Blog

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

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

Related Posts: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Reminding readers about Heinz. 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 According to Paul, Roy spoke admiringly of Heinz: 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

“Tell us about Henry Lowenstein. 

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

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

What were the tools of his trade as a forger? 

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

So he used calligraphy? 

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

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

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

 

REFERENCES 

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

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

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

 

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

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

Related Posts: 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

As Prévet & Bajou describe elsewhere: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES 

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

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

 

POST 200: ALBERT EINSTEIN’S “CONNECTION” TO FLORENCE AND FIESOLE, ITALY

 

CORRECTIONS & ADDITIONS MADE ON 3/21/2026

Note: Albert Einstein spent three-and-a-half days in October 1921 visiting his sister and her husband in Florence (in error several sources repeat they were then living in Fiesole, where my aunt and uncle briefly lived between 1936 and 1938.) This has evolved into an almost legendary tale that Albert often visited Florence and Fiesole and regularly played his violin in the cloister of the Convento San Francesco in Fiesole, accompanied by the Padre’s organ playing. A recent trip to Fiesole and a simultaneous contact by a researcher from the Einstein Papers Project asking about my possible kinship with a Dr. Max Adolf Bruck, who corresponded with Einstein between 1931 and 1941, inexplicably captured my imagination about Albert Einstein’s visit there. I offer no explanation for the evolution of this tale, other than self-aggrandizement, but merely discuss what the evidence suggests. 

Related Posts: 

POST 122: HERTA BRAUER, THE FAMILY CONNECTION TO THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC’S NOTORIOUS DICTATOR, RAFAEL TRUJILLO 

POST 122, POSTSCRIPT: HERTA BRAUER, THE FAMILY CONNECTION TO THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC’S NOTORIOUS DICTATOR, RAFAEL TRUJILLO 

POST 199: VISITING THE VILLA PRIMAVERA IN FIESOLE, ITALY, MY AUNT AND UNCLE’S HOME BETWEEN 1936 AND 1938: THE FOURTH TIME WAS THE CHARM

 

I never know where the idea for a post will come from. Given that I’ve had my family history blog going for nine years and have researched and written about a myriad of topics and people, many not specifically related to my family, I’m no longer surprised what will catch my fancy. What has caught my attention now stems from my recent visit to Florence and the Tuscan hill town above it, Fiesole, where my aunt and uncle temporarily escaped the Nazis between 1936 and 1938. This was the subject of my previous post. Beyond finally visiting the Villa Primavera that was the site of my aunt and uncle’s refuge for a brief period, I heard an interesting tale that forms the basis for this post. Let me start at the beginning. 

During my recent travels with my wife to Paris and Florence, I received an email from a reader, a German lady named Barbara Wolff, asking if I was familiar with a Dr. Max (Adolf) Bruck. I am not. One of her most recent research tasks as part of the so-called Einstein Papers Project (EPP) has been to identify Max Bruck, born on the 14th of April 1908 in Frankenstein, Silesia [today: Ząbkowice Śląskie, Poland], who communicated with Albert Einstein between 1931 and 1941. More on this below. 

First, let me place this in context so readers will understand the basis of Barbara’s question and the admittedly tiny sliver of Einstein’s life that has captured my interest. Albeit a brief connection to Fiesole and Florence, I find it fascinating as Barbara wrote to me that “unfortunately, numerous myths and legends are spread about Einstein.” (Personal communication, email dated 3/1/2026) Let me concisely explain how Barbara can make this claim and try and separate truth from fiction vis-à-vis Einstein’s brief association with Florence and Fiesole.

After a long tenure at the at the Albert Einstein Archives, Barbara has joined the team of the Einstein Papers Project. For those ignorant of this project, as I sadly am, let me explain what I learned. The EPP is a long-term academic endeavor dedicated to researching, transcribing, translating, and publishing the massive written legacy of Albert Einstein. The Albert Einstein Archives, the AEA, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, holds the original papers and collaborates closely with the project. The online Einstein Archives has a database of 90,000+ records of all known Einstein manuscripts and correspondence and the full text of 2,000 digitized items. The project produces “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein,” a projected 30-volume series published by Princeton University Press, seventeen volumes of which have been published to date and are currently working on volume 18. The EPP has been hosted at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California, since 2000. 

Max Bruck does not appear in my ancestral tree, but I promised Barbara that upon my return stateside I would investigate him and see what I could learn. With the date and place of Max’s birth, I found some relevant documents though nothing the EPP has not already located. Personally, the most interesting thing I found was an ancestral “tree” with Max and his father Bruno Bruck’s names, from an unpublished family history written by Alfred Julius Bruck which I first came across at the Mormon Church’s FamilySearch Library in Salt Lake City many years ago. (Figure 1) I will always recall the title because it was pretentiously named, “A Thousand Year History of the Bruck Family”; I have a copy of a less pretentiously called version. In any case, were I interested enough, I could uncover the ancestral connection between Max and myself. Perhaps one day.

 

Figure 1. Ancestral “tree” from Alfred Julius Bruck’s family history with Max Bruck and his father Bruno Bruck identified

 

At this moment, permit me a short digression. I’ve made the point ad nauseum that what brings me a delicious thrill doing ancestral research is discovering unexpected connections between places and people. When introducing herself Barbara Wolff mentioned in passing that she was a childhood friend of my second cousin, Margarita Vilgertshofer, née Bruck, with whom I’m in regular contact. I’ve occasionally mentioned Margarita in blog posts which is how Barbara became aware that we’re related. Since Barbara had lost contact with her as a child, I’ve put them back in touch. 

Moving on. For reasons I can no longer recall, perhaps just making idle conversation, while recently visiting Giuditta Melli, my wife’s and my friend from Florence, I mentioned I’d recently been contacted by Barbara Wolff from the EPP, completely unaware of Albert Einstein’s remote connection to Florence and Fiesole. We happened to be in Fiesole at the time, and Giuditta suggested a walk to the nearby Convento San Francesco (Figure 2) where she told us that Einstein would often play his violin in the cloister accompanied by the Franciscan father’s organ playing. (Figure 3) This revelation came as a complete surprise. I was led to believe that Albert Einstein had visited on multiple occasions and had become good friends with Father Odorico Caramelli (1884-1962) (Figure 4), the so-called Guardian of the Convento at the time. I resolved to further investigate this.

 

Figure 2. The Convento San Francesco

 

 

Figure 3. The cloister at the Convento San Francesco where Albert Einstein is reputed to have played his violin accompanied by Father Caramelli playing the church organ

 

Figure 4. Painting of Father Odorico Caramelli (1884-1962)

 

Fast forward. Upon my return home, I naively mentioned to Barbara what I’d learned about Albert Einstein’s “multiple visits” to Florence and Fiesole and his purported friendship with the Franciscan father who ran the Convento San Francesco in Fiesole, asking if she knew more about this. I use the term “naively” realizing in retrospect it was pretentious of me to think this would not be general knowledge among scholars who’ve long studied Einstein. However, what I learned in the process reinforces something I’ve emphasized in some of my posts, the need to rely on primary source documents, so in this instance what Albert Einstein wrote and what researchers studying his archive have uncovered. 

In response to my innocent question, Barbara patiently explained the “few summers” Albert Einstein spent in Florence-Fiesole was confined to a short stint in October 1921. Albert was very close to his sister Maria “Maya” Winteler, née Einstein (1881-1951), two years his junior. Maya, born in Munich, earned a degree in Romance languages and literature in Bern, Switzerland in 1909. A year later she married a lawyer, Paul Winteler. Maya no doubt met her future husband through her brother. Years before, after Albert Einstein failed his entrance exam to the Zurich Polytechnic Institute, he’d been sent to Aarau, Switzerland to study and lodged with the Winteler family for almost a year.

Maya and Paul eventually moved to Italy in around 1921, first renting an apartment in Florence at Via Ficino 8, then in November 1921 moving to Fiesole to Via Giuseppe Verdi. In 1922, they bought a home in the Sesto-Fiorentino (Figure 5) area of Florence they named “Samos,” after the beautiful Greek island.

