Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1944, General: Economic and Social Matters, Volume II

840.403/12–2744

Major Mason Hammond, Acting Chief of the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Branch, U.S. Croup Control Council (Germany), to Richard A. Johnson, Third Secretary of the American Embassy in the United Kingdom⁵⁵

26 December 1944.

Dear Johnson: I have read with great interest the copy afforded me by Miss Mull (Roberts Commission) of your Memorandum to the State Department on the Protection, Restitution and Reparation of Objets d’Art and other Cultural Objects, dated 27 [17] Nov. 44. You have presented an extremely clear picture of the present state of the problem and of the issues involved, and there are only two points which I would like to raise.

A. Military Organization

The first is a matter of detail, which you might like to clarify to the Department. Your statement about the military agencies concerned is in general true but might be made more precise in detail. The following represents my understanding of the present situation:

1. The British War Office has:

a. An Adviser on Art and Archaeology, at present Lt. Col. Sir Leonard Woolley, an archaeologist known for his work in Mesopotamian archaeology (Ur of the Chaldees). He also holds the position of the Director of the MFA&A⁵⁶ Branch on the Br Element CC⁵⁷ (below).

b. A civilian Adviser on Archives, Mr. Hilary Jenkinson, of the Records Office,⁵⁸ who works closely with the MFA&A Branch, Br. Element CC (below, par 8–b), but is not, I think, officially attached to it.

c. Neither of the above positions has direct command functions towards operations. They advise on policy which is then promulgated through War Office Command Channels. Naturally in informal consultation they exercise great influence on operations under SHAEF and planning under Br Element CC.

2. The US War Department has in its Civil Affairs Division an Adviser on Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives, Col. Henry C. Newton, an architect, who is at present assigned to SHAEF G–5 Operations Branch and therefore not in a position directly to advise the War Department as Lt. Col. Woolley does the War Office.

3. There is also a US Adviser on Archives, Mr. Fred L. Shipman, of the President’s Library at Hyde Park, who is not, I think, limited to the War Department.

4. The above two US positions are, like their British counterparts, not directly in charge of operations but Col. Newton has been overseas since last summer and Mr. Shipman was with SHAEF for a couple of months this fall so that both have been able informally to influence operations.

5. SHAEF G–5 Division (Civil Affairs/Military Government) has in the Operations Branch an Adviser on Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives, Lt. Col. Geoffrey L. Webb (Br), a professor of the history of architecture in Cambridge University. His Deputy is Capt. Marvin C. Ross (USMCR),⁵⁹ formerly curator in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore. He is responsible for advising the Chief of the Operations Branch on the assignment of MFA&A Specialist Officers and generally on MFA&A Operations under SHAEF. The actual MFA&A Officers are assigned to G–5 Civil Affairs/Military Government staffs at various military levels and receive only technical instructions from the Adviser; their command channel is through the military echelons. The Adviser has furthermore technical direction of MFA&A officers in the SHAEF military missions to the liberated governments in Northwest Europe.

6. The Allied Commission in Italy has a Subcommission for Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives under Major Ernest T. DeWald (US), professor of Fine Arts in Princeton University. This combines the functions of a policy-forming body with the direction of MFA&A operations and officers both as respects military formations and as respects civil affairs formations in the non-military areas.

7. The British Civil Affairs Staff for Greece includes at least one MFA&A Specialist Officer but no US MFA&A Officer, though some US Officers are included.

8. The Control Council for Germany⁶¹ contains:

a. In the US Group CC, a Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Branch in the Reparation, Deliveries, and Restitution Division, at present under Major Mason Hammond, professor of Greek, Latin, and History in Harvard University.

b. In the Br Element CC, a Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Branch, at present in the Interior Division and under Lt. Col. Sir Leonard Woolley (above 1–a), who is expected to be promoted to full Colonel.

c. The Control Council for Germany is not under Supreme Headquarters AEF (SHAEF) but is under the Supreme Commander, AEF (SCAEF). This means that it has no command functions, or even technical functions, relative to MFA&A Operations during SHAEF control of the US/UK Zone in Germany except for the control of German ministries in Berlin, where it will act as go-between for the Supreme Commander vis-à-vis the ministries. It is however advisory to SHAEF.

d. The British Branch expects that when the Control Council is established it will not only be a policy forming and control body, in conjunction with its US and USSR opposite numbers, but also will act as technical directing Hqs. for the MFA&A operations in the Br Zone. The present US thinking seems to be that the US Group CC will not “operate” military government in the US Zone but that there will be a Zone Hqs., which will presumably have a G–5 (Military Government) Division to advise the Zone Commander on military government and have technical direction thereof. Such a staff would have to include MFA&A officers in addition to those attached to lower military government formations. However, the distinction between the US Group CC and the G–5 Staff for the US Zone has not yet been explicitly drawn.

