Abstract: This article aims to extend the provenance research on the world of art collectors in Romania, which witnessed, especially after 1947, large-scale confiscations and a real nationalization of art objects and collections. The confiscation of private property was evident under the communist government and included art objects from private art collections. We consider that a study of provenance is absolutely necessary in Romanian historiography, Romania being a country of the former Soviet bloc where a very large number of properties, including factories, businesses, houses, buildings, apartments, churches, and land, were confiscated during the totalitarian communist period. The state appropriated itself illegally through abusive decrees, the most important being decree no. 92 of 1950, or by coercion, more than 400,000 buildings of which more than 150,000 were destroyed. This period represents, at the same time, the most intense period linked to the looting of art in Romania. However, it is essential to mention that the spoliation of property is not a phenomenon that originated in this period. We also gave space to the antecedents in the field of the confiscation of works of art and the more or less forced donations evident after December 1937, having as victims mainly members of the Jewish community, in the context of the existence of far-right, anti-Semitic, and racist dictatorship regimes.

Keywords: confiscated collections, museum ethics, nationalization, provenance research.

Introduction

We consider that a study of provenance is absolutely necessary in Romanian historiography, Romania being a country of the former Soviet bloc where a very large number of pro­perties, including factories, bu­sinesses, houses, buildings, apart­ments, churches, and land, were con­fiscated during the totalitarian com­munist period. The state appropriated itself illegally through abusive decrees, the most important being decree no. 92 of 1950¹, or by coercion, more than 400,000 buildings of which more than 150,000 were destroyed. This period represents at the same time the most intense period linked to the looting of art in Romania. However, it is essential to mention that the spoliation of property is not a phenomenon that originates in this period.

In our article, it is also very im­portant to give space to the ante­cedents in the field of the confisca­tion of works of art and the more or less forced donations evident after December 1937, having as victims mainly members of the Jewish community, in the context of the existence of far-right, anti-Semitic, and racist dictatorship regimes. In the conditions of the Eastern War, after June 1941, some actions of the Romanian army and other repressive bodies were also aimed at the confiscation of works of art and cultural objects – see the case of Odessa after October 1941. After 1944, the Soviets sought to recover these works, based on the armistice agreement, committing abuse after abuse. Therefore, there was an unfa­vourable climate even before1944-1945. Consequently, under the com­munist regime, an already existing phenomenon was amplified to monstrous proportions.

The field of “provenance re­search” is both a new field of inter­disciplinary studies (history of art, history, anthropology, history of political science), as well as a metho­dology under construction. This is a highly politicized field – research in the field of Holocaust-era assets/nor­mative framework/jurispru­dence is the result of both the reflection of museographers, and high-level diplo­matic negotiations (several intergo­ver­n­mental confe­rences). However, this discipline is primarily aimed at museum work.

Establishing the provenance, that is to say, researching the history and journey of the work from its origins/creation to the present day. On the other hand, it consists of determining the origin of the works found in the collections likely to come from problematic environ­ments, such as the spoliations during the Second World War, of goods from a colonial context as well as objects from the Soviet occupation zone and later the German Democratic Republic, as well as il­legal translocations of looted archa­eological cultural property². The ana­lysis and documentation of historical and contemporary developments are essential in a museum institution because they make it possible to gather valuable information to inven­tory and document the works in its collections, and to reconstruct the history of an object.

The new museum ethic is also closely linked to this field of study of provenance because it seeks to ensure that the provenance of the objects constituting its own collection is not problematic, that is that there are no assets from the abusive dispossession of collectors or families with va­luable assets. Ethics is therefore not an objective, pre-existing set of uni­ver­sal norms and principles waiting to be applied in the international arena. On the contrary, ethics must be understood as “a continuing historical practice³”. It is to recognize that politics and ethics are mutually constitutive, because, in order to address and resolve the enigmas with which they are confronted, “ethical reflections must, first of all, be an­chored in historically concrete political experiences”⁴.

