45DOI: 10.4312/as.2025.13.1.45-77
Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East 
Asian Objects Held in the Collections of the  
Celje Regional Museum
Davor MLINARIČ*
Abstract
The article attempts to clarify, on the basis of laws adopted during and after the Second 
World War, how East Asian items became part of the museum collections held today by 
the Celje Regional Museum (Pokrajinski muzej Celje, PMC). The first part of the article 
focuses on confiscations of cultural and historical objects carried out by the Nazis in Low-
er Styria (Untersteiermark) between 1941 and 1945. The second part of the article covers 
the period immediately after the end of the Second World War. This was the period that 
saw the start of the formation of so-called national property, in other words the passage 
of ownership from private to state hands. As will be shown, a series of laws regulating the 
new authorities’ attitude towards property were passed in a relatively brief period. In the 
summer of 1945, the task of collecting cultural and historical objects was taken over by 
collection centres established for this purpose. One such collection centre was located in 
Celje. With the help of archival sources, we have attempted to shed light on its operations.
Keywords: East Asian objects, confiscation, legislation, Celje Regional Museum
Med- in povojne zaplembe vzhodnoazijskih predmetov, shranjenih v zbirkah 
Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje
Izvleček
Prispevek poskuša na podlagi zakonov, sprejetih med vojno in po njej, pojasniti, kako 
so vzhodnoazijski predmeti sploh postali del muzejskih zbirk, ki jih danes hranijo v 
Pokrajinskem muzeju Celje. Prvi del prispevka se osredotoča na nacistične zaplembe kul-
turno-zgodovinskih predmetov na Spodnjem Štajerskem med letoma 1941 in 1945. Dru-
gi del prispevka obravnava čas neposredno po koncu druge svetovne vojne, ko se je začela 
oblikovati t. i. narodna imovina, se pravi prehod lastništva iz zasebne v državno last. Kot 
bo prikazano, se je v kratkem času zvrstila množica zakonov, ki so urejali novi odnos do 
premoženja. Nalogo zbiranja kulturno-zgodovinskih predmetov so poleti 1945 prevzeli 
v ta namen ustanovljeni zbirni centri. Eden izmed takšnih zbirnih centrov je bil tudi v 
Celju. S pomočjo arhivskih virov smo poskusili osvetliti njegovo delovanje.
Ključne besede: vzhodnoazijski predmeti, zaplembe, zakonodaja, Pokrajinski muzej Celje
* Davor MLINARIČ, Curator, Celje Regional Museum.
Email address: davor.mlinaric@pokmuz-ce.si
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   45 14. 01. 2025   13:40:33
46 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
Introduction
Among its collections The Celje Regional Museum also holds the collection of 
objects from Asia and South America. The collection came into being as a stand-
alone collection during the organization and cataloguing of the museum’s hold-
ings in 1964. At the time of this inventory, curator Milena Moškon (1928‒2021) 
noted that objects of Asian and South American provenance had been collected 
together and separated from the material that had come to the museum via the 
District Collection Centre in Celje. At this time the collection ran to 152 in-
ventory items (Vampelj Suhadolnik 2021, 7–18).1 Even then, the museum staff 
were faced with the problem of establishing where the individual items came 
from, with Moškon writing that it would still be necessary “to determine the exact 
provenance of each item separately”.2 As part of the project Orphaned Objects: 
Examining East Asian Objects Outside Organised Collecting Practices in Slovenia 
( J6-3133), we determined that 126 objects held in the collection were of East 
Asian provenance. We also identified a further 33 East Asian objects held by the 
museum as part of its Cultural History Collection. For the most part these are 
various types of Japanese and Chinese ceramics made for export. In total, then, we 
are talking about 159 objects of East Asian origin.
As part of this same project, we also succeeded in establishing that not all the ob-
jects were the subject of post-war confiscations. The first part of the article focuses 
on confiscations of cultural and historical objects carried out by the Nazis in Low-
er Styria (Untersteiermark) between 1941 and 1945. Responsibility for the confis-
cation of objects of this type lay with the branch office of the General Trustee for 
the Safeguarding of Cultural Assets (Generaltreuhänder für die Sicherstellung der 
Kulturgüter) at the Office of the Representative of the Reich Commissioner for 
the Consolidation of German Nationhood in Maribor. A task force (Einsatzkom-
mando) was created specifically to collect and record objects of cultural heritage. 
The task force started working in November 1941 and completed its work in July 
1942. At least two objects that are held today in the museum’s Asian collection 
can be connected to confiscations by the Nazis during the Second World War. 
The objects in question are a set of Japanese armour from Sternstein Castle in 
Frankolovo (Schloss Sternstein) and a small Japanese lacquered cabinet with relief 
decoration taken from dvorec Golič near Slovenske Konjice (Schloss Golitsch bei 
Gonobitz).
1 For more insight into the topic on collecting East Asian objects in Slovenia, see the articles in the 
thematic issue “East Asia in Slovenia: Collecting Practices, Categorization and Representation” in 
the Asian Studies journal (2021, 9/3).
2 “Azijska in deloma južno-ameriška zbirka.” Document held by PMC.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   46 14. 01. 2025   13:40:33
47Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
In the case of post-war confiscations, and based on the documents kept in the 
Celje Regional Museum (Pokrajinski muzej Celje, PMC), we can distinguish be-
tween those that took place in castles and country mansions and those carried out 
in the homes of wealthy members of the bourgeoisie. This was the period that 
saw the start of the formation of so-called national property. A series of laws reg-
ulating the new authorities’ attitude towards property were passed in a relatively 
brief period. The process of moving from private to state ownership also included 
cultural heritage objects. At the end of August 1945, the task of collecting cultur-
al and historical objects was taken over by collection centres established for this 
purpose, namely the Federal Collection Centre (Federalni zbirni center, FZC) at 
the Ministry of Education in Ljubljana for cultural and historical objects locat-
ed anywhere in Slovenia, along with district collection centres in Maribor, Celje 
and Novo Mesto. With the help of archival sources, we have attempted to shed 
light on its operations. A case described in the article illustrates the functioning 
of the post-war authorities and describes a confiscation of property that later 
proved to be unjustified. This particular confiscation was the origin of a pair of 
candelabra of a type rare in Slovenia that the museum holds today as part of its 
collection. In this context one thing has to be kept in mind, which is that the 
reconstruction of provenance is made more difficult by the scant descriptions of 
the objects concerned, and the small amount of archival material available, which 
is also fragmented and dispersed. Taken as a whole, the issue of confiscations is a 
complex matter and, at least as far as our collection is concerned, we have to take 
into account both confiscations by the Nazis and confiscations by the Commu-
nist authorities. The Nazi authorities used confiscations to weaken the economic 
power of the Slovene nation, to destroy it and incorporate it as quickly as possible 
into the Reich. The post-war Communist authorities, on the other hand, wanted 
to destroy the private sector and create a state or social sector. As Mikola notes, 
the Nazi confiscations had a mainly racial basis, while those carried out by the 
Communists had a class basis (Mikola 1999, 9).
Nazi Confiscations
Just as elsewhere in Europe, confiscations of property in Lower Styria were an 
integral part of the Nazi assimilation policy towards the Slovenes. The first dis-
cussions of the form that Nazi measures would take in Lower Styria and Upper 
Carniola (Oberkrain; present-day Gorenjska) took place on 8 and 9 April 1941 at 
a meeting in Graz. More precise instructions on what property should be confis-
cated in Lower Styria were given by Himmler himself during a visit to Maribor 
on 18 April 1941. In his special “instructions on confiscation”, Himmler ordered 
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   47 14. 01. 2025   13:40:33
48 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
the confiscation of all Yugoslav state property, all Church property, the posses-
sions of all deported individuals and Habsburg possessions (Ferenc 1980a, 62).3
The Chief of Civil Administration (Chef der Zivilverwaltung), Sigfried Uiberre-
ither (1908‒1984), was directly subordinate to Hitler himself and was the only 
legislative authority in Lower Styria. The laws and ordinances of the German 
state administration only applied in occupied territory if introduced by the Chief 
of Civil Administration by an ordinance or proclamation in his own official jour-
nal (Žnidarič 2004, 29). Among the earliest ordinances of the Chief of Civil Ad-
ministration for Lower Styria was one on the protection of cultural monuments 
(Ferenc 1968, 736).4 This ordinance, no. 4 of 21 April 1941, was written in Slo-
vene as well as in German and it follows from it that “all movable and immovable 
objects of historical, artistic or cultural character, and all groups and collections of 
objects that form a single whole by virtue of a historical, artistic or cultural con-
nection, shall be placed under protection as monuments with immediate effect”.5 
All destruction, alteration or sale of the aforementioned cultural monuments was 
prohibited. Any exceptions would only be permitted with the authorization of the 
Chief of Civil Administration and “the acquisition of such monuments by means 
of voluntary sale” without the authorization of the Chief of Civil Administration 
was likewise prohibited.6 The Nazi authorities also removed valuable cultural and 
historical objects from churches, monasteries and museums on the pretext of safe-
guarding them from the dangers of war (Godeša 2005, 662).
