Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Updating Records of Nazi Art Looting from an Art Dealer’s Archive: A Case Study from Gustav Cramer’s Archive at the Getty

2019; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 11; Linguagem: Inglês

10.1086/702754

2329-1249

Isabella Zuralski-Yeager,

Art, Politics, and Modernism

Previous articleNext article FreeUpdating Records of Nazi Art Looting from an Art Dealer’s Archive: A Case Study from Gustav Cramer’s Archive at the GettyIsabella Zuralski-YeagerIsabella Zuralski-YeagerPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe Getty Research Institute holds the records of the G. Cramer Oude Kunst gallery in The Hague, Netherlands, which was active from 1938 until approximately 2007.1 The gallery’s correspondence and financial files from the time of World War II document dealings with Nazi agents and other art dealers known for engagement in trade with the Nazis. The gallery records are believed to be complete.2 The owner of the gallery, Gustav Cramer (1881–1961), came from a family of Jewish art dealers in Kassel, Germany. After World War I, he moved to Berlin, where he worked at the renowned Van Diemen gallery, in charge of the Old Masters section, and in 1933 he opened his own gallery there. After being expelled from the Reichskammer der bildenden Künste (Reich Chamber of Visual Arts) owing to anti-Semitic laws, he moved to the Netherlands and reopened the gallery in The Hague in 1938.3With the occupation of the Netherlands in 1940, German authorities in The Hague advised Cramer to protect himself and his family from deportation by registering the gallery under the name of his son, Hans Max Cramer, who, according to Nazi racial laws, was not considered Jewish. In Nazi terminology, the gallery was “aryanized.”4In the late 1930s, during the period the Cramer family moved to The Hague, the art trade in the Netherlands was still suffering from years of depression after World War I and was also being hurt by the rise of Nazism due to the restrictions put on export of German currency. The trade with Germany slowed further after the outbreak of war in 1939, but the incorporation of the Netherlands into the economy of the Third Reich in May of 1940 brought prosperity to the Dutch art market. Lynn Nicholas describes this development in her groundbreaking book The Rape of Europa: “German government officials suddenly had access to millions of guilders in occupation money … all exchange restrictions were lifted on the reichsmark so that buying in Holland did not consume precious foreign currency,” and, due to limitations imposed on monetary transfers outside of Nazi-controlled territories, “art soon became a major factor in the economy as everyone with cash, from black marketers to Hitler, sought to invest in safe assets.”5 The art trade in the Netherlands picked up rapidly. Between 1940 and 1943, prices soared, not only for paintings by renowned Old Masters and the Romantic School but also for lesser-quality artworks.6 Art dealers, auctioneers, museum directors, and private buyers from Germany flooded the art market in the Netherlands with cash and were soon joined by Dutch collectors, dealers, and auction houses. Several agents acted on behalf of Adolf Hitler, Hermann Göring, and other high-ranking Nazi officials to make purchases through German and Dutch art dealers representing private sellers who frequently preferred their transactions with the Nazis to remain anonymous.One of the high-level Nazi agents was the German art historian Erhard Göpel, who acted on behalf of the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Dutch Territories in The Hague, where he was in charge of the Special Board for Exchange of Cultural Objects. Göpel was commissioned to explore the Dutch art market by Hans Posse, director of the Dresden Gemäldegalerie and, from 1939 until his death in 1942, in charge of purchases for Hitler’s planned art museum in Linz, Austria, the Sonderauftrag Linz.7 Cramer’s wartime correspondence and financial files detail several transactions in which he acted as an agent between private sellers and Posse and Göpel as well as Walter Andreas Hofer, who was Göring’s chief confidential operator and curator at Göring’s private art collection, Carinhall.8 Cramer also engaged in business dealings with the German art dealers Karl Haberstock, Hans W. Lange, Julius Böhler, Vitale Bloch, and Heinz Steinmeyer, among others, who were all involved in sales intended for the Linz museum and to other Nazi officials.9After the war, many artworks and other cultural objects that had been confiscated or purchased by the Nazis from European museums and private collections were collected by the Munich Central Collecting Point, a collection center for art set up by the American Allied Forces’ Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Service in Munich, Germany. The objects were identified, photographed, and returned to their