 

Figure 5. Map showing the location of Sesto-Fiorentino, where Maya Einstein and her husband owned their home named “Samos,” in relation to Fiesole and central Florence

 

 

When Albert visited Maya and her husband in October 1921, they would then have been living, as just noted, at Via Ficino 8 in Florence; an error that is often repeated in various sources, according to Barbara, is that when Albert visited, he stayed with his sister and brother-in-law in Fiesole. Regardless, this is when Albert “. . . established a friendship—sort of—with Pater Odorico Caramelli and Frater Clementino.” Barbara further notes that “despite many later invitations [to Samos] the only visit her brother could pay her took place in 1921. That was the year when he indeed made music with the Franciscan monk. . .the ‘few summers’ were actually just a short stint in October 1921.” 

It was Einstein’s stepdaughter Margot, about whom Einstein fervently remarked, “when Margot passes, flowers are born,” that took up the relationship with the Franciscan father. She sculpted her “Maternita” (Figure 6) for the cloister in around 1937.

 

 

Figure 6. Maya Einstein’s sculpture entitled “Maternita” that she donated to the Convento San Francesco ca. 1937

 

A prominent free, English-language news magazine and website published every other Thursday in Florence, called “The Florentine,” has erroneously written that Albert “often visited” his sister in Florence. This same article makes other claims that are not supported by reality, according to Barbara, specifically that during his “visits to Florence, Albert also spent time with his first cousin, Robert Einstein, and his family.” Robert and his family were still living in Rome at the time Albert had left Europe for good. 

Yet another fanciful recollection relates to the caption to a watercolor rendered by Robert’s young niece, Lorenza Mazzetti, which pretends to provide a glimpse into a family visit. It is captioned: “This is a portrait of Uncle Robert’s cousin, Maya’s brother. His name is Albert Einstein. He lives in America, and when he’s there, he works as a scientist, and when he comes here, he goes on the swing.” As Barbara remarks, “this is pure self-important fabrication.” 

The Albert Einstein Archives includes a letter dated the 17th of September 1953, written by Albert Einstein together with Margot (she attached a French translation to her stepfather’s German handwriting). Some published accounts claim this letter was addressed to Father Odorico Caramelli at the Convento San Francesco in Fiesole when in fact it was sent to Father Fiorenzo Falcini, another monk at the Convento.

ITALIAN VERSION: 

Caro padre ora che lei è tornato dal suo lungo viaggio mi si offre l’opportunità di esternarle dal profondo dell’animo la mia riconoscenza per tutte le gentili premure che Lei ha avuto per mia cugina durante la sua malattia, alleviandole la sofferenza. Quando da giovane venni in Italia ho potuto constatare con gioia quali sentimenti alberghino nell’animo del popolo italiano. Inoltre da più parti mi è stato riferito che durante gli oscuri tempi del fascismo e del dominio di Hitler, molte persone hanno rischiato la vita per soccorrere le vittime della persecuzione. In questa straordinaria situazione ove la solidarietà umana è tutto, i suoi compatrioti si sono rivelati i più onesti e i più nobili tra le genti da me conosciute durante la mia lunga vita. Queste caratteristiche si armonizzano con lo sviluppato senso di quella bellezza, tanto forte in voi che si rivela in tutte le manifestazioni della vita. Avrei preferito scrivere in italiano, ma non sono più capace”. 

ENGLISH TRANSLATION: 

Dear father, now that you have returned from your long journey, I am offered the opportunity to express to you from the bottom of my soul my gratitude for all the kind care you had for my cousin during her illness, relieving her suffering. When I came to Italy as a young man I saw with joy how much empathy and genuine humaneness is alive in the Italian people. In addition, I have been told from many sides that during the dark times of fascism and Hitler’s rule, many people risked their lives to help the victims of persecution. In this extraordinary situation where human solidarity is everything, your compatriots have proved to be the most honest and noble among the peoples I have known during my long life. These characteristics harmonise with the highly developed sense of beauty, evident in all the manifestations of life. I would have preferred to write in Italian, but I’m not able to anymore.” 

Barbara tells me the unnamed cousin referred to in this letter is Alice Steinhardt, née Koch, who died in Florence in June 1953 after a prolonged illness. One of the Franciscan monks (Alessandro or Fiorenzo Falcini) notified Einstein’s family in Princeton. Because Alice’s name is not specifically mentioned in the above letter, in some reports Einstein’s words are erroneously associated with Einstein’s cousin Robert’s mourning for the loss of his wife and children. 

Regarding Robert Einstein’s wife and two daughters, they were killed by German soldiers in August 1944 at Villa Il Focardo near Florence. A book by Thomas Harding entitled “The Einstein Vendetta” examines the question of whether the killings were a deliberate act of revenge ordered by high-ranking Nazis because of their kinship to Albert Einstein and for his prominent stand against the Nazi regime, or random wartime killings. Robert was hiding in nearby woods when his family was killed, and his guilt and grief caused him to commit suicide less than a year later. 

I’ve gone to lengths to explain Einstein’s 1953 letter because of varying accounts it has spawned. 

In researching this post, I stumbled upon a 2023 article by Antonella Gasperini from the Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory, entitled “History, science and music at the Arcetri Observatory.” The Observatory preserves an important historical heritage consisting of archival documents, ancient books, and scientific instrumentation. Among the items in their collection is the Blüthner piano that belonged to Maya Einstein that was given to her by her brother and then entrusted to Hans Joachim Staude when she fled Florence in 1939, in hopes of recovering it after the war. Regrettably, Maya suffered from arteriosclerosis, and while her return to Italy in 1946 was considered and discussed, her condition made living an independent life impossible. She died in Princeton in 1951, never recovering her piano nor reuniting with her husband who’d been unable to accompany her to America for medical reasons. 

Barbara confirmed that with one exception, highlighted in an “Editor’s Note,” the article accurately captures Albert Einstein’s brief connection to Fiesole. I include the author’s discussion about the history of Maya’s piano. Quoting: 

The latest acquisition of a historical asset by the Arcetri Observatory dates back to 2016 and concerns an object that is ‘unusual’ in an astronomical observatory: a Blüthner piano (no. 51833), built in Leipzig in 1899. Not just any old piano, but one with a unique history, in which music, history and science come together. An object from which invisible threads reach out, binding the stories of people, of families affected by the tragic history of the 20th century, made up of exiles, persecutions and migrations. It is the piano that belonged to Maja Einstein, Albert’s sister, who had decided to move permanently to Italy with her husband Paul Winteler in 1921, briefly to Fiesole and then to a country house between Florence and Sesto Fiorentino that they named ‘Samos’. 

At the beginning of her stay in Florence, Maja established a close friendship with the friars of the Convent of St. Francis in Fiesole, which would last for many years. The Convent of St. Francis was not only a destination for many visitors and believers, but also for men of culture who came to meet Father Odorico Caramelli, a musician and intellectual linked to Giovanni Papini and the world of Florentine cultural magazines at the turn of the century. When Einstein was invited by Federigo Enriques to give lectures in Bologna in October 1921, the physicist decided to spend a few days with his sister, taking his son Hans Albert with him. He arrived in Florence on the 18th of October but asked to remain incognito. He had just won the Nobel Prize and was already at the peak of his fame. [EDITOR’S NOTE: THE TRUTH IS THAT HE WON THE NOBEL PRIZE IN 1922 FOR THE YEAR 1921.] The calendar of the time in Florence was full (he left on the 21st of October), but we know for certain that he visited the Convent of Fiesole. According to some testimonies, the memory of this visit took on a mythical aura over time. For example: 

At night he would descend into the woods outside the Convents and, sitting on the wall of the Etruscan cistern, he would play to the moon.

It seems hard to imagine that, during the three and a half days spent in Florence, Einstein went to play in the moonlight every night, but he definitely went to Fiesole on the 20th of October, as proven by his signature in the visitors’ register. Another possible destination for Einstein during his few days in Florence seems to have been the Arcetri Observatory, but the only evidence of this is entrusted to a recollection by Pierantonio Abetti, Giorgio’s son, who writes in an article dated 2003: 

In the 1920s, Albert Einstein came to visit his sister every summer and went up to the Observatory to talk to my father. 