On 22 April 1941, pursuant to the Ordinance on the Consolidation of German 
Nationhood in Lower Styria, the Office of the Representative of the Reich Com-
missioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood in Maribor (Dienststelle 
des Beauftragten des Reichskommissars für die Festigung deutschen Volkstums in Mar-
burg) was established (Ferenc 1980a, 70–71).7 The ordinance itself, no. 5 of 24 
November 1941, reveals that the Office’s duties included the confiscation of prop-
erty and the administration of confiscated property. The above mentioned ordi-
nance no. 4 of 21 April 1941 appears to have been largely ignored, and traffickers 
3 See “Richtlinien und Anweisungen des Reichskommissars für die Festigung deutschen Volkstums 
zur Aussidlung von Slowenen und Ansiedlung von Deutschen in der Untersteiermark” (Ferenc 
1980f ).
4 See Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark, no. 4/1941, 21 
April 1941, 31.
5 Ibid. 
6 See Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark, no. 4/1941, 21 
April 1941.
7 See Verordnung des Chefs der Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark über die Festigung deutschen 
Volkstums in der Untersteiermark, no. 5/1941, 24 April 1941.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   48 14. 01. 2025   13:40:34
49Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
and German dealers continued to remove or sell cultural and historical objects. 
Accordingly, in May 1941, the Chief of Civil Administration issued in Maribor 
an ordinance, no. 11 of 16 May 1914, on the protection of household furnishings 
of “national historical” value in Lower Styria, in which the purchase, exchange or 
removal of such objects was prohibited until further notice.8 Simultaneously, an 
ordinance was issued for Styria stating that cultural and historical heritage had 
to be separated from other confiscated items and made available to the economic 
department of the service of the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of 
German Nationhood (Reichskommissar für die Festigung deutschen Volkstums) (Mo-
har 2020, 216).
The third ordinance on the consolidation of German nationhood in Lower Sty-
ria, dated 23 May 1941, set out the entire procedure concerning the confiscation, 
removal and management of confiscated property.9 This ordinance represented 
the legal basis for the actual implementation of confiscations in Lower Styria in 
the period 1941–1945. The confiscated property in Lower Styria also included 
the property of citizens of those countries that were at war with Germany. A 
regulation issued on 30 July 1941 relates to the confiscation of “the entire prop-
erty abandoned in Lower Styria by persons who fled or emigrated abroad after 1 
March 1941, confiscated and placed at the disposal of the Reich Commissioner 
for the Consolidation of German Nationhood for the benefit of the province of 
Styria”.10 Following the confiscation and removal of property, a trustee (Treu-
händer) or administrator (Verwalter) was appointed to manage and look after the 
confiscated property. Himmler gave some general instructions regarding admin-
istrators on 18 April 1941, while they were appointed and supervised by the Of-
fice of the Representative of the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of 
German Nationhood.11 On 14 April 1941 the Chief of Civil Administration for 
Lower Styria was also appointed Representative of the Reich Commissioner for 
the Consolidation of German Nationhood in Lower Styria. In April 1941 Erwin 
Seftschnig was appointed head of the Office and remained in this position until 
8 The reference is to older peasant furnishings/Folk Art. Published 16 May 1941 in Verordnungs- und 
Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark, no. 11/1941, 37.
9 Published 23 June 1941 in Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Unter-
steiermark, no. 26/1941, 201–204. With the fourth ordinance of this type, issued on 7 March 1943, 
the provisions were extended to the property of Jews in Lower Styria. See Verordnungs- und Amts-
blatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark, no. 7/1943, 35.
10 See “Anordnung über die Einziehung des zurückgelassenen Vermögens in das Ausland geflüchte-
ter oder übersiedelter Personen”. Published 12 August 1941 in Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs 
des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark, no. 36/1941, 279–80.
11 Published 23 June 1941 in Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Unter-
steiermark, no. 26/1941, 201–204.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   49 14. 01. 2025   13:40:34
50 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
1944. He was succeeded by Herbert Leonhard, the head of the provincial cultur-
al administration under the Chief of Civil Administration for Lower Styria in 
Graz. From 15 June 1941 until May 1942 the Office had its own Chief of Staff 
(Stabsführer), one Wilhelm Laforce (1896‒1965).12
The seizure of cultural and historical objects in occupied territories was also car-
ried out by a group headed by Wolfram Sievers (1905‒1948), General Secretary 
of the SS research group Ahnenerbe (Ancestral Heritage) (Ferenc 1968, 742; Mo-
har 2020, 219–20; Kater 1974, 28–36). From October 1941 onwards, responsibil-
ity for confiscations of cultural and historical objects in Styria lay with the branch 
office of the General Trustee for the Safeguarding of Cultural Assets (General-
treuhänder für die Sicherstellung der Kulturgüter) at the Office of the Representa-
tive of the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood 
in Maribor. Formal consent to set up this branch office in Maribor was given on 
4 November 1941 and at the same time the other district commissars in Low-
er Styria were informed about its operation and the imminent arrival of a “task 
force” (Einsatzkommando) in the field (Ferenc 1980a, 341–42). The task force 
for the collection and recording of objects of cultural heritage in Lower Styria 
began its work in early November (Ferenc 1968, 742; 1980a, 477–80).13 The task 
force consisted of a leader, Johannes Wilhelm (also: Willi Johann) Dettenberg 
(1908‒1942) (Wedekind 2019, 47; Ferenc 1980a, 477–80; 1968, 742), and his as-
sistant, the painter Kurt Federlin (1912‒1986) (Wedekind 2019, 47; Ferenc 1968, 
742; Mohar 2020, 220).
A shortage of fuel and an unusually harsh winter slowed down implementation 
of the plan in the Celje and Brežice districts and rendered it more difficult. As 
a result, the original plan to finish collecting at the end of May was delayed and 
the work was eventually completed on 15 July 1942 (Ferenc 1980a, 477–80). A 
week later, on 22 July 1942, the branch office of the General Trustee in Mari-
bor was dissolved (ibid.). Dettenberg and Federlin began work in the Celje and 
Brežice districts towards the end of January 1942. Here they received consid-
erable assistance from Pastor Gerhard May (1898‒1980), the cultural and na-
tional political adviser of the Celje district leadership of the Styrian Homeland 
Union (Steirischer Heimatbund) (Ferenc 1968, 744). A considerable quantity of 
antique furniture and books belonging to deported Slovene families from Celje 
and the surrounding area were stored in Celje. The locations in which confiscat-
ed property was stored included the Capuchin monastery. Towards the end of 
12 See Verordnung des Chefs der Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark über die Festigung deutschen 
Volkstums in der Untersteiermark, no. 5/1941, 24 April 1941.
13 Sievers gives the date of the start of activity as 10 November in his final report. A written note dat-
ed 3 March 1942 indicates 5 November 1941 as the start date.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   50 14. 01. 2025   13:40:34
51Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
the war Gerhard May submitted a report on cultural activities in Celje in which 
he describes, among other things, the situation in the repository for cultural and 
historical objects in the Capuchin church. He also mentions the area from which 
these objects were taken.14
Information on the activities of the occupation authorities in the wider Celje 
area is also provided by Martin Perc, who on 31 May 1945 prepared a report 
on the acquisitions of the Celje Municipal Museum during the occupation. Perc 
was—against his will—appointed guardian of the museum from 11 May 1942. 
He writes, among other things, that the occupation forces had set up a museum 
repository in the Capuchin church, while many items were also stored in the Orel 
Hall (Orlovski dom).15 They stored more valuable items in their own storage space 
in the rooms of the café where they were also billeted, sending them to Berlin or 
selling them off as confiscated property.16
In the final report of the branch office of the General Trustee, sent to the cen-
tral office in Berlin, Sievers noted among other things that most of the seized 
property consisted of objects of museum value connected to the province, and 
proposed that these objects be ceded free of charge to, in particular, museums 
in Lower Styria (Ferenc 1980a, 477–80). He dedicated two points of his report 
to explaining why museums could not purchase these objects. In the first place, 
because museums did not have sufficient funds at their disposal to be able to pay 
for such a large influx of objects. And secondly, because museums could not be 
expected to use their limited resources to purchase museum pieces for which they 
have no urgent need or which might even be their property already (ibid, 477–80). 