countries of origin.10 The final report compiled in 1946 by the Art Looting Investigation Unit of the U.S. War Department’s Office of Strategic Services lists Cramer among the art dealers who sold to Linz.11 Cramer’s involvement in purchases for the Linz museum is documented in inventory cards of the Linz Collection, which were compiled between 1945 and 1948 at the Munich Central Collecting Point. In 2008, the inventory cards were made available to the public in a collaborative effort of the Deutsches Historisches Museum, the Bundesamt für zentrale Dienste und offene Vermögensfragen (Federal Office for Central Services and Unresolved Property Issues), and other institutions in Germany, through an online database that combined the general inventory of the Munich Central Collecting Point with the inventory of the Sonderauftrag Linz.12 Artworks that were designated for the Sonderauftrag Linz have been assigned a Linz Collection number as well as a Munich Central Collecting Point inventory number. The search for Cramer’s name in the database for the Linz Collection retrieves records for twenty-eight paintings.The following comparison of Cramer gallery files on sales of paintings by Nicolaes Maes and Jan Steen to Nazi agents with data currently available online through the Linz Collection database is intended to explore the research potential of Cramer’s archive for a critical review of the inventory cards and to establish its significance for provenance research of artworks looted by the Nazis. After addressing the Maes and Steen paintings, a few additional examples of the gallery’s wartime invoices are discussed, providing additional evidence of the Cramer archive’s significance and research potential.Between February and June 1942, Cramer corresponds with Göpel, Posse, and an intermediary agent named Ernst Lemberger, a banker from Amsterdam, regarding the purchase for the Linz museum of a painting by Nicolaes Maes, which an undisclosed seller was urgently seeking to sell, asking for the price of 80,000 gulden. In February, Cramer writes to Posse, “Die Angelegenheit ist dieses Mal sehr eilig” (this time the sale is urgent). In the same letter, Cramer identifies the painting as number 54 in Hofstede de Groot’s 1915 catalogue raisonné of Maes and number 65 in W. Martin’s 1923 catalog of the Janssen collection (fig. 1).13Fig. 1. Nicolaes Maes (Dutch, 1634–93). Vieille femme écrivant (Old Woman Writing), from the collection of Baron L. Janssen in Brussels. From W. Martin, Catalogue de la collection de peintures du Baron Janssen à Bruxelles (Brussels: G. van Oest, 1923), 65.Based on the information in Cramer’s records, the Maes painting in question is Vieille femme écrivant (Old Woman Writing) from the collection of Baron L. Janssen in Brussels. In Cramer’s opinion, “es ist wirklich ein erstklassiges Stück” (it is a truly first-class piece).14 In another letter to Posse, Cramer writes that the owner “ist besonders ungeduldig” (is very impatient) and warns Posse that if he further delays his visit to the Netherlands, the painting may be sold to someone else.15 Cramer’s letters to Lemberger also testify to Göpel’s direct involvement in the purchase. In May 1942, Cramer informs Lemberger that instead of Posse, who was ill, Göpel will view the Maes painting at Lemberger’s house in Amsterdam.16 Soon after, Cramer arranges a meeting between Göpel and the Dutch banker J. Schülein, from the bank Gebr. Teixeira de Mattos, to view the Maes painting at Lemberger’s house.17 A receipt from Cramer dated 30 May 1942 is addressed to both Posse and Göpel, and it confirms the sale of the Maes painting to Posse for 78,000 gulden as well as Lemberger’s role as an intermediary.18 In June 1942, Cramer informs Göpel that he can now view the Maes painting at the house of Lemberger at de Lairessestraat 129 in Amsterdam-Zuid, and that someone will bring the painting to that location and pick it up after viewing.19 Another letter from Cramer from June, addressed to the wife of Lemberger, confirms the sale price of 78,000 gulden and Cramer’s commission of 3,900 gulden (fig. 2).20Fig. 2. Letter from Gustav Cramer to the wife of Ernst Lemberger, 9 June 1942. Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, 2001.M.5, box 7, folder 10.The letters Cramer exchanged with Posse, Göpel, and Lemberger detail the mediating process between an undisclosed seller and Nazi agents purchasing for Linz. The Maes painting is listed in the Linz Collection database (Linz no. 2412) as Die alte Beschliesserin (The Old Housekeeper). The Linz online record identifies it as a purchase from J. J. M. Chabot from Scheveningen for 18,000 reichmark, delivered by Cramer; however, Göpel’s involvement in the sale of the Maes is not recorded.21 The Munich Central Collecting Point database lists the same Maes painting (Munich no. 3531) as Old Woman Reading. The digitized inventory card from the Munich Central Collecting Point does not mention Göpel, but