Posted on 06/05/2010 8:34:31 AM PDT by jimbo123
Three 16th century oil paintings that have been hanging in William Randolph Hearst's famous castle at San Simeon belonged to a Jewish couple who were forced to give them up during the Nazi reign in Germany, authorities said Tuesday.
Two of the three paintings, visible to guests and millions of tourists at Hearst Castle since 1935, will be returned Friday to the heirs of the rightful owners, both of whom died during the war, one in the death camp at Auschwitz.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.sfgate.com ...
The Balfour Declaration was an important trigger, but its effect was in actuality limited because the British did everything not to keep their word.
The UN vote gave de jure legitimacy to Israel as did US and USSR recognition but at the end of the day Israel actually came about because the Jews there declared themselves a State and as much as they tried- even with British help- the Arabs failed to kill it in its cradle.
You can’t say that there was no such place as Palestine.
That was the name of the area since Roman days.
The irony is that until the mid 1960’s only Jews were called Palestinians.
Israel was not created by treaty. [See my post above]
Even the now sacrosanct 1967 lines, which the Arabs and Obama types say Israel must retreat to, are not real borders, they are simply the armistice lines that were formed when the shooting stopped in 1948.
“The irony is that until the mid 1960s only Jews were called Palestinians.”
Phrased that wrong.
Until 1948 only Jews were called Palestinians. In the Mid 1960’s the Arabs appropriated that moniker.
Othes have already noted that Hearst initially welcomed Hitler as a bulwark against Communism but turned against him pretty early:
From Wikipedia:
In 1934 after checking with Jewish leaders to make sure the visit would prove of benefit to Jews, Hearst visited Berlin to interview Adolf Hitler. Hitler asked why he was so misunderstood by the American press. “Because Americans believe in democracy,” Hearst answered bluntly, “and are averse to dictatorship.”[6]
Hearst described Kristallnacht as making the flag of National Socialism a symbol of national savagery and advocated the creation of a “homeland for dispossessed or persecuted Jews.[7] When news of the Holocaust began to seep out of occupied Europe, Hearst covered it as important news, in contrast to other newspapers which downplayed the mass murders.[7]
I didn’t say there IS a place called Palestine.
I said that there WAS a place called Palestine.
Actually there is still a place that should be called Palestine, if that’s what they wanted to call it, but for some reason, I just can’t imagine why, they prefer to call it Jordan.
I saw a documentary on TV called "The Rape of Europa" about Hitler's systematic theft of literally millions of the best art of Europe (thousands of which still remain unaccounted for). There were something like 10,000 men from the Wehrmacht assigned--even into the late stages of the war--to "collect" (steal), catalog, transport and store all the masterworks they could find.
Hitler, after all, having been an (almost) artist, fancied himself an art expert--and all the top Nazi officials followed his lead, having huge personal collections.
Goring for example in a summer "house" had a larger collection there (1500+ paintings) than Washington DC's National Gallery.
Whole trains full of stolen art were being transported to safe storage throughout the war...and were of the highest priorty...
One of the big storehouses for stolen art, strangely enough, was the famous Neuschwantein castle of Disney-fame.
Do you have proof of that? Seems unlikley one of the few public figures who pleaded for sanctuary or a homeland for the Jews would have collaborated with killing them. When Hearst met Hitler in 1934 he asked American Jewish leaders if he thought it would be ok and what could he do to help the Jews in the meeting. He also told Hitler that Americans hated despots when Hitler asked why he was unpopular in the US.
Yet Hearst continued to collaborate with Hitler and the Nazis with propaganda and access to his media empire for many years later.
Hearst cut any relationship with Hitler after Kristallnacht 4 years later and said this "making the flag of National Socialism a symbol of national savagery and advocated the creation of a "homeland for dispossessed or persecuted Jews"
Its not surprising the Hearst would run away from his friend Hitler in the early 40s after the death camps were running at full speed.
Hearst cut ties with the Nazis in 1938 not the early 1940s.
Hearst abandoned Hitler after Kristalnachtt in 1938. He then reported consistently about the plight of the Jews unlike the Jewish owned NY Times corp (and others) who ceded to FDR's request to downplay it because FDR did not want it distracting from war effort.
Hearst was awarded by Jewish groups for his efforts in this.
You can parse it to fit your agenda here but that doesn't jibe with the facts.
and then to claim that today's Hearst Corp is Nazi sympathetic and that explains goofy Helen is preposterous.
this is a forum for facts not wishful thinking.
I guess you know something these Holocaust victims groups that lauded Hearst did not know?
Hearst is guilty of thinking Hitler was a neat counter balance to the Reds...a mistake many made before Hitler showed his true hand and stupidly invaded more and more territory he needn't have and his Final Solution aims became clearer...which actually did not become clear to the general public till towards the end of the war ...largely due to Hearst corporation defying FDR and publicizing it... You have a bone to pick...I got that but you're letting your wishes cloud the facts.
C'mon, troll. She's not *that* young. ;-)
Cheers!
OK, so maybe she built the Hearst Castle.
Hitler had formed the SA (Sturm Abteilung) by the end of 1921 and was robbing and assaulting Jews in 1922.
Yeah, but the boring truth won’t sell Laundry Detergent.
Not to defend the Nazis in any way, but that sounds like abandonment.
Maybe they were out of the country and the Nazis just confiscated their property. Maybe the family figured it was unsafe to go back. Maybe they had to give up everything they owned to get out.
By now, international law probably recognizes that if you're, say, a Rwandan who leaves the country in fear for your life, you haven't abandoned what you left behind to the government that threatened you.
If a government says you can't leave the country without surrendering your property, that looks like an infringement of basic rights of movement and ownership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.