Here again, family memory may have been misleading, because biographical studies reveal that Einstein visited Florence for the last time during those few days in October 1921. It is plausible, however, that Einstein and Abetti knew each other through common scientific interests, although this is not supported by further evidence. In his article, Pierantonio also reproduced a photo of Einstein with a dedication to Abetti dated 1931, as proof of the acquaintance and esteem between the two scientists, but this does not prove Einstein’s actual presence at the Observatory in that year. 

Someone who undoubtedly visited the Observatory in 1931 was Maja Einstein, as documented in the register of signatures of visitors to the Observatory dated 11 November 1931, together with Nesta de Robeck, a piano teacher in the Anglo-Florentine circle, and the astronomer Luigi Jacchia (a coincidence or an acquaintance?) who was a student in Bologna at the time11. Maja took part in Florentine cultural life, especially music, and participated in local artistic initiatives. In ‘Samos’, the Einstein-Wintelers had built up a circle of friends – musicians, painters, young art history scholars – who lived under the banner of art. Among them was Hans Joachim Staude, a painter and musician from Hamburg, who had trained in Aby Warburg’s circle. 

Live music was played during the evenings at ‘Samos’, and Maja often duetted at the piano with Staude. Maja was not a professional musician, but music was the essence of her life. When Albert decided to buy her a second-hand Blüthner piano in 1931, restoring it and sending it to Florence, Maja was overjoyed, as testified by numerous letters. 

Unfortunately, with the publication of the Race Manifesto in July 1938 and the exclusion of Jews from political social life at the end of 1938, the political situation became increasingly critical, and, at the beginning of 1929 [sic] [EDITOR’S NOTE: 1939], Maja was forced to leave Italy and join her brother in the United States. She then decided to entrust her beloved piano to Hans Joachim Staude in the hope of returning soon and reuniting with her husband. After the war, she made several attempts to return to Europe, but poor health forced Maja to remain in Princeton until her death in 1951. 

The Blüthner No. 51833 remained with the Staude family for over seventy years. Thanks to the willingness of the family and the interest of Francesco Palla, astronomer and director of the Observatory from 2005 to 2011, in 2016, the piano, a very special cultural asset, finally found its place in the library with the commitment to make the history of discrimination linked to this instrument known and not forgotten. 

So, based on Antonella Gasperini and Barbara Wolff’s research, Albert Einstein’s “multiple visits” to Florence and Fiesole boil down to one three-and-a-half day stay in Florence with his sister Maya and her husband in their apartment in October 1921. As far as Albert Einstein’s playing his violin at the Convento San Francesco in Fiesole accompanied by Father Caramelli playing the organ, this must perforce have happened over one or two days.

In the previous post, I discussed so-called “Soggiorno degli Stranieri in Italia”, “Stay of Foreigners in Italy” forms which guests staying at the bed-and-breakfast run by my aunt Suzanne and Lucia von Jacobi at the Villa Primavera and other visitors to Italy were compelled to complete. I thought Albert Einstein might have been required to complete one during his visit. Independently, however, I discovered these forms were only required during Italy’s Fascist era from 1922 until 1943. The best evidence we have that Albert Einstein visited the Convento in Fiesole, as Gasperini notes, is his signature in the visitors’ register dated the 20th of October 1921. As Gasperini further remarks, the memory of Einstein’s visit has over time taken on a “mythical aura,” a trap I almost fell into. 

Closing the loop. As noted at the outset of this post, I’ve had my family history blog for almost nine years. In Post 122 and Post 122, Postscript, I wrote about Herta Brauer, a relative by marriage, who wound up in the Dominican Republic, one of the few places in the world willing to accept Jewish emigres during the Second World War. Herta went on to achieve great fame in the Dominican Republic and established the ballet company there that has produced a string of world-class ballet dancers. Because the then dictator Rafael Trujillo took an unreciprocated love interest in her, she was in danger of being murdered by him and forced to flee. A documentary has just been completed about Herta which placed me in contact with a gentleman affiliated with the project several years ago. 

In any case, in one of her emails, Barbara mentioned in passing the existence in the Albert Einstein Archives of a letter Max Albert Bruck wrote to Einstein on the 11th of November 1941 from the Dominican Republic. Curious whether I could find documentary evidence of Max’s presence there, I asked my acquaintance in the Dominican Republic if he could locate anything in their archives. And, to my great pleasure he did, one document of which even includes a photograph of him. (Figures 7a-c) Another document identifies him as a farmer in Sosua, then later he is identified as a doctor, which was his actual profession.

 

Figure 7a. Max Adolf Bruck’s 1941 Dominican Republic immigration permit including his picture showing him living in Sosua, Puerto Plata

 

 

Figure 7b. Max Adolf Bruck’s 1942 residence renewal permit identifying him as a farmer still living in Sosua

 

 

Figure 7c. Max Adolf Bruck’s 1944 residence renewal permit now identifying him as a doctor still living in Sosua

 

As readers can see, a blog post which starts in a Tuscan hill town in Italy almost seamlessly winds up on an island in the Caribbean. These are the types of connections I absurdly like to make. 

One final comment. My exchanges with Barbara Wolff have been casual emails, so any errors I’ve made in translation are exclusively my own doing. 

REFERENCES 

Agnoli, F. Albert Einstein and Fra Odorico. Philosophy, religion and politics in Albert Einstein, ESD. 

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertaepersona.org%2Fwordpress%2F2018%2F08%2Falbert-einstein-e-il-suo-amico-frate-italiano-e-musicista%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca2386e34474a48d7a0f908de7b9fa867%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639084122823914261%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=U7dn6AFqLEeA9KNsKiNwU3Aqt7a9ozPkR48QceSd0Qo%3D&reserved=0 

Gasperini, A. (2023) Storia, scienza e musica all’Osservatoria di Arceti (History, science and music at the Arceti Observatory.) Firenze University Press, 12 (1), 85-92. 

https://oajournals.fupress.net/index.php/cdg/article/download/14411/13285 

Pirro, D. Maria (Maya) Einstein. The Florentine, 2015 Feb 05. 

https://www.theflorentine.net/2015/02/05/maria-maja-einstein/

 

 

POST 199: VISITING THE VILLA PRIMAVERA IN FIESOLE, ITALY, MY AUNT AND UNCLE’S HOME BETWEEN 1936 AND 1938: THE FOURTH TIME WAS THE CHARM

Notes: In this post, I describe how after three previous unsuccessful attempts over 12 years, my wife and I were invited to visit the villa in Fiesole, a Tuscan hill town above Florence, where my aunt and uncle settled between 1936 and 1938. This invitation was made possible entirely thanks to our good Italian friend, Giuditta Melli, whom we fatefully met at a bus stop in 2014. Given that Florence and Fiesole were briefly havens for German Jews who fled after Hitler came to power in 1933, it is so fitting that a Jewish family now owns the floors once occupied by my ancestors.

 

Related Posts:

POST 21: MY AUNT SUSANNE, NÉE BRUCK, & HER HUSBAND DR. FRANZ MÜLLER, THE FIESOLE YEARS

POST 35: FATE OF SOME JEWISH GUESTS WHO STAYED AT THE VILLA PRIMAVERA (FIESOLE, ITALY), 1937-1938

POST 68: DR. JULIUS BRUCK AND HIS INFLUENCE ON MODERN ENDOSCOPY

POST 68, POSTSCRIPT: DR. JULIUS BRUCK, ENGINEER OF MODERN ENDOSCOPY-TRACKING SOME OF HIS DESCENDANTS

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

 

Fiesole is a historic hilltop town in Tuscany, Italy known for its Etruscan and Roman ruins. (Figure 1) This is a place with stunning views overlooking Florence. It was a favored destination of many German Jewish intellectuals after Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933. My aunt Suzanne Müller, née Bruck (1904-1942) and uncle, Dr. Franz Müller (1871-1945) (Figure 2), came here in early 1936. I have no doubt they would have stayed for the remainder of their lives save for the forced displacement of non-Italian Jews by Mussolini in 1938.