the online record shows Göpel’s name added in parentheses with a question mark (figs. 3a–c). The above described correspondence from the Cramer archive shows that Göpel not only was informed about the sale but also viewed the painting at Lemberger’s house; therefore, he personally took part in the purchase process.Figs. 3a, 3b. Munich Central Collecting Point original handwritten and online records for the painting by Nicolaes Maes.Fig. 3c. Linz Collection database online record for the painting by Nicolaes Maes.The transaction involving the painting Das liebeskranke Mädchen (The Lovesick Maiden) by Jan Steen provides another example of the value of the Cramer archive. The painting is recorded in the Linz Collection database (Linz no. 2753) and the Munich Central Collecting Point database (Munich no. 4303) as delivered by Cramer in 1943, but the name of the previous owner is stated as unknown, and the sale price is not listed.22 The Cramer business files contain additional information. In a letter to Göpel from 6 November 1942, Cramer provides a detailed bibliography and provenance information regarding the Steen painting, and also identifies the painting’s owners and sellers as Karl Danzer and Carl-Emil Wessel from the firm Struwe & Co. in Hamburg (figs. 4a, 4b).23 The sale of the Steen painting, for 125,000 gulden to Göpel by Danzer and Wessel as joint owners, is confirmed in Göpel’s undated handwritten draft for a sales statement, as well as in a letter sent by Struwe & Co. to Cramer on 1 March 1943 (fig. 5).24 The letters and Göpel’s note thus reveal the names of the sellers and the sales price, supplementing the records for the Steen painting in the two online databases (figs. 6a–c).Figs. 4a, 4b. Recto and verso of letter from Gustav Cramer to Erhard Göpel, 6 November 1942. Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, 2001.M.5, box 7, folder 12.Fig. 5. Undated handwritten note by Erhard Göpel regarding the sale of the painting Das liebeskranke Mädchen (The Lovesick Maiden) by Jan Steen from Struwe & Co. in Hamburg. Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, 2001.M.5, box 8, folder 5.Figs. 6a, 6b. Munich Central Collecting Point handwritten and online records for the painting by Jan Steen.Figs. 6c. Linz Collection database online record for the painting by Jan Steen.In his letters contained in his business files, Cramer often describes the paintings offered for sale, provides references to catalogues raisonnés, and includes the negotiated price for completed sales. In 1942 alone, Cramer offered Göpel paintings by Jan Wijnants, Jan van Scorel, Canaletto, Francesco Guardi, Jacob van Ruisdael, Jan Steen, Paulus Potter, Cornelis Troost, and Gabriel Metsu. However, only the painting by Steen is listed in the Linz Collection database as delivered by Cramer. In the case of a painting by Van Ruisdael, to which Cramer refers as Mühlen-Bild (mill painting) and identifies the artwork through references to Hofstede de Groot and Rosenberg, it remains unknown if it was sold to Linz. Cramer offered the painting to Göpel for the price of 75,000 gulden,25 but it is not listed in the Linz Collection database under paintings delivered by Cramer, nor under paintings by Van Ruisdael sold to Linz. It is also not listed under the artist’s name in the Munich Central Collecting Point database. Whether the paintings by Canaletto, Guardi, Metsu, Van Scorel, Potter, Van Ruisdael, Troost, and Wijnants offered by Cramer to Göpel in 1942 were indeed sold to Linz remains to be investigated.Several other transactions can be substantiated with carbon copies of invoices found in the Cramer archive. Some of these invoices are addressed to Göpel, either directly or indirectly in his role as the commissioner for the Linz museum, and document sales of paintings by Nicolaes Berchem, Domenico Fetti, Joris van der Haagen, Paulus Moreelse, Caspar Netscher, Adrian van Ostade, Jan Pietersz Schoef, Jan Steen, David Teniers the Younger, Adriaen van de Velde, and Adriaen van de Venne. These invoices typically do not mention the name of the seller or merely state that the painting in question was privately owned without disclosing the seller’s name. The absence of individual sellers’ names suggests that these were forced sales—a Nazi looting practice of forcing Jewish owners to sell desirable property far under market value.26 Surprisingly, one of the invoices in the archive does identify the seller. In July 1944, a Mrs. Prick from The Hague sold from her collection a painting referred to as Bildnis eines jungen Mannes (Portrait of a Young Man) for 15,000 gulden.27 The painting is listed in the Linz Collection and Munich Central Collecting Point databases as Bildnis eines Jünglings als David (Portrait of a Young Man as David) by Domenico Feti [Fetti] (Linz no. 3780, Munich no. 8420), and the records indicate that it was sold by Mrs. Prick from The Hague and delivered by Cramer.28 The corresponding invoice found in the Cramer archive supplements the record in the Linz Collection database by providing information about the sales price (fig. 7).Fig. 7. Invoice for a painting by Domenico Feti [Fetti] sold to Linz by Mrs. Prick of The Hague. Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, 2001.M.5, box 333, folder 7.The invoices for sales intended for the Linz museum found in Cramer’s archive confirm that the paintings they address were indeed sold on the wartime Dutch art market. Furthermore, they shed light on Cramer’s role in the business transactions. On the invoice for the above-mentioned painting by Fetti, Cramer writes: “Ich vermittelte Ihnen …” (I mediated for you), whereas on the invoice for a painting by Claes Pietersz Berchem, he refers to himself as the commissioned buyer: “Ich kaufte in Ihrem Auftrage” (Commissioned by you I purchased).29 According to the invoices, in some cases Cramer served as a mediator and in others as a purchasing agent, whereas in the Linz Collection database his function is uniformly defined as Einlieferung, a term that suggests merely delivery. Therefore, the Linz invoices in the Cramer gallery files provide more nuanced information about Cramer’s involvement with the Nazis and shed light on the various strategies the German government used when engaging third parties to facilitate business deals. In an interview recorded at the Getty Center in 2004, Gustav Cramer’s son, Hans Max Cramer, stated that the undisclosed sellers were not always paid and that the invoices his father signed served merely as a disguise for forced sales.30 The Linz invoices in the Cramer archive are therefore evidence of Nazi art looting and have historic significance.All but one of the invoices addressed to the Linz museum are for artworks accounted for in the Linz Collection database. The invoice with objects unaccounted for addresses five eighteenth-century French and Dutch silver objects, which were sold to the Linz museum with Cramer’s involvement on 26 June 1944.31 One of the line items is identified as a pair of silver tureens from the time of Louis XVI, by a silversmith named Zondag from Rotterdam. Another set of spoons and forks from approximately 1780 is identified only by the initials W. S. and S. S. and the coat of arms of the Dutch city of Nijmegen. The remaining objects are by unidentified artists. The silver objects are not indexed under Cramer’s name in the Linz Collection database. In addition to prices, the invoice provides detailed descriptions of the objects, and it may turn out to be an important lead in establishing the identity and provenance of the objects, as well as their current location (fig. 8).Fig. 8. Invoice for the sale of five eighteenth-century French and Dutch silver objects to Linz, dated 26 June 1944. Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, 2001.M.5, box 333, folder 7.Also present in the archive are invoices addressed directly to Hans Posse at the Gemäldegalerie in Dresden. One example is the invoice dated 18 July 1940, for the sale of a Portrait of a Man by Lorenzo Lotto, a View of la Dogana in Venice by Francesco Guardi, and two pendant paintings by Jacopo Amigoni (fig. 9).32Fig. 9. Invoice dated 18 July 1940 for the sale of a portrait of a man by Lorenzo Lotto, a view of la Dogana in Venice by Francesco Guardi, and two pendant paintings by Jacopo Amigoni. Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, 2001.M.5, box 5, folder 9.Cramer’s 1940 correspondence with Posse concerns the acquisition and shipping of these paintings to Dresden, revealing his mediating role in the process. While the two Amigoni paintings and the painting by Guardi are listed in both the Linz Collection and Munich Central Collecting Point databases as delivered by Cramer,33 there is a discrepancy regarding Cramer’s involvement in the sale of the painting by Lotto (Munich no. 4378, Linz no. 1314) between the two sets of records. According to the inventory of the Munich Central Collecting Point, the painting by Lotto was purchased by Hitler through Posse with Cramer’s involvement; however, according to the Linz Collection inventory, the same painting was delivered in 1940 by the Dutch art dealers Nathan and Benjamin Katz.34 A Herrenbildnis by Lotto was identified in 2004 by Birgit Schwarz as sold to Posse with Cramer’s involvement in July 1940 and matched with the painting registered under Munich number 4378 and Linz number 1314 in the Munich Central Collecting Point and the Linz Collection databases.35 The letters and invoices found in Cramer’s archive testify that it was Gustav Cramer rather than Nathan and Benjamin Katz who mediated the sale. There is no evidence of business dealings between Gustav Cramer and Nathan and Benjamin Katz preserved in Cramer’s archive. The reason for the discrepancy between the delivery information recorded in the two databases remains to be investigated.The letters and invoices in the Cramer archive described here