In another point Sievers notes that the protected objects had not been removed 
from Styria and that, with the help of local offices and museum directors, they 
had, despite problems with transport, been conveyed to museums and stored there 
safely. This meant that transferring these objects to the museums in question was 
a mere formality that did not involve any change of location. The numbers of 
cultural goods seized in Lower Styria were as follows: around 60,000 books and 
7,000 coins, 3,130 manuscripts, documents, chronicles and transcriptions of folk 
14 The area consists of the Celje district and beyond. Loka pri Zidanem Mostu (Laak bei Steinbrück), 
Novi Dvor in Radeče (Schloss Weixelstein bei Ratschach), dvorec Ruda in Loka pri Zidanem Mostu 
(Schloß Ruth in Laak bei Steinbrück), dvorec Golič near Slovenske Konjice (Schloß Gollitsch bei Gono-
bitz) and Slovenske Konjice (Gonobitz). SI ZAC, 0075, Okupacijska občina Celje, box 20, sig. 461, 
Poročilo o kulturni dejavnosti v mestu (1941–1944). 
15 SI ZAC, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, box 1, 002, 00007, “Celjski mestni muzej v Celju med ok-
upacijo”. The Orel Hall secretariat is said to be at Cankarjeva ulica 4, and they also had their premis-
es at Samostanska 4, where the task force had a free hand with regard to taking and selecting items.
16 SI ZAC, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, box 1, 002, 00007, “Celjski mestni muzej v Celju med 
okupacijo”.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   51 14. 01. 2025   13:40:34
52 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
songs, 741 antique craft items, 104 religious items and 198 pieces of folk art, 105 
old weapons and 828 paintings, drawings and sculptures (ibid., 477–80). At the 
same time it was agreed that responsibility for further work and any later confis-
cations would be assumed by the Styrian provincial conservator Walter von Sem-
etkowski (1886‒1965) in cooperation with the caretaker of the museums in Styria 
(Museumspfleger des Reichgaues Steiermark) Hans Karl Anton Riehl (1891‒1965)17 
and other museum directors, since this would guarantee ongoing care for cultural 
items (ibid., 477–80).
This is also thought to have been the most likely scenario with the objects from 
the Celje repository. The report written by Gerhard May in Celje in 1944 indi-
cates that these objects were intended to be used to create a large-scale homeland 
museum in the city, although these plans had not yet been realized at the time the 
report was written.18 In reality, the situation was different, particularly as regards 
the problem of the sale of confiscated cultural and historical objects, as can be seen 
from the report by Martin Perc. 
Following the successful completion of work in Lower Styria, activities were 
meant to continue in Upper Carniola, where the plan was to set up a branch 
office of the General Trustee for the Safeguarding of Cultural Assets on the Sty-
rian model. In late July 1942, Dettenberg set off on his official mission to Upper 
Carniola accompanied by SS Obersturmführer Karl Starzach (1913‒1945), the 
officer responsible for archival material, books and museums in occupied Upper 
Carniola (Oberkrain) at the time. Dettenberg was wounded in a Partisan attack 
and taken to Golnik Hospital, where he later died. Federlin was unhurt in the at-
tack (Wedekind 2019, 47–49; Mohar 2020, 220). On 11 March 1943 the Chief of 
Civil Administration, Sigfried Uiberreither, sent a letter to the central office in the 
Dahlem district of Berlin regarding the final report of the Maribor branch office 
of the General Trustee for the Safeguarding of Cultural Assets. In it, he thanked 
everyone who had taken part in this campaign and expressed his acknowledge-
ments. He particularly praised Dettenberg and Federlin, who had completed their 
difficult task “tactfully, and in an exemplary and most thorough manner” (Ferenc 
1980a, 584). He expressed his regret at the tragic events in Upper Carniola that 
had led to Dettenberg’s death and said that the latter’s meritorious actions would 
be remembered with the greatest admiration (ibid.).
With the completion of work of the task force in Lower Styria, the organized 
collecting of cultural and historical objects also came to an end. The final report 
17 In 1941 he founded the Neue Galerie Graz at the Styrian Provincial Museum (aka Joanneum).
18 SI ZAC, 0075, Okupacijska občina Celje, box 20, sig. 461, “Poročilo o kulturni dejavnosti v mestu 
(1941–1944)”.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   52 14. 01. 2025   13:40:34
53Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
of the branch office of the General Trustee that was sent to the central office in 
Berlin also leads us to this conclusion. That said, we cannot rule out the possibility 
that there were individual confiscations of cultural and historical objects, but the 
museum does not keep any kind of documents which would indicate that after 
May 1942 new objects were arriving in the museum repository. Moreover, as it 
turned out during the research into archival material, objects of East Asian prov-
enance were also part of the confiscations. Two such examples are known to us 
from preserved museum and archive documentation. The first is the confiscation 
of the Golič Manor near Slovenske Konjice. Golič was visited towards the end of 
May 1942 by German units from the Branch Office of the General Trustee for 
the Safeguarding of Cultural Assets. The list of 23 items removed from the prop-
erty on this occasion include one that is specifically described as being of Japa-
nese provenance, namely a small Japanese lacquered cabinet with relief decoration 
(“1 japanisches Aufsatzschränckchen mit schönen Flachreliefschmuck in Schleiflack”).19 
Among the objects in the collection today, the lacquered cabinet under inventory 
number A 10 is the item that best corresponds to this description. An inscription 
at the top of the cabinet reads “Sauerbrunn”, which could indicate the spa of 
Rogaška Slatina. Another example is a larger confiscation that took place in the 
Sternstein Mansion, from where the task force took, among other things, items 
from a set of samurai chest armour, which are presented in more detail below.
Group of Citizens of Countries at War with Germany—Samurai 
Chest Armour
The property confiscated in Lower Styria also included the property of citizens 
of those countries that were at war with Germany. This is an important factor, as 
the following case is related to this type of confiscation, because the owner was 
a British citizen. The PMC’s collection of objects from Asia and South America 
includes some items of samurai armour, and the joint inventory number A 144 
covers 13 such items. Details of the origin of this armour were first published 
in 2017 (Trnovec 2021a, 8; 2021b, 41). That same year some of the pieces were 
shown at the exhibition Ways of the Samurai at the National Museum of Slovenia 
(Trnovec 2021b, 41; Lazar 2017, 311–17). Until recently it was thought that all 13 
pieces were among the items removed from Lemberg Castle (Lazar 2017, 311), 
although research has revealed an alternative story, at least as regards one of the 
sets of armour.
19 SI ZAC, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, box 1, 001, 00002, “Schloss Golitsch bei Gonobitz”. The 
list is dated 29 May 1942.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   53 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
54 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
Based on the museum archival documents, the German authorities had also con-
fiscated the Sternstein Castle and Estate. The confiscation was carried out by 
the Land Office (Bodenamt) on 7 June 1941. The detailed inventory of the many 
objects that were in the castle at that time includes, in the library on the first floor, 
“1 chinesische Rüstung” (1 suit of Chinese armour).20 In May 1942 Dettenberg 
and Federlin received, from the administrator of the Sternstein Estate, “1 Sam-
urai-Rüstung” (1 suit of samurai armour).21 It might seem reasonable to assume 
that they are one and the same, yet the mere mention of samurai armour is not in 
itself a sufficient indicator to allow us to state with certainty that this particular 
armour is part of the museum’s collection. A few more clues are provided by the 
entry: “1 asiatische Rüstung (vermutlich Samurai XVII. Jahrhundert mit einem in 
Gold aufgelegten Hakenkreuz)” (1 Asian suit of armour (supposedly Samura XVII. 
century with a golden swastika)).22
Figure 1. List of confiscated cultural and historical objects from Sternstein. (Source: Historical 
Archive Celje) 
20 SI ZAC, 0072, Urad pooblaščenca državnega komisarja za utrjevanje nemštva v Mariboru, izpost-
ava Celje, box 3, Zaplembe premoženja posameznikov, ustanov, uradov, podjetij (A–H), folder F 
BA – 1941/42, “Faber Sidney – Vojnik, Frankolovo”.
21 SI ZAC, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, box 1, 001, 00001, folder 1942, “Schloss Sternstein”.
22 SI ZAC, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, box 1, 001, 00002.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   54 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
55Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
Examination of the item in question reveals that a heraldic symbol—a Buddhist 
swastika in a circle—done in gilt over black lacquer, is a prominent feature of the 
armour. By comparing the German record with the item itself, we can state that 
the item comes from Sternstein Castle, as this is the only armour with the swas-
tika in the museum collection. 
Figure 2. Dō breastplate. (Source: Asian and South American Collection, Celje Regional Mu-
seum, A 144/13)
Sternstein Castle was acquired in September 1881 by the wife of the British con-
sul, George Louis Faber (1843‒1915), in Fiume (present-day Rijeka in Croatia), 
Alice Franziska Faber (1852‒1938).23 Alice Franziska (Fanny), née Krupp, was 
born into a wealthy and powerful German and Austrian family of factory owners. 
In 1843 her father Hermann opened a factory in Berndorf (Austria) and began 
manufacturing nickel silver cutlery under the Alpacca trademark, which would 
become famous around the world. Interestingly, her maternal grandmother was 
the sister of George’s father August Faber. She and George married on 4 March 
1871 (Lukezić 2006, 218).
