Wouldn't a statute of limitations apply? Also, I'm surprised that the Nazi's would not destroy Van Gogh given his mental problems and imperfect representations. In fact, he was almost an inspiration to the decadent artists they despised.
No, not in the US. Liz should have kept the painting in another country. It's resale vaule would have been impacted, but her family could have kept it.
I'd guess the Nazis would have considered van Gogh decadent, and thus subject to confiscation post 1935(and more likely sale than destruction), but there's no mention of this. Only the Nazis could draw 2 million visitors to an expostion of "decadent art", the "Exhibit of Degenerate Art in Munich"
Apparently the case is being brought (if the Mauthners litigate, which so far they have not done) under a 1998 German law.
Also, I'm surprised that the Nazi's would not destroy Van Gogh given his mental problems and imperfect representations. In fact, he was almost an inspiration to the decadent artists they despised.
The Nazis never had possession of the Mauthner/Taylor Van Gogh. Everybody seems to agree on that. The legal issue hinges on whether the Mauthners were forced to sell the painting due to Nazi oppression of the Jews, a condition which the 1998 law was written to remedy.
I doubt the Nazis would have destroyed any Van Goghs though. The value of his art was already well known before they came to power, and the Nazis were nothing if not connoisseurs of great art. In fact I read an article recently, The Nazi Seduction, that makes that point very well.