not only confirm specific sales to the Linz museum but also reveal new details, such as sale prices and names of sellers and purchasing agents. While some purchases documented in Cramer’s archive can be matched with paintings indexed under his name in the Linz Collection database, others are not registered as sales to Linz or are not identified in the Linz Collection or the Munich Central Collecting Point databases at all. A definite assessment of the validity of these business transactions in regard to the Sonderauftrag Linz will require a systematic and thorough comparison of information present in the archive with data recorded in the Linz Collection and the Munich Central Collecting Point databases currently available online. Such thorough comparison should also contribute to resolving inconsistencies and discrepancies found between the two databases.This case study also points to the unexplored research potential of business records of art dealers, auction houses, and private collectors from the time of World War II preserved in archival repositories worldwide or held in private hands. Hopefully, it will also contribute to the study of the various methods of art looting in Nazi occupied Europe as well as to ongoing efforts to establish and update provenance records for looted artworks.NotesIsabella Zuralski-Yeager is a special collections archivist at the Getty Research Institute.This essay expands on two posts previously published as part of the series Outside the Box in The Iris, the online magazine of the J. Paul Getty Trust. See Isabella Zuralski-Yeager, “Nazis Collecting Art: Art Dealer Gustav Cramer’s Wartime Records,” The Iris, posted 27 August 2012, http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/nazis-collecting-art-art-dealer-gustav-cramers-wartime-records/; and “Nazi Art Looting in Holland,” The Iris, posted 11 April 2017, http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/nazi-art-looting-in-holland/.1. See G. Cramer Oude Kunst gallery records, Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, acc. no. 2001.M.5. Hereafter cited as Cramer gallery records, followed by the relevant box and folder numbers.2. According to Gustav Cramer’s son, Hans Max Cramer, all wartime records are preserved; see interview with Hans Max Cramer, 1–2 April 2004, Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, acc. no. 2004.M.26.3. For personal family history, see Cramer gallery records.4. Gustav Cramer, letter to Gesandschaftsrat Wilhelm F. Wickel from 20 September 1941, Cramer gallery records, box 6, folder 19; statement issued to Gustav Cramer and Hans Max Cramer by the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Dutch Territories from 29 October 1941, Cramer gallery records, box 329, folder 3.5. See Lynn H. Nicholas, The Rape of Europa (New York: Vintage, 1994), 103.6. For a table comparing prices between 1940 and 1943, see Gerard Aalders, Nazi Looting: The Plunder of Dutch Jewry during the Second World War (Oxford and New York: Berg, 2004), 67. A thorough analysis of price fluctuation processes in the Dutch art trade during World War II was recently published within the series Schriften der Forschungsstelle “Entartete Kunst”; see Jeroen Euwe and Kim Oosterlinck, “Quality and Authenticity in a Market under Pressure: The Case of the Dutch Art Market during World War II,” in Markt und Macht: Der Kunsthandel im “Dritten Reich,” ed. Uwe Fleckner, Thomas W. Gaehtgens, and Christian Huemer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), 49–66.7. For the involvement of German and Dutch art dealers and collectors in the trade of Old Master paintings with Nazi agents, see Nicholas, Rape of Europa, 103–14; Hanns Christian Löhr, Das braune Haus der Kunst (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2016), 111–16; and Birgit Schwarz, Auf Befehl des Führers (Darmstadt: Theiss, 2014), 191–98.8. It was the art dealer Karl Haberstock who referred Cramer as a mediating agent to Posse; see Gustav Cramer, letter to Karl Haberstock from 2 July 1940, Cramer gallery records, box 5, folder 5. For Cramer’s connection to Walter Andreas Hofer, see Post-War Reports, Art Looting Intelligence Unit (ALIU) Reports 1945–1946 and ALIU Red Flag Names List and Index, posted on Looted Art Portal, https://www.lootedart.com/MVI3RM469661/.9. For interrogation reports on agents purchasing for Linz, see Otto Wittmann collection of papers relating to the Art Looting Investigation Unit of the U.S. War Department’s Office of Strategic Services, 1945–1946, Los Angeles, Getty Research Institute, acc. no. 910130 (photocopy); hereafter cited as Otto Wittmann collection of papers, followed by the relevant box and folder information.10. For the work and the history of the Munich Central Collecting Point, see Iris Lauterbach, Der Central Collecting Point in München (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, 2015); and Iris Lauterbach, The Central Collecting Point in Munich: A New Beginning for the Restitution and Protection of Art, trans. Fiona Elliott (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2018).11. See Otto Wittmann collection of papers, box 3, folder 8. Cramer’s involvement in purchasing for Linz is documented in Detailed Interrogation Report No. 2, from 31 July 1945, compiled by the Office of Strategic Services Art Looting Investigation Unit APO 413 U.S. Army regarding activities of Ernst Buchner; the report lists six artworks Buchner acquired from Cramer during the war. See Otto Wittmann collection of papers, box 3, folder 4; a pdf of the report is also available online on the New York State Department of Financial Services web page, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumer/holocaust/history_art_looting_restitution/The%20Allies/OSS%20and%20the%20ALIU/ALIU%20Reports/ernst_buchner.pdf. For a mention of Cramer’s involvement in sales for the Sonderauftrag Linz, see Löhr, Das braune Haus der Kunst, 113.12. See the Linz Sammlung / Linz Collection and Munich Central Collecting Point databases, both on the Deutsches Historisches Museum website, www.dhm.de/datenbank/linzdb/indexe.html (Linz database) and http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/ccp/dhm_ccp.php?seite=9 (Munich CCP database). Both databases are also accessible through the website of the U.S. National Archives under Records of the Deutsches Historisches Museum Relating to Nazi-Era Cultural Property, http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/international-resources/dhm.html. Subsequent references to individual artworks in these databases will refer to the corresponding Linz and/or Munich inventory numbers, which can be used to search the records in either database as needed.13. Gustav Cramer, letter to Hans Posse, 27 February 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 12; C. Hofstede de Groot, Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten holländischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts, vol. 6 (Esslingen: Neff, 1915), 54; and W. Martin, Catalogue de la collection de peintures du Baron Janssen à Bruxelles (Brussels: G. van Oest, 1923), 65.14. Gustav Cramer, letter to Hans Posse, 7 March 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 12.15. Gustav Cramer, letter to Hans Posse, 13 April 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 12.16. Gustav Cramer, letter to Ernst Lemberger, 10 May 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 10.17. Gustav Cramer, letter to Ernst Lemberger, 14 May 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 10.18. Receipt to Hans Posse and Erhard Göpel, 30 May 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 12.19. Gustav Cramer to Erhard Göpel, 1 June 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 5.20. Gustav Cramer to Frau E. Lemberger, 9 June 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 10.21. See the database records for Linz no. 2412, Munich no. 3531.22. See the database records for Linz no. 2753, Munich no. 4303.23. Gustav Cramer, letter to Erhard Göpel, 6 November 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 12.24. Erhard Göpel, undated draft from 1943; Struwe & Co., letter to Gustav Cramer, 1 March 1943, Cramer gallery records, box 8, folder 5.25. Gustav Cramer to Erhard Göpel, 16 May 1942, Cramer gallery records, box 7, folder 12; for a detailed description of the painting by van Ruisdael, see C. Hofstede de Groot, Beschreibendes und kritisches Verzeichnis der Werke der hervorragendsten holländischen Maler des XVII. Jahrhunderts, vol. 4 (Esslingen: Neff, 1911), 339, 166.26. See interview with Hans Max Cramer, 1–2 April 2004.27. Gustav Cramer, invoice to the Commissioner for the Linz museum, 10 July 1944, Cramer gallery records, box 333, folder 7.28. See the database records for Linz no. 3780, Munich no. 8420.29. Gustav Cramer, invoice to the Commissioner for the Linz museum, 10 July 1944, Cramer gallery records, box 333, folder 7; Gustav Cramer, invoice to Erhard Göpel, 24 February 1943, Cramer gallery records, box 333, folder 7.30. See interview with Hans Max Cramer, 1–2 April 2004.31. Gustav Cramer, invoice to the Commissioner for the Linz museum, 26 June 1944, Cramer gallery records, box 333, folder 7.32. Invoice to Hans Posse, 18 July 1940, Cramer gallery records, box 5, folder 9.33. See the database records for Linz no. 1296, Munich no. 2467 (Amigoni); and Linz no. 1310, Munich no. 1809 (Guardi). Cramer’s involvement is recorded by hand on the inventory cards.34. See the database records for Munich no. 4378, Linz no. 1314.35. See Birgit Schwarz, Hitlers Museum (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2004), V/23. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Getty Research Journal Volume 112019 Sponsored by The Getty Research Institute Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/702754 © 2019 The J. Paul Getty Trust. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.