23 Okrajno sodišče v Celju, Zemljiška knjiga, Verpete 1–60, insert no. 5, 57.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   55 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
56 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
The local land and property gazetteer of the Drava Banovina for 1937 lists “the 
Englishman Sidney George Faber” as the owner of the castle (Krajevni leksikon 
dravske banovine 1937, 109). It is further noted that the castle contains a valuable 
collection of antique objects, a rich library and other things (ibid.). Following the 
outbreak of the Second World War and the capitulation of Yugoslavia, Sidney 
Faber and his younger brother Lionel were arrested on 20 April 1941, a Sunday, 
and taken to the prison in Celje.24 As British citizens, they belonged to the group 
of citizens of countries that were at war with Germany. This was the basis on 
which Sidney’s Sternstein estate was confiscated and he and his brother were 
taken into custody.25
How did the armour find its way to Frankolovo? The most likely answer is pro-
vided by the Faber family themselves, particularly Sidney (1872‒1963) and his 
father George (Lukezić 2006, 216–17).26 The former served in India as an officer 
of the British Army, while the latter served as British consul in Fiume. George 
began his diplomatic career as vice-consul in Fiume in August 1876, before being 
promoted to consular rank in 1882 and remaining in this post right up until the 
start of the First World War (Lukezić 2004, 128). It goes without saying that the 
family was one of the most prominent in Fiume at that time. Given their profes-
sional careers and taking into account their wide circle acquaintances, it is possible 
that they may even have obtained the armour in question in one of the ports of the 
Austro-Hungarian Empire. The post-war authorities were aware that the estate 
was the property of a British citizen, but a decision issued in Celje on 6 July 1946 
officially expropriated the estate from Sidney Faber, by then living in London, in 
favour of the land fund.27 As a British citizen, Faber was entitled to receive com-
pensation for his confiscated property. That this turned out to be a lengthy process 
is demonstrated by a letter from the British Embassy in Belgrade dated August 
1951, although the valuation of the property had already been carried out by early 
November 1947.
24 SI ZAC, 1318, Osnovna šola Frankolovo (1816–1993), box 13, “Kronika dogodkov 1941–1945”.
25 SI ZAC, 0072, Urad pooblaščenca državnega komisarja za utrjevanje nemštva v Mariboru, izpost-
ava Celje, box 3, “Zaplemba Sidney Faber”.
26 George Louis Faber (1843‒1915) was born into a commercial family of many branches. In the ear-
ly eighteenth century, his ancestors moved from Bavaria to Lower Austria, and from there to Vien-
na. George’s father, August Faber (1802‒1862), moved from Vienna to Great Britain and founded 
the chemist’s Faber & Co.
27 SI ZAC, 0241, KLO Frankolovo (1945–1951), box 2, 019, 00002, “Okrajna komisija za agrarno 
reformo Celje okolica”.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   56 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
57Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
Post-war Confiscations
Towards the end of the war and in the first post-war years, the national liberation 
movement passed a series of laws designed to regulate the way the new state dealt 
with property. This was the start of the formation of so-called national property, 
in other words the passage of ownership from private to state hands. In Slovenia 
the confiscation of “enemy property” took place from the end of the war, in May 
1945, until the end of 1946 (Mikola 1992, 155–71). Confiscations in this period 
can be divided into those ordered by the administrative authorities (confiscation 
commissions) and those ordered by the courts (judicial seizures). In cases of col-
laboration with the occupying forces or criminal acts against the nation, seizures 
of property were ordered by military courts up to the end of August 1945 and 
after that by district courts (Žontar 1990, 5–13).
The most important legal regulation on the basis of which confiscations were 
carried out was an ordinance of the Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liber-
ation of Yugoslavia (Antifašistični svet narodne osvoboditve Jugoslavije—AVNOJ) 
on the nationalization of enemy property, the administration by the state of the 
property of absent persons, and the seizure of property forcibly alienated by the 
occupation authorities, adopted on 21 November 1944 (Odlok AVNOJ-a o prehodu 
sovražnikove imovine v državno last, o državnem upravljanju imetja odsotnih oseb 
in o zasegu imetja, ki so ga okupatorske oblasti prisilno odtujile, sprejet 21. novembra 
1944) (Mikola 1999, 15; Vodopivec 2020, 276).28 At the first session of the Slo-
vene National Liberation Council (Slovenski narodnoosvobodilni svet—SNOS), a 
Commission for the Administration of Expropriated Property was established at 
the Presidency of the SNOS. Reorganized after the end of the war and renamed 
the Commission for the Administration of National Property (Komisija za upra-
vo narodne imovine—KUNI), it began work in October 1945 (Rodulović 1990, 
12–15; Kozina 1990, 15–19).29 The most extensive confiscations were carried out 
by confiscation commissions.30
Federal, district, municipal and local confiscation commissions operated across 
the territory of Slovenia and were responsible for the confiscation of German 
property (Mikola 1992, 156). These commissions issued decisions on the con-
28 The AVNOJ adopted the ordinance on 21 November 1944 and it was published on 6 February 
1945 in the Official Gazette of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (Uradni list DFJ, no. 2/1945).
29 For more insight into the topic of confiscations through archival material, see the articles in Arhivi: 
glasilo Arhivskega društva in arhivov Slovenije, 13 (1/2).
30 Under the provisions of Article 30 of the Confiscation of Property and the Execution of Confisca-
tion Act of 9 June 1945, these commissions were responsible for the confiscation of German prop-
erty (Uradni list DFJ, no. 40/1945, 12 June 1945).
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   57 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
58 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
fiscation of the whole of an individual’s property, both movable and immovable, 
on the basis of officially collected data from the local people’s committee (Žontar 
1990, 6).31 In the case of the confiscation of the property of the German Reich 
and its citizens and the property of ethnic Germans, the inventory and valuation 
of the property was carried out by the KUNI (ibid., 7). The commissions were 
supposed to complete their work by 15 September 1945, but in some areas they 
were reappointed in 1946 and were not phased out until 1947 (ibid., 6–7). The 
majority of confiscations were completed by mid-1947.
The aforementioned process of the passage from private to state ownership also 
included cultural heritage objects. To begin with these objects came under the 
aegis of the Ministry of Industry, but responsibility for them later passed to the 
Ministry of Education (Vodopivec 2020, 276). Among the regulations adopted 
during the war, the one that was most important for the subject in question was 
the Ordinance of the Presidency of AVNOJ on the transfer of enemy property 
into state ownership (mentioned above). On 31 July 1946 this ordinance was 
promulgated as a law called the “Act on the Transfer of Enemy Property into State 
Ownership and the Sequestration of the Property of Absent Persons” (Zakon o 
prenosu sovražnikovega premoženja v državno last in o sekvestraciji premoženja od-
sotnih oseb) (Mikola 1999, 15).32
While on the subject of cultural heritage objects, it makes sense to cite the newly 
emerging legislation in this area. On 27 January 1945, the SNOS adopted an 
Ordinance of the Presidency on the Protection of Libraries, Archives and Cul-
tural Monuments (Odlok Predsedstva SNOS o zaščiti knjižnic, arhivov in kulturnih 
spomenikov),33 Article 1 of which states that, regardless of ownership, all libraries, 
archives, artistic, cultural and historical monuments, scientific and artistic collec-
tions and natural curiosities shall be under the protection of Slovenia’s national 
authorities.
On 24 May 1945 the Presidency of the AVNOJ adopted the “Act on the Collec-
tion, Safeguarding and Distribution of Books and Other Scientific and Artistic 
Objects of Cultural or Historical Value that Became State Property under the 
AVNOJ Ordinance of 21 November 1944” (Zakon o zbiranju, čuvanju in razdelje-
vanju knjig in drugih kulturno-zgodovinskih znanstvenih in umetniških predmetov, ki 
so postali državna last po odloku Antifašističnega sveta narodne osvoboditve Jugoslavije 
31 The confiscation of the property of the German Reich and its citizens and the property of ethnic 
Germans also covered property disposed of by its owners after 6 April 1941.