 

Figure 1. Roman amphitheater in Fiesole in 2014

 

Figure 2. My aunt Suzanne Müller, née Bruck (1904-1942) and uncle Dr. Franz Müller (1871-1945) at the Villa Primavera in Fiesole in 1938

 

As I wrote in 2018 in Post 21, shortly after Hitler and Mussolini’s visit to Florence on May 9, 1938, greeted by huge crowds, Mussolini embraced the “Manifesto of the Racial Scientists” on July 14, 1938. Basically, this Manifesto declared the Italian civilization to be of Aryan origin and claimed the existence of a “pure” Italian race to which Jews did not belong. Between September 2, 1938, and November 17, 1938, Italy enacted a series of racial laws, including one forbidding foreign Jews from settling in Italy. 

An emigration log I obtained from the Archivio Comunale Di Fiesole, the Municipal Archives of Fiesole, confirms my aunt and uncle departed Florence on September 16, 1938 (Figure 3), corresponding with the period in which these racial laws were enacted. Upon their departure from Fiesole, my aunt and uncle left in favor of Fayence, France, where my uncle’s daughter from an earlier marriage lived on a fruit farm owned by her brother-in-law.

 

Figure 3. Fiesole Emigration Register showing my aunt and uncle departed Fiesole on the 16th of September 1938

 

Let me review what I wrote in Post 21 about three previous visits to Fiesole, respectively, in 2014, 2015, and 2016, unsuccessfully attempting to visit the Villa Primavera. 

My wife and I first stopped and stayed in Fiesole in 2014 during our 13-week trip that year visiting places across Europe associated with my Jewish family’s diaspora. While we failed to access the Villa Primavera that year, we met an Italian lady under circumstances I can only characterize as fated. Let me explain. 

When traveling in Europe, we typically rent a car to more easily access the many small out of the way places we visit. Such was the case in 2014 when we stayed in Fiesole above Florence. Because traffic and parking in Florence are challenging, on the day we encountered the Italian lady we would eventually befriend, we decided instead to take the bus to access the downtown tourist attractions. After a day of touring, my wife and I were trying to ascertain where the bus headed towards Fiesole departed. Spotting our confusion, a friendly stranger, Giuditta Melli, confirmed we were in the right place. She was headed home on the same bus and engaged us in conversation. Obviously, a regular on the bus, she knew all the other riders. She pointed out her villa before getting off the bus. 

Prior to separating, Giuditta invited us to visit the pottery shop where she then worked. (Figure 4) The memories of that day are vivid. When we stopped by two days later, Giuditta spotted us from inside the shop and came rushing out to welcome us. She gave us a tour of the workshop, and while Ann was separately speaking with Giuditta, I was watching Romano, the master potter, at work. The next thing I knew Giuditta was standing in front of me with tears running down her face. I couldn’t imagine what had caused her distress. It turns out my wife had told Giuditta the purpose of our 13-week trip in Europe and had explained that my Jewish aunt murdered in Auschwitz and my uncle had once lived in the Villa Primavera in Fiesole, which as it turns out is only five minutes by car from Giuditta’s home. The source of Giuditta’s anguish was the fact that her Jewish great uncle Carlo Melli (Figure 5) who owned the villa where she now lives was also murdered in the Holocaust, deported to Buchenwald from the concentration camp at Fossoli near Modena, Italy in 1942. My aunt was also arrested in 1942 by the Vichy French in the small town of Fayence, France and deported to Auschwitz via the assembly point of the Drancy internment camp outside Paris. Our common histories provided an immediate bond.

 

Figure 4. In 2014, our friend Giuditta Melli standing alongside Romano, the master potter, in the pottery shop where she then worked

 

Figure 5. Giuditta’s great uncle Carlo Melli (left) and grandfather with Giuditta’s mother in Livorno

 

The Villa Primavera (Figures 6-7) is located on the street known as Via del Salviatino (Figure 8), which transects and straddles both Fiesole and Florence. (Figure 9) When initially in search of the house, this caused some confusion as Via del Salviatino 14, the former address of the villa, has identically numbered homes on this same avenue only a short distance apart in Fiesole and Florence.

 

Figure 6. Historic postcard of the Villa Primavera

 

Figure 7. My father’s photo of the Villa Primavera taken in 1938

 

Figure 8. Via del Salviatino, the street along which the Villa Primavera is located

 

Figure 9. The Via del Salviatino transects Fiesole and Firenze (Florence)

 

At the time my aunt and uncle lived there, the villa was owned by a Dr. Gino Frascani, an obstetrician/gynecologist, a truly remarkable man who will in the next month be recognized for his civic contributions. He used family money to build a hospital clinic on the Florence portion of Via del Salviatino, the “Istituto di Cura del Salviatino” (Figure 10), located just down the road from the Villa Primavera, where he even maintained beds in the common infirmary for “charity.” The Istituto still stands today, regrettably no longer as a hospital, but rather as exclusive condominiums. Dr. Frascani owned multiple properties at the time, and while the Frascani family still owns properties along Via del Salviatino, I later learned they no longer own the Villa Primavera.

 

Figure 10. Historic postcard of the Dr. Gino Frascani’s “Istituto di Cura del Salviatino”

 

Having realized we’d located Via del Salviatino 14 in Florence rather than Fiesole, we quickly found the correct address. As I explained in Post 21, at the entrance to the driveway with house numbers 12, 14, and 14a, was one mailbox with the name “R. Frascani.” Logically, we concluded this was a descendant of Dr. Frascani who resided in the Villa Primavera, erroneously so. Only later did we learn that R. Frascani, “R.”for Ranieri, lives in Via del Salviatino 12, ergo not in the Villa Primavera. We drove up the dirt road to Frascani’s residence, which we discovered was a bed-and-breakfast, and rang the bell. No one answered but, as luck would have it, one of Ranieri’s friends passed by as we were seeking entry and phoned him. Since Ranieri speaks no English, we quickly agreed I would contact him by email upon my return stateside. Regardless, it would be another year before we met in person and got answers to some of my questions. 

This initial contact established the basis for our subsequent visit to Fiesole in 2015, when we met Ranieri and his mother, Ms. Maria Agata Frascani, née Mannelli, respectively, Dr. Gino Frascani’s grandson and daughter-in-law. In 2015, Giuditta invited us to stay in her villa. She arranged and served as translator for our meet up. During this get-together Ranieri confirmed the villa he lives in is not the Villa Primavera. Sometime during the 1940s, houses along Via del Salviatino were renumbered and the Villa Primavera reassigned the number “16.” While the back of the Villa Primavera is visible from his home, the family no longer owns it, as previously noted. Unfortunately, neither Ranieri nor his mother could gain us access to their former property. 

While we failed for the second year running to tour the villa, Ms. Frascani took us to her home. (Figure 11) There she showed us an invaluable historical treasure, a thick album with photos, articles, and personal documents related to the construction and opening of Dr. Frascani’s “Istituto di Cura Chirurgica del Salviatino” in 1908-09. (Figure 12) It’s my great hope this is eventually donated to the Archivio Comunale Di Fiesole.

 

Figure 11. Name plate on Dr. Gino Frascani’s house at Via del Salviatino 18 in Fiesole, where his daughter-in-law, Ms. Maria Agatha Frascani, now lives

 

Figure 12. Album of photos, documents, letters, etc. collected by Dr. Gino Frascani related to the construction of his “Istituto di Cura del Salviatino” in 1908-09

 

Let me tell readers what I was able to learn from the roughly two-and-a-half-year period between 1936 and 1938 that my aunt and uncle lived at the Villa Primavera. My aunt ran the large home as a bed-and-breakfast in partnership with a Jewish lady of Austrian extraction, Ms. Lucia von Jacobi (Figures 13-14), whom she may have known from Berlin or met in Fiesole, perhaps through Dr. Frascani.