9. The Allied Council for Austria⁶¹ contains:

a. In the US Element, a position still unfilled for a MFA&A Officer.

b. In the Br Element, an MFA&A Branch at present under S/Ldr J. D. Goodison (RAF),⁶² formerly of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge.

c. While the planning for the Austrian AC is being done in London, presumably under the command of SCAEF, the operations will probably take place initially under AFHQ but presumably independent of the AC in Italy.

d. The British expect that since the US at present has no Zone in Austria, the US MFA&A Officer will be at most advisory on the policy level while the Br Branch will both act at the Control Council Level and operate in the Br Zone, without the assignment of officers to lower military government formations.

10. I have set the above forth in considerable detail to indicate that any general policy for military aspects of MFA&A throughout areas for which the US and UK are at present responsible must come from the top level, the Combined Chiefs of Staff. Even a policy applicable for Germany alone must come from a level capable of issuing instructions both to SHAEF and to the US Group CC and the Br Element CC, presumably not lower than the Supreme Commander, AEF, in Phase I of control and than [then?] the Tripartite CC in Phase II.

11. It is my impression that to date little policy has emanated from Washington on this matter save for the incorporation of the views of the Roberts Commission in the EAC draft directive on the Control of Works of Art and Monuments in Germany by the participation in its drafting of Mr. Francis H. Taylor, at that time representing the Roberts Commission in London. Presumably the Roberts Commission was again consulted before this draft was approved in Washington by the JCS.⁶³ Because of the more immediate contact between the Br War Office and the Adviser on MFA&A SHAEF and the Br Element CC, the major policy decisions have been largely British. This tendency has been helped by what I believe to have been an informal understanding in SHAEF that the direction of MFA&A operations in Northwest Europe would be British during the SHAEF period. Actually, however, there is little disagreement that I can find on fundamental policy between the US view, as represented by Mr. Taylor and the EAC (JCS) Directive, and the Br view as represented in papers and conversations emanating from their various MFA&A representatives.

B. Restitution Commission

The second is a matter of general policy on which I gather that no detailed planning has been done, namely the organizations and functions of the possible United Nations Restitution Committee to which you refer on p. 3 [sic], III—b—iii.

1. As you probably know, the paper therein referred to has been submitted to the EAC. No specific reference is made in it to works of art and other cultural materials. Presumably this matter would be given to a subcommission, whose chairman would be a member of the general commission.

2. The relation of such a Commission to the Tripartite CC is not defined in the proposal. So far as I can judge from what little I have heard, present thinking is that such bodies should be under the Tripartite Control Council, not outside of it. In that case it is possible that the heads of the respective MFA&A Branches would serve on the MFA&A Subcommission as national representatives. It is my personal opinion that a Restitution Commission would be in a better position if outside of the Tripartite CC, meeting in Paris, London, or elsewhere, and not in Germany, and authorized to issue instructions to, and receive information from, the Tripartite CC. Its representatives would go to Germany on approval of the CC to identify loot, receive delivery of objects to be restored, etc. In this case, the US Representative on the MFA&A Subcommission should be different from the Head of the MFA&A Branch, US Group CC, and should presumably have a State Department status. My opinion on this will be influenced by the ultimate decision whether US Group CC has operational responsibilities in the US Zone or not (above A–8–d). However, even if it does not, I would feel that the international discussions should take place outside of Germany and independently of the actual control machinery which puts the decisions into effect. It would seem to me that diplomatic agreement between the several nations for the creation of such a commission would place it on a level superior to, rather than under, the Tripartite CC, which, in a certain sense, becomes the government of Germany and must in some sense have its own diplomatic relations with other countries. However, I can see arguments for the other position, that of making all such Commissions as the proposed Restitution Commission part of the Tripartite CC.

3. In this connection it might be noted that at present there are French, Belgian, and Dutch MFA&A Officers operating under SHAEF on assignment to G–5 staffs of lower military formations. For the Control Council period, the Br MFA&A Branch has recommended that these officers be continued at lower levels in the Zones. The A/Deputy of the US Group CC instructed this Branch not to recommend at this time any status for them. It is possible that they might become national representatives on a MFA&A Subcommission if this is part of a Restitution Commission under Tripartite CC.

4. It should be pointed out that it would be quite possible for an MFA&A Subcommission to be divided into two or three panels, meeting in different places, and concerned respectively with problem of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and perhaps of the Balkans and Mediterranean. This would fit in with your discussion on pp. 5–6.

5. I would like to support your feeling (pp. 6–7, par. 9–d) that even though the US has relatively slight interest in the actual restitution of works of art looted from US citizens, it has an interest in the general problem, to my mind for three reasons:

a. Its responsibilities for the US Zone and for the care for and turning over in good condition of loot therein.

b. Its general responsibility to participate in the European settlement in order that its great contribution to the winning of the war may not again be wasted.

c. The publicity which will attach to the restitution of looted works of art and the unfavorable impression which will be created towards the US in the minds of other nations if we refuse to do our share.

Mason Hammond

55. Copy transmitted to the Department in despatch 20074, December 27, 1944, from London; received January 6, 1945.
56. Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives.
57. British Element, Control Council, Germany.
58. Public Records Office.
59. United States Marine Corps Reserve.
61. See the Roberts Commission Report, pp. 123–125.
61. See the Roberts Commission Report, pp. 123–125.
62. Royal Air Force.
63. Joint Chiefs of Staff.