32 Uradni list FLRJ, no. 63/1946, 2 August 1946.
33 “Ordinance of the Presidency of the SNOS on the protection of books, archives and cultural mon-
uments.” Slovenski poročevalec. Glasilo Osvobodilne fronte 3/45, 27 January 1945, 3.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   58 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
59Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
z dne 21. novembra 1944) (Vodopivec 2020, 277).34 Article 1 of this Act provides 
that the Ministry of Education of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia is competent 
for the “collection, safeguarding and distribution of books, archival and museum 
objects, paintings and sculptures, scientific collections, musical instruments and all 
other objects of historical, scientific or artistic character that became state prop-
erty under the terms of the ordinance of the AVNOJ of 21 November 1944 …”
When researching transfers of objects of cultural heritage, it is also necessary to 
take into account other contexts where at first glance one might not expect to find 
them. On 25 July 1945 the Yugoslav Ministry of Education adopted the Rules on 
the Transfer of the Operations of the State Administration for National Property 
from the Competence of the Ministry of Industry to the Ministry of Educa-
tion of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia (Pravilnik o prenosu poslov državne uprave 
narodnega imetja iz pristojnosti industrijskega ministrstva v pristojnost prosvetnega 
ministrstva Demokratske federativne Jugoslavije).35 These Rules actually established 
the collection centres. Article 1 of the Rules provides that in places where district 
administrations for national property already existed, the competent education 
authorities should establish district collection centres for the “collection, safe-
guarding and distribution of books, archival and museum objects, paintings and 
sculptures, scientific collections, sheet music and all other objects of historical, 
scientific or artistic importance that have become state property”.36
The Ministry of Education issued a decree establishing collection centres for cul-
tural and historical objects at the end of July 1945.37 Consisting of just six arti-
cles, the decree was signed on 25 August of the same year by the minister, Ferdo 
Kozak (1894‒1957). This decree established a Federal Collection Centre (FZC) 
(Federalni zbirni center) at the Ministry of Education in Ljubljana for cultural 
and historical objects located anywhere in Slovenia, along with district collection 
centres in Maribor, Celje and Novo Mesto. The FZC also functioned as a district 
collection centre for Ljubljana and the Ljubljana district (Article 1). Presidents 
and managers of district collection centres were to be appointed by the education 
minister. They were to be assisted by art, science and music officials from the 
culture department of the Ministry of Education and the head of the Monument 
Protection Institute (Article 3).38 Despite this, the activities of collection centres 
34 Uradni list DFJ, no. 36/1945, 29 May 1945.
35 Uradni list DFJ, no. 54/1945, 31 July 1945.
36 For more insight into the topic of transfer and distribution of library material, see Kodrič-Dačić 
(2000, 51‒63).
37 Uradni list SNOS in Narodne vlade Slovenije, no. 33/1945, 8 September 1945.
38 The Monument Protection Institute had not yet been established. The proposal to establish it was 
adopted in August 1945 and published in the official journal on 22 September 1945.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   59 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
60 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
were not well coordinated (Komelj 1976, 20), which was mainly a consequence 
of Article 5 of the decree, which provided that all cultural and historical objects 
within the territory of Slovenia that became state property under the AVNOJ 
ordinance of 21 November 1944 were at the exclusive disposal of the Federal 
Collection Centre and its district centres.
The head of the fine arts and museums section was appointed president of the 
FZC, although in fact all the president’s duties were actually discharged by the 
secretary, Čoro Škodlar (1902‒1996). In October 1945 the KUNI sent all the 
district administrations for national property a copy of Document No. 674/45-28, 
which authorized the FZC to collect and safeguard cultural and historical objects 
throughout Slovenia and transfer them from one district to another, but primarily 
to collect them in Ljubljana for a future central museum of Slovenia (Vodišek 
2012, 10).39 To summarize, the FZC was responsible for identifying, collecting 
and managing the confiscated cultural and historical property of the occupying 
powers and domestic traitors. Movable cultural heritage was taken from national-
ized mansions, castles, villas and other dwellings belonging to the bourgeoisie, as 
well as from offices and other locations, and placed in the repositories of district 
collection centres. The FZC was abolished in 1948 although not legally dissolved. 
Instead, its work was taken over by the Ministry of Education and, from 1949 
onwards, by the Ministry of Culture and Science (ibid.).
Celje District Collection Centre
It is possible to show, from the fragmentary surviving documentation held by the 
PMC and other available literature, how the Celje District Collection Centre 
(Okrožni zbirni center – OZC) operated.40 A report from the branch office of the 
Commission for the Determination of Damage, dated 30 July 1945 and held 
by the PMC, contains a proposal to use Celje, Šoštanj, Slovenske Konjice and 
Brežice as the main collection bases for the Celje district. In early July 1945, even 
before the collection centres were established, a commission for the safeguarding 
of cultural and historical objects was set up at the Celje District Committee of 
the Liberation Front.41 All Liberation Front local committees and KUNI officials 
39 Additionally, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Trade and Supply issued an authoriza-
tion under the terms of which the FZC was permitted to access, inspect, safeguard and remove ob-
jects that had become national property pursuant to the AVNOJ ordinance of 21 November 1945.
40 For more detailed insight on the topic of confiscation of cultural objects during and after the Sec-
ond World War see Murovec and Šmid (2022, 319–86).
41 The circular is dated 11 July 1945 (SI ZAC, 0097, Okrožni ljudski odbor Celje, box 4, sig. 33, 
“Ustanovitev komisije za zavarovanje kulturno zgodovinskih spomenikov”).
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   60 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
61Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
were ordered to assist this commission and provide it with all necessary support in 
its work. They were also required to grant commission members access to various 
confiscated buildings “in which the largest number of these items will be locat-
ed”.42 The report goes on to detail the procedure to follow when removing objects.
On 23 October 1945 an ordinance of the Ministry of Education appointed An-
ton Stupica (1900‒1973) president of the Celje (OZC). Stupica was an art his-
torian and museum curator who served as head of this centre and provisional 
manager of the municipal museum. Between October and the end of November 
the members of the OZC inspected the KUNI repositories in Celje several times 
and selected from among the confiscated property those objects that they con-
sidered would serve their purpose.43 The 30 July 1945 report of the branch office 
of the Commission for the Determination of Damage reveals that a temporary 
repository for cultural and historical items was located in the Capuchin church, 
where the German occupation authorities had earlier stored confiscated objects. 
All confiscated objects were then moved elsewhere. The report states that a total 
of 10 days, with intervals, and six journeys were required to move the objects. 
Transport was provided by the removal company Baldasin, since despite its ef-
forts the Commission was unable to obtain a vehicle of its own either from the 
district authorities or from other bodies.44 The objects were transported to the 
Grofija, the former count’s residence, and the Narodni dom (House of the People, 
or National Home), recently renamed the Dom ljudske prosvete (House of Popular 
Culture) for storage.45 
Martin Perc and Cvetko Ščuka (1895‒1987), the latter a teacher at the gimnazija 
(upper secondary school) in Celje, also acted as authorized agents of the Celje 
OZC. Ščuka was from the beginning an active employee for the OZC, but after 
he got a teaching position at the gimnazija in Celje, his work was only occasional. 
For this reason Stupica wrote several letters that in the interest of the OZC Ščuka 
“should be temporarily relieved from teaching and be assigned to our Office all 
day”.46 In addition to the two people mentioned above, Anica Presinger also acted 
42 Ibid.
43 SI ZAC, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, box 1, 002, 00002, “Okrožni zbirni center Celje, Poročilo 
čas od 15. oktobra do 30. nov. 1945 III/67”.
44 On the basis of the invoice submitted by Baldasin, we can take 26 July 1945 as the day on which 
the removal was completed. Report for the second half of July 1945, dated 30 July 1945. Letter held 
by the PMC.
45 The Narodni dom building today houses the offices of the City Municipality of Celje and the local 
offices of the state administration.
46 SI ZAC, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, box 1,002, 00002, “Okrožni zbirni center Celje, Poročilo 
čas od 15. oktobra do 30. nov. 1945 III/67, dated 3 December 1945”.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   61 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
62 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
as a representative.47 The work of the OZC was not without difficulties at first, 
and Stupica reports a number of obstacles, particularly the need to obtain author-
ization from the FZC in order to collect cultural and historical objects, since this 
meant he was prevented from acting on his own initiative. This relates above all 
to activities involving the collection of objects from confiscated estates. These es-
tates were allocated to different ministries and the official removal of cultural and 
historical objects in order to transport them to the repositories of the OZC was 
not possible without authorization. In his report for the first half of December 
1945, Stupica states that “misappropriations” had occurred without the OZC’s 
knowledge.48 The OZC had not received a single item for the repository in the 
first half of December. The main problem was that the collection centre did not 
have its own vehicle and had no access to funds. 
An answer to the report came at the end of the month. In it, the FZC secretary 
Škodlar cautions the OZC that in future it should report 
above all on its work for the collection centre (removal, safeguarding, 
making inventories, etc.) and that its work for the OZC should be its 
prime concern. That other cultural work for the Institute for the Pro-
tection of Cultural and Natural Monuments, the district museum and 
the study library was certainly laudable, but should never be done “at the 
expense of collection operations.49 
He goes on to warn the OZC to carefully follow up cases where the arbitrary 
disposal of cultural and historical objects was suspected and to hand the individ-
uals concerned over to the public prosecutor if they were unwilling to surrender 
objects when officially invited to do so. Since the OZC did not have a lorry of its 
own, Škodlar suggested applying to the local authorities to arrange the loan of one 
of their vehicles. The FZC would pay for petrol and travel costs up to the amount 
of 5,000 dinars by no later than the beginning January 1946, when it was due to 
be granted credit by the Ministry of Education.50
47 The President of the OZC, Anton Stupica, advocated in one of his letters for her workplace to be 
kept, at least until she was employed at a Celje textile factory (which was expected to be in three 
months’ time). He justified the proposal due to the necessity of field and office work, and he also 
stressed the importance of making an inventory list. The document is dated 25 February 1946. 