 

Figure 13. Lucia von Jacobi in 1936 or 1937

 

Figure 14. Lucia von Jacobi with my uncle, Dr. Franz Müller at the Villa Primavera

 

Ms. Lucia Nadetti, a retired archivist at the Archivio Comunale Di Fiesole, with whom I’m still in touch and consider a friend, took an avid interest in my research when we first met in 2014. (Figure 15) She scoured the archives and uncovered documentary evidence related to the period that the villa was run as a guest house, most significantly, so-called “Soggiorno degli Stranieri in Italia,” “Stay of Foreigners in Italy” forms. Italy required completion of these forms during the Fascist era, which lasted from 1922 to 1943.

 

Figure 15. In 2014, Ms. Lucia Nadetti, former archivist at the “Archivio Comunale Di Fiesole”

 

The mandatory forms were submitted to the local Municipio, City Hall, to document personal details, accommodation, length of stay, and the purpose of the visit. A local resident, my uncle in the case of guests staying at the Villa Primavera, would have to appear at the Municipio and certify that the foreigner was indeed lodging there. While highly intrusive in terms of the personal information collected, from a genealogical standpoint the details are unparalleled. Guests were required to provide the names of both parents, including the mother’s maiden name, plus their date and place of birth. Based on a separate historic register listing all visitors to the Villa Primavera, the “Soggiorno” forms exist only for those guests who stayed at the villa between 1937 and 1938; those that have survived are very instructive. In Post 35, I discussed the names and fates, where I could determine them, of the villa’s many lodgers. 

Let me turn now to our subsequent unsuccessful attempt in 2016 to visit the Villa Primavera. 

Like the Fiesole archivist Lucia Nadetti who’d taken a personal interest in my quest for documentary evidence of my ancestors’ passage through Fiesole, our friend Giuditta Melli continued to seek out additional information about the Villa Primavera. Following our visit to Fiesole in 2015, Giudutta announced she’d stumbled upon a full-length book about Lucia von Jacobi, my aunt Suzanne’s partner in managing the Villa Primavera as a bed-and-breakfast. It had been written by a German professor, Dr. Irene Below (Figure 16), from Werther, Germany, whom Giuditta immediately contacted. Giudutta related an extraordinary story based on her conversation with Dr. Below.

 

Figure 16. In October 2016, Dr. Irene Below at Parco di Monte Ceceri, Florence

 

As I described in Post 21: “Dr. Below was surprised to hear from Giuditta and curious to learn of her interest in people Irene had studied and knew about. Dr. Below related a fascinating tale. She came to Firenze in 1964 as a student intending to write about the history of art. While researching this topic, however, she came across magazines and diaries of an unknown person who turned out to be Lucia von Jacobi, a woman with very famous friends (e.g., Heinrich and Thomas Mann, Gustaf Gründgens, etc.), and decided instead to write about her. Then, amazingly, in 1966, Dr. Below walked into an antiquarian shop in Firenze and discovered the bulk of Ms. Jacobi’s personal papers, which she soon purchased with her parents’ financial assistance. 

As an additional footnote, Irene’s acquisition of Lucia von Jacobi’s papers was timely. In November 1966, Florence experienced the worst floods in living memory, reaching unheard of heights of 6.7 meters, 22 feet!! The antiquarian shop from which Dr. Below purchased Lucia von Jacobi’s papers was destroyed and everything swept away, a fate that would no doubt have befallen Lucia’s records had Irene not purchased them. 

According to the papers that Irene Below was able to retrieve from the antiquarian shop, Lucia spent three months in Palestine in 1938, likely shortly after Mussolini’s embrace of the “Manifesto of the Racial Scientists” on July 14, 1938. Following Ms. Jacobi’s return from Palestine, she was constantly being watched and her mail monitored by the local Questura, that’s to say, the police in the province of Florence. Afraid of being arrested, Lucia escaped to Switzerland in October 1938, forced to leave all her possessions behind. Dr. Below surmises her belongings remained in the Villa Primavera until Dr. Frascani’s heirs sold the home, whereupon they were donated or sold to the antiquarian shop where Irene discovered them. 

After contacting Irene Below following our 2015 visit, Giuditta invited all of us to gather at her house in 2016 with the idea of meeting and together visiting the Villa Primavera. In anticipation of this get-together, I wrote letters to the various residents including my father’s 1938 photos taken there, asking whether it would be possible to visit. This is a strategy I’ve employed with mixed results over the years. Regrettably, I received nary a single response. While I even asked Lucia Nadetti to intercede, she too was unable to get us an invitation. I realized after our 2016 trip to Fiesole that I was unlikely to see the grounds nor the interior of the Villa Primavera. While I can be very persistent, one must also know when to “give up the ghost.” So, I did. 

My wife and I have continued to remain in contact with Giuditta Melli. In May 2023, she told me about a meeting she’d recently had with Daniel Ratthei, an author from Cottbus, Germany, that included the grandchildren of a woman named Lina Friederike Prinz, née Meyer who, like my aunt and uncle, lived in Fiesole-Florence between 1935 and 1939. 

Daniel Ratthei is researching and writing about a German professor named Arno Fritz Kurt Schirokauer (1899-1954), born in Cottbus, where Daniel hails from. According to Daniel, the Schirokauer and Prinz families knew each other well, as probably did most German emigrants in Fiesole. Among the places where the divorced Lina Prinz lived with her children, Rolf and Renate (Figure 17), was none other than the Villa Primavera!

 

Figure 17. Renate and Rolf Prinz as children in either Florence or Fiesole in 1937; Rolf’s two children, Jane and Peter Prince (their surname was anglicized) from New Zealand, met Giuditta and Daniel Ratthei in Florence-Fiesole in 2023

 

The Schirokauers did not stay at the Villa Primavera but were lodging in another pension in Fiesole called “Il Poderino”; the villas are close to one another. Interestingly, Il Poderino is a guest house that Lucia von Jacobi first ran with a Carlotta Münz until the two had a falling out, and Lucia opened the Villa Primavera with my aunt. 

In any case, in writing the current post, I turned to Google to refresh my memory about Arno Schirokauer. In doing so, I realized or reminded myself of something I’d forgotten, namely, that Arno was best known for his biography about Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864). 

While not a household name to most readers, Lassalle was familiar to me for reasons I will explain. He was an extremely well-known German jurist, philosopher, and socialist activist. He is best known as an initiator of the social democratic movement in Germany who in 1863 founded the General German Workers’ Association, the first independent German workers’ party. However, what makes him memorable to me is that he is buried in the Stary Cmentarz Żydowski we Wrocławiu, the Old Jewish Cemetery in Wrocław, Poland (formerly Breslau, Germany). 

Coincidentally, this historic necropolis-museum is where some of my Bruck relatives are interred, mostly notably, Julius Bruck (1840-1902), inventor of the stomatoscope, whom I discussed in Post 68 and Post 68, Postscript. I have visited the necropolis on three previous occasions and am very good friends with the Branch Manager of the museum, Dr. Renata Wilkoszewska-Krakowska. 

Also, in conjunction with a translation that my English cousin, Helen Winter, née Renshaw, is currently undertaking of a diary written by another Bruck ancestor from Breslau (Wrocław), Bertha Jacobson, née Bruck (1873-1957), Lassalle’s name is mentioned. For this reason, on the 160th anniversary of Ferdinand Lassalle’s death in 2024, when the Old Jewish Cemetery held a ceremony attended by many government officials, Renata sent me a photo of Lassalle’s grave. (Figure 18)

 

Figure 18. Ferdinand Lassalle’s headstone in the Old Jewish Cemetery in Wrocław, Poland, the same necropolis where a few of my distinguished Bruck ancestors are also interred

 

I don’t expect readers to fully appreciate this, and I don’t mean to talk down to readers, but one of the silent pleasures I derive from my blog is occasionally stumbling on unexpected connections. Consider for a moment, I was discussing Florence, Italy, and in the next instance, I’ve transitioned to discussing Ferdinand Lassalle buried in Wrocław, Poland because of his biographer’s (Arno Schirokauer) connection to Cottbus, Germany and brief association with Florence and Fiesole. Add to this, the incidental connection to Lina Prinz who stayed at the Villa Primavera when my aunt and uncle lived there. Making these connections reminds me of the old TV game show, “Concentration.” 

