But this generation IS forgetting. Here in the USA it is popular with the liberal, democrat party to rail against Israel and the Jewish people. Suddenly it's as if ant-semitism is acceptable. I am disgusted with our youth for attempting to revise history or allow others to do it for them. They are following the party (mob) line and not thinking for themselves which would require too much effort.

@@kosmos1957 - And I am disgusted that you believe people condemning Israel's actions is anti semitic. Injustice should be pointed out no matter who is perpetrating it. Condemning the state of Israel for doing something that goes against human rights standards, is not the same as condemning a Jew for being Jewish. And if you think that it is, then in reality what you are actually saying is that anyone who is Jewish that disagrees with the state of Israel's policies are being anti semitic. Apparently you are unaware that many prominent Jew's do in fact disagree with the state of Israel's policies towards Palestine. Pull your head out and at least try to think logically. The accusation of anti semitism is used to keep anyone who is not Jewish from criticizing anything that someone who is Jewish does, including whatever the state of Israel does. Anyone who possesses the ability to think critically realizes that the anti semitism argument is bull, and is crafted specifically to squelch questioning and criticism. It is no different than the absurd argument that to question the religion of Islam is a personal attack on muslims. As for the young democrats, they obviously do not possess critical thinking skills and are not only incapable of thinking logically but even actually thinking. Which upon reflection might actually be the reason for their very existence, but I digress, so back to the point. Being Jewish doesn't mean you are 'special' or so very different than any other human that nobody is allowed to criticize anything you do; nor does it mean that the state of Israel get's to play by different rules, or have different standards than what the rest of the world is expected to. I say again, everyone should criticize injustice regardless of who the perpetrator is, or who the injustice is being penetrated against.

Kanye West is a liberal democrat???????? 🤣

So should the Germans who continued robbing my mother after reunification. They refused to return her Apartment building in Berlin because Austria signed a Treaty with east Germany which they defaulted on.

Is the matter settled beyond appeal, Semsen Eini? Things like that infuriate me. It's as if the Nazis had WON the war.

She and the other heirs formed a philanthropic organization, giving much of the money to very worthwhile causes. I ask you, why sell the portrait for permanent display and have $135M to do good deeds?? What would you do with all that money? Wouldn't you want to be known for philanthropy?

When you are in your 80's would you like to live with a painting valued at 125 million dollars under your roof? Would you build a new house at 80? That is what she would have had to do to have proper security. She sold it to Lauder because he values art for arts sake and has a museum where her conditions of sale said he had to leave it permanently on display to the public. She wasn't going to live forever.. she had to think of the future of that art work.

I would hope that the family has KEPT most of the money. After all, there are future generations for whom to plan. A few hundred million is hardly excessive wealth for a family to possess, in-aggregate. Why should they give away the last crumbs of a gigantic fortune, which has already been 'appropriated' for 'The People', by the Nazis (who apparently never went out of business, in Austria). It hurt me to see this lady driving a cheap Ford, and living in that wretched little house, while the present-day Nazis were denying her recovery of her assets.

Kristine B: You're absolutely right Kristine B, Mrs Altmann (a truly delightful lady btw) was a very old lady and these paintings are so valuable. It makes no sense to own such things unless you are a billionaire with the resources to pay the insurance and protection of such valuable assets. The Neue Gallery in New York houses some very fine Austrian Fine Art and Decorative Art from the early 20th century - the golden portrait hangs there now.

Try to imagine living with such valuable & well known paintings? The insurance alone would be prohibitive.

Wrong. Get the facts.

Actualy, it doesnt matter whether the painting was strictly Adeles, because this was her will in 2023. You cannot reasonably expect her to not having made other provisions, if she had been still alive during the war. It is a convenient bureaucratic argument, but it doesnt hold on the grander scheme of things. It shows how rückzichtlos the austrians were, in 2006. I hope they learned something in the meantime

I know I am late with my answer but it seems Maria Altman was to late to claim them.

It hasn't been possible to trace what happened to the jewelry. Best theory is that the pieces were broken up into the individual stones, which come across as anonymous.

I know that after her husband's arrest she spent a year in jail and about 30% of her property was taken away from her

Some Austrians learned enough so that an Austrian reporter spend years of his life in dark dusty archives to uncover the data that made the success of this case possible long before three Austrian mediation judges (one selected by the museum) voted to do the right thing even though it caused a terrible loss to the Belvedere Museum and, I'm sure created some resentment among unrepentant Nazis some of whom remain in power. We should appreciate those acts of decency.

Cello not violin

SO LESS!!!!!

Nonsense and hateful rhetoric. Maria is gone now, she had few years left to live by the time she nailed the Austrians to the legal wall. She sold Woman in Gold to Lauder on the condition that it be permanently on display for the world to see. Schoenberg donated over 10 million of his legal fee's earned to the Holocaust museum in California. And it is Bloch Bauer not Blockbower.

Otto Rapp -He gave them to her.

of course you are right - my comment was tongue-in-cheek. I was hoping someone would say something! This is how a patriarchal society works. Since then, at least women got the right to vote ..... and make decisions about their belongings ...... Why did they not honored her will? But it seems her will didn't mean anything in court. After all, in a patriarchal society, she was just a woman! Yes, these paintings were stolen by the Nazis, but eventually they wound up where, according to her will, she would have wanted them to be, in the Austrian Museum at the Belvedere. I've seen them when they were still there, where she had wanted them to be in the first place.

EXACTLY, Christine B!

@@OttoRappTheMystic It had nothing to do that she was a woman. The will was more of a wish. Her husband payed for the painting so Adele didn't own it. In his will he gave the paintings to his nieces.

Yes it was patriarchal society, though she was the person in the paintings, true it was her husband who technically owned the paintings. But it was his will that got the paintings back into the hands of the families. I don’t know if it was a patriarchal move or it was because he saw what was seeing what was happening with the nazis and had a foreboding feeling about the nazis, and wanted to be sure his family to inherit the art if they survive. Maybe he had a sense the Belvedere was in the control of the Nazis and they would try to steal the art ( which in the end was true)

LOL. Good question.

It should be with mandatory viewing. The only reason they relented was the public shaming they were getting over the negative publicity. They made it impossible to fight in Austrian courts and succeed not realizing the selling of their art books (further profiting from Nazi theft) in the USA left them open to the lawsuit. Monsters.

You are obviously ignorant of not only of the Vatican's history but world history in general.

I thought an arrangement was made. End of Documentary.

that indeed would have honored her will! But it seems her will didn't mean anything in court. After all, in a patriarchal society, she was just a woman! Yes, these paintings were stolen by the Nazis, but eventually they wound up where, according to her will, she would have wanted them to be, in the Austrian Museum at the Belvedere. I've seen them there when they were still there, where she had wanted them to be in the first place.

When you are in your 80's would you like to live with a painting valued at 125 million dollars under your roof? Would you build a new house at 80? That is what she would have had to do to have proper security. She sold it to Lauder because he values art for arts sake and has a museum where her conditions of sale said he had to leave it permanently on display to the public. She wasn't going to live forever.. she had to think of the future of that art work.

The "correct gesture" was to do exactly what the family wanted to do with the paintings which had been STOLEN from them. They've been forced to "give" far too much, as it is. This is not a reality show. This is real life. They're not limitlessly rich, and actually NEED the seventy five million or so (I'm sure taxes and legal fees took most of it), for future generations.

Listen to the facts again... Adele didn't own the paintings. If I write a will to leave everything you own to a museum when I die, what does that compel you to do? I'll bet you'd say what I'd say... NOTHING.

WHY do you keep attempting to justify one wrong with another? Have you no common sense whatsoever? I am an American that certainly have never sought to justify what was done to Native American's. Especially when our government spends billions of dollars on welfare for blacks to ease their conscience over slavery. What your saying would be like me saying we support NA's before blacks..... This is not about Native American's. This video is about one woman fighting the Austrian Government and winning material objects. You can't give her back what she would like most, her family members. And we cannot "give back" land to Native American's. This continent was populated with people before those people.

No it wasn't, but what does that have to do with this subject?

Weird comment.