Akcja rewindykacyjna w latach 1945-1950 : spór o terminologię czy o istotę rzeczy

• Authors: Karecka Lidia M.

Title variants

EN

THE RECOVERY CAMPAIGN OF 1945-1950. A DEBATE CONCERNING TERMINOLOGY OR THE ISSUE AT STAKE

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

EN

The name of the campaign conducted by the Ministry of Culture and Art behind the front line in Silesia, Pomerania, Austria and Germany comes from revindicatio - the recovery of lost property, a term subsequently replaced by restitution - from restitutio in integrum - the right to restore the previous state of things, applied in international law to describe the restoration of property illegally seized during wartime. The Bureau for Recovery and Compensation of the Head Office of Museums and the Protection of Historical Monuments at the Ministry of Culture and Art, directed by Władysław Tomkiewicz, delegated numerous persons to search for Polish cultural property plundered by the Nazis. Frequently concealed in various caches in Silesia, Pomerania, Austria and Germany, it was discovered thanks to the information collected already during the war by workers of the Underground Polish state, commissioned by the Delegature of the government-in-exile. The outcome of this undertaking included salvaging not only part of Polish cultural property but also historical monuments from different scattered collections, originating from other countries occupied by the Germans as well as property appropriated by the Nazis after 1933 from citizens of Jewish descent and German private owners and institutions. The systemic transformations which took place after the second world war involved land reform and the seizure of historical monuments by the authorities from their former owners. The reclaiming campaign also encompassed cultural property brought over from Vilno and Lvov together with the displaced local Polish population. All the objects salvaged and discovered in this matter were included into museum collections. The obtaining of historical monuments by Polish museums due to the recovery campaign was the reason why up to this very day they are described as “recovered from...” . The application of this term in relation to exhibits of such diverse origin is incorrect, and their status was improperly defined by numerous members of the museum staff. Despite the fact that upon the basis of Polish law, founded on international negotiations, monuments o f German origin became state property, they were not treated as museum property and their status was regarded as temporary and undefined. Works of art listed in museum registers and originating from landed estates were treated as museum belongings. Neither Polish collectors or persons of nationalities other than Polish lost their ownership rights as a result of salvaging works of art in the course of the recovery campaign. The above described undertakings considerably increased the collections of certain Polish museums, and up to this very day the problem of recovery gives rise to intense emotions. For representatives of Wrocław or Gdansk the concept of “reclaiming” denotes bringing back monuments from Warsaw to the place of their origin. This attitude towards, e.g. the National Museum in Warsaw ignores legal regulations and does not take into consideration the recovery campaign, its course and purpose. The only possible compromise would be exhibition co-operation or the execution of conservation copies so that Polish museum galleries could continue to fulfil their statutory functions.

• Publisher: Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
• Journal: Ochrona Zabytków
• Year: 2002
• Issue: 3-4
• Pages: 404-409

Dates

published

2002

Contributors

author

Karecka Lidia M.

• kustosz, Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie

References

• Wielka Encyklopedia PWN, t. 9, Warszawa 1966, s. 807.
• W. Kowalski, Likwidacja skutkow II wojny światowej w dziedzinie kultury, Warszawa 1994, s. 15.
• S. Lorentz, Muzea i zbiory w Polsce, 1945-1955, Warszawa 1956, s. 52;
• J. Gębczak, Losy ruchomego mienia kulturalnego i artystycznego na Dolnym Śląsku w czasie 2 wojny światowej. Wrocław 2000, s. 34.
• W. Kowalski. Restytucja dziel sztuki, Katowice 1993.
• R. Olkowski, Losy wileńskich dobr kultury po II wojnie światowej, mps.
• M. Matwijow, Walka o lwowskie dobra kultury w latach 19451948, Wrocław 1996, s. 334,
• M. Matwijow, Muzea lwowskie w latach 1939-1945 i sprawa ich rewindykacji przez Polskę po II wojnie światowej, „Muzealnictwo” , 1997, nr 39, s. 18-28.
• S. Brzostowski, Wystawy dziel sztuki zabezpieczonych przez ZSRR. Warszawa 1956.
• S. Nahlik, Grabież dziel sztuki, rodowod zbrodni międzynarodowej, Wrocław 1958, s. 60-68 oraz 302-310;
• S. Brzostowski, Polskie skarby narodowe w Kanadzie, „Biuletyn Informacyjny Zarządu Muzeow” , 1959, nr 21, s. 67-75.
• Walka o dobra kultury’, red. S. Lorentz, 1.1. Warszawa 1970, s. 22.
• S. Zwoliński, Stanowisko Rządu Polskiego na obczyźnie i działalność Delegatury Krajowej w zakresie przejęcia i zagospodarowania Ziem Postulowanych w czasie wojny, (w:) Ziemie Odzyskane pod wojskową administracją radziecką po II wojnie światowej pod red. S. Łacha, Słupsk 2000, s. 2 0 -2 1.
• M. Karpowicz, W. Tomkiewicz 1899-1982, „Biuletyn Historii Sztuki” , 45, 1983, nr l ,s . 105.
• J. Pruszyński, Dziedzictwa kultury Polski, jego straty i ochrona prawna, Krakow 2001, t. II, s. 58.
• J. Pruszyński, Ochrona zabytkow w Polsce, Warszawa 1989. s. 139.
• W. Stępniak, Misja Adama Stebelskiego. Rewindykacja archiwaliów polskich z Niemiec w latach 1945-1947, Warszawa 1989.
• W. Kowalski, Działalność restytucyjna Karola Estreichera po zakończeniu II wojny światowej,', „Muzealnictwo” , 1988, nr 31, s. 3-12.
• Walka o dobra kultury, red. S. Lorenz, t. II, s. 334 i n.
• S. Nahlik. op. cit., s. 289-294; J. Pruszyński, Ochrona zabytkow..., s. 137 i n.
• M. Łach, Status prawny komendantur wojennych Armii Czerwonej na Ziemiach Zachodnich i Połnocnych Polski w 1945 r. (w:) Ziemie..., s. 86.
• ks. S. Bogdanowicz, Dzieła sztuki sakralnej Bazyliki Mariackiej w Gdańsku, Gdańsk 1990.

Identifiers

ISSN

0029-8247