Currently, the provenance re­search on looted property is based on the “Washington Conference Principles Applicable to Nazi-Confiscated Works of Art⁵” referred to as the “Washington Principles”. The signatory States in 1998, by adhering to eleven principles, affirm in particular the will to find a „fair and equitable solution⁶” with the descendants of the former owners. These Principles are intended not to indict but to induce signatory states to voluntarily engage in reconside­ration of the treatment of persons whose property rights were taken away under National Socialism between 1933 and 1945. The object­tives of the Principles of Washington are no less topical today. The research and identification of cultural property that was seized or stolen from their owners – mostly Jews – between 1933 and 1945, the dispos­sessions in the Soviet occupation zone, the documentation of this research and its results and therefore the creation of transparency, and finally the search for “fair and equitable solutions” concerning the identified looted objects⁷. Central to the successful implementation of the Washington Principles was and still is systematic provenance research of works in public and private collec­tions. This research should focus on objects that were added to the collections between 1933 and today, excluding works created after 1945.

From the perspective of victims, provenance research is significant in two respects. The first is the sine qua non⁸ for establishing historical justice – that is, returning works of art and cultural property seized as a result of National Socialist persecution to their rightful owners or heirs. The return of a work of art restores the status quo before the confiscation by returning the objects in question to the possession of the rightful owners or their heirs. We cannot pass up the opportunity to right historic wrongs. Certainly, we cannot repair the injustices committed in the past, but to perpetuate them would amount to creating a new offence. Proactive provenance research is therefore an expression of our responsibility and directly shapes the self-image of the society in which we live.

However, many items have disappeared without a trace, and confiscations are usually done without an inventory of the property taken. Provenance research also helps to demonstrate this active role, documenting scattered elements of the collections and – ideally –bringing them together. In this sense, provenance research can illustrate what happened before the despoliation process. It is explicitly not intended to cover other historical contexts of confiscation, such as those related to colonial conquests in the late 19th and early 20th centuries⁹ or trophy hunting and confiscation during and after World War II, especially under the Soviet occupation zone and the German Democratic Republic. While there are certainly parallels in terms of methods and approaches, the differences in historical conditions, ethical assessment and the current legal framework are nevertheless so great that a joint treatment would not have been wise¹⁰. However, it is important to avoid equating or comparing different contexts of injustice. Any resulting act of restitution is contextualized by political will and self-imposed ethical and moral obligations.

Provenance research takes place in an extremely political and politically sensitive environment. More than other types of research in museums, it is directly dependent on the societal framework¹¹. Returning these objects to their rightful owners remains an important aspect of dealing with the past. The second subject is the treatment of works that have been identified as looted art by totalitarian regimes: for these objects, fair and equitable solutions must be found. Therefore, the principles are not explicitly limited to restitution, but also include other possible solutions. People with complaints should be encouraged to come forward. If they cannot be identified, the current owners of the works should still strive to find solutions.

Objects that are no longer part of the inventory can still provide information about the history of the collection and acquisition processes for items remaining in the collection. The next step is to determine which objects are still in the collection today and which are no longer, and for what reasons. It is part of the institutional history and collections of each institution that are relevant to the biographies of individual objects. Finding the provenance of an object is an ongoing process until the pro­venance has been completely pieced together, as each new idea and each new source can change the perspec­tive and knowledge of an object’s origin.

Another important aspect con­cerns the permanent exhibitions. Displaying provenance information is increasingly becoming a necessary practice. Wall labels should at least include information on the acqui­sition of the object by the institution (date, mode of acquisition, donation, purchase, and previous owner). Full object biographies on labels would be desirable, but are often difficult to implement in practice due to the size of the label and the need to display other information about the object. Nevertheless, questionable or even problematic sources must be men­tioned on the label as much as possible. In addition to information on the object and its biography, the provenance research provides im­portant information on the institution, the history of the collection, the biographies of private collectors and galleries, key figures in the arts market, and the book, on the distri­bution channels of looted cultural property and destroyed collections.

The international policy of restitution of looted property

Can we still determine the origins of the works before they were sold on the art market? And if so, to whom can they be returned? In cases of spoliation and restitution, instead of easing tensions, the passage of time seems to exacerbate them. Instead of bringing the parties together, it generates distrust and relentlessness, as evidenced by the countless legal battles, literature, and films sparked in recent years by the restitution of looted works during and after the Second World War.

In the Soviet occupation zone and in the German Democratic Republic, no legal basis or comparable proce­dure for the return of confiscated property has been established or implemented¹², and the return of cultural property to private persons recognized as persecuted by the National Socialist regime occurred only in a few politically motivated exceptions. The theme of restitution is thus put back on the agenda the day after German reunification. On September 23, 1990¹³, the People’s Chamber of the German Democratic Republic passed the Law Regulating Open Property Questions, which applied to the loss of property in the National Socialist era and in German Democratic Republic.