I apologize to readers because I have seriously digressed which I regret to inform you will continue for a bit longer. My wife and I recently returned from a 13-day trip to Paris and Florence-Fiesole. Our journey to Paris was related to the three Fédor Löwenstein paintings I retrieved in September 2025 discussed in Post 189, which I’ve agreed to loan to two or three French museums for exhibitions over the next few years. The first of these is ongoing now at the musée d’art et d’histoire du Judaïsme, mahJ, at which I was asked to participate in a round table discussion. 

Knowing we would be in Paris and curious to meet Daniel Ratthei in Florence and reunite with Giuditta after ten years, my wife and I decided to fly there. I retained an unrealistic hope that Giuditta and/or Lucia might facilitate our entry into the Villa Primavera. While Daniel was unable to meet us in Florence on account of previous commitments, Giuditta found an unlikely connection that after 12 years allowed us to finally tour the Villa Primavera. Learning this left me giddy with excitement! 

Let me explain. Giuditta is currently in the process of selling her villa. In chatting with her realtor, Giuditta let on she’d been trying for years to gain access to the Villa Primavera. During this exchange, Giuditta’s realtor told her that she knows Ms. Barbara Anzilotti (Figure 19), the owner of the top floor, and offered to put her in touch. Barbara is the person who reached out to her neighbors who own the bottom two levels, Elad and Vered Tzur, the Jewish couple who graciously invited us to visit. (Figure 20) I find it noteworthy that the Villa Primavera is again occupied by a Jewish family.

 

Figure 19. Me standing between Ms. Barbara Anzilotti and Giuditta in front of the backside of the Villa Primavera

 

 

Figure 20. Inside their home, current owners of the Villa Primavera, Vered and Elad Tzur holding their youngest child, Shimon, alongside me

 

Our visit took place on February 24, 2026. We learned that at the time my aunt and uncle lived in the Villa Primavera, the top floor owned by Barbara did not exist; it was added by the previous owner, then sold as a separate unit. The previous owner also completely redesigned the bottom floors of the house. Elad and Vered, who emigrated from Israel, have only owned the house for about a year, and live there with their five children. 

My father only stayed at the Villa Primavera twice, both times in 1938, and his pictures exclusively show the exterior of the home. Comparing my father’s photos with the current layout of the exterior, shows it is remarkably unchanged. Vered and I enthusiastically got into re-creating my father’s pictures from the same vantage point he’d taken them. (Figures 21a-b; 22a-b; 23a-b; 24) This was great fun!

 

Figure 21a. My father standing on the steps in front of the Villa Primavera in September 1938

 

Figure 21b. Me on August 24, 2026, standing on the steps in the same place as my father stood in 1938

 

Figure 22a. My father seated in front of the Villa Primavera in May 1938; note the planter on the house wall on the left side of the picture

 

Figure 22b. Me seated with my father’s pictures in hand at the same place he sat in May 1938; note the planter on the wall

 

Figure 23a. My father seated at an outdoor table in front of the Villa Primavera in May 1938 with his sister (opposite him) and two of his cousins; note the vertical pole behind his sister’s head

 

Figure 23b. Me on February 24, 2026, in front of the Villa Primavera with my hand on the vertical pole seen in Figure 23a

 

Figure 24. Me standing between my wife Ann and Giuditta in front of the Villa Primavera in February 2026

 

To again walk in my aunt, uncle, and father’s footsteps was special. How they would feel about my genealogical endeavors is unanswerable, particularly as it relates to my father since the only family he ever spoke about ruefully was his beloved sister Suzanne. However, given that the Villa Primavera is a place associated with his sister and a place my father visited, I imagine he would be intrigued that I visited the home. 

Recall from above that using the surviving “Soggiorno degli Stranieri in Italia” forms, in Post 35 I detailed the fates of the villa’s guests. One of those guests was a woman named Maria Donath, née Czamska (I’ve come across various spelling of her maiden name, including “Czamsky”, “Camsky”). (Figure 25) She was married to Ludwig Donath who was known for character roles in films, TV, and on stage. (Figure 26)

 

Figure 25. One of the Villa Primavera’s guests, Maria Donath’s 1940 “Declaration of Intention” to become an American citizen

 

Figure 26. Another of the Villa Primavera’s guests, Ludwig Donath, Maria Donath’s husband’s 1940 “Declaration of Intention” to become an American citizen

 

I was recently contacted by Mr. Alexander Schilling, Head of production of Heidelberger Schlossfestspiele. This is a theatre festival in Germany, and the best-known and most-attended open-air theater plays in the Northern Baden Region. Alex explained that for an upcoming exhibition about the history of the Heidelberger Schlossfestspiele, founded in 1926, he is researching biographies of cast members from the 1920s who fled Germany after 1933 on account of political or racial persecution. And Maria Czamska-Donath was one of those members. 

In Post 35, I wrote that Maria died in Vienna in 1974, erroneously as it happens. Alex asked for the source of this information, and, while dubious I could retrace my steps, I rediscovered I’d found it in ancestry.com’s link to Find A Grave. Maria’s married name “Donath” is apparently common even today in Vienna and it seems I mistook the Maria Donath in the Vienna Friedhof for Maria Czamska. Based on information Alex obtained from more reliable sources, Maria apparently died on the 13th of August 1967 in Munich. I am always grateful when readers take the time to research and correct misinformation I’ve inadvertently introduced into my post. 

In closing, I want again to acknowledge and thank our good friend Giuditta Melli for persisting in finding a way to help us enter the Villa Primavera in Fiesole. Thanks to a chance encounter at a bus stop in 2014 this would never have happened. Given my family’s association with the Villa Primavera, a brief period of calm before the cataclysmic events of the Holocaust ensnared my family, I’m eternally grateful to Giuditta as well as Elad and Vered for having made this visit possible. Fiesole is a special place, a place my aunt and uncle certainly embraced and where they would permanently have settled had circumstances turned out differently.

POST 198: ITALIAN OCCUPATION OF SOUTHEASTERN FRANCE DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR: IMPACT ON JEWISH PEOPLE, INCLUDING MY FAMILY

Note: In this post, I discuss the two periods of Fascist Italy’s occupation of southeastern France during the Second World War. While not philanthropic towards Jews, Mussolini did not share Hitler’s views on the “Jewish problem,” possibly influenced by his Jewish mistress. Many French Jews flocked to the Italian-occupied part of France providing some enough time to survive until the area was liberated by the Allies in August 1944. Among the survivors were members of my family. 

Related Post:

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

Over the years I’ve come across references that the southeastern part of France was occupied by the Italians during the Second World War. This is a topic that’s always fascinated me because it includes Nice along France’s Côte d’Azur, a city with close connections to both sides of my family. It’s been an enduring mystery how a few of my Jewish relatives survived there when the Nazi onslaught exterminated or scattered most of them elsewhere in Europe. 

Nice is where my parents met, and where my mother lived with her mother following her parents’ divorce. Also, my father’s aunt Hedwig Löwenstein, née Bruck, and two of her three children lived permanently or temporarily in Nice during the war. (Figure 1) After leaving Germany in early 1938, Nice is where my father went trying unsuccessfully to obtain a permit to work in France as a dentist. Following my father’s two-and-a-half years of military service in the Royal Pioneer Corps after five years in the French Foreign Legion, he returned to Nice to resume his dental career. (Figure 2) Here is where he was arrested for practicing illegally as a “stateless” person before decamping to America, sadly never again to practice dentistry. Nice is where my parents would regularly vacation, and where my maternal grandmother lived and where I spent multiple summers as a child. It’s a place that holds bittersweet memories for me and my family.