Okrožni zbirni center Celje. VI/197. Letter held by the PMC.
48 SI ZAC, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, box 1, 002, 00002, “Okrožni zbirni center Celje, Poročilo 
za 1. polmesečje decembra 1945 III/75”.
49 Federal Collection Centre at the Ministry of Education, E.C. 152-45 of 31 December 1945. Held 
by the PMC.
50 Federal Collection Centre at the Ministry of Education, E.C. 152-45 of 31 December 1945. Held 
by the PMC.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   62 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
63Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
In Celje, just as elsewhere, the personal interests of specific groups or individu-
als played out in the background. Thus, on 7 May 1946, the Art and Museums 
Department at the Ministry of Education was briefed on matters concerning the 
museum in Celje. The report submitted stated that the existing administrator of 
the museum, Comrade Martin Perc, performed his duties conscientiously, “but 
his powers and abilities are inadequate in the light of the urgent need for reor-
ganization”.51 The management of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural 
Monuments proposed, “at the request of the Museum Society and Celje’s cultural 
community” (this was the formulation used in the report), that Perc be dismissed 
and that Anton Stupica, the head of the collection centre in Celje, be appointed 
as temporary museum administrator in his place.52 This is in fact what happened 
later that same month. On 20 May the Ministry of Education sent a letter to the 
Municipal People’s Committee in Celje relieving Perc of his duties and appoint-
ing Anton Stupica as temporary museum administrator.53 One individual who did 
not agree with this decision was the president of the Celje Museum Society, Janko 
Orožen (1891‒1989).
In September of the same year, Orožen wrote a number of letters to the Ministry 
in which he stated that he considered Stupica to be incompetent and described his 
appointment as “irregular and unlawful”.54 Along with the latter’s alleged incom-
petence, Orožen highlighted the fact that now Stupica was the only one to have 
the keys “to the museum storerooms in both museums”. This statement relates to 
the fact that in May 1946 the Celje OZC ceased operations, after which the mu-
seum premises were used to store both objects belonging to the Museum Society 
and objects from the collection centre. According to Orožen, all the objects in the 
museum premises were “self-evidently museum property, deriving from Celje and 
the surrounding area”.55
Orožen’s correspondence with the Ministry included one rather stern letter in 
which he claims that certain items had been removed from the museum store-
rooms in the Grofija and taken to various locations. Orožen writes that within a 
week of Stupica’s appointment as museum administrator a large lorry had come to 
the Grofija on two occasions and removed various objects including valuable rugs, 
12 large and valuable framed paintings, antique furniture, valuable antique chests, 
51 It had been known since the end of the war that Perc’s appointment as museum administrator was 
only temporary (ARS, AS 231, box 51, 8438-4_46, “Mesto upravnika muzeja v Celju”).
52 Ibid.
53 ARS, AS 231, box 51, 8438-4_46, “Dokument IV. 8438/1”.
54 ARS, AS 231, box 51, 8438/4_46.
55 Ibid.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   63 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
64 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
porcelain, ceramics, etc.56 “Who”, Orožen wonders, “ordered Stupica to allow the 
removal from the museum of these objects that are museum property?” He then 
demands that all the objects removed be returned to the museum forthwith.57 One 
possible answer to the question of who gave the order may lie in the document 
itself. Later on in the document, an entire paragraph is marked by hand and the 
name “Škodlar” is written in the margin. This suggests that the order came from 
the very top: from Ljubljana.58
Orožen calls on the Ministry to issue a written order assigning both the mu-
seum administration and the collection centre to him, as legal representative, 
and removing Stupica from both positions. This did not happen, however, and 
Stupica continued to serve as director of the museum until the summer of 1964. 
On 28 February 1947, the FZC sent out a circular instructing the Celje OZC to 
take an inventory of all the stored cultural and historical objects without delay. 
All the objects were to be given numbers and the completed inventory sent to 
Ljubljana as soon as possible. The instructions stated that antique and artistic 
objects should be accurately labelled in such a way that their importance would 
be evident from the list.59
Difficulties of Object Identification
On the basis of the archival material currently known to us, we are aware of 
three confiscations relating to castles and country mansions that are connected 
to the Asian collection. These are the confiscations at Lemberg Castle (Lem-
berg), Dobrnica Castle (Guteneck) and Dvorec Dobje (Dobiehof). The first one is 
Lemberg Castle. A few days after the official end of the war, a delegation from 
the Celje District Committee of the Liberation Front went to Lemberg Castle 
to take possession of it and, at the same time, compile a detailed description of 
the state of the castle and its contents (Slatinek 2013, 103).60 Representatives 
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 Čoro (Franc) Škodlar (1902‒1996), painter, restaurateur and journalist. After the war he was a part 
of the Commission for the Determination of Damage to Cultural and Historical Objects of Slo-
venia and later part of the FZC. Some years following the abolition of the FZC a large amount 
of objects obtained illegally were found in his studio and two apartments. After in a court trial in 
1951, Škodlar and his wife were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms. For more insight into 
the topic of the Škodlar affair, see Lazarini (2016, 738–46, ARS, AS 231, box 89, “Sodba v imenu 
ljudstva, no. K 373/51-31”).
59 Federal Collection Centre at the Ministry of Education, No. 4–10. Document held by the PMC.
60 The report on the confiscation of the castle was compiled on 18 May 1945.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   64 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
65Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
of the KUNI took possession of the castle on 13 July 1945, by which time its 
owner, Netta Gallé, was already in detention (ibid.).61 On this occasion they also 
compiled a report, from which we learn that the castle contained a “Japanese 
room”.62 Simultaneously with the confiscation and the drawing up of the in-
ventory, a list was compiled of “objects from the castle for the national museum 
in Celje”. Objects destined for the museum were taken by the Commission for 
the Determination of Damage and taken to the “Celje repository”.63 From the 
compiled list a total of more than 34 objects of Asian or Japanese provenance 
are listed.
The second confiscation was carried out at Dobrnica Castle. The documentation 
held by the museum includes various documents relating to Dobrnica and the 
confiscation of cultural and historical objects. The Commission for the Determi-
nation of Damage visited the castle in July 1945 and drew up a list of confiscated 
cultural and historical objects. Dobrnica was visited by a two-member team con-
sisting of Božo Vodušek (1905‒1978) and Čoro Škodlar, they sealed six first-floor 
rooms and the chapel, where various cultural and historical objects were stored.64 
The documents held by the museum include a report on the removal of items dat-
ed 17 November 1945. Among the seized property taken to the Celje OZC, the 
report (compiled the following day) lists a number of objects which, from their 
description, could be linked to East Asia. Five are expressly listed as “Japanese”: 
a cabinet with table, two round tables, a “chandelier” and a “small tray”.65 Among 
the confiscated property on the list was a wooden statue of Buddha that was taken 
to the Celje collection centre. On examining the museum’s collection, however, we 
find that it does not contain a single object corresponding to this description. The 
61 She was arrested on 13 May. Her son Hubert fled to join his wife in Gornja Radgona on 31 April 
1945 (SI ZAC, 0107, KUNI – uprave narodne imovine 1945–1958, box 13, “Poizvedbe na gradu 
Lemberg”). In the record from 18 May it is stated that the owner had been evicted as a national 
traitor. Hubert Gallé claims that Netta was killed by Partisans in May 1945 at Bezovica near Vojnik 
(Gallé 1991, 203; 2007, 279).
62 SI ZAC, 0107, KUNI – uprave narodne imovine 1945–1958, box 13, “Okrajni odbor OF Celje 
okolica pooblaščenec za KUNI, zapisnik z dne 15. 7. 1945”. It is not clear from the report whether 
there were any Asian objects in the room, since the inventory reads as follows: three curtain rods, 
four armchairs, one child’s table (old), one small chair, two card tables, one writing table, two stands, 
one tray, one music stand, one chest, and one basket, all antique and unusable.
63 SI ZAC, 0107 KUNI – uprave narodne imovine 1945–1958, box 13, “Seznam prevzetih predmetov 
iz graščine Galle Nette v Lembergu št. 1”.
64 Responsibility for ensuring that the seals were unbroken lay with the warden, one person by the 
name Ramšak, who was appointed by the local committee in Dobrna (“Zapisnik o delu Komisije za 
ugotovitev škode na kulturno-zgodovinskih predmetih Slovenije na uradni poti od 9. do 11. julija 
1945”). Report held by the PMC.
65 Ibid.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   65 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
66 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
question that naturally raises itself is: what happened to this object? Was it dis-
posed of en route to the museum? Did one of the inventory-takers appropriate it? 
Was it loaned out and never returned? There are several possibilities, that require 
further examination.