As far as post-communist Romania is concerned, in 1995, ex-president Ion Iliescu passed a law allowing tenants to buy houses nationalized by the communist state at low prices ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 euros, declaring that “Ownership is a whim¹⁴”. This action represents abuse, even more so because former members of the Communist Party and of the political police, the Securitate, lived in these houses. About 200,000 homes were nationa­lized¹⁵ between 1945 and 1989, when Romania came under communist control. The houses were distributed to the families and friends of the leaders, with the officials taking ad­vantage of this situation. Discouraged by the indifference of the authorities, the dispossessed Romanians turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Thus, more than 10,000 complaints have been filed¹⁶. Since Bucharest signed the European Convention on Human Rights in 1994, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, the Romanian state has had to pay approximately 5 billion euros in damages. However, the case is far from over, the former owners have won some 27,000 lawsuits in Romania or Strasbourg, but only 9,000 houses have been returned¹⁷. Another problem is repre­sented by the goods that remained in the looted houses and which, in most cases, were lost, with no chance of ever being recovered or found.

Due to political circumstances, Central and Eastern Europe have been largely excluded from these efforts. In addition, many victims had been unable to file claims for their property during the post-war period. The end of the Cold War was an opportunity for a new beginning.

Research into art looted by tota­litarian regimes concerns, in prin­ciple, all types and sizes of museums. We now find objects formerly in private ownership in many very different national museums: art museums, historical and cultural mu­seums, ethnology museums, natural science collections, technical collec­tions, and small regional and local museums¹⁸. The search for the provenance of works of art looted during the era of National Socialism or during the Communist regime is closely linked to the fates expe­rienced by the owners at the time. Normally, one must examine the origin of all objects entered since the end of the Second World War. If, during a first pass, the searches do not yield any concrete information, each step should be repeated after a certain time to check whether they do not yield new results. Search results can be classified in a uniform way based on the so-called “Provenien-zam­pel¹⁹” (provenance warning signal). By carefully examining an object and consulting historical sour­ces, it is possible to discover ele­ments of its history. When describing these provenance research results later, it is important to present them in a uniform and standardized manner. This means, for example, rigorously documenting the charac­teristics of the object’s provenance, precisely describing changes of hands, and indicating gaps in the documentation or inaccurate infor­mation. Genealogical research is also important, on the one hand, to historically reconstruct personal rela­tions and kinship ties at the time of a possible confiscation and, on the other hand, to identify potential heirs.

The antecedents of spoliation in Romania

The history of private and public collections is strongly contextualized, taking into account the history of Romania, the legislative history of the Romanian space, and the social, political, and international context of Romania. It is a very complex story, with art history being mixed with political history. However, some clichés have been preserved in Romanian historiography. First, there is the cliché of normalization²⁰, which tries to treat the Romanian state in a kind of continuity. This continuity refers to the discourse that affirms that the pre-communist state did everything possible to preserve state collections and private collections, as well as the communist state, which, beyond a violent period, actually continued this work. It is an unfortunate discourse of normalization that must be corrected or nuanced with the help of documents related to the history of the collection.

A second flaw in this predominant historiography is to treat the communist moment, namely the period 1945-1948, as a moment of rupture²¹, of dramatic caesura. In principle, this is so, but the problem is that a lot of nuances have to be made here because, in fact, the abusive practice of limiting private art collections dates from before that time, namely 1947-1948, because in 1946 the National Museums Law was dictated²², which contains many problematic provisions. It is also necessary to analyse the precedents, because the Romanian community of collectors is already troubled, espe­cially in a certain area of it, namely the racial legislation²³ that discri-minates against Romanian citizens of Jewish nationality, legislation that is beginning to take on its full meaning in the end of 1937 and the beginning of 1938. Practically, since this date, more than 200,000 Romanian citizens of Jewish origin have lost their Romanian citizenship. Along with their Romanian citizenship, they often lost their private property²⁴ either by direct confiscation in 1937-1938, if not later, even before Ion Antonescu came to power.

There is also another aspect that is neglected in general and in histo­riography, but especially in art historiography, namely the fact that there is a whole context of pressure from these Romanian citizens without citizenship, because many of them were industrialists, bankers, wealthy citizens who were also art collectors, and some were also patrons. We can think of Max Auschnitt, who had become a sort of patron of the arts, and this trajectory was experienced as a distance with Carol II, to whom he was very close. And he will lose his collection, it will in fact be robbed by the regime of Carol II, so before Antonescu, and his properties were practically con­fiscated by the state, and obviously this area of art that concerned him is also suppressed²⁵. And there is also the transfer or sale by these Romanian citizens at risk under disadvantageous, therefore legally questionable conditions, of its collec­tions. They lose their collections not only of art, but also of cultural objects (piano, silverware, jewellery, etc.).

It is therefore not only the political history of the persecution of these Romanian citizens of Jewish origin but also an area of art history that we must explore in the archives. In recent years, provenance research has been facilitated by databases of several types. Identification is not as straightforward for private collec­tions that have been included in safeguards before being seized by authorities. It is indeed striking to note that very often the archives do not reference the works, sometimes major ones, that constitute these collections, but the boxes that protect them²⁶.

It is therefore a history that is being written, and it is not only a history of the Shoah or anti-Semitic persecutions, but also a history of the arts, of collections that interests us. Consequently, this history must be revealed because it speaks in fact of some precedents prior to the pro-Communist or Communist regime, precedents that also concern the history of private collections or, why not, of museums. This is how new models of museographic practices are established. Art museums were mostly private, later becoming of public utility, but their size is not comparable to that of the first museums created during the communist period²⁷.

1. The anti-Semitic Goga-Cuza government

The official discriminatory policy against the Jews begins with the dictatorial regimes established by Carol II in 1938 and by Ion Antonescu in 1940. The legislative provisions of these regimes were characterized by restrictive and coercive measures, which annulled the rights acquired by the 1923 Constitution²⁸. The discriminatory decisions targeted the Jewish population, but in some situations also other minorities. The laws with racist content have thus introduced the principle of inequality before the law based on religious or ethnic affiliation.

On December 28, 1937, King Carol II charged Octavian Goga to form a new government. On December 30, 1937, the results of the legislative elections were published, which represented a major surprise²⁹. Firstly because no political party won at least 40% of the vote, a situation that demonstrates the serious crisis of the party system. Secondly, there is a strong rise of right-wing and far-right organisations, which obtained almost 25% of the total votes. In these cir­cumstances, King Carol II imposed a governmental formula by forcing the spirit of the Constitution. The Goga government was greeted with hosti­lity by all political forces because of the terrorist methods adopted, violent anti-Semitism, as well as their ideas of getting closer to Nazi Germany and overthrowing decided foreign policy alliances²⁰.

The government has taken measures in the spirit of the program of the National Christian Party³¹: the cancellation of authorizations for free movement on the railways for journalists of Jewish origin, the suspension of newspapers considered to be Jewish, etc. The legionary mo­vement, encouraged by the result ob­tained in December 1937, launched a vast political offensive, determined to obtain the best possible result in the elections of March 1938. On the night of February 10 to 11, 1938, a government was set up in which a state of siege and censorship were decreed throughout the country³². Thus was established the regime of monarchical authority, in which the governments became a kind of quasi-personal cabinets of the sovereign Carol II. In this way, the regime of constitutional monarchy established in 1866 was abolished.

2. Under Antonescu’s regime

From September 1940, Antonescu’s totalitarian state exercised its re­pressive function against the Jewish population through the Ministry of the Interior and the army. While the military authorities had been empo­wered to act based on the laws of war, the role of the Ministry of the Interior was to organize the move­ments of the Jewish population and the labour columns of the civil service, to administer the concen­tration camps, and to make the special police of the Jews. With the support of prefects, mayors, and notaries, the so-called operation of Romanization was to be imple­men­ted³³, consisting of the suppression of the equality of citizens, as well as the expropriation of agricultural, forest, and real estate.

General Antonescu’s statements on the occasion of the expropriation of Jewish properties on March 21, 1941 reflect the way of understand­ding things that have their origin in the doctrine of the extreme right: „The decree for the transfer of Jewish urban properties to State Heritage is a decree aimed at restoring certain historical rights of the Romanian Nation and returning to the national and Christian tradition in the conception of property. The reform we are going through today is an act of reconstruction of Romanian society, which must be established on a secure basis of respect for work and the right of Romanians to control the institutions of Romanian heritage. This decree is, at the same time, the proof of the integration of the Romanian people in the nationalist spirituality that crosses Europe, fixing the future and healthy foundations of the life of the nations. In this new world, the Romanian people do not bring a superficial adaptation, but the sincere tribute of rediscovering the most authentic Romanian past.³⁴” All of this „reform of purification of national assets” followed the suppression of foreign elements, that is to say the sup­pression of the minority of Jewish origin in the language of the time and the elimination of any influence Jewish in the national economy. The spoliation was therefore the preamble to their physical elimination.

3. The pre-communist state

On the other hand, the creation of these museums of public utility is part of the determination of a new socialist regime in which culture no longer belongs ideologically to individuals, but to the whole of the people, culture being a knowledge factor, an education factor. In this way, the paradigm of interpretation and understanding of the cultural factor, and the cultural message is redefined. Of course, the museums created during the years of com­munism were then founded and since then have continued their existence until today, of course, with the support of other political regimes. Therefore, communism not only made them functional, but then they began their existence.

It must be said that the regime before March 6, 1945 or the regime before December 1937 was not at all perfect. Even the law on the organization of libraries and museums, as conceived by the great historian Nicolae Iorga³⁵, was not perfect, but it could be improved, and what must be said is that it has not been applied in all its aspects and in all its details. For this, a good application of the law would have improved the museum network and established clearer rules concerning public and private collections. There­fore, the museum network of bour­geois Romania, of Romania before 1945/1937, practically, before the war, was not very developed, because it barely reached 80 museums³⁶. On the other hand, during the communist period, already in the first decade of communism and a little later, it grew to almost 200 museums³⁷.

Consequently, the communist regime expanded the network of museums as well as their program. This can be considered a gain achieved after the 1945-1948 period. The problem is how this gain was obtained, because if we do a legisla­tive analysis, an analysis regarding these networks of museums and the normative acts that governed the network of museums, we still notice that the intentions of Iorga and his government of 1932 were good and that the law could be improved and could be applied within its framework. This was not done, and, in the end, the law was not applied for several reasons, including finan­cial ones, including the fact that successive governments had different politico-cultural programs and that the changes during these periods were radical³⁸. There have been struggles with the very strong far right. The coming of war also brings instability.

It was therefore decided to change the law, but not by a simple amend­ment, but to be a better normative act and more applicable, because the pro-communist regime wanted to be the one that would enact a founding act in the museum field. In addition, we have to understand who these directors of the arts were imme­diately after March 1945³⁹. It is mainly about Mihail Ralea, professor of psychology and sociology, and his cultural, ideological and political deputy, Octav Livezeanu. This law on the organization of museums is a law specifically dedicated to museums and a law for national museums, but it actually concerns the entire museum network. It is very interesting that we are dealing with two bourgeois characters, Mihail Ralea and Octav Livezeanu, both active in politics as well as in politico-cultural journalism, who were not very linked to the com­munist space, but who assumed a pro-communist orientation as ministers in the Groza government⁴⁰. During the Antonesian period, Ralea had distanced itself from Antonescu’s regime. He had only arrived in Târgu Jiu for 3 months, but enough to come into contact with communist illegality from there, where Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej and the entire leader­ship of the Romanian Communist Party also passed⁴¹.

Thus, it was very easy for Ralea to adapt to the new regime, since he had indeed collaborated with the Communists before August 23, 1944. It should be mentioned that Ralea had internalized this plan of econo­mic and industrial planning, and it shows very clearly in government meetings through the transcripts published in recent years as to who is totally on the side of Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej in the meetings of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Groza government⁴². In the Groza govern­ment, there were big bourgeois like Gheorghe Tătărescu of the Romanian Liberal Party, who opposed Dej’s proposals for industrial planning and economic planning, which would ultimately mean cultural and museum planning Mihai Ralea, the arts minister, is on Dej’s side. This Minister of the Arts has already started working since 1945 at the end of the year on a new museum law, which will no longer be a bill but directly a law which will be published in the official journal with the blessing of King Mihai I⁴³, and it will be a law that deserves to be discussed a little, because it effecti­vely transposes this idea of museum layout, which also partly takes up the Soviet model.

It is a very precise register of cultural objects, movable cultural heritage that belongs to individuals. There were fears, and it was already being talked about that in Romania, after the victory of the communists, an industrial nationalization would take place. This theme is important because industrial nationalization has often been the prelude to real estate nationalization. However, many collectors, as we know, actually had their collections where they lived. We have as an example the great collector Krikor Zambaccian who actually built his last home as a museum, because he had collected a constant number of Romanian and European works of art. Another example may be the collector Simu, whose house was also considered a museum with a collection open to the public. On the other hand, when one sees that an industrial nationalization and a nationalization of furniture will follow, it is natural to think seriously, about what will happen to one’s own art collection. And when the state comes up with a seemingly advanta­geous proposition to keep as owner or as museographer a collector in his own house with his own collection⁴⁴, there is certainly no point in resisting to necessarily keep private property under a new, totalitarian Soviet communist regime, which is likely to approach people with collections and, of course, private companies with hostility.

This law is, therefore, a law pre­paring in a way for the nationali­zation of art. It is not stated in explicit terms, but those who are very familiar with what a Soviet-type regime means can understand. Thus, the most problematic article was Article 7⁴⁵, which provided for this listing of cultural artifacts in private ownership. Moreover, it was affirmed that the state will not enter with boots, but will protect these cultural assets and works of art. However, it is well known that this was no protection. Therefore, if Romania were still a state without the Soviet army, it would still not be so problematic. Nevertheless, this provision becomes problematic when Romania is under Soviet domination and especially when it is governed by communists.

Conclusion

To conclude our first article on the situation of spoliation of property in Romania, it is important to draw attention to the fact that the phenomenon of spoliation did not appear with the establishment of communism, but before the accession of Romania to World War II. The elaboration of a search for provenance around the art collections in the Romanian space therefore has the role of filling the gaps in the historiography where the museums and the dispersed or looted collections have not been the subject of thorough research, also as an expression of our responsibility for the victims of the persecution of totalitarian regimes.

Notes

• DECREE No. 92 of April 19, 1950 nationalizing certain buildings.
• Carolin Lange and Thomas Schmutz (coord.), Recherches de provenance dans les musées : Biens spoliés à l’époque du national-so­cialisme. Principes et introduction à la pratique, https://www.museums.ch/fr/assets/files/dossiers_f/Standards/VMS_Standard_Provenienz_NS Raubgut_F_ Web_neu.pdf.
• Roland Bleiker, „The Politics and Ethics of Relocated Art”, in Australian Journal of International Affairs, 1999, p. 311.
• Andrea Baresel-Brand, Michael Franz, Johannes Gramlich , Jasmin Hartmann, Uwe Hartmann, Matthias Henkel, Michael Henker , Maria Kesting , Jana Kocourek , Susanne Köstering , Katja Lindenau , Gilbert Lupfer , Ilse von zur Mühlen , Maria Obenaus , Johanna Poltermann , Tessa Rosebrock, Ulrike Saß , Michaela Scheibe, Carola Thielecke, David Vuillaume, Markus Walz , Petra Winter, Christoph Zuschlag, Provenance Research Manual to Identify Cultural Property Seized Due to Persecution During the National Socialist Era , German Lost Art Foundation, Berlin, 2019, p. 7.
• Ibidem, p. 9.
• Idem.
• Ibidem, p. 12.
• Patricia Kennedy Grimsted, Legalizing “Compensation” and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory, International Journal of Cultural Property, 2010, p. 2.
• Felicity Bodenstein, Damiana Oţoiu, Eva-Maria Troelenberg, Contested Holdings: Museum Collections in Political, Epistemic and Artistic Processes of Return, Berghahn Books, New York, 2022, p. 13.
• Andrea Baresel-Brand et all, cit., p. 19.
• Ibidem, p. 22.
• Emmanuelle Polack, The Art Market under the Occupation (1940 – 1944), Editions Tallandier, Paris, 2019, p. 17.
• Ibidem 12, p. 18.
• Mirel Bran, Les propriétaires roumains spoliés par les communistes attendent réparation, https://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2013/04/16/les-proprietaires-ro umains-spolies-par-les-communi-stes-attendent-reparation_3160635_3214.html.
• Lavinia Stan, „The Roof over Our Heads: Property Restitution in Romania”, in Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2006, p. 180.
• Idem.
• Idem.
• Mica Gherghescu, „Nazi Looted Art – the Parisian scene”, in The Journal of the Kandinsky Library Summer University, no. 2, 2015, p. 82.
• Ibidem 2, https://www.museums.ch/ fr/assets/files/dossiers_f/Standards/VMS_Standard_Provenienz_NS-Raubgut_F_Web_neu.pdf.
• Vladimir Tismăneanu, Dorin Dobrincu, Cristian Vasile, Comisia prezidențială pentru analiza dictaturii comuniste din România: raport final, Editura Humanitas, București, 2007, p. 63.
• Idem.
• Idem.
• Ibidem, p. 65.
• Cristian Vasile, „Mihail Ralea și câteva repere ale parcursului său biografic sub regimul comunist”, în Anuarul IICCMER, Lucian Vasile, Florin Soare, Constantin Vasilescu (coord.), Secvențe și biografii din comunismul românesc, Vol. XVII, 2022, pp. 111-114.
• Idem.
• Rose Valland, The Art Front: Defense of French Collections (1939-1945), Meeting of National Museums – Grand Palais, Paris, 2014, p. 42.
• Virgil Stefan Nițulescu, Note privind legislația protejării patrimoniului cultural mobil din România, în perioada 1946 – 1989, Muzeul Național, 1999, p.2.
• Ion Mamina, Ion Bulei, Guverne și guvernanți, vol. II, Editura Silex, Bucuresti, 1996, p. 54.
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem, p. 55.
• Ibidem.
• Victor Neumann, Istoria evreilor din România: studii documentare și teoretice, Editura Amarcord, Timișoara, 1996, p. 211.
• ***, „General Antonescu’s declaration on the entry into force of the decree-law for the transfer of Jewish urban properties to the patrimony of the State (March 27, 1941)”, in the volume Anti-Jewish Legislation, p. 132-133.
• Victor Neumann, Istoria evreilor…, p. 212.
• Virgil Stefan Nițulescu, Note privind legislația…, p. 8.
• Ibidem.
• Vladimir Tismăneanu, Dorin Dobrincu, Cristian Vasile, Comisia prezidențială…, p. 66.
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem, p. 68.
• Ibidem, p. 69.
• Ibidem.
• Monica Enache, Arta și metamorfozele politicului: tematica istorică în arta oficială românească între 1944-1965 (pictură, sculptură, grafică), Editura Cetatea de Scaun, Tîrgoviște, 2018, p. 131.
• Virgil Stefan Nițulescu, Note privind legislația protejării patri­moniului cultural mobil din România, în perioada 1946 – 1989, Muzeul Național, 1999, p. 12.

Bibliography

BĂDICĂ, Simina, Curating Communism. A Comparative History of Museological Practices in Post-War (1946-1958) and Post-Communist Romania, doctoral dissertation, CEU, 2014.

BENJAMIN, Lya, Studiu introductiv la volumul Evreii din România între anii 1940-1944, vol. I, Legislația antievreiască, Editura Hasefer, București, 1993.

BODENSTEIN, Felicity, OȚOIU, Damiana, TROELENBERG, Eva-Maria, Contested Holdings: Museum Collections in Political, Epistemic and Artistic Processes of Return, Berghahn Books, New York, 2022.

CARABAȘ, Irina, Realismul socialist cu fața spre trecut : Instituții și artiști în România : 1944-1953, Idea Design & Print, Cluj-Napoca, 2017.

DORLEAC, Bertrand Laurence, L’Art de la défaite (1940-1944), Seuil, Paris, 1993.

ENACHE, Monica, Arta si metamorfozele politicului: tematica istorică în arta oficială românească între 1944-1965 (pictură, sculptură, grafică), Editura Cetatea de Scaun, Tîrgoviște, 2018.

FLORIAN, Alexandru, FLORIAN, Radu, NEUMANN Victor, PETCU, Dionisie, PETCULESCU, Constantin, STOICA, Gh. Lencan, Ideea care ucide: dimensiunile ideologiei legionare, Editura Noua Alternativă, București, 1994.

GRAMA, Emanuela, Socialist Heritage: The Politics of Past and Place in Romania (New Anthropologies of Europe), Indiana University Press, 2019.

MacDONALD, Sharon, Difficult heritage : Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond, New York, Routledge, 2009.

MAMINA, Ion, BULEI, Ion, Guverne și guvernanți, vol. II, Editura Silex, București, 1996.

MOULIN, Raymond, Le Marche de la peinture en France, Minuit, Paris, 1967.

NEUMANN, Victor, Istoria evreilor din România: studii documentare și teoretice, Editura Amarcord, Timișoara, 1996.

