to be his assistant. Escape attempts were to be confined to people considered essential to the war effort who could also speak a foreign language, preferably German. Escape from the camp was a difficult accomplishment, but without an adequate knowledge of German, the escapee would most likely be picked up within 24 hours. 

A red-headed sergeant named McMurray from the Royal Canadian Engineers was selected to engineer and build an escape tunnel. Under his direction, many men were approached to work on the construction or to dispose of the excavated soil. Other men were chosen as lookouts to be posted at all strategic points and to give advance warning of the approach of a guard. 

Sgt. Lee’s hut, 19b, was chosen for the entrance to the tunnel because it was the nearest hut to the wire. Taking all precautions, a cunningly disguised trap-door was cut in the concrete floor under one of the bunks, and construction begun. 

The shaft was sunk and tunneling commenced. Tools were non-existent. Improvised trowels, knives, even spoons were used to dig and hack the red soil, which was then packed into Red Cross boxes and handed to the disposal men. Under cover of darkness, the soil was mixed in with the earth in the vegetable patch, which, fortunately, was raised some 12 inches above the ground. The 40-holer latrine was another favourite dumping ground. Periodically, the human waste was carried away in a wagon drawn by two horses. Russian prisoners had been given the hideous job of cleaning out the latrine; they must have wondered at the large amounts of soil in the human waste—perhaps they thought it was due to the unwashed vegetables in the soup. 

The shaft constructed by Sgt. McMurray sunk vertically nine feet beneath the bunk before the tunnel was begun in the direction of the wire, 100 feet away. The sandy soil provided a very treacherous support for the tunnel, so the leaders approached trustworthy men to sacrifice some of their bed-boards; Red Cross string was substituted for the boards. Teams of men worked day and night in rotating shifts. Many of the sappers digging in the tunnel had been hard-rock miners from Timmins; hour after hour they patiently clawed at the soil. Quite a few of them were French Canadians from the Gaspé Peninsula, hard-working men who worked under atrocious conditions without a murmur of complaint. 

Light was provided by home-made lamps using pyjama-cord wicks soaked in margarine. The dense black fumes from the lamps soon filled the tunnel with choking carbon dioxide. Work was halted temporarily until some form of ventilation could be provided. 

Besides Larry Palls [sic], the head of the escape committee, Bill Lee who would take the escapees through the tunnel, perhaps the most important man was the ‘Procurer’—Jimmy Maitland from Sarnia, Ontario. Larry Palls [sic] had chosen Jimmy for this special job because it required a great deal of nerve, ingenuity, and cheek. A supply of air required a pump and a pipe. Jimmy sat down and wrote ‘Pipe’ on a piece of paper. The tunnel would be approximately 100 feet long; therefore, opposite the word pipe, he wrote 100 feet. Taking a team of engineers, he marched them smartly over to the gate to the German sentry and waved the piece of paper under his nose. In the administrative compound, the Germans were erecting some new wooden huts. Eavestroughs on the roofs were connected to down-spouts, each 10 feet long. What better piping could be provided? In calm, detached fashion, Jimmy and the men proceeded to dismantle the downspouts. On the way back to the Canadian compound, he ordered ‘eyes right’ and gave the sentry a magnificent salute. The sentry blushed at this splendid example of military courtesy extended to a mere private soldier. With a rattle and a great flourish, he presented arms as the men marched proudly past carrying their booty. 

A French Canadian named Robichard manufactured the bellows from an old groundsheet. A make-shift valve was fitted, then connected to the lengths of down-spouting; fresh, clean air flooded down the tunnel. Day after day for the next six months, Sapper Robichard would lie in a terribly confined space under the bunk and pump his bellows at a steady, monotonous rate. Such was his splendid contribution to the building of the escape tunnel. 

The supply of bed-boards was running low as the tunnel grew in length. Again, Jimmy Maitland came to the rescue with his piece of paper and his ‘working party.’ By now, the sentries were becoming accustomed to the sight of Jimmy marching his men smartly through the gate. Der Canadian was a good soldier—very smart. This time Jimmy returned with a load of prime oak planks for the tunnel, which was then passing under the roadway and required a firm roof.” (Mellor, p. 108-110) 

There is a lot to unpack in John Mellor’s account. I’ll touch on only a few details. As an aside, I note that part of the story reminds me of the famous 1963 movie starring Steve McQueen, “The Great Escape,” which was about a mass breakout of 76 Allied prisoners from the German POW camp Stalag Luft III on the night of March 24-25, 1944. I’m also reminded of the 1985 TV series “MacGyver,” where a resourceful secret agent uses his intellect, scientific knowledge, and improvisation to escape dangerous situations, often using everyday items, such as paper clips, much as the POWs constructing the escape tunnel at Lamsdorf were obviously compelled to do in manufacturing a pipe and bellows, etc. 

Above, I alluded to rare photographs Cuba found posted on Facebook taken at Stalag VIIIB/344 including some taken during the construction of the escape tunnel from Barrack 19B. It was initially thought they might have been taken at Stalag Luft III in Żagań, the inspiration, as just mentioned, for the movie “The Great Escape.” However, Brian found a 1955 magazine article with the photos confirming they’d been taken at Stalag VIIIB/344 in Lamsdorf by Warrant Officer Kenneth Thomas Hyde of the Royal Canadian Air Force. (Figures 19a-e) Brian also tracked down Ken Hyde’s liberation questionnaire (i.e., UK National Archives WO 344) and a special questionnaire (i.e., UK National Archives WO 208) he completed, both of which place him at Stalag VIIIB/344 from 1942 until the end of 1944 or January 1945. (Figures 20a-b) Ken was never at Stalag Luft III in Żagań so obviously his photos were not taken there.

 

Figure 19a. Page 1 of 1955 newspaper article about Ken Hyde’s pictures taken at Stalag VIIIB/344

 

Figure 19b. Page 2 of 1955 newspaper article about Ken Hyde’s pictures taken at Stalag VIIIB/344

 

Figure 19c. Page 3 of 1955 newspaper article about Ken Hyde’s pictures taken at Stalag VIIIB/344

 

Figure 19d. Page 4 of 1955 newspaper article about Ken Hyde’s pictures taken at Stalag VIIIB/344

 

Figure 19e. Page 5 of 1955 newspaper article about Ken Hyde’s pictures taken at Stalag VIIIB/344

 

Figure 20a. Ken Hyde’s military questionnaire showing he was at Stalag VIIIB through 1944

 

Figure 20b. Ken Hyde’s military record showing he was at Stalag VIIIB from 1942-45

 

Additionally, Brian found two of Ken Hyde’s pictures in the book “In Enemy Hands: Canadian Prisoners of War 1939-45” by Daniel G. Dancocks, and another in John Mellor’s book “Forgotten Heroes: The Canadians at Dieppe,” providing further confirmation the pictures were taken at Stalag VIIIB/344. 

On familysearch.org Brian found the following description about Ken: 

Kenneth was known as Ken. As a young man he gained skills in photography. He left home at the age of 17, later joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and was a navigator. His plane was shot down, and he became a German Prisoner of War during World War II and remained in captivity until the war ended in 1945. He took photos through the buttonhole of his coat, and later these were published. He donated proceeds received to the Red Cross, stating that without their help they should not have survived. He was head of the escape committee in the prison camp, escaped twice. He was able to build a radio and help forge passports for the prisoners. After his repatriation in England, he returned to Alberta and earned his living as a photographer. He was involved in aerial photography and mapping. Lived in Calgary.” 

Not to diminish Ken Hyde’s service, but I would simply note it is well known that the head of the Escape Committee at Stalag VIIIB/344 was not Ken Hyde but the Canadian Sgt. Laurens Pals, as his surname is correctly spelled. Nonetheless, Hyde’s photos prove he played a pivotal role in the construction of the escape tunnel. See discussion below. 

Let me discuss a few things about John Mellor’s account of the construction of the tunnel coming from Barrack 19B at Stalag VIIIB/344. As I also talked about in Post 163, Postscript, South African Lt. Col. Charles Telfer Howie escaped through this tunnel. As Howie’s daughter Claerwen Howie recounted in her book about her father, “Agent by Accident,” he suffered a lifetime of nightmares from the claustrophobic imaginings of being trapped in the tiny, dark escape passage. 

John Mellor correctly identifies the head of the escape committee at Stalag VIIIB/344 as the Canadian “Sgt. Larry Palls,” who I discussed in Post 163, Postscript. He was captured during the Dieppe operation on the 19th of August 1942 and incarcerated in Lamsdorf from the 1st of September 1942 until the 6th of March 1945. 

Sgt. Pals himself escaped in May 1944 but returned to the camp of his own volition when the partisan at an address in Metz he’d been given warned him he was being watched by the Gestapo; knowing six future escapees were headed there, Pals returned to Stalag VIIIB/344 to ward them off. Upon his recapture, for this valorous act the Germans gave him 28 days solitary confinement. 

Brian transcribed the lengthy report prepared by interrogation officers following Sgt. Pals’ liberation at the end of the Second World War from a place named Hohenfels. The source of the interrogation report is “UK Archives Catalogue Reference WO 208/3336/98.” 

In his interrogation report, Pals remarks the following: “By that time [EDITOR’S NOTE: JULY 1943] I had an assistant, Pte. LICHENSTEIN, a native of DANZIG who had enlisted in the Palestinian Army and was a P/W at LAMSDORF.” Clearly referring to Heinz Löwenstein, while not surprised that Heinz had been part of the Escape Committee, I’d previously been unaware of this fact. 

Regarding the construction of the escape tunnel, Pals provides more details: “It took about eight weeks to complete this tunnel, the length of which was about 60 ft. About six men did the actual digging, while about 15 assisted in watching and in the disposal of the dirt.” 

Regarding Howie’s and Löwenstein’s escape from Stalag VIIIB/344 along with those of others, Pals writes the following: 

In Aug 43 a party of about 40 officers arrived at the Stalag from somewhere in ITALY. They were supposed to go to STRASSBURG. Amongst these were Lt-Col. HOWIE (South African) (SKP/4296) [EDITOR’S NOTE: HOWIE WAS CAPTURED DURING THE SIEGE OF TOBRUK IN LIBYA] He suggested that he wanted to make an escape and go to HUNGARY. He made contact with me through R.S.M SHERRIFF. Lt-Col. HOWIE was fitted out with the necessary papers, in company with a Jewish Pte. who spoke Hungarian – Pte. WEINSTEIN (Palestinian Army). They escaped through our tunnel about two days after the Lt. Col.’s arrival at the Stalag. 

Lt-Col. HOWIE reached Budapest successfully and worked there with the Underground until the occupation of HUNGARY by the Germans. He was not captured but I do not know what happened to him. Pte. WEINSTEIN was captured during the occupation of HUNGARY and was returned to Stalag VIIIB in 44. 

Several of the other officers who arrived with Lt-Col. HOWIE came to me and I instructed them how to escape. I also gave them samples of documents and rubber stamps. Capt. WILLIAMS (Brit) and Pte. SMITH (Brit) escaped two days later through the tunnel but were recaptured on the Swiss border and returned to the camp. Pte. SMITH, who belonged to SOE and whose name was a ‘nom de guerre’ was with us on the DIEPPE operation and it was felt necessary that he should return to the UK as soon as possible. He [Williams] made a successful escape later. 

Six men had made escapes in one week and I considered it necessary to cement the tunnel up again. These six people had been missed by that time. To cover up the escapes through the tunnel I had arranged that holes were made in the barbed wire to make the Germans believe that the personnel had escaped through the wire. At the same time, I made arrangements for several ‘nuisance’ escapes from the different Working Parties. 

In Oct 44 (sic, 43) we reopened the tunnel and six more people escaped. CSM McLEAN (FMR) (SDIC/CMF/EAST/SKP.4(a)) and Pte. LICHENSTEIN (Palestinian) (SKP/4574) [EDITOR’S NOTE: HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN] went to Budapest; Pte. DAGENAIS, G (FMR) and Pte. SPAH (Palestinian) went to FRANCE; CSM PARRY (Brit) and A.B. MASON (Royal Navy) escaped but were recaptured at the border with SWITZERLAND and eventually returned to the camp. CSM McLEAN and Pte. LICHENSTEIN were successful and as far as I know reached the UK eventually. [EDITOR’S NOTE: HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN WAS RECAPTURED IN SZIGETVÁR, HUNGARY WHEN THE GERMANS INVADED ON MARCH 19, 1944, AND NEVER MADE IT TO ENGLAND] Pte. SPAH and Pte DAGENAIS have not been heard of to date and as far as can be found out through Canadian Records, Pte. DAGENAIS from the FMR is still missing. 

We again sealed up the tunnel after having made several holes in the barbed wire fence to cover up our actual means of escape.” 

Pal’s description brings us to the work that the archaeologists in collaboration with the metal detectorists are now undertaking. As mentioned above, the day my wife and I visited, the Wataha Group was excavating one of the anomalies they believe was the escape tunnel from Barrack 19B. Astonishingly, later that same day they fully exposed the remains of the tunnel. Cuba sent us pictures of some of the artifacts they recovered and the rubble-filled tunnel. (Figures 21a-b; 22)

 

Figure 21a. Escape tunnel from Barrack 19B through which Heinz Löwenstein escaped, filled with rubble and rocks, discovered on the day my wife and I visited Łambinowice

 

Figure 21b. Another photo of the escape tunnel from Barrack 19B through which Heinz Löwenstein escaped, filled with rubble and rocks, discovered on the day my wife and I visited Łambinowice

 

Figure 22. One among hundreds of artifacts found at Łambinowice; this one reads “Stalag VIIIB”

 

In his interrogation report, Pals remarked the following: “In Nov. 43 the Germans walked directly to the entrance of the tunnel, which had been cemented over, in Barrack 19B and dug up the tunnel. It is unknown who gave away the information to the Germans.” Pals remarks the same thing happened in January 1944 to an escape tunnel coming from Barrack 22B which had been partially completed to a length of 40 ft. Collaborators were a constant worry. Pals notes the construction of yet a third tunnel: “In the spring of 44 we built another tunnel in Barrack 9B with the intention of making an organised mass break of about 12 men. On 17 May 1944 the tunnel was ready. I intended to go myself.” 

A contemporary photo Brian found in John Mellor’s book shows the tunnel exit from Hut 19B after its discovery by German guards. (Figure 23) In the case of both escape tunnels, upon their discovery, the Germans demolished the escape tunnels and, according to Ken Hyde, had the POWs fill them back in with rubble, bricks, and rocks. This is what the Wataha Group exposed on the day we visited.

 

Figure 23. Figure from John Mellor’s book shows the tunnel exit from Hut 19B after its discovery by German guards

 

As a side note, in his Facebook post, Cuba remarked that the metal detectorists had identified two anomalies near the British lager. As shown in Figure 18, one is the tunnel coming from Barrack 19B, and the other is possibly from Barrack 20B. However, in his interrogation report Pals mentions the never completed tunnel from Barrack 22B and another completed one from Barrack 9B, so more sleuthing will be needed to find these. 

In any case, standing in the very spot that my father’s first cousin had escaped Stalag VIIIB/344 through the tunnel from Barrack 19B was exhilarating, literally imagining where he experienced a life-changing event 82 years ago! (Figure 24)

 

Figure 24. Cuba and me standing alongside the “channel” that would later the same day be identified as the escape tunnel from Barrack 19B

 

As readers can appreciate, there are so many moving parts related to the escape of British Commonwealth POWs from Stalag VIIIB/344, most that transcend Heinz Löwenstein’s own escape. Inevitably, there will be inconsistencies between the various accounts due to, among other things, faulty POW memories, brutal living conditions, aliases and swapped identities, unknown names of fellow prisoners, a natural desire to portray oneself in a most favorable manner, etc. 

Archaeological investigations provide an opportunity to answer some unanswered questions, such as the length of the escape tunnel. For example, Mellor writes the tunnel was 100 feet long, Pals’ interrogation report says it was 60 feet long, and Claerwen Howie’s map claims it was 44 meters (~144 feet). Excavations can reveal the actual length and depth of the tunnel. The various POW diaries and post-WWII interrogation reports tell us something about the construction of the tunnel and the number of men involved but there will always be some discrepancies, something archaeological studies won’t necessarily answer. 

In terms of other things, we can only surmise based on the preponderance of evidence, for example, the approximate date of Heinz’s fourth escape from Stalag VIIIB/344. His Personalkarte implies he may have escaped in mid-September 1943; Pals’ interrogation report says he escaped in October; and Claewen Howie claims he escaped in December 1943. The ICRC inspection report placed Heinz in Szigetvár on November 8, 1943, so Heinz probably escaped in October 1943, perhaps late September. 

Let me conclude this very lengthy and involved post with a few remarks. It’s likely given the various and divergent accounts from which I’ve drawn information that I’ll revisit and update this post. Brian’s research continues to uncover additional POW biographies which may change the narrative. In addition, Brian has been accessing and reading the interrogation reports for the multiple POWs identified by Sgt. Laurens Pals as having escaped to Hungary using the tunnel leading from Barrack 19B. In combination with the ongoing archaeological work this is likely to yield some unexpected surprises that may compel an update to this publication. 

 

REFERENCES 

Borrie, John. Despite Captivity: A Doctor’s Life as Prisoner of War. Whitecoulls, 1975. 

Dancocks, Daniel G. In Enemy Hands: Canadian Prisoners of War, 1939-45. Hurtig, 1983. 

Howie, Claerwen. Agent by Accident. Lindlife Publishers CC, 1997. 

Mellor, John. Forgotten Heroes: The Canadians at Dieppe. Methuen, 1975. 

Rofe, Cyril. Against the Wind. 1st ed., Hodder & Stoughton, 1956.

 

 

POST 193: GERTRUDE STEINTHAL, TALENTED BELLE ÉPOQUE ERA PAINTER & DAUGHTER OF MY GREAT-GREAT-AUNT JENNY BRUCK


Note: An art historian from Utrecht University working on her master’s degree in art history alerted me to the existence of another accomplished artist in my family tree, Gertrude “Traute” Steinthal. Born in Berlin in 1868, she began her artistic career there before moving to Paris in 1899 during the Belle Époque era. She died in 1906 when she appeared to be on the verge of attaining recognition. She seems to have specialized in painting portraits of German-Jewish social elites, though any surviving works are likely to be in private collections and difficult to locate.
 

Related Posts:

POST 150: UPPER SILESIAN GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY, PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS FROM RATIBOR [RACIBÓRZ, POLAND] 

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

 

Possessing no musical, judicial, medical, stomatological, nor artistic skills which abound in my family tree, I’m always fascinated when I find yet another closely related ancestor endowed with such deftness. I learn about such individuals sometimes through my own research, other times through the contribution of readers. The subject of the current post is Gertrude “Traute” Thomine, née Steinthal, whose mother was Jenny Bruck, one of my great-great-aunts. I learned about Traute from Brianah “Bri” Lee, an art historian working on her master’s degree in art history at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. I’d never previously heard of Traute Steinthal. 

As Bri initially explained, she was the daughter of Jenny Bruck (1835-1902) and Gustav Steinthal (1825-1895). Jenny was the younger sister of my great-grandfather Fedor Bruck (1834-1892). (Figure 1) Jenny (Figure 2) and Fedor were among my great-great-grandfather’s Samuel Bruck’s eldest children. Samuel (1808-1863) (Figure 3), to remind readers, was the original owner of my family’s hotel/restaurant in Ratibor (today: Racibórz, Poland), the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel. For frame of reference, Traute was my first cousin two times removed, though this is of scant import.

 

Figure 1. My great-grandfather Fedor Bruck (1834-1892)

 

 

Figure 2. Birth register listing for Fedor Bruck’s younger sister, Jenny Bruck (1835-1902), from Signature Book 1699, digitized Silius Radicum records from Ratibor (see Post 150), showing she was born on the 12th of December 1835

 

 

Figure 3. My great-great-grandfather Samuel Bruck (1808-1863)

 

Bri Lee first came across Traute Steinthal while doing preliminary research on the Union des Femmes Peintres et Sculpteurs, Union of Women Painters and Sculptors, and learned she’d exhibited with them from 1903-1906. Taken by her intriguingly titled works, she decided to further investigate and quickly realized that, while very talented, not only had she never heard of Traute but no one else had either. As Bri put it to me, “I quickly realized that she was a successful painter and sits at a pivotal intersection of Belle Époque history. Then I found a photograph of her (Figure 4), and a sketch, and I knew I had to complete this research.” (personal communication) Bri also found low resolution photographs/illustrations of two of Traute’s paintings (Figures 5-6) and an enhanced copy of her signature. (Figure 7)

 

 

Figure 4. Photo of Traute Steinthal in her atelier

 

 

Figure 5. Low-resolution photo of one of Traute Steinthal’s paintings

 

 

Figure 6. Low-resolution photo of another of Traute Steinthal’s paintings

 

 

Figure 7. Enhanced copy of Traute’s signature

 

Like most people who contact me these days, Bri found me through my blog. She reached out while I was in Europe preparing to fly to Paris dealing with another accomplished family artist, my father’s first cousin Fedor Löwenstein. As I reported in Post 189, I traveled to Paris to retrieve three paintings confiscated from him by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux in December 1940 and shipped to the Jeu de Paume in Paris. The three paintings, among 25 seized by the Nazis, survived the Nazi rampage to destroy so-called degenerate art. 

Having already collected a lot of information about Traute before finding me, Bri hoped I could fill in her biography and help locate any surviving images of the artist and her artworks. She is particularly eager to locate a portrait of Jenny Bruck painted by her daughter in 1892 and find any documents that might be preserved within the family. Having previously been unaware of Traute, I was unable to assist in this regard. 

While Traute was born in Berlin in 1868, she relocated to Paris around May 1899, according to Bri, likely with her mother Jenny. In October 1899, she got married in Paris to Alexander Edmond Thomine in Paris, familiarly called “Edmond,” an engineer and the Director of the French affiliate of the Babcock & Wilcox company. Knowing I would be meeting with representatives of the French Ministry of Culture and Paris’ Musee d’art et d’histoire Judaïsme (mahJ) and aware of Traute’s connection to Paris, I asked several art historians I know if they’d ever heard of her. 

David Zivie (Figure 8), my contact at France’s Ministry of Culture and the chef de la Mission de recherche et de restitution des biens culturels spoliés entre 1933 et 1945, Head of the Mission for Research and Restitution of Cultural Property Looted between 1933 and 1945, graciously undertook a search through the archival databases he has access to. David found and sent me Traute and Edmond’s 1899 marriage certificate (Figure 9); a marriage announcement from Le Figaro dated the 17th September 1899 (Figure 10); Traute’s February 27, 1906, death certificate (Figure 11); a death announcement from Le Figaro dated the 28th February 1906 (Figure 12); and another death announcement in La Vérité dated the 2nd of March 1906. (Figure 13) David also sent me information on the sale of three of Traute’s oil paintings from artprice.com (Figure 14), a database of art market information with a coverage of more than 700,000 artists of fine art with over 30 million auction results. While this was new to me, Bri had already found all this information.

 

 

Figure 8. David Zivie from the French Ministry of Culture and me at the Musée de l’Orangerie in Paris on September 17th

 

 

Figure 9. Traute Steinthal and Alexander Edmond Thomine marriage certificate dated the 11th of October 1899

 

 

Figure 10. Traute Steinthal and Alexander Edmond Thomine’s marriage announcement from “Le Figaro” dated the 17th September 1899

 

Figure 11. Traute Steinthal’s death certificate dated 27th of February 1906

 

 

Figure 12. Traute Steinthal’s death announcement from “Le Figaro” dated the 28th of February 1906

 

 

Figure 13. Another Traute Steinthal death announcement from “La Vérité” dated the 2nd of March 1906

 

Figure 14. Data from “artprice.com” about Traute Steinthal’s portraits offered for sale

 

Quoting from one of Bri’s emails, below is some of what she’s learned about Traute Steinthal:

“There are a handful of contemporaneous profiles written about Edmond available on Gallica and RetroNews, two of which speak to Traute. It seems she was well respected socially in her time, and from what I can garner, connected to Jewish and German communities even after her move to France. Strikingly, she is recorded in public registry books as a painter even after her marriage- something that speaks to her professionalism and dedication, as well as, perhaps, her relationship to her husband. In fact, from the little I can gather, it does seem as though they were a good pair, with Edmond supporting her artistic practice, attending society events with her, and likely, connecting her to French artists who would eventually nominate her to the Société des Artistes Français. Sadly, she would exhibit her most works, and be accepted to this society, only a month before her death. Her obituary notes she was 38, however, if her birth date of 1 May 1868 is correct, then she would have been only 37 years old. I managed to identify a few days ago that she is buried in the Montparnasse Cemetery. To my understanding, Traute never had children.

As of right now, I have a fairly clear timeline of public events from 1892 to her death in 1906, simply by tracking the digitized newspapers and periodicals that speak to her. However, her time studying is still very vague, as is, of course, her personal experience of it all. I am hoping as I continue my research to be able to piece together her early life, her time studying art, her experience as a German Jew, then as both German and a Jew in France (the Franco-Prussian War had done much to make relations between both nationalities difficult, then to add on rising antisemitism, as well as the hardship for her simply as a woman painter of the time…). I am also attempting to find as many images as possible of her works and hopefully locate a handful that remain in private collections- though this is undoubtedly the hardest part of this research journey. Given she painted portraits of many German-Jewish social elites, I fear that many works from before her move to France are likely lost.”

In closing, I would add that given the unexpected success I’ve achieved over the years uncovering information about the subjects of my blog posts and finding descendants of some, I hold out hope that a reader may stumble on this post and add to what is known about Traute Steinthal. This would indeed validate Bri Lee’s valiant efforts.

POST 192: MY FATHER’S FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION BATTERY, 1939-1942: PHOTOS AND HISTORY

Note: This post links to two well researched articles written by an amateur historian who is the owner and administrator of a French Foreign Legion (FFL) website. As a member of the French Foreign Legion between November 1938 and November 1943, my father, Dr. Otto Bruck, took dozens of ultrarare photos during his time stationed in Algeria. Using high-resolution images I shared with the amateur historian, he explains what they tell us about the FFL artillery battery unit my father was a member of while also relating some of the unit’s history.

Related Posts:

POST 26: “APATRIDE” (STATELESS)

POST 79: DR. OTTO BRUCK’S PATH TO THE FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION

POST 80: DR. OTTO BRUCK IN THE FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION

POST 81: PHOTO ESSAY OF DR. OTTO BRUCK’S TIME IN THE FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION

 

When I began my family history blog in 2017, I imagined my storytelling would largely follow a linear path. I assumed it would generally track an individual family member through the various phases of their lives from when they were young to their demise. This was never realistic as one simply does not learn about the lives of people in a linear fashion. Even with close members of my family, I’m continually uncovering new documents from unexpected places or learning more about them from people who knew them, even briefly. In the past year alone, I’ve surprisingly found new documents on both my father and aunt Suzanne Müller, née Bruck (1904-1942) from unexpected sources.

Apropos of the current publication, I wrote about my father’s time in the French Foreign Legion (Legion) in a sequence of three posts (Posts 79, 80, & 81) written in 2020. Those articles focused on what prompted my father to enlist in the Legion, where and when he joined up, what enabled his enlistment in this military corps of the French Army, where he was stationed, and more. I also discussed the geopolitical developments that permitted my father to travel from Algeria to France in 1941 across what I assumed were “enemy” lines to visit his beloved sister Suzanne, the last time he would ever see her. I also briefly touched on my father’s military deployments in Algeria relying on his service records obtained from the Legion. What I did not previously talk about was the artillery unit my father was a member of.

Thanks to the contributions and in-depth research of an amateur historian named “Peter” who stumbled on the blog posts and the accompanying photos about my father’s time in the Legion and recognized their significance, I now know more about his time in this famous military force and the artillery battery of which he was a member. Peter’s findings reinforce my belief that learning about one’s family can come in completely unexpected ways. Admittedly his discoveries reveal more about the history of the artillery unit than they do about my father, though in fact the two are intertwined. Because Peter’s articles will be of interest to only a small fraction of readers, I mostly defer to what he has written on the subject by linking at the bottom of this post to Peter’s two articles.

It is worth emphasizing, however, what I’ve realized for some time about my father’s photos. They occasionally offer a unique peek into some rarely documented places or events that permit fragmentary aspects of history to be better understood or inaccurate portrayals to be corrected. As Peter remarked in his initial email to me requesting permission to share some of my father’s rare photos, “I have been interested in the Legion for more than 20 years, I love Legion Saharan units, but I have never seen the BSPL [EDITOR’S NOTE: Batterie Saharienne Portée de Légion, Foreign Legion Saharan Motorized Battery] barracks in Ouargla [EDITOR’S NOTE: the administrative center of the Oasis Territory, which comprised the eastern desert regions of French Algeria]. It is an extremely rare piece. I dare say that even the official Legion and their archive don’t have one. The same stands for a photo showing a Legion Saharan unit taking part in a parade prior to or during WWII (the oldest one I know/have seen is from 1945-46).”

With the above background, let me review some of what I know about my father’s service in the Legion and the organization over time of the Saharan artillery unit he served during his engagement. On the advice of one of his closest cousins living in Nice, France, after leaving Germany in 1938, my father traveled to Paris to enlist in the FFL. From France, he was transferred to Sidi Bel Abbès in northwestern Algeria, then the Legion’s main headquarters. Then in January 1939, my father was sent to Saïda for standard four-month basic training before being assigned in May 1939 to the so-called Batterie Saharienne Portée (BSP), Saharan Motorized Battery, in Ouargla. As mentioned above, Ouargla was the administrative center of the Oasis Territory, which comprised the eastern desert regions of French Algeria. (Figure 1) My father remained in Ouargla without interruption until the end of 1942.

 

Figure 1. Administrative map of French Algeria 1934-1955 showing the Oasis Territory in pink

 

My father’s military records show, however, that on October 1, 1939, he was reassigned to the then newly created Compagnie Automobile de Transport du Territoire des Oasis (C.A.T.T.O.), Oasis Territory Automobile Transport Company. This was a truck-equipped unit tasked with transportation duties across the Oasis Territory. As Peter notes in Part I of his two-part series, other than the date of its formation and its commander, Captain Ardassenoff, an officer of Russian origin, no other records or evidence about the C.A.T.T.O. survive. Followers can read Peter’s conjecture about the creation of the C.A.T.T.O.

By November 1940, the Batterie Saharienne Portée de Légion (BSPL), the Foreign Legion Saharan Motorized Battery, had been established in Ouargla. The 1re BSPL, one of the Foreign Legion artillery batteries, was originally established as the Batterie Saharienne Portée (BSP), Saharan Motorized Battery, in Ouargla on July 1, 1938. At the time, it was part of the 1er Régiment Étranger d’Infanterie (1er REI), 1st Foreign Infantry Regiment. According to Peter, the BSP was the first Foreign Legion unit to officially bear the title “Saharan.” This unit was responsible for policing Algeria’s border with Libya, then occupied by Italy, an ally of Germany.

According to Peter, the establishment of the BSPL in November 1940 represented the formal separation of the BSP from the 1er REI (i.e., recall the BSP was originally part of the 1er REI). This date corresponds with when my father became a member of the newly created BSPL. This reorganization followed France’s defeat at the hands of Germany during the Battle of France in May-June 1940 when France was forced to sign an armistice with Nazi Germany. While Legion units in North Africa retained relative autonomy, German and Italian “commissions” regularly inspected French garrisons to ensure the armistice terms were adhered to.

This recalls something I discussed in Post 80 where I mentioned that the Legion command would send some of their units on assignment to remote areas in the Sahara whenever commission inspections were scheduled to protect their Jewish servicemen. To remind readers, while in the Legion my father was assigned an alias, Marcel Berger, though this would have been unlikely to protect him from a “vigorous” interrogation.

As Peter explains, in March 1941, the BSPL’s name was changed for administrative reasons to the 1re BSPL when a second Legion Saharan battery was created at the desert fortress of Fort Flatters.

Peter makes an astute observation about my father’s photographs, namely, that none of them show artillery pieces. This is striking since the unit my father was a member of was an artillery unit, suggesting that my father had been serving in the truck transport detachment since 1939. According to Peter, my father’s photographs confirm he remained in the transport detachment until the end of his service in the 1re BSPL.

Following the landing of the Allied forces in French Morocco and Algeria in November 1942, the Allies secured the allegiance of the French North African command and its armies. Then began in early 1943 the campaign aimed at liberating the third French North African territory, Tunisia, from the Germans and Italians. The only picture I have of my father holding a weapon during the Second World War is when the 1re BSPL participated as a support unit in the Tunisian campaign. (Figure 2)

 

Figure 2. My father preparing for the Battle of Tunisia in January 1943 in Touggourt, Algeria

 

My father left the Legion in November 1943 in favor of the British Pioneer Corps. As I’ve explained elsewhere, my father had hoped to get into Britain following the war to resume his dental career; for reasons that remain a mystery this never transpired, and my father only briefly ever again practiced dentistry before coming to America in 1948.

In any case, following the end of his service in the Legion there were a few weeks before my father joined the Pioneer Corps. In the interim, he was briefly assigned to the Groupement de travailleurs étrangers (GTE), Foreign Worker Group, in Colomb- Béchar, western Algeria. Despite his Jewish background and the fact that the Nazi government had revoked his nationality, making him “apatride,” French term for stateless, France still considered him a German national and thus a citizen of an enemy state. Suffice it to say, the Foreign Worker Groups employed foreign nationals in France who were not serving in military units to work on strategically important projects. Peter also notes the following: “For the record, legionnaires were often detached to GTE groups in North Africa as cadres.” In any case, my father was only released from the GTE to join the British Pioneer Corps in late November 1943.

In mid-1944 when my father was already in the British Army, he returned to Ouargla while on leave to visit friends. By then the 1re BSPL had been disbanded and the garrison was now home to the Compagnie Saharienne Portée de Légion (CSPL), the Saharan Motorized Company, later 1re CSPL; this was an automobile company of the same regiment (i.e., 1er REI) and the Legion’s second Saharan unit that had also been established in November 1940, responsible for the western Sahara. Interestingly, perhaps because of his enduring connection to the Sahara, Captain Ardassenoff commanded the CSPL.

Having provided more detail than I intended, I apologize to readers for whom this is overkill. The archaeologist in me compels me towards over explaining things. While I’ve gone into some detail above, readers can find even more information in Peter’s posts. Readers can also find my father’s pictures embedded in Peter’s two articles along with his captions describing what they’re looking at.

One final comment. I’m deeply indebted to Peter for his thoughtful and careful research and analysis of my father’s photos and the military unit he served in while in the Legion. I’m as grateful for Peter’s contribution as he is for having gained access to my father’s ultrarare FFL photographs. It fills a gap in my understanding of my father’s life during the five years he spent in the Legion in Algeria.

PART I: 

PHOTOS: Foreign Legion Saharan Battery from 1939 to 1942

PART II: 

PHOTOS: Foreign Legion Saharan Battery from 1939 to 1942 – II. Part

POST 191: “WITH ‘IFS’ ONE COULD PUT PARIS IN A BOTTLE”: FATE OF AN INN ONCE OWNED BY DR. JONAS BRUCK IN ŻYTNA, POLAND

Note: In this post, I discuss among other things my recent visit to the small town of Żytna, Poland (German: Zyttna) where an inn once owned by my great-great-granduncle Dr. Jonas Bruck at one time stood. During my recent trip, I had the opportunity to meet some locals who are researching and writing about the history of Żytna and elsewhere in Silesia, including documenting its former Jewish inhabitants.

 

Related Posts:

POST 7: DR. OTTO BRUCK & TIEGENHOF: THE CLUB RUSCHAU

POST 145: PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS ABOUT MY GREAT-GREAT GRANDUNCLE, DR. JONAS BRUCK (1813-1883)

POST 145, POSTSCRIPT-OLD PHOTOS OF MY GREAT-GREAT-GRAND-UNCLE DR. JONAS BRUCK’S INN IN ŻYTNA, POLAND

POST 188: WALKING IN MY FATHER AND UNCLE’S FOOTSTEPS, VISITING A HOUSE IN RIESENGEBIRGE (KARKONOSZE, POLAND) THEY STAYED IN 90 YEARS AGO

 

In contemplating a title for the current post, I was reminded of a French proverb my mother used to say to me as a child. The phrase “If Paris were small, we’d put it in a bottle” is an English translation of a well-known French proverb, “Avec des si on mettrait Paris en bouteille” (literally: “With ‘ifs’ one could put Paris in a bottle”). The meaning of the phrase is that it is pointless to speculate about unrealistic or impossible hypothetical situations because “ifs” do not change reality. 

Nevertheless, we’re all guilty of senseless conjectures. In my case, I’ve often wondered why my aunt Suzanne and uncle Dr. Franz Müller did not escape to America after Hitler came to power in 1933 and they left Berlin. This would have been a viable option at the time since my uncle and aunt had contacts in America and the financial means to support themselves. Instead, my aunt and uncle went to Fiesole above Florence, then in 1938, after they were forced to leave Italy, they went to the small town of Fayence, France where my uncle’s daughter and son-in-law lived. In August 1942, my aunt Suzanne along with her stepdaughter’s brother-in-law were arrested there by the Vichy French collaborators and deported to and murdered in Auschwitz. 

Given the widespread destruction wrought in Europe by the cataclysmic events of the Second World War, including areas of Germany and Poland where much of my Jewish family was concentrated, I’ve often pondered what happened to some of the places associated with my family. While by no means equating the murder of family with the destruction of places connected to them, it was part of the systematic dismantling of the fabric of the community in which they lived and interacted with their neighbors. 

The hotel in Ratibor (today: Racibórz, Poland), the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel, owned by my family for roughly 75 years, I know survived the war only to see post-war Communist authorities tear it down to “harvest” bricks to reconstruct Warsaw. (Figure 1) And the building in Tiegenhof  in the Free City of Danzig (today: Nowy Dwór Gdański, Poland) where my father lived and had his dental clinic was bombed and destroyed during the war by passing Russian bombers after German partisans shot at the planes. (Figure 2)

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. The Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel in Ratibor (today: Racibórz, Poland) which was dismantled by the Communist authorities following the Second World War

 

 

Figure 2. In October 1934, the building in Tiegenhof (today: Nowy Dwór Gdański, Poland) where my father lived and had his dental clinic that was ultimately destroyed by Russian bombers

 

Readers can thus imagine my interest when I discover a place still exists where I have proof in the form of photos that one of my relatives visited, lived, or worked, such as the home I recently wrote about in Post 188 in Kiesewald (today: Michałowice, Poland). The house in Michałowice is just the second place in Poland I’ve visited where I have photos of my father standing in the same place 90 or more years ago. The first was in Petershagen (today: Zelichowo, Poland), just outside Tiegenhof, where my father had his dental practice between April 1932 and April 1937. I wrote about that visit in Post 7. (Figures 3-4)

 

Figure 3. My father, second from the left, in May 1932 in Petershagen (today: Zelichowo, Poland) sitting in front of the Club Ruschau where he used to recreate

 

 

Figure 4. Me in May 2012 holding the door handle seen in Figure 3 of the still-existing building that was part of the Club Ruschau

 

For the most part, however, the sites in Europe connected to my Jewish family did not survive the war. The current post is about another location that I learned and wrote about in 2023. It was once owned by one of my esteemed ancestors, Dr. Jonas Bruck (1813-1883). (Figure 5) It was an inn located in the small town of Żytna, Poland about 170km (~105 miles) southeast of Breslau (today: Wrocław, Poland), where Jonas was an eminent dentist.

 

 

Figure 5. My great-great-granduncle Dr. Jonas Bruck (1813-1883)

 

In Post 145, I discussed primary source documents found and sent to me by a reader, a teacher/historian Mr. Jan Krajczok from Rybnik, Poland, located a mere 17.5km (~11 miles) east of Żytna. Originally uncertain whether the reference in the records to a Jonas Bruck related to my great-great-granduncle, I asked my German friend Peter Hanke for help translating the relevant land registers. As I explained in Post 145, Peter was able to confirm the involvement by the “dentist Dr. Jonas Bruck” in the ownership of the inn in Żytna. Based on Peter’s translation, it is clear my ancestor owned the inn from roughly 1846 to 1859. This was a most unexpected finding. Because of the distance between Breslau and Żytna and because the establishment was an inn, I assume it was an investment property, not a second home. 

Jan is a subscriber to my blog and we have periodically corresponded regarding questions mostly related to the history of Silesia. Knowing I would be visiting Racibórz this past August, I asked Jan whether we could meet and perhaps visit the place in Żytna where the inn owned by Jonas once stood. Its precise location is known because contemporary postcards survive; I discussed and illustrated these in Post 145, Postscript. 

Jan was most pleased to give my wife and me a tour, and this turned into a highly entertaining get-together. Jan picked us up in Racibórz, and took us to the home of Iwona Witt, née Hadam (Figure 6) and her husband Aurel Witt, residents of Żytna, a town of only about 600 people. Iwona is currently in the final throes of writing a book about the history of her village. Having grown up in the area and knowing most of the locals has given her unprecedented access to people’s homes and their collective memories and stories. Despite Iwona’s local connections, some residents have refused to even let her inside their homes or talk to her about what must be ugly wartime history. Readers can only imagine how difficult it would be for an outsider like me with no facility in Polish to draw out any of the stories Iwona is writing about.

 

Figure 6. In August 2025 in Żytna, Poland with Jan Krajczok (left) and Iwona

 

Postcards of the inn once owned by Jonas Bruck along with a beer mug (Figures 7-8) believed to have come from the inn’s restaurant, some illustrated in Post 145, Postscript, were given to Iwona by old time residents along with other local memorabilia. Iwona took us to the site where the inn formerly stood (Figure 9) and explained the circumstances that ultimately led to the inn’s destruction. As the Russians were encircling the area in the final days of the war, the skirmish line between the Russian and German troops was along the main road in front of the inn. (Figure 10) Believing they were being shot at from the upper floors of the inn, the Russians used flamethrowers to fend off the German soldiers and set the structure aflame. While the fire was apparently doused before the inn was destroyed, it was not salvageable and was eventually torn down during the 1950s. Thus, the inn was dismantled long after Dr. Jonas Bruck had sold it.

 

Figure 7. A beer mug believed to have come from the inn in Żytna owned by Dr. Jonas Bruck

 

 

Figure 8. A postcard showing two images of the former inn in Żytna once owned by Dr. Jonas Bruck

 

 

Figure 9. Modern home situated atop where the inn owned by Dr. Jonas Bruck once stood; the road marks the skirmish line that separated the German and Russian forces during the final days of the Second World War

 

Figure 10. Iwona Witt pointing out the orientation of the former inn

 

While the inn did not endure, other contemporary structures such as a building and church tower across the street from the inn have survived. (Figure 11) They can be seen on a historic picture Iwona shared with me during our visit. (Figure 12) The structure to the left of the two women standing in Figure 12 is the inn formerly owned by my great-great-granduncle.

 

Figure 11. The surviving church tower and building in the foreground on the left that existed in former times

 

Figure 12. Historic picture of two women standing to the right of the inn once owned by Dr. Jonas Bruck; in the background the church tower seen in Figure 11 is clearly visible

 

Apropos of the French proverb and its relevance to unrealistic hypotheticals, there are nonetheless occasions when places connected to my family have survived. As mentioned, I’ve visited two of them in Poland, but am aware of another in Fiesole, Italy where, as mentioned above, my aunt and uncle lived after they decamped from Berlin in 1935. It was called the Villa Primavera (Figure 13-14b), and my aunt ran it with another Jewish woman as a bed-and-breakfast until 1938. I’ve tried on three occasions to visit the villa, to no avail. Being the generally persistent sort, I intend to give it another try in February 2026.

 

Figure 13. A photo of the still existing Villa Primavera in Fiesole, Italy taken in May 1938; my aunt and another Jewish lady ran it as a bed-and-breakfast

 

Figure 14a. Barbara Lisy, a contemporary artist, painting the Villa Primavera

 

 

Figure 14b. Barbara Lisy’s painting of the Villa Primavera

 

In conclusion, I would remind readers that many places in Poland associated with one’s Jewish ancestors, particularly places that are today largely devoid of Jews, have locals who are interested in researching and rediscovering their town’s Jewish history. Such is the case with Iwona who was thrilled to learn of the Jewish connection to her hometown in the personage of my ancestor Jonas Bruck. It is also true of another friend from Rybnik, Małgorzata Płoszaj (Figure 15), who has written two books about its former Jewish inhabitants. And it is also true in my father’s birthplace of Racibórz where yet another friend, Magda Wawoczny, who is enrolled in the Jewish Studies program at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, is researching and writing extensively about the town’s former Jewish families and history. It behooves readers to seek out these local contacts to develop a more rounded view of available resources and historical events.

 

Figure 15. Małgorzata Płoszaj and Magda Wawoczny, two of my Polish friends, at the release of Malgosia’s second book about the Jews of her hometown of Rybnik

 

 

POST 190: FURTHER CONNECTIONS WITH RATIBOR’S “PHOTO-HELIOS” STUDIO, A MANUFACTURER OF CABINET CARDS

Note: In this post, I present newly acquired information about Ratibor’s former “Photo-Helios” studio, a one-time producer of cabinet cards. The proprietors were Hans and Emma Ogermann, the parents of Claus Ogerman (one “n”), a very famous musical arranger, conductor, and composer who made his name in America. Beyond being connected to Claus, I’ve been contacted by a few descendants of people who worked in the studio in the 1930s-1940s, one of whom shared photos taken inside. As readers will discover, these photos have allowed me to make connections to a lady once buried in Ratibor’s Jewish cemetery. There are multiple links I discuss.

Related Posts:

POST 13: THE FORMER JEWISH CEMETERY IN RATIBOR (RACIBÓRZ)

POST 13, POSTSCRIPT: THE FORMER JEWISH CEMETERY IN RATIBOR (RACIBÓRZ)

POST 72: FAMILY CABINET CARDS FROM RATIBOR & BERLIN PHOTO STUDIOS

POST 138: INTRIGUING DISCOVERIES ABOUT RATIBOR’S HELIOS PHOTO STUDIO

POST 139 (GUEShttps://wp.me/p8AZ95-43UT POST): THE STORY OF A JEWISH WOMAN BURIED IN RACIBÓRZ’S CATHOLIC CEMETERY

 

Cabinet cards were a popular 19th century photographic medium featuring a photographic print mounted on a sturdy cardstock, typically measuring 4.25 x 6.5 inches. They were larger than their predecessor, the carte-de-visite, and were named “cabinet” cards because they were meant to be displayed on shelves or in cabinets. Introduced in 1863, they were widely used for studio portraits and other subjects until the early 20th century, when smaller more portable cameras became popular. 

One of the producers of these cabinet cards in Ratibor (today: Racibórz, Poland), my father’s birthplace, was “Photo-Helios.” In December 2018, an English lady named Ms. Gisela Szpytko asked me about this studio explaining that her mother had worked there during the 1930s. Unfamiliar with this workshop, I turned to my now-deceased dear friend from Racibórz, retired lawyer and Silesian historian Pawel Newerla, for information. He sent me a postcard of Lange Straße (German name for “Long Street”) the street on which the studio was located (Figure 1a), known today as Ulica Dluga (Polish also for “Long Street”), with a fuzzy image of the “Fotografie Helios” store sign hanging in the distance. (Figure 1b) Pawel also sent me an advertisement for “Photo-Helios” from a 1936 Ratibor Address book (Figure 2), along with a page from a 1923 Ratibor Address Book listing all the town’s photo studios at the time. (Figures 3a-b) The latter identified the proprietor of Photo-Helios as Hans Ogermann, spelled with two “n’s.” More on this below.

 

Figure 1a. Postcard of Ratibor’s “Lange Straße” along which “Photo-Helios” was located at the far end of the street

 

Figure 1b. Pixilated closeup of “Fotografie Helios” store sign

 

Figure 2. Page from the 1936 Ratibor Address Book with the names of existing photo studios & photographers, listing “Photo-Helios” and its owner Hans Ogermann

 

Figure 3a. Cover of 1923 Ratibor Address Book listing existing photographic studios

 

Figure 3b. 1923 list of existing Ratibor photo studios

 

 

Personally owning a few cabinet cards produced in Ratibor (Figures 4a-b), though none by Photo-Helios, Ms. Szyptko’s query provided the inspiration for Post 72. Following its publication in January 2020, I expected this would be the end of the story. While hardly the most widely read of my posts, Post 72 has generated more comments than any other. Post 138 and Guest Post 139 by Magda Wawoczny, a PhD. student from Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland hailing from Racibórz, emanated from queries and related findings. And recent questions add to the intrigue surrounding Photo-Helios with the current post being the result.

 

Figure 4a. Front side of the cabinet card from “Oskar Krispien” photo studio in Ratibor showing my aunt Suzanne, my father Otto, and my uncle Fedor as children

 

Figure 4b. Back side of the cabinet card from the “Oskar Krispien” photo studio in Ratibor

 

Following publication of Post 72, in January 2021, I was contacted by Jakub “Kuba” Stankiewicz, the Director of Jazz Studies at the Academy of Music in Wrocław, Poland. Being approached by an academician, while not unprecedented, was curious. Kuba asked whether I knew Photo-Helios had been owned by Claus Ogerman’s parents? By then, I realized Hans Ogermann had been the proprietor but knew nothing about his son Claus Ogerman (1930-2016). (Figure 5) (Parenthetically, Claus’ surname has only one “n.”) To say I felt unread would be an understatement, particularly when Kuba told me that Claus was well-known and made his name in America. Readers can find him in Wikipedia but suffice it to say that Claus was an exceptionally gifted German arranger, conductor, and composer. He is best known for his work with Billie Holiday, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Frank Sinatra, Bill Evans, Michael Brecker, Barbra Streisand, Leslie Gore, Diana Krall, and many other “A-listers.”

 

Figure 5. Claus Ogerman (1930-2016) (photo credit: by httpswww.imdb.comnamenm0644659, Fair use, httpsen.wikipedia.orgwindex.phpcurid=58608757)

 

 

I will return later to my ongoing association with Kuba Stankiewicz, whom my wife and I met for the first time during our recent trip to Poland. 

The next connection to Photo-Helios came in May 2023 when a German lady named Ms. Jessica Nastos contacted me. Astonishingly, Jessica’s great-grandmother had also worked in the workshop during the 1930s-1940s. Jessica graciously sent me a series of photos including group pictures taken inside the studio from this period, with some of the subjects identified by name; Jessica also sent an image of a tattered envelope with the name and address of the business embossed on it. (Figure 6)

 

Figure 6. Business envelope from “Photo helios” formerly located along Ratibor’s “Lange Straße” (photo courtesy of Jessica Nastos)

 

As I wrote in Post 138, Jessica informed me that her great-grandmother was a lady named Elzbieta “Lilly” Slawik, née Grzonka (1926-2016). When she told me this I was flabbergasted since I’d previously come across her great-grandmother’s name in a different context. Let me explain. Shortly before Jessica Nastos contacted me, Ms. Magda Wawoczny, the student from Jagiellonian University and the guest author of Post 139, had told me of her research on the former Jewish cemetery in Ratibor. In particular, she told me of her interest in a headstone belonging to a Minna Linzer, née Guttmann. 

To briefly remind readers, in Post 13 and Post 13, Postscript, I explained how the cemetery had been destroyed in 1973 by the Communist authorities seeking to erase all evidence of prior German presence in the area. Before it was destroyed, at the request of the city authorities, photo documentation of all the burials and headstones was made by a Mr. Kazimierz Świtliński. (Figure 7) The documentation is on file at the Muzeum w Raciborzu, including a photo of Minna Linzer, née Guttmann’s headstone. (Figure 8)

 

Figure 7. Mr. Kazimierz Świtliński, the Polish gentleman who at the request of city authorities documented all the tombs and burials in Ratibor’s Jewish cemetery prior to its liquidation in 1973

 

Figure 8. Photo of Minna Linzer, nee Guttmann’s headstone from Ratibor’s former Jewish cemetery, taken by Mr. Kazimierz Świtliński

 

As Magda wrote in Post 139 about the headstone in Ratibor’s Jewish cemetery: 

During my archival investigations, my attention was drawn to an application by a woman from Racibórz who requested permission from the city authorities to exhume the body of her grandmother Minna Linzer from Ratibor’s former Jewish cemetery and transfer it together with the tombstone to the Catholic cemetery in the Ostróg district on Rudzka street. The woman emphasized that in the face of the anticipated liquidation of the cemetery, she felt an obligation to save the grave of her grandmother that she had taken care of and maintained for many years.” 

The woman making the request was none other than Elizabeth (Elzbieta) “Lilly” Slawik, née Grzonka, Minna Linzer’s granddaughter. 

It was then I realized that my seemingly unrelated research into Photo-Helios overlapped with Magda’s investigation into one headstone from the former Jewish cemetery. I was thrilled when I noticed that among Jessica Nastos’ pictures was one of Elzbieta as an infant with her unmarried parents, the Jewish man Hans (Jan) Linzer and the Catholic woman Pauline Grzonka (Figure 9); there were also several other photos taken inside Photo-Helios that included Elzbieta. (Figures 10-13)

 

Figure 9. Elzbieta Grzonka as an infant in 1926 in Breslau (today: Wrocław, Poland) with her parents, Hans (Jan) Linzer and Pauline Grzonka (photo courtesy of Jessica Nastos)

 

Figure 10. Elzbieta Grzonka with her mother Pauline Grzonka (photo courtesy of Jessica Nastos)

 

Figure 11. Elzbieta Grzonka working in the lab at Photo-Helios (photo courtesy of Jessica Nastos)

 

Figure 12. Group photo of young ladies at Photo-Helios with the older seated lady on left believed to be Emma Ogermann; Elzbieta is standing in the middle (photo courtesy of Jessica Nastos)

 

Figure 13. Another group photo of staffers at Photo-Helios; Elzbieta is in the middle of the seated ladies below the only man in the group (photo courtesy of Jessica Nastos)

 

Two points of clarification. 

Firstly, seeking to shield Elzbieta from antisemitism and the Nazis subsequent prohibition of marriages between Jews and non-Jews, Elzbieta’s parents never married though they symbolically exchanged rings as keepsakes. Pauline (1895-1971) and Elzbieta (1926-2016) survived the Holocaust, while Hans (Jan) Linzer (1901-1945) was murdered in Auschwitz, along with his father and two of his three siblings. 

Secondly, as Magda pointed out in Post 139, Elzbieta “Lilly” Grzonka’s application to Racibórz city authorities asking to exhume her grandmother’s grave was accompanied by a card with the inscription that read “eternal memory of those lost in the Auschwitz camp: Hermann Linzer, Jan Linzer, Małgorzata and Henryk Schiftan, Lota and Maks Tichauer.” (Figure 14) As readers can see on Minna Linzer’s headstone these names are inscribed on it. (Figure 15) They correspond to Minna’s husband Hermann, three of their four children, and two of their sons-in-law, all of whom were murdered in Auschwitz.

 

Figure 14. The card with family names that accompanied Elzbieta Grzonka’s application to Racibórz city authorities requesting permission to exhume her grandmother’s remains from the former Jewish cemetery

 

Figure 15. Minna Linzer’s headstone as it looks today with the names of her family who were murdered in the Holocaust

 

In May 2025, Jessica Nastos uncovered a video of an interview she conducted with her great-grandmother Elzbieta “Lilly” Grzonka (1926-2016) in May 2013 for a high school project entitled “Fear During the Nazi Regime.” She graciously shared a copy of the digitally remastered video with English subtitles, which unfortunately I’m unable to share with readers. Suffice it to say, it is very moving.

Two recent emails attest to the continued interest in Photo-Helios and the people associated with it. Both queries require follow-up. 

In mid-October 2025 I was contacted by a lady of Slovakian origin named Monika. She was recently searching for an old photo school in Ratibor when she stumbled on my blog Post 138. The reason for her interest is that her father Leopold “Leo” Simon (Figures 16a-b), who was also a photographer, lived in Ratibor from 1942 until 1944, and astonishingly apprenticed at Photo-Helios during that time! She was stunned when she recognized her father in one of the group pictures sent to me by Jessica Nastos, namely Figure 10 in Post 139 (Figure 17), a person I misidentified as Hans Ogermann, the owner of Photo Helios.

 

Figure 16a. Monika’s father, Leopold “Leo” Simon, in 1946 who apprenticed at Photo-Helios between 1942 and 1944 (front)

 

Figure 16b. Monika’s father, Leopold “Leo” Simon, in 1946 who apprenticed at Photo-Helios between 1942 and 1944 (back)

 

Figure 17. Leopold “Leo” Simon in a group photo taken at Photo-Helios when he apprenticed there; in Post 139, Figure 10, I mistakenly identified him as Hans Ogermann

 

I estimate Monika’s father Leo was born around 1928 and would have been between 14 and 16 years old when he worked at Photo-Helios.

Another recent contact is related to the Linzer family, a contact that has not yet fully panned out. As I mentioned above, Hans (Jan) Linzer had three siblings. (Figure 18) The youngest was Leo born in 1908, the only one of Hermann and Minna Linzer’s four children to survive the Shoah. In mid-September, a German lady named Ms. Stephanie Scheibl reached out to me. She mentioned a book and some old photographs she inherited from her grandmother that were in turn bequeathed to her by her father Leo Linzer!!! He may have inherited them from his parents Hermann and Minna Linzer!! Stephanie would of course be Leo’s great-granddaughter. There might be some rare images among Stephanie’s photos.

 

Figure 18. Hermann Linzer and Minna Linzer, nee Guttmann’s four children, from left to right, Hans (Jan), Leo, Małgorzata, and Lota; only Leo survived the Holocaust (photo courtesy of Jessica Nastos)

 

Let me say a few more words about Kuba Stankiewicz. Since first being introduced to Kuba in 2021, we’ve stayed in touch. Kuba’s hometown, Wrocław, Breslau as it was known during the German era, is a city where my Bruck family had longstanding ties. From time to time, I’ve asked Kuba whether German-era buildings connected to my family still exist, and Kuba has graciously investigated and occasionally even sent pictures. Periodically, I’ve referred readers or family members visiting Wrocław to Kuba or put him in touch with one of my local Wrocław contacts. We had always hoped to meet face-to-face, so prior to my recent visit to Poland, I proposed that we get together. Unfortunately, meeting in Wrocław was not possible since he was teaching a student workshop that week out-of-town in a place called Jastrzębie-Zdrój. 

Since our next stop after Wrocław was Racibórz, which is only about 30km north-northwest of Jastrzębie-Zdrój. Kuba suggested meeting in Racibórz on the 25th of August which worked perfectly. Prior to going for lunch, we took a stroll along Ulica Dluga, formerly Lange Straße where the Helios-Photo had once stood. Coincidentally, a photo shop sits in almost the same spot as the earlier studio though the current store bears no relationship to the earlier workshop. At lunch Kuba introduced my wife Ann and me to Michał Fita, Racibórz’s former Vice-Mayor, who happens to be a collector of Claus Ogerman-arranged discography. (Figure 19) Michał brought several of his most recent acquisitions to show us.

 

Figure 19. Group photo from left to right of Michał Fita, me, Kuba Stankiewicz, and my wife Ann Finan in Racibórz on the 25th of August 2025

 

During lunch Michał and Kuba discussed an upcoming conference they had planned in Racibórz for Claus Ogerman to introduce the current generation to the city’s long-lost son. It turns out that steps away from where we ate lunch stands an anodized aluminum interpretive panel showing the no-longer standing house where Claus Ogerman was born and grew up which was located on Racibórz’s Rynek or Market Square. (Figure 20)

 

Figure 20. Interpretive panel on Raciborz’s Market Square (Rynek) showing the no-longer existing house where Claus Ogerman grew up

 

The conference on Claus Ogerman took place in Raciborz on the 17th of October. I attach a YouTube interview Michał gave during the conference which is interpreted into English. 

Michał Fita organized another conference on Claus Ogerman’s Racibórz roots

Coincidentally, Diana Krall, whose music Claus Ogerman arranged, performed on the eve of the conference in the nearby Polish town of Zabrze (German: Hindenburg). Michal and Kuba attended the concert, met Diana backstage, and had their picture taken with her. (Figure 21) She was thrilled to learn that a conference was planned for Claus because with age she realizes what a genius he was.

 

Figure 21. Diana Krall in the middle between Michał Fita and Kuba Stankiewicz (other people not identified) in Zabrze, Poland on 16th October 2025

 

Each new contact about Photo-Helios adds to the intrigue. What makes the story even more compelling is how intertwined it is with the story of Minna Linzer, the Jewish lady reburied in Raciborz’s Catholic cemetery, because Minna’s granddaughter Elzbieta “Lilly” Grzonka worked in the photo studio. In the 15-minute interview Jessica Nastos did with her great-grandmother I learned it is largely because of Emma Ogermann’s intervention that Elzbieta, as a half-Jew and so-called mischling, was saved from deportation to a concentration camp. 

And, then one must not forget another connection that Magda Wawoczny discussed in Post 139. Not only did Elzbieta “Lilly” Grzonka look after her own grandmother’s grave in the former Jewish cemetery, but she also looked after Monica Lewinsky’s great-grandfather Salo Lewinsky’s grave (Figure 22) after the Lewinskys left Ratibor in the 1920s for El Salvador. As it happens, the Lewinsky and Linzer families were friends and remained so following the Lewinskys departure.

 

Figure 22. Photo of Salo Lewinsky’s headstone from Ratibor’s former Jewish cemetery, taken by Mr. Kazimierz Świtliński

 

Magda’s recent contact with Dr. Bernard Lewinsky, Monica’s father, has resulted in Bernard donating an extensive collection of postcards his father George Lewinsky (1903-1989) received while living in Ratibor. (Figure 23) Magda recently delivered a presentation on these postcards and her findings. During her research at the Leo Baeck Institute in New York, Magda found a digitized songbook from the former Ratibor synagogue, music performed in conjunction with her presentation.

 

Figure 23. Enlarged copies of some of the postcards donated by Dr. Bernard Lewinsky to Racibórz on display in the chapel at the Piast Castle (Zamek Piastkowski)

 

In coming weeks, I hope to learn more about Photo-Helios since the former workshop seems to generate riveting new links! As regular readers know, these often-unexpected connections get me quite excited!

 

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

 

Note: In this post, I tell the story of how after eleven years I prevailed in my quest to have three surviving paintings seized from my father’s first cousin Fédor Löwenstein by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux in December 1940 returned to me. I include pictures from the formal restitution event that took place at the Centre Pompidou in Paris on the 16th of September 2025 and share French and English versions of the 18-minute speech I delivered on the occasion. Along with previous posts I’ve written on this longstanding saga, this post provides readers with some of the history of the seizure along with the story of how I eventually succeeded in my pursuit.

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 

 

While this is a story eleven years in the making, the tale had its genesis almost 85 years ago in December 1940. This is when 25 paintings destined for an art gallery in New York were seized at the Port of Bordeaux in France by the Nazis from my father’s first cousin, Fédor Löwenstein. (Figure 1) As I’ve previously reported the Nazis shipped them to the Jeu de Paume in Paris where they were slated to be “vernichtet,” German word for destroyed, as examples of so-called “degenerate art.”

 

Figure 1. The artist Fedor Löwenstein (1901-1946) (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Miraculously, three of Fedor Löwenstein’s confiscated works of art survived (Figure 2), although in 1973 they were conveniently integrated into the collection of the Musée National d’Art Moderne, housed in the Centre Pompidou as an “anonymous donation.” This “error” was only uncovered in 2010. Following this revelation, the French Minister of Culture began the search for the legitimate owner. However, before the Minister of Culture could find me, I contacted them.

 

Figure 2. Fedor Löwenstein’s three surviving works of art titled from left to right: “Les Arbres,” “Les Peupliers,” and “Composition” (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

As I’ve previously written about in Post 105 and Post 160, I learned about the three surviving paintings in 2014 while doing some forensic genealogy in Berlin. Coincidentally, 2014 is the year that the three seized paintings were first displayed in the city where they were initially seized, in Bordeaux at the Musée des Beaux-Arts. When I learned about the paintings, I immediately contacted the curator of the exhibit, Mme Florence Saragoza (Figure 3), who helped me file a restitution claim. I was eligible to file this claim by dint of the fact that as Fédor Löwenstein’s first cousin once-removed, I’m his closest surviving relative; Fédor never had any children nor did either of his two siblings.

 

Figure 3. On a bridge overlooking the Seine River framed by a rainbow from left to right, my wife Ann Finan, Mme Muriel de Bastier from the French Ministry of Culture’s “Commission pour l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations (CIVS),” and Mme Florence Saragoza

 

Because France has a civil law system rather a common law system, my claim was trumped by those of two so-called “universal legatees” and denied. It was subrogated by the French Minister of Culture’s Commission pour l’indemnisation des victimes de spoliations (CIVS) without the legatees ever having even lifted a finger, done any work or research, or even been aware of the artist. To say this was galling is an understatement. To rectify this outrageous situation necessitated a lengthy, costly, and litigious process that took eleven years to resolve. It was only because the French Ministry of Culture was offering a substantial sum of money as compensation for the 22 presumably destroyed works of art, compensation I was willing to forego to obtain possession of the paintings, that Fedor Löwenstein’s works of art now belong to me. 

It would be disingenuous to pretend that money does not factor into compensation claims filed by Jewish heirs. Afterall, the only justice many such people are ever apt to obtain for the crimes perpetuated against their ancestors are financial. In my case, this was not possible. That said, I’m satisfied that the path going forward will lead to my ancestor Fédor Löwenstein obtaining some of the accolades he never received in life. He failed to achieve this recognition because he died prematurely at age 45 of Hodgkins Lymphoma and because the Nazis denied him this validation.

I have not decided on the ultimate disposition of the three Löwenstein paintings but over the next few years, I will be loaning them to two museums in Paris, the Musée d’Art et d’Histoire du Judaïsme (MAHJ) and the Musée de l’Orangerie, and possibly to the Centre National Jean Moulin in Bordeaux. 

Regular readers know that over the years I’ve written about my compensation claim involving the French Minister of Culture’s CIVS, often venting great frustration. I direct first-time readers to these earlier posts, namely, Post 105 and Post 160. 

The Restitution Ceremony was held on the 16th of September 2025 on the fifth floor of the Centre Pompidou in the Grand Salon. (Figure 4) Because the Centre Pompidou has just begun a five-year renovation, the museum was empty save for the approximately 50-75 people who attended the event. Several distinguished guests participated and spoke at the event, after which I was given the floor to say a few remarks. I delivered an 18- minute speech in French, a language I’m reasonably fluent in.

 

Figure 4. My wife and I standing inside the Centre Pompidou by the sign announcing the Restitution Ceremony

 

Restitution ceremonies comparable to the one I was the center of are rare events. Without exaggerating, they tend to be noteworthy and newsworthy. Ordinarily, the French Minister of Culture Rachida Dati would have presided over the Restitution Ceremony. Unfortunately, the date of the ceremony coincided with the period after September 8th in the wake of the French government’s collapse after Prime Minister François Bayrou lost a vote of no confidence in the National Assembly, forcing French President Emmanuel Macron to seek a new prime minister. Because there was no official French Minister of Culture on the 16th of September, the ceremony was instead presided over by the M. Laurent Le Bon (Figure 5), President of the Centre Pompidou, and M. Luc Allaire (Figure 6), Secretary General of the Ministry of Culture, on behalf of the Minister of Culture.

 

Figure 5. M. Laurent Le Bon, President of the Centre Pompidou, delivering his prepared remarks at the Restitution Ceremony on September 16, 2025

 

Figure 6. M. Luc Allaire, Secretary General of the Ministry of Culture, on behalf of the Minister of Culture, delivering his prepared remarks at the Restitution Ceremony on September 16, 2025

 

Below, I attach the text of my speech in both French and English, along with additional pictures of the event. (Figures 7-18)

 

Figure 7. Alongside my wife Ann Finan and my cousin Jean-Pierre Bruyere and his wife Huguette Ferre-Bruyere, standing by Fedor Löwenstein’s “Composition” painting (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 8. At the Restitution Ceremony on the 16th of September 2025, me standing between Mme Florence Saragoza (left) and my wife Ann (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 9. At the Restitution Ceremony on the 16th of September, me, my wife Ann, and Florence Saragoza listening to speakers (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 10. Delivering my speech at the Restitution Ceremony with the French and European Union flags as backdrop (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 11. My wife and me standing on either side of Fedor Löwenstein’s “Composition” painting (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 12. Closeup of Fedor Löwenstein’s “Les Arbres” painting with the red “X” signifying the painting was to be destroyed (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 13. Mme Christelle Creff, Head of the Museums of France Department, and me signing the “Discharge Agreement” handing over official title of Fedor Löwenstein’s three surviving paintings (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 14. Mme Rachel Rimmer from the French Shoah Foundation at the Restitution Ceremony (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 15. Me being interviewed during the Restitution Ceremony by Mr. Wolfgang Landmesser from German WDR radio (photo credit: Damien Carles/SIPA Press)

 

Figure 16. Me at the Restitution Ceremony

 

Figure 17. My wife and I standing on the terrace outside the Grand Salon at the Pompidou Centre with the restored Notre Dame Cathedral in the background

 

Figure 18. David Zivie from the French Minster of Culture’s CIVS and I at the Musée de l’Orangerie on September 17th; David was my point of contact at the CIVS who along with Muriel de Bastier organized the Restitution Ceremony

 

 

FRENCH

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Je tiens à vous remercier chaleureusement de votre présence à cette cérémonie.

Citoyen américain, je me nomme Richard BROOK. Je vais vous raconter en quelques mots la raison de ma présence, mon lien avec l’artiste Fédor LÖWENSTEIN et comment j’ai appris son existence.

Je suis aujourd’hui à Paris pour reprendre possession de trois tableaux de Fédor LÖWENSTEIN.

Ces tableaux font partie des 25 œuvres saisies par les nazis au port de Bordeaux en décembre 1940 alors que Fédor tentait de les envoyer à une galerie d’art à New York. Les nazis considéraient ces œuvres comme des exemples de ce qu’ils appelaient « l’art dégénéré ». Après leur saisie, elles furent expédiées au Jeu de Paume en attendant d’être détruites. On présume pour exposition que les 22 autres œuvres saisies à Fédor ont effectivement été détruites. La preuve que le même sort attendait les trois tableaux survivants se trouve sur la surface des toiles. En effet, de grands « X » y ont été tracés, signifiant qu’ils devaient être « vernichtet », le mot allemand pour « détruit ».

J’aime à imaginer que votre héroïne française, MME Rose VALLAND, a joué un rôle essentiel dans la sauvegarde des trois œuvres qui se trouvent devant vous. Elle était le seul membre du personnel du Jeu de Paume à avoir été maintenue en poste par les nazis pendant leur occupation de Paris.

Fédor LÖWENSTEIN est souvent considéré comme un artiste tchécoslovaque. La famille de son père était en effet originaire de ce pays. Il est évident que Fédor ressentait un lien profond avec la patrie de son père. L’une des peintures les plus célèbres de Fédor s’intitule « La Chute ». Elle s’inspire de la signature des accords de Munich le 30 septembre 1938. Ces accords ont démantelé la Tchécoslovaquie de l’époque et conduit à l’annexion des Sudètes par l’Allemagne. Cette peinture s’inspire de « Guernica », le tableau anti-guerre de Picasso datant de 1937.

Fédor LÖWENSTEIN est né en 1901 à Munich. Il était l’aîné de trois enfants. Sa mère, née Hedwig BRUCK, était ma grand-tante (mon nom de famille BROOK est la version anglicisée de BRUCK). Hedwig était la tante de mon père; Fédor et mon père étaient donc cousins germains. On ne sait pas très bien à quel point ils se connaissaient. Fédor et sa mère sont morts à Nice avant ma naissance en 1950. Cependant, enfant, j’ai rencontré le frère et la sœur cadets de Fédor, Jeanne, affectueusement surnommée « Hansi », et Heinz. Mon père était proche d’eux.

Je suis le descendant direct le plus proche de Fédor LÖWENSTEIN encore en vie. Ni Fédor, ni son frère, ni sa sœur n’ont eu d’enfant. La France étant un pays de droit civil, j’ai dû mener une bataille juridique de près de 11 ans pour récupérer ces trois tableaux. En effet selon la loi française, les droits de deux « légataires universels » priment sur les miens. Cependant, mon avocat a réussi à convaincre la CIVS (Commission pour l’Indemnisation des Victimes de Spoliations) que mon long travail de recherches et mes actions nécessaires et indispensables à la mise à jour des 3 tableaux devaient être également indemnisés. Cela n’a en en effet été possible que parce que j’ai été le premier à découvrir que la CIVS cherchait à restituer les tableaux de LÖWENSTEIN à ses descendants. C’est également moi qui ai déposé la demande initiale.

J’ai pu obtenir la possession des tableaux en renonçant à toute compensation financière offerte par la CIVS pour les 22 tableaux détruits. Cette somme est considérable. Au risque d’offenser quelqu’un, j’ai le sentiment d’avoir obtenu gain de cause sans l’intervention de la justice. Il serait peut-être exagéré de dire que cela ressemble presque à une victoire à la Pyrrhus… Deux légataires universels sont indemnisés et récompensés pour un travail que j’ai accompli et payé. Qu’il soit permis de dire que dans un pays régi par la common law, cela ne se serait pas produit.

Permettez-moi de vous raconter brièvement comment j’ai découvert l’existence de Fédor LÖWENSTEIN. Mon père ne parlait jamais de sa famille, à l’exception de sa sœur bien-aimée Suzanne, arrêtée à Fayence en août 1942 et assassinée à Auschwitz. J’ai découvert le reste de la famille de mon père grâce à mes propres recherches généalogiques.

Au cours de ces recherches, j’ai découvert que les documents personnels de deux tantes de Fédor, deux autres grands-tantes célèbres, étaient archivés au Stadtmuseum de Berlin. En 2014, j’ai pris des dispositions pour examiner et photographier tous les documents et toutes les photos. La collection comprenait plusieurs photos de Fédor. J’ai rapidement compris qu’il était le frère aîné de Hansi et Heinz, que j’avais rencontrés quand j’étais enfant.

Il y avait également plusieurs lettres, toutes écrites en allemand, langue que je ne maîtrise pas. La plupart étaient manuscrites et presque impossibles à déchiffrer. Mais quelques-unes étaient dactylographiées, principalement par la sœur de Fédor, « Hansi ». À mon retour aux États-Unis, j’ai traduit ses lettres dactylographiées, les seules que je pouvais lire, à l’aide d’une application de traduction. Dans une lettre datée d’août 1946, Hansi écrivait qu’elle avait vendu à titre posthume l’une des peintures de Fédor pour 90 000 francs français. Cela semblait être une somme énorme en 1946.

Déterminé à en savoir plus sur Fédor LÖWENSTEIN, j’ai contacté en 2014 une connaissance travaillant à la mairie de Nice. Je lui ai demandé si elle pouvait trouver la nécrologie de Fédor. Elle m’a plutôt envoyé des liens vers plusieurs articles. Le plus instructif concernait une exposition qui avait eu lieu en 2014 au Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux et qui présentait ces trois tableaux. Vers 2010, le Centre Pompidou a découvert que les œuvres de Fédor LÖWENSTEIN lui avaient été confisquées pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. L’exposition à Bordeaux était la première exposition publique consacrée à cette découverte.

Par coïncidence, 2014 est la même année où ma femme Ann et moi avons passé 13 semaines en Europe. Nous avons voyagé en voiture du nord-est de la Pologne au sud de l’Espagne, visitant des lieux associés à la diaspora de ma famille juive. Si nous avions su qu’il y avait une exposition, nous aurions certainement fait un détour par Bordeaux.

Les documents que j’ai reçus identifiaient Mme Florence SARAGOZA comme la commissaire de l’exposition et fournissaient une adresse électronique. Je l’ai immédiatement contactée. Elle m’a répondu deux jours plus tard. Je me souviendrai toujours de sa réponse. Elle m’a dit, en substance, que le fait d’apprendre qu’un membre de la famille LÖWENSTEIN avait survécu l’avait émue aux larmes. Florence – nous nous appelons désormais par nos prénoms – m’a gracieusement proposé de m’aider à déposer une demande d’indemnisation. Compte tenu de sa connaissance de Fédor, son aide m’a été précieuse. Je serai éternellement reconnaissant à Florence pour son aide désintéressée et compatissante au fil des ans. J’ai la plus haute estime pour Florence.

Il y a quelques autres personnes que je tiens à remercier. Tout d’abord, ma femme, Ann FINAN, qui a été ma plus grande supportrice et admiratrice tout au long de ces 11 années difficiles. Elle m’a aidé à créer mon blog sur l’histoire de ma famille (bruckfamilyblog.com), où j’ai écrit plus de 200 articles depuis ses débuts en 2017.

Après le rejet initial de ma demande par la CIVS début 2020, j’ai rédigé un article de blog très critique pour dénoncer cette décision. Une de mes cousines américaines éloignées a lu cet article et m’a immédiatement appelé. Elle m’a suggéré de contacter son avocat à New York. Sa branche de la famille est impliquée depuis longtemps dans une procédure complexe visant à obtenir une indemnisation pour une très importante collection de tableaux volés à son oncle à Berlin. J’ai immédiatement appelé son avocat. Il m’a mis en contact avec un avocat français formé aux États-Unis, Pierre CIRIC, qui s’occupe de demandes d’indemnisation similaires à la mienne. Pierre s’est montré extrêmement aimable, m’a fourni gratuitement de nombreux conseils juridiques et m’a mis en contact avec mon avocate française, Maître Caroline GAFFODIO. Sans Caroline et Pierre, je ne serais pas ici aujourd’hui.

Enfin, je tiens à remercier deux membres du personnel de la CIVS, David ZIVIE et Muriel DE BASTIER. Même si nous n’avons manifestement pas toujours été d’accord au fil des ans, je n’ai jamais eu l’impression que les décisions de la Commission étaient motivées par autre chose que des contraintes juridiques.

Je voudrais terminer cette présentation par une brève anecdote concernant Heinz, le frère de Fédor. Je ne l’ai rencontré qu’une seule fois, mais je me souviens de lui comme d’un homme très charismatique. Je me souviens qu’on mentionnait ses exploits pendant la guerre. Comme le font souvent les enfants, j’ai confondu réalité et fiction. J’ai toujours cru qu’il avait aidé des Juifs incarcérés à s’échapper des centres de détention. Grâce à un gentleman anglais, j’ai appris la vérité il y a quelques années.

Heinz était membre du Royal Pioneer Corps anglais. Il s’est engagé alors qu’il se trouvait en Palestine. Il a été capturé par les Allemands en 1941 pendant la bataille de Grèce et incarcéré dans divers stalags. Il s’est évadé quatre ou cinq fois. Son histoire mérite vraiment d’être racontée dans un livre, et il est d’ailleurs mentionné dans plusieurs ouvrages écrits par d’anciens prisonniers de guerre. Le public se demande peut-être pourquoi je termine mon exposé sur cette note. Tous les récits de guerre concernant Heinz soulignent à quel point il était doué pour falsifier des documents afin d’aider les prisonniers à s’échapper. Je ne doute pas que, comme Fédor, Heinz et probablement Hansi aient appris à peindre et à dessiner dès leur plus jeune âge.

Le public se demande sans doute ce qu’il adviendra des peintures de Fédor LÖWENSTEIN. J’ai accepté la demande de la Commission de les laisser en France pendant les prochaines années et pour les exposer au MAHJ (Musée d’Art et d’Histoire du Judaïsme) et à l’Orangerie ici à Paris, peut-être au Centre National Jean Moulin à Bordeaux lieu de leur spoliation. Ils seront au cœur d’expositions consacrées à l’art dégénéré. Une fois les expositions terminées, je déciderai de leur destination finale. Je suis désormais dépositaire d’une longue histoire qu’il ne nous faut pas oublier, je m’y emploie. A vous de me soutenir dans cette tâche 

Merci de votre attention ! Y a-t-il des questions ?

 

ENGLISH

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to warmly thank you for attending this ceremony.

I am an American citizen named Richard BROOK. I will briefly explain why I am here, my connection to the artist Fédor LÖWENSTEIN, and how I learned of his existence.

I am in Paris today to reclaim three paintings by Fédor Löwenstein.

These paintings are among the 25 works seized by the Nazis at the port of Bordeaux in December 1940 while Fédor was attempting to send them to an art gallery in New York. The Nazis considered these works to be examples of what they called “degenerate art .” After their seizure, they were sent to the Jeu de Paume to await destruction. It is presumed that the 22 other works seized from Fédor were indeed destroyed. The proof that the same fate awaited the three surviving paintings can be found on the surface of the canvases. Large “X” marks were drawn on them, signifying that they were to be “vernichtet,” the German word for “destroyed.”

I like to imagine that your French heroine, Mme Rose Valland, played a key role in saving the three works before you. She was the only member of the Jeu de Paume staff to be retained by the Nazis during their occupation of Paris.

Fedor Löwenstein is often considered a Czechoslovakian artist. His father’s family was indeed from that country. It is clear that Fedor felt a deep connection to his father’s homeland. One of Fedor’s most famous paintings is entitled “The Fall.” It was inspired by the signing of the Munich Agreement on September 30, 1938. These agreements dismantled Czechoslovakia at the time and led to the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany. This painting was inspired by “Guernica,” Picasso’s anti-war painting from 1937.

Fedor Löwenstein was born in 1901 in Munich. He was the eldest of three children. His mother, née Hedwig BRUCK, was my great-aunt (my surname BROOK is the Anglicized version of BRUCK). Hedwig was my father’s aunt, so Fédor and my father were first cousins. It is not clear how well they knew each other. Fédor and his mother died in Nice before I was born in 1950. However, as a child, I met Fédor’s younger brother and sister, Jeanne, affectionately nicknamed “Hansi,” and Heinz. My father was close to them.

I am the closest living direct descendant of Fédor LÖWENSTEIN. Neither Fédor, nor his brother, nor his sister had children. As France is a civil law country, I had to fight a legal battle lasting nearly 11 years to recover these three paintings. Under French law, the rights of two “universal legatees” take precedence over mine. However, my lawyer managed to convince the CIVS (Commission for the Compensation of Victims of Spoliation) that my extensive research and my actions, which were necessary and essential for updating the three paintings, should also be compensated. This was only possible because I was the first to discover that the CIVS was seeking to return the LÖWENSTEIN paintings to his descendants. I was also the one who filed the initial claim.

I was able to obtain possession of the paintings by waiving any financial compensation offered by the CIVS for the 22 destroyed paintings. This sum is considerable. At the risk of offending someone, I feel that I have won my case without the intervention of the courts. It might be an exaggeration to say that this is almost like a Pyrrhic victory… Two universal legatees are compensated and rewarded for work that I did and paid for. Let me say that in a country governed by common law, this would not have happened.

Let me briefly tell you how I discovered the existence of Fédor LÖWENSTEIN. My father never spoke about his family, except for his beloved sister Suzanne, who was arrested in Fayence in August 1942 and murdered in Auschwitz. I discovered the rest of my father’s family through my own genealogical research.

During my research, I discovered that the personal documents of two of Fédor’s aunts, two other famous great-aunts, were archived at the Stadtmuseum in Berlin. In 2014, I made arrangements to examine and photograph all the documents and photos. The collection included several photos of Fédor. I quickly realized that he was the older brother of Hansi and Heinz, whom I had met when I was a child.

There were also several letters, all written in German, a language I do not speak. Most were handwritten and almost impossible to decipher. But a few were typed, mainly by Fédor’s sister, “Hansi.” When I returned to the United States, I translated his typed letters, the only ones I could read, using a translation app. In a letter dated August 1946, Hansi wrote that she had sold one of Fédor’s paintings posthumously for 90,000 French francs. That seemed like an enormous sum in 1946.

Determined to find out more about Fédor LÖWENSTEIN, in 2014 I contacted an acquaintance who worked at Nice City Hall. I asked her if she could find Fédor’s obituary. Instead, she sent me links to several articles. The most informative one was about an exhibition that had taken place in 2014 at the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Bordeaux, which featured these three paintings. Around 2010, the Centre Pompidou discovered that Fédor Löwenstein’s works had been confiscated during World War II. The exhibition in Bordeaux was the first public exhibition dedicated to this discovery.

Coincidentally, 2014 was the same year that my wife Ann and I spent 13 weeks in Europe. We traveled by car from northeastern Poland to southern Spain, visiting places associated with my Jewish family’s diaspora. If we had known about the exhibition, we would certainly have made a detour to Bordeaux.

The documents I received identified Ms. Florence SARAGOZA as the exhibition curator and provided an email address. I contacted her immediately. She replied two days later. I will always remember her response. She told me, in essence, that learning that a member of the LÖWENSTEIN family had survived moved her to tears. Florence—we now call each other by our first names—graciously offered to help me file a claim for compensation. Given her knowledge of Fédor, her help was invaluable. I will be eternally grateful to Florence for her selfless and compassionate assistance over the years. I hold Florence in the highest regard.

There are a few other people I would like to thank. First of all, my wife, Ann FINAN, who has been my biggest supporter and admirer throughout these difficult 11 years. She helped me create my blog about my family history (bruckfamilyblog.com), where I have written more than 200 articles since its inception in 2017.

After my claim was initially rejected by the CIVS in early 2020, I wrote a highly critical blog post denouncing the decision. One of my distant American cousins read the post and immediately called me. She suggested I contact her lawyer in New York. Her branch of the family has long been involved in complex proceedings to obtain compensation for a very important collection of paintings stolen from her uncle in Berlin. I immediately called her lawyer. He put me in touch with a French lawyer trained in the United States, Pierre CIRIC, who handles compensation claims similar to mine. Pierre was extremely kind, provided me with a great deal of legal advice free of charge, and put me in touch with my French lawyer, Maître Caroline GAFFODIO. Without Caroline and Pierre, I would not be here today.

Finally, I would like to thank two members of the CIVS staff, David ZIVIE and Muriel DE BASTIER. Even though we clearly did not always agree over the years, I never felt that the Commission’s decisions were motivated by anything other than legal constraints.

I would like to conclude this presentation with a brief anecdote about Heinz, Fédor’s brother. I only met him once, but I remember him as a very charismatic man. I remember people talking about his exploits during the war. As children often do, I confused fact with fiction. I always believed that he had helped imprisoned Jews escape from detention centers. Thanks to an English gentleman, I learned the truth a few years ago.

Heinz was a member of the English Royal Pioneer Corps. He enlisted while he was in Palestine. He was captured by the Germans in 1941 during the Battle of Greece and imprisoned in various stalags. He escaped four or five times. His story really deserves to be told in a book, and he is mentioned in several works written by former prisoners of war. The audience may wonder why I am ending my presentation on this note. All the war stories about Heinz emphasize how skilled he was at forging documents to help prisoners escape. I have no doubt that, like Fédor, Heinz and probably Hansi learned to paint and draw from an early age.

The public is no doubt wondering what will become of Fédor LÖWENSTEIN’s paintings. I have accepted the Commission’s request to leave them in France for the next few years and to exhibit them at the MAHJ (Museum of Jewish Art and History) and the Orangerie here in Paris, and perhaps at the Centre National Jean Moulin in Bordeaux, where they were looted. They will be the focus of exhibitions devoted to degenerate art. Once the exhibitions are over, I will decide on their final destination. I am now the custodian of a long history that we must not forget, and I am committed to this task. It is up to you to support me in this endeavor.

Thank you for your attention! Are there any questions?