Besides those from Lemberg Castle, a large number of objects of Asian prove-
nance were obtained during the seizure of the property from Dvorec Dobje (Do-
biehof) near Slovenske Konjice. Up until the end of the Second World War, the 
property belonged to Countess Alexandrine (Sandra) Sermage (1864‒1945).66 
The post-war authorities arrested her and sent her to the Strnišče concentration 
camp near Ptuj, where she died.67 The inventorying and seizure of Alexandrine’s 
property were carried out before the end of 1945. This is indicated by a copy of 
the inventory kept by the museum, which was compiled on 6 September 1945 and 
states that the items listed were removed by an KUNI agent from Celje for Celje 
Museum.68 The copy of the inventory includes a total of 32 items of Asian prov-
enance. So in these three buildings alone, around 70 objects of East Asian origin 
have been identified on the basis of the above mentioned post-war inventories of 
confiscated property.
In these particular cases, reconstruction of provenance is made more difficult by 
the scant descriptions of the objects concerned, along the lines of “1 Japanese 
vase”, “1 Japanese table”, and so on. Rare are the cases in which we can confirm 
with certainty the specific museum piece that the inventory-taker had in mind 
when compiling the inventory. The biggest obstacle to the work is the small 
amount of archival material available, which is also fragmented and dispersed. A 
further difficulty is presented by the lack of knowledge or expertise of the indi-
viduals carrying out these inventories in the field. Provenance was most probably 
attributed on the basis of a glance at the outward appearance of an object and 
no more. 
66 Alexandrine (Sandra) Sermage von Szomszédvár und Medvedgrád (see Österreichisches 
Biographisches Lexikon, 1815–1950 2002, 189).
67 This camp was established by the Department for Protection of the People (Oddelek za zaščito naro-
da – OZNA) and was the main internment camp for Germans in Slovenia (Mikola 2007, 11–26).
68 Prepis. Inventarni zapisnik grf. Xande Sermagi, Dobrova Slov. Konjice. Document held by the 
PMC.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   66 14. 01. 2025   13:40:35
67Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
Figure 3. Example of a handwritten list of confiscated items. (Source: Celje Regional Museum)
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   67 14. 01. 2025   13:40:36
68 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
Given these factors, it is almost impossible to assert which confiscated object cor-
responds to an object held in a museum collection. Various types of Japanese and 
Chinese ceramics made for export are held by the museum as part of its Cultural 
History Collection. Entries such as “1 Japanese vase” and “1 antique Japanese 
bowl” are not much help when it comes to identifying a specific object. Some 
objects of these types are also listed in the inventories of confiscated property 
relating to Lemberg Castle and dvorec Dobje. In early February 1946 a “Japanese 
porcelain vase” was removed from the confiscated estate of Prince Hugo of Win-
disch-Graetz in Slovenske Konjice by officers from the Celje collection centre.69 
A week later, a similar list was compiled for the Šenek Estate, which was then 
state property. The items confiscated here included two “large Japanese vases”, 
which were deposited along with the other items in the museum.70
The category of confiscations from the homes of the bourgeoisie includes the 
contents of the villa of August Westen in the summer of 1945.71 The following 
items in the inventory of this confiscation were marked as Asian: “2 vases with 
Japanese motifs”, “1 Japanese vase” and “1 bronze figure, Indian elephant (deco-
rated miniature)”.72 A similar situation can be seen in the case of the list of objects 
confiscated from Villa Kodela in Celje, drawn up on 15 September 1945. This list 
includes a mention of “1 large Japanese vase”.73 This group of confiscations also 
includes the two candelabra made from a vases that are held in the museum under 
inventory number KZ 1979/1–2. These are two candelabra that are essentially 
a combination of a porcelain vase painted in the famille rose style and a metal 
framework richly decorated with motifs of East Asian inspiration: plum blossoms, 
bamboo, dragons and demonic masks. These two candelabra are currently the only 
two known examples of this type of mounting in any museum in Slovenia. These 
interesting objects conceal an interesting story that we will look at further below.
69 The list of contents removed was drawn up on 6 February 1946. The removed items were taken to 
Celje and stored in the Grofija. The removal report was signed by Anica Presinger. List held by the 
PMC.
70 List of contents removed, dated 13 February 1946. The objects were removed by Ščuka acting on 
behalf of the Celje OZC. Šenek’s park and mansion lie on the northern edge of Polzela in the Sav-
inja Valley.
71 Family of German entrepreneurs who developed the enamelware industry in Celje (Orožen 2013).
72 Inventory report dated 4 June 1945. The removed items were transported to the Commission’s re-
pository. The document is part of the documentation held by the PMC.
73 The villa stood in Celje. As in the case of the inventory of the villa of August Westen, the inventory 
and removal was carried out by the Commission for the Determination of Damage. Cvetko Ščuka 
was present at the removal. The report is part of the documentation held by the PMC.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   68 14. 01. 2025   13:40:36
69Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
Confiscation of the Property of the German Reich and its Citizens 
and the Property of Ethnic Germans—the Case of the Candelabra
In the process of researching the provenance of East Asian objects, we also under-
took an examination of older museum documentation, in the hope that this might 
provide starting points for further research. Our attention was drawn to a docu-
ment relating to objects belonging to one Amalija Hellmann, which were stored 
in the premises of what was then the Celje Municipal Museum (Mestni muzej 
Celje) and is today the Celje Regional Museum (PMC). The document consists 
of three typewritten pages, the first two of which are dated 30 July 1964. The 
second and third pages are of particular interest to us. The second page contains 
a list of objects that do appear in the museum’s inventory and were the property 
of Amalija Hellmann. Item number 12 on this list reads as follows: “Candelabra, 
2, inv. no. 1979”. The last page of the document, which unlike the other two is 
undated, contains a list of objects that were included in the museum inventory 
and for which there is no official proof that they were ever the property of Amal-
ija Hellmann. The document was clearly created at a later date, since Amalija 
Hellmann is referred to as deceased and the name of the institution has already 
changed from the Municipal Museum to Regional Museum. Item number 12 on 
the list reads “candelabra, three-branched, metal, combined with painted porce-
lain KZ 1979, 2 pieces”.74 These two candelabra are the focal point in the follow-
ing case and are also mentioned above in the category of confiscations from the 
homes of the bourgeoisie. 
On the basis of the above, the question that automatically raises itself is why did 
the personal belongings of Amalija Hellmann end up in the premises and inven-
tory of the museum? We found an answer to this question among the court files of 
Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju), which are held in the Celje Historical 
Archives (Zgodovinski arhiv Celje). In April 1952, Celje Local Court annulled a 
confiscation decision of the Celje Municipal Confiscation Commission (Mestna 
zaplembena komisija v Celju) dated 24 August 1945 (confiscation order 457/45), 
under which all movable and immovable property of Amalija Hellmann75 located 
in the sub-district of Celje or anywhere in the Federal People’s Republic of Yugo-
slavia (FPRY) was transferred to state ownership.76 The court also ruled that the 
confiscation proceedings against Hellmann could be reopened. According to the 
judgment all of her confiscated property should be returned to her.
74 List of items in private property of Amalija Hellmann. Copy held by the PMC.
75 At the time of the judgment, in April 1952, Amalija Hellmann was residing at Muzejski Trg 9.
76 SI ZAC, 0611, Okrajno sodišče Celje, box I-1952, I 59/52.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   69 14. 01. 2025   13:40:36
70 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
Figure 4. Candelabrum. (Source: Cultural History Collection, Celje Regional Museum, 
KZ 1979/2)
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   70 14. 01. 2025   13:40:36
71Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
The court file also states the basis on which the Municipal Confiscation Com-
mission adopted its original decision, viz. “because the named individual is an 
ethnic German”.77 As will be demonstrated below, this was a false allegation. The 
grounds of judgment clearly state that under a confiscation decision of the Celje 
Municipal Confiscation Commission dated 24 August 1945 (confiscation order 
457/45), all movable and immovable property of Emilija Hellmann located in the 
sub-district of Celje or anywhere in the FPRY was confiscated. The first thing to 
point out here is that this is not a typographical error on our part. Rather, we are 
talking about two different people: Amalija Hellmann and Emilija Hellmann. 
When did this mistake occur? It occurred at the time the document was drawn 
up. The confiscation decision against Amalija Hellmann was based on an official 
confirmation from the Local National Liberation Committee (Krajevni narod-
noosvobodilni odbor—KNOO) dated 24 August 1945 which, however, refers to an 
individual with the first name Emilija, resident at Na Okopih 9 in Celje, and con-
tains the assertion that this individual was an ethnic German. The KNOO was 
also in possession of the information that “Amalija”, a schoolteacher, had allegedly 
abused her pupils by calling them “windische Hunde” (Slovene dogs).78
The Celje Municipal People’s Committee (Mestni ljudski odbor Celje) reported this 
evident error in a letter dated 14 August 1947, stating that at the time in question 
Amalija Hellmann was actually resident at Razlagova 3 in Celje. On questioning 
Amalija, it was established that she was not and had never been a schoolteacher 
and consequently could not have abused her pupils in the manner described. She 
further explained that one of her relatives was a schoolteacher. Having realized 
that there had been a mistake, the Municipal Council issued the rather non-com-
mittal opinion that “this may be a case of mistaken identity”.79 Not only that, but 
Amalija’s husband was a Jew, meaning that the exception contained in the first 
article of the Act on the transfer of enemy property into state ownership and the 
sequestration of the property of absent persons would have applied in her case. 
A number of years would pass before the Executive Committee of the Municipal 
People’s Authority in Celje proposed, on 3 January 1952, that confiscation pro-
ceedings in this confiscation matter be reopened.
When giving evidence Amalija Hellmann stated that she was a Czech by na-
tionality and citizenship and a Slovene by birth. Born in Klagenfurt (Celovec) 
on 2 April 1893, she had moved with her parents to the Celje area when she was 
still very young. She spent her school years in Liboje and Celje and then in 1920 
77 SI ZAC, 0611, Okrajno sodišče Celje, box I-1952, I 59/52.
78 Ibid.
79 Ibid.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   71 14. 01. 2025   13:40:36
72 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
married Vítězslav Petr Hellmann, thereby obtaining Czechoslovakian citizenship. 
The evidence she submitted to the court included her marriage certificate, which 
shows that she was married on 29 November 1920 and that her husband was of 
the Jewish faith. Her husband had owned property in Brandlín, in what was then 
Czechoslovakia, but had died in 1932. Having lost all her property in bankruptcy 
proceedings, Amalija went back to live with her parents in 1937 and obtained 
employment in Sevnica and Celje. On the basis of these facts, she proposed at 
the hearing that the confiscation proceedings should be reopened and that the 
whole of her confiscated property, insofar as it was still located in Celje, should be 
returned to her.
A second surviving court file from the Celje Historical Archives, dated 1971, also 
relates to Amalija Hellmann’s property in the museum. That year Alfonz Smol-
nikar, the nephew of the late Amalija Hellmann, who had died the previous year, 
brought an action against the museum. Following a hearing, the court ruled that 
the furniture located in the museum was the property of the late Amalija Hell-
mann and that these objects were part of her estate. Item number 10 on the list of 
objects refers to the “two Japanese candelabra” already mentioned.80 The grounds 
of judgment and witness statements allow us to fill in the blanks. The applicant 
emphasized that the museum had not acquired ownership of the listed objects 
(through possession) and that it was merely storing them as a depositary.81
The museum did not deny, in these proceedings, the fact of the confiscation of 
the property and its subsequent annulment. It did, however, take the view that the 
museum was in possession as owner (animo domini) of all the objects that were 
still disputed and had thus acquired the right of ownership over them.82 It was 
stated that these disputed objects had arrived in the museum in 1945 via the OZC 
and that they were considered social property under the legislation in force at 
the time. Following the annulment of the original judgment, Amalija Hellmann 
went to the museum on multiple occasions demanding the return of the objects. 
According to the museum, she did not bring a list with her and it was therefore 
not possible to identify the objects as her property. Based on letters preserved in 
the court file it would appear that the candelabra came along with Amalija Hell-
mann’s furniture to the museum directly from her home, at her own request, rather 
than via the OZC. Not only that, but this furniture did not arrive all at once but 
80 SI ZAC, 0611, Okrajno sodišče Celje, box 354, P 479/70.
81 His grounds for believing this lay in two letters dated 23 January 1963 and 6 April 1965 in which 
the museum called on Amalija Hellmann to remove her furniture and other objects from the muse-
um because the museum needed its premises for its own material (SI ZAC, 0611, Okrajno sodišče 
Celje, box 354, P 479/70).
82 Ibid.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   72 14. 01. 2025   13:40:36
73Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
in two stages: first in 1945 and then in 1954. Witnesses at the hearing stated that 
they were aware that Amalija Hellmann’s antique furniture was stored in the mu-
seum. One witness testified that in the years after the war Amalija made regular 
visits to the prosecutor’s office and the municipal offices in Celje in an effort to 
assert her rights.
A number of photographs of Amalija Hellmann’s legacy that were in the pos-
session of Smolnikar proved to be of key importance for the resolution of this 
problem. During the court proceedings, he submitted as evidence a large number 
of photographs of furniture and other objects that he had found in the late Amal-
ija’s home, along with a number of documents. On the basis of the statements of 
witnesses and an inspection of the objects in the museum, Smolnikar reduced his 
list to those objects that he had been able to examine at the museum and identify 
on the basis of the submitted photographs. After considering all the evidence, the 
court approved the reduced list submitted in the claim. It was evidently not possi-
ble to prove that the candelabra, which remained in the inventory under inventory 
number KZ 1979/1–2, were the property of the deceased, so they are still to be 
found in the museum’s Cultural History Collection.
Acknowledgement
The article is a completed and expanded research of the topic, which was already 
hinted at in the monograph Taken into Protection. The monograph was published 
in 2023 as part of the project Orphaned Objects: Examining East Asian Objects out-
side Organised Collecting Practices in Slovenia (2021–2025) ( J6-3133), funded by 
the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS).
Archival Sources
Historical Archive Celje (Zgodovinski arhiv Celje)
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 0241, KLO Frankolovo (1945–1951), Box 2.
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 0075, Okupacijska občina Celje, Box 20.
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 0097, Okrožni ljudski odbor Celje, Box 4.
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 0107 KUNI – uprave narodne imovine 1945–
1958, Box 13.
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 0611, Okrajno sodišče Celje, Box I-1952, I 
59/52.
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 0611, Okrajno sodišče Celje, Box 354, P 479/70.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   73 14. 01. 2025   13:40:37
74 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 1318, Osnovna šola Frankolovo (1816–1993), 
Box 13.
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 1135, Pokrajinski muzej Celje, Box 1.
SI ZAC, Zgodovinski arhiv Celje, 0072, Urad pooblaščenca državnega komis-
arja za utrjevanje nemštva v Mariboru, izpostava Celje, Box 3, Zaplembe 
premoženja posameznikov, ustanov, uradov, podjetij (A–H), folder F BA – 
1941/42, Faber Sidney – Vojnik, Frankolovo.
Archives of the Republic of Slovenia (Arhiv Republike Slovenije)
SI AS, Arhiv Republike Slovenije, AS 231, Ministrstvo za prosveto Ljudske re-
publike Slovenije, Box 51, 8438-4_46.
SI AS, Arhiv Republike Slovenije, AS 231, Ministrstvo za prosveto Ljudske repub-
like Slovenije, Box 89, Sodba v imenu ljudstva, no. K 373/51-31, 6. 9. 1951.
Off icial Gazettes
Uradni list DFJ, no. 2/1945, February 6, 1945.
Uradni list DFJ, no. 36/1945, May 29, 1945.
Uradni list DFJ, no. 40/1945, June12, 1945.
Uradni list DFJ, no. 54/1945, July 31, 1945.
Uradni list FLRJ, no. 63/1946, August 2, 1946.
Uradni list DFJ, no. 88/1945, November 13, 1945.
Uradni list SNOS in Narodne vlade Slovenije, no. 33, September 8, 1945.
Land Registers
Okrajno sodišče v Celju, Zemljiška knjiga, Verpete 1–60, entry no. 5, p. 57.
Other Sources
“Odlok Predsedstva SNOS o zaščiti knjižnic, arhivov in kulturnih spomenikov.” 
1945. Slovenski poročevalec. Glasilo Osvobodilne fronte, January 27, 1945. Lju-
bljana: Slovenski poročevalec.
Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark. 
1941. No. 4/1941, 21. April 1941.
Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark. 
1942. No. 5/1941, 24. April 1941.
Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark. 
1941. No. 11/1941, 16. maj 1941.
Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark. 
1941. No. 26/1941, 23. junij 1941.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   74 14. 01. 2025   13:40:37
75Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark. 
1941. No. 36/1941, 12. avgust 1941. 
Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark. 
1943. No. 7/1943, 11. marec 1943.
Verordnungs- und Amtsblatt des Chefs des Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteiermark.” 
1943. No. 7, 7 March 1943.
References
Arhivi: glasilo Arhivskega društva in arhivov Slovenije. 1990. 13 (1/2).
Asian Studies. 2021. East Asia in Slovenia: Collecting Practices, Categorization and 
Representation. Asian Studies 9 (3).
Ferenc, Tone. 1968. Nacistična raznarodovalna politika v Sloveniji v letih 1941–
1945, Maribor: Obzorja.
———, ed. 1980a. Viri o nacistični raznarodovalni politiki v Sloveniji 1941–1945. 
Maribor: Obzorja.
———. 1980b. “Abschlussbericht des Generaltreuhändlers für die Sicherstellung 
der Kulturgüter über die Tätigkeit in der Untersteiermark.” In Viri o nacistični 
raznarodovalni politiki v Sloveniji 1941–1945, 477–81. Maribor: Obzorja.
———. 1980c. “Aktenvermerk des Generaltreