In recent years, the debate over the restitution of artworks stolen during the Second World War has taken on a central role in European cultural politics.
Germany, in particular, is at the center of much controversy, due to the obvious role it played during the Nazi period in looting or underselling by citizens fleeing the regime, or forced to give in.
For some years it has found itself in a delicate position, caught between international pressure to render justice to the legitimate owners and the complaints of a growing nationalist current that questions restitutions as an act of weakness.
The phenomenon of restitutions is in fact intertwined with the growing historical nostalgia of some sectors of German society, which see the reaffirmation of the national artistic heritage as a way to redeem the country’s cultural identity. In this context, the restitution of stolen works can become a political issue, exploited by movements that claim a glorious past and that see the continuous historical revision as a threat to national cohesion.
Following the recent election results in Germany, this dispute is likely to escalate.
As is well known, during the Second World War, Nazi raids had a devastating impact on the cultural heritage of many countries. While Germany took significant steps to return stolen works from Jews and other victims of the regime, the issue becomes more complicated when it comes to assets that belonged to states or public institutions.
A significant example is the return of the painting “Vaso di Fiori” by Jan van Huysum to the Galleria Palatina in Florence in 2019. The work had been stolen by German troops during their retreat from the city in 1944.
In 1940, at the beginning of the Second World War, the Pitti Palace was evacuated and the works of art, including the “Flower vase”, were placed in wooden crates and initially taken to the Medici villa of Poggio a Caiano. In 1943 they were moved to the Bossi-Pucci villa in Montagnana (Montespertoli), until soldiers of the retreating German army took them along with other works and temporarily transferred them to Castel Giovo (San Leonardo in Passiria), in the province of Bolzano, to prepare for their final transfer outside the national border through the Brenner Pass.
The crate containing the “Floweer vase” from Palazzo Pitti was opened, and in July 1944 a corporal who had taken possession of the painting sent it as a gift to his wife in Halle an der Saale, Germany.
For decades it was the subject of negotiations between Italy and Germany. Finally returned in 2019, and it was welcomed as a symbol of historical justice, but it also reignited the debate on the need to return other works still held in German museums.
Another example is the restitution of the painting “Berlin Street Scene” by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, confiscated by the Nazis and later returned to the heirs of the collector Alfred Flechtheim. Despite the decision, there was strong resistance from German institutions such as the Brücke Museum in Berlin, which tried to prevent its restitution by invoking the legal statute of limitations.
The paradox is that Kirchner considered himself a deeply nationalist, and shared the idea that “museums are full of Jews”.
He wrote: “I founded Die Brücke in particular to promote authentic German art, which had matured in Germany. Now my art should be non-German“. However, the National Socialists classified his work, which highlighted the decline of a society on the brink, as degenerate art.
In all cases, including this one, the return of artistic and historical artefacts to their countries of origin has often been accompanied by a heated internal debate. Sections of German politics and public opinion, including members of the center-right CDU party, see the restitutions as a submission to foreign interests, while others consider them a moral and historical duty.
Culture and cultural heritage do not play an irrelevant role, on the contrary.
The phenomenon is part of a broader context of nationalist awakening, which sees the protection of German cultural heritage as a symbol of identity and, at times, a tool of propaganda.
Another emblematic case is the restitution of the Benin Bronzes to Nigeria in 2022. The Benin Bronzes were produced roughly between the 15th and 19th centuries, and were looted by the British army in 1897 in what was then the Kingdom of Benin, later transformed into a protectorate of the British Empire and currently part of Nigeria.
The decision to return them was welcomed by the international community, and has triggered a virtuous circle. For example, just a few days ago, after the Smithsonian, the Netherlands also announced that they will return 119 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria.
But it has also sparked criticism from members of the German right. The far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which obtained over 20% in the recent elections, called these restitutions “an unjustified loss for Germany”, accusing the government of “giving in to globalist pressure” and compromising the national heritage.
While some German museums are actively working with experts to identify and return the assets, others are resisting, citing the statute of limitations or the lack of definitive evidence of illicit provenance. This dynamic is part of a broader debate on the legacy of the Nazi past and the image of Germany in the world.
The issue of art restitutions in Germany is therefore much more than a simple act of justice: it represents a meeting point between historical memory, national identity and contemporary political dynamics.
The challenge for Germany and Europe is to find a balance between acknowledging the injustices of the past and building a future in which culture is an instrument of reconciliation and not division. Unfortunately, given the recent election results, the road seems more uphill than ever.