 

Figure 1. March 1946 photo of Fédor Löwenstein (seated) with his sister Hansi, his brother Heinz, and his mother Hedwig in Nice, France

 

 

Figure 2. My father Dr. Otto Bruck in October 1941 along the Mediterranean Sea when he was living in Nice and practicing dentistry “illegally”

 

Two of Hedwig’s children, Fédor and Heinz Löwenstein, have been the subject of multiple earlier posts. To remind readers, Fédor Löwenstein (1901-1946) was my father’s first cousin; he was the artist of the three paintings that were confiscated by the Nazis at the Port of Bordeaux in December 1940 that I retrieved in September 2025 from the French Ministry of Culture after an eleven-year legal tussle. (see Post 189) Nice is where Fedor returned to from Paris and Mirmande after becoming sick with a then-undiagnosed disease. He died there at 45 years of age of Hodgkin lymphoma and was buried in the Cimetière de Caucade in Nice. And I’ve often written about Fédor’s younger brother, Heinz Löwenstein, because of his fascinating wartime escapades. The third sibling, Jeanne “Hansi” Goff, née Löwenstein, is the cousin with whom my father was closest to and advised my father to join the French Foreign Legion in 1938, following my father’s flight from Germany. After emigrating with her mother and siblings from the Free City of Danzig in what I estimate was the early 1930s, Hansi settled in Nice and lived there for the remainder of her life. 

Because none of my Jewish relatives were deported from Nice during the war, I researched the history of the Italian occupation of France seeking an answer. Like many things that took place during the Second World War, the explanation is often rooted in historical events that took place before the war, sometimes many years before. 

During the Second World War, southeastern France experienced two distinct periods of occupation by Fascist Italy. (Figure 3) The first occurred when Benito Mussolini invaded France on June 10, 1940. This incursion followed closely on the heels of the invasion of France by Italy’s Axis ally Germany on May 10, 1940, initiating the “Battle of France.” Using blietzkrieg tactics, German forces broke through Allied lines, captured Paris on June 14, 1940, and forced an armistice on France on June 22, 1940, effectively defeating them in just over six weeks.

 

 

Figure 3. Map of the occupation zones of France during the Second World War including the two areas in the southeastern part of the country occupied by Fascist Italy

 

Italy’s June 1940 invasion had limited success even though their occupational army of 700,000 troops significantly outnumbered the French. The Italians faced numerous challenges, including inadequately light tanks, a lack of artillery and motor transport, and ill-preparedness for the cold Alpine climate. The French had established substantial fortifications along the Alpine Line, referred to as the “Little Maginot.” Nonetheless, following France’s rout at the hands of the Germans and their surrender, the French were forced to sign the Franco-Italian Armistice on June 24, 1940, two days after the cessation of hostilities, agreeing upon an Italian zone of occupation. 

As a result of this armistice with the Italians, the French relinquished 831 square kilometers (321 square miles) in southeastern France. (Figures 3-4) This Italian-controlled zone, which included between 28,000 and 30,000 French citizens, was officially annexed to the Kingdom of Italy. The largest town contained within the initial Italian zone of occupation was Menton. The main cities inside the larger “demilitarized zone” of 50km (31 miles) from the border with the Italian Alpine Wall were Nice and Grenoble, although, unlike Menton, neither was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy though that was the plan had the Axis powers won the Second World War.

 

 

Figure 4. A closeup of southeastern France showing the areas occupied by Fascist Italy during two periods of the Second World War

 

The second Italian occupation of southeastern France took place in November 1942 in conjunction with Case Anton, the German occupation of Vichy France. To remind readers, Vichy France was the so-called puppet and collaborationist government in southern France in the “zone libre” (free zone) that had between created by the June 1940 armistice between Germany and France. 

Readers may wonder, as I did, what suddenly precipitated the German occupation of Vichy France in November 1942. Case Anton was primarily triggered by the Allied invasion of North Africa during Operation Torch on November 8, 1942. Hitler ordered the occupation of the “zone libre” to prevent an Allied landing in southern France and to secure Mediterranean coastal defenses. Basically, the successful Allied landings in French North Africa convinced Hitler that the Vichy regime could no longer protect its territory, forcing Germany to take direct control of the “zone libre.” A critical part of German motivation to occupy Vichy was also to seize the French Navy fleet anchored in Toulon. To prevent this, the French soldiers successfully scuttled most of their ships on November 27, 1942, rendering them useless to the Axis powers. 

The November 1942 German occupation of Vichy France resulted in an expansion of Italy’s occupation zone in southeastern France. (see Figure 4) Italian forces took control of Toulon and all of Provence up to the river Rhone; the island of Corsica was claimed by the so-called Italian irredentists (more on this below). Nice and Corsica were to be annexed to Italy in accordance with the aspirations of these Italian irredentists, an action that never took place because of the Italian armistice in September 1943, following Italy’s defeat at the hands of the Allied forces.

Let me briefly explain Italian irredentism. The term originated from Italia irredenta (“unredeemed Italy”), referring to lands with Italian populations left outside the Kingdom of Italy following its unification between 1860 and 1870. Irredentism was the movement to annex territory considered culturally or historically Italian, such as Istria and Dalmatia. Istria is the largest peninsula in the northern Adriatic Sea, the majority of which now belongs to Croatia. (Figure 5) It also includes the historic region of Dalmatia, also primarily within modern-day Croatia, with a small portion of Montenegro, located on the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. Significantly, for the purposes of this post and its impact on Jewish people during the Second World War, Italia irredenta included Nice. Italian irredentism in Nice was the political movement supporting the annexation of the County of Nice to the Kingdom of Italy.

 

 

Figure 5. Map of the territories claimed by the proponents of a “Greater Italy”

 

Readers are likely wondering what gave rise to Italian irredentism and the aspirations of their supporters that they were entitled to annex Nice. As I alluded to above, some events that took place during the Second World War have their roots earlier in history. During the Italian unification, in 1860, the House of Savoy, a noble and royal dynasty between France and Italy, allowed the Second French Empire, the government of France from 1852 to 1870, to annex Nice from the Kingdom of Sardinia in exchange for French support of its quest to unify Italy. As a result, the Nicois were excluded from the Italian unification movement, and the region has since become primarily French-speaking. 

Discontent over annexation to France led to the emigration of a large part of the Italophile population; more than 10,000 people, a quarter of the population in Nice, voluntarily left for Italy. This emigration of Nicard Italians to Italy took the name of the “Nicard exodus.” Many Italians from Nizza moved to towns in Liguria, a crescent-shaped region in nearby northwestern Italy, known as the Italian Riviera. This gave rise to a local branch of the movement of Italian irredentists which considered the reacquisition of Nice to be one of their nationalist goals. 

In support of the Italian irredentists, Benito Mussolini considered the annexation of Nice to be one of his main targets. Following the armistice between Italy and France in June 1940, the County of Nice was occupied by the Italian army and the newspaper Il Nizzardo (“The Nicard”) was restored there. It was directed by Ezio Garibaldi, the grandson of Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882). For those unfamiliar with the elder Garibaldi, he was a charismatic Italian general, patriot, and revolutionary, who played a crucial role in unifying Italy. Born in Nice, he was vehemently opposed to the cession of his hometown to France. 

Having strayed some to explain the geopolitical basis for Italy’s historic connection to Nice, let me share one intriguing thing I learned while researching the extent of Italian occupation of southeastern France following German’s occupation of the “zone libre.” This is personally intriguing because I’ve been a philatelist, a stamp collector, much of my life. As I noted above, following Case Anton Italian forces took control of Toulon and all of Provence up to the Rhône River as well as the island of Corsica. I quote from an entry on Wikipedia on the “Italian Occupation of France”: 

The area of southeast France actually occupied by the Italians has been disputed. A study of the postal history of the region has cast new light on the part of France controlled by the Italians and Germans (Trapnell, 2014). By studying mail that had been censored by the occupying power, this study showed that the Italians occupied the eastern part up to a ‘line’ joining Toulon-Gap-Grenoble-Chambery-Annecy-Geneva. Places occupied by the Italians west of this were few or transitory.” 

Thus, the line connecting these cities marks the boundary that separated the Italian-occupied eastern zone from the German-occupied western area. The line roughly follows a north-south axis through the French Alps and Provence, extending from the Italian border westward to the Rhône Valley corridor. Figure 6 (Figure) indicates the Italian-occupied part of France between November 1942 and September 1943 extended all the way to the Rhone River, although philatelic evidence suggests otherwise, namely, that the line was further to the east. (see the red line on Figure 6)

 

 

Figure 6. Map of southeastern France showing the putative area Fascist Italy controlled extending to the Rhône Valley corridor versus the actual area they controlled indicated by the red line; proof of this comes from letters censored by occupying forces, in other words philatelic evidence

 

So much for the background. Let me move now to the question of how the Italian occupation of southeastern France affected Jews. 

The Italian occupation government was far less severe than that of Vichy France. After France’s fall in June 1940, Nice was in the “demilitarized zone” of France which as mentioned above extended 50km from the Italian Alpine Wall. It provided a safe haven for Jewish refugees from Vichy’s anti-Jewish laws. Also, as mentioned, after the Allies invaded North Africa in 1942, the Germans invaded the “zone libre” of southern France in November 1942. This caused many thousands of Jews to seek refuge in the Italian-occupied zone of France between November 1942 and September 1943, as Italian authorities refused to deport them and often shielded them from Nazi. Exact numbers vary but it is estimated that nearly 80 percent of the remaining 300,000 French Jews took refuge in the Italian-occupied zone, saving many thousands from deportation. 

Though Mussolini was far from altruistic, he refrained from collaborating with Vichy and refused to persecute Jews or enforce yellow star badges. Mussolini did not share Hitler’s views on the “Jewish problem,” possibly influenced by his Jewish mistress, Margherita Sarfatti. 

Apparently, an Italian Jewish banker named Angelo Donati also played a vital role in convincing Italian civil and military authorities to protect Jews from French persecution in Nice. Curious about this, I happened upon a 2014 Bachelor’s Degree Thesis written by a Ms. Maria Teresa Nisticò from LUISS Guido Carli, a private university in Rome, explaining Angelo Donati’s role. 

Quoting: “Jewish are coming to Nice from everywhere: they know they have different perspective (sic) over there. In particular they have an important man, the Italian banker Angelo Donati, that devoted its (sic) life to realize the objective of saving all the Jewish that were living in Nice. He organized a committee that welcomed the Jewish arriving in Nice and helped them when Vichy officials were trying to arrest them. The main activity of such a committee was to create fake documents for the persecuted; documents where at least the word Jewish was absent. Donati was a (sic) honoured man: he played a decisive role in connecting the French and the Italian army during the First World War and he obtained the ‘Legion d’Honneur’ in France. Being smart, full of energy, without a Jewish surname and prestigious, neither Vichy nor Berlin were aware of its (sic) activity.” 

Once again, this speaks to the strength of individual courage and ingenuity in times of unspeakable horror. 

In any case, thanks to the fearlessness of people such as Angelo Donati, in January 1943, the Italians refused to cooperate with the Nazis in rounding up Jews in their occupied territory and even prevented German deportations from their zone in March. Although the Italians did not cooperate in deportations, they did intern some Jews in camps to keep them under surveillance; this had the effect of keeping many safe at least until the Italian surrender to the Allies in September 1943. This led the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop complaining to Mussolini about Italian military circles’ insufficient understanding of the “Jewish question.” 

However, shortly after Italy signed the Armistice of Cassibile with the Allies on September 3, 1943, Nazi forces seized control of the Italian zone. The SS official responsible for Jewish affairs, Alois Brunner, Adolf Eichmann’s top aide, established his headquarters at the Hotel Excelsior several days later. This marked the start of a frightful crackdown on the Jewish population. SS officers systematically patrolled the city, arresting anyone who appeared Jewish, including those in mixed marriages, of certain nationalities, children, elderly, and invalid individuals. These individuals were interrogated at the Excelsior Hotel and subsequently deported to death camps from a nearby train station. The plaque today posted outside the hotel reads as follows: 

During the German occupation of Nice from September 1943 to August 1944, more than 3,000 Jews including 264 children were arrested in the Alpes-Maritimes, Basses-Alpes and the principality of Monaco and deported by the Gestapo in application of Nazi anti-Semitic ideology. 

Before being transferred by rail to the Drancy camp near Paris from where they were sent to the Auschwitz extermination camp, the victims had been interned in the Excelsior hotel, which became an annex to the Drancy camp and was requisitioned by the Germans because of its proximity to Nice station.” 

As a related side note, Alois Brunner, who it is estimated orchestrated the deportation of 23,500 Jews from France to death camps, remained one of the top Nazis who evaded capture after the war. He lived freely and reportedly passed away in Damascus around 2010. 

So much for the lengthy discussion on the geopolitical situation in southeastern France during the periods of Italian occupation of the area during the Second World War. 

Nice was liberated from Nazi occupation on August 28, 1944, meaning that from roughly September 3, 1943, signing date of the “Armistice of Cassibile,” onwards until almost the end of August 1944, Nice and other previously Italian-occupied parts of France were controlled by the Nazis. How my Jewish relatives survived in Nice under Nazi rule for almost a year remains an enduring mystery. 

Let me briefly talk about my father’s beloved sister, Suzanne Müller, née Bruck (1904-1942), who did not survive the Holocaust. She and her husband, Dr. Franz Müller (1871-1945), were caught up in the expulsion of non-Italian Jews from Italy in September-October 1938. My aunt’s husband, 33 years older than her had two children from his first marriage. His married daughter, roughly the same age as my aunt, had a brother-in-law who owned a fruit farm in a small town in Fayence, France in the Var Department. When my aunt and uncle left Fiesole, Italy in 1938, they immigrated there. My aunt and the owner of fruit farm were arrested by the Vichy French on August 24, 1942, and murdered in Auschwitz. While I’m always hesitant to engage in “what ifs,” I wonder whether they might have survived had they relocated to Nice in the Italian-occupied part of France, roughly 42 miles east? (Figure 7)

 

Figure 7. Map showing the distance from Fayence, France, where my aunt was arrested on August 24, 1942 by the Vichy French, to Nice 

 

One final thing before I conclude this post. My wife and I just returned from Paris where the three surviving artworks painted by Fedor Loewenstein, my father’s first cousin, confiscated by the Nazis in December 1940, that are now in my possession are on display at the Musée d’Art et d’Histoire du Judaïsme (MAHJ) to whom I’ve loaned them. In connection with interpretive materials developed for this exhibit, I learned about the so-called Vel’ d’Hiv roundup. This was a mass arrest of more than 13,000 Jews that took place in Paris on 16-17 July 1942, by the Vichy French police at the behest of the German occupational authorities. This was roughly a month before my aunt Suzanne was arrested in the “zone libre” of France also by the Vichy French. While I can pretend to understand how the Vichy French would collaborate in the area they had administrative control over, I was flummoxed to learn they would also assist the Nazis in areas they did not administratively control. 

This speaks to the true extent of French collaboration with the Nazis in the extermination of Jewish people during the Second World War. On a more personal level, it speaks to the complex relationship my family has with France, a legacy that transcends the tragedy that befell my own aunt. In a few years after I’m done loaning the three Fédor Löwenstein paintings now in my possession to various French museums, I will be forced to confront this dark history in deciding what to do with the artworks, whether to donate them to a French museum or bring them to the United States where Fédor wanted them to come in 1940. 

REFERENCES 

Byron, H. (2024, January 19). The French Riviera under Italian Rule During WW2. Heroine Journey Fiction.

The French Riviera under Italian Rule during WW2 — HANNAH BYRON

“Italian occupation of France.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation,

Italian occupation of France – Wikipedia

“Italian irredentism.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 March 2026.

Italian irredentism – Wikipedia

“Italian irredentism in Nice.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 November 2025.

Italian irredentism in Nice – Wikipedia

Nistico, M. T. (2013/2014). Beyond GDP: exploring models and indicators of well-being. [Bachelor’s Degree Thesis, LUISS Guido Carli]. Bachelor’s Degree Program>Bachelor’s Degree Program in Political Science.

frajese-mariapaola-sintesi-2014.pdf

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.