Talk:Robert M. Edsel

Looted, stolen or saved??
I hope everyone who reads this article or the books, watches the videos,etc considers the meaning and use of the words "Looted", "Stolen" and "Saved", tries to reread the sentences by replacing the word used with another one of the three. It is also interesting that the photograph album was found "in the possession", not "looted" nor "stolen", not even "saved", just in the "possession" of somebody.

However, suddenly the albums have "owners". "Edsel worked with the owners of the albums to acquire them for preservation".

That is, this article as well as the other material seems to be a good example on how to decipher propaganda constructed by using only specific words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.105.42 (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The obvious difference being that the Nazi's were stealing art that had belonged to other people. Specifically: Jews and others who had been evicted, displaced, or killed before and during World War II.  Much of the art taken from residences in Paris.  The Nazi's and Hitler never paid for or "owned" the artwork.  It was "appropriated" or stolen- taken without permission or compensation.  At the end of WWII, Allied Soldiers (specifically American Forces in this case) were the victors and the first to arrive at various former Nazi strongholds.  Some soldiers took "souvenirs" home with them.  One could say or imply that this, too, was stealing or looting.  Do two wrongs make a right?  No.  Is picking up and taking abandoned property stealing?  Not always.  Do context and intent have a part to play in judging actions?  Almost always.  That's why we have a court system to decide the extent and degree of culpability.  Is it looting when one is the victor in battle or is that called the spoils of war?  It wasn't valuable artwork that was stolen, but two leather bound portfolios documenting the criminal theft of thousands of artworks.  To somehow try to draw a moral equivalency to the two vastly different acts is ridiculous and pugnacious.  -Tirmite


 * I just heard an interview of Robert Edsel on Patriot radio (1150AM in Los Angeles) and his work continues. Glenn Beck notes USA could have kept the treasures but worked to give them all back. Edsel says he presents across the nation, and once to intelligence community—the granddaughter of General/President Eisenhower was in the audience.  Someone asked, "Why did General Eisenhower do this?"  He said he didn't know, but only that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a good man.  Susan spoke to him after and said she hadn't known about the art.  Interesting.  Who knew?  There is interest in China because people can't believe we gave the artwork back.  Thanks for this article here.  We plan to see the movie.  More will learn. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)