Perhaps it's bad that I feel the need to open this post with a disclaimer: In absolutely no way am I defending the political situation in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s with this post.
Just reading in the paper about a painting in the National Gallery of Victoria. Apparently, it has been positively linked back to the collection of a German industrialist Richard Semmel who fled german in 1933 and sold his artworks in Amsterdam. Apparently, the heirs to his estate are tracking down his collection and trying to get them back because they were sold off under stress. I just wonder what is the possible justification for that action in quasi-legal terms. The paintings were not stolen from him, at least that's not stated in the newspaper story. Yes, he was under stress but he did sell them and no doubt used the money to fund his move to the USA.
One of my great grandfather's owned all the property/shops on one side of Sandgate Road at Albion in Brisbane. But he had to sell them during the depression, no doubt under stress. I'm sure that I have no ability to go and claim back that property because he was forced to sell due to the circumstances of the time.
Anyway, I'm puzzled that his heirs can do what they are doing. Am I looking at this wrong or something?
I'm also struck by the situation of the heirs as well. Semmel actually died childless. The heirs are actually the descendants of his companion after the death of his wife. Sure they're the heirs to his estate, but I also wonder about their connection to the art collection.