OSOKINA, Elena, The Heavenly Blue of Angels’ Vestments: The Fate of Masterpieces of Ancient Russian Religious Art, 1920s-1930s , Moscow, The New Literary Observer, 2018.

OȚOIU, Damiana, Politique et politiques urbaines dans la Roumanie (post)socialiste. Perdants et bénéficiaires des processus de nationalisation et de restitution des immeubles nationalisés, Thèse de Doctorat en sciences politiques et sociales, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 2010.

PELIN, Mihai, Deceniul prăbușirilor (1940-1950). Viețile pictorilor, sculptorilor și arhitecților români între legionari și comuniști, București, Editura Compania, 2005.

POLACK, Emmanuelle, Le Marche de l’art sous l’Occupation (1940 – 1944), Editions Tallandier, Paris, 2019.

POULOT, Dominique, Patrimoine et Musée : l’institution de la culture, Paris, Hachette, 2001.

SAVOY, Bénédicte, Patrimoine annexé. Les biens culturels saisis par la France en Allemagne autour de 1800, 2 vol., préface de Pierre Rosenberg, Paris, 2003.

TISMĂNEANU, Vladimir, DOBRINCU, Dorin, VASILE, Cristian, Comisia prezidențială pentru analiza dictaturii comuniste din România : raport final, Editura Humanitas, București, 2007.

VALLAND, Rose, Le front de l’art : défense des collections françaises (1939-1945), Réunion des musées nationaux -Grand Palais, Paris, 2014.

VASILE, Cristian, Literatura şi artele în România comunistă (1948-1953), București, Editura Humanitas, 2013.

VASILE, Cristian, Politicile culturale comuniste în timpul regimului Gheorghiu-Dej, București, Editura Humanitas, 2013.

VASILE, Cristian, Viaţa intelectuală şi artistică în primul deceniu al regimului Ceauşescu (1965-1974), București, Editura Humanitas, 2015.

WEINER, Annette, Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992.

Andrea Baresel-Brand, Michael Franz, Johannes Gramlich, Jasmin Hartmann, Uwe Hartmann, Matthias Henkel, Michael Henker, Maria Kesting, Jana Kocourek, Susanne Köstering, Katja Lindenau, Gilbert Lupfer, Ilse von zur Mühlen, Maria Obenaus, Johanna Poltermann, Tessa Rosebrock, Ulrike Saß, Michaela Scheibe, Carola Thielecke, David Vuillaume, Markus Walz, Petra Winter, Christoph Zuschlag –Provenance Research Manual to Identify Cultural Property Seized Due to Persecution During the National Socialist Era, German Lost Art Foundation, Berlin, 2019.

Articles

1. BLASEN, Philippe Henri, C. Cuza, German Antisemitism, and the Swastika, Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai – Historia, 2022.
2. BLEIKER, Roland, The Politics and Ethics of Relocated Art, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 1999.
3. FUHRMEISTER,Christian, HOPP, Meike, Rethinking Provenance Research, University of Chicago Press, 2019.
4. KENEDDY GRIMSTED, Patricia, Legalizing “Compensation” and the Spoils of War: The Russian Law on Displaced Cultural Valuables and the Manipulation of Historical Memory, International Journal of Cultural Property, 2010.
5. KENEDDY GRIMSTED, Patricia, The Fate of Ukrainian Cultural Treasures During World War II: The Plunder of Archives, Libraries, and Museums under the Third Reich, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge, Mass, 2012.
6. KENEDDY GRIMSTED, Patricia, Trophies of War and Empire: The Archival Heritage of Ukraine, World War U, and the International Polities of Restitution, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 2001.
7. NIȚULESCU, Virgil Ștefan, Note privind legislația protejării patrimoniului cultural mobil din România, în perioada 1946 – 1989, Muzeul Național, 1999.
8. STAN, Lavinia, The Roof over Our Heads: Property Restitution in Romania, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 2006.
9. TERLAU, Katja, Hildebrand Gurlitt and the Art Trade during the Nazi Period, Vitalizing Memory. International Perspectives on Provenance Research, Washington, American Association of Museums, 2005.
10. UNESCO, Office de l’information du public, Qu’est-ce que : le retour ou la restitution des biens culturels, Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture, Paris, 2018.
11. GHERGHESCU, Mica, Nazi Looted Art – the Parisian scene, in The Journal of the Kandinsky Library Summer University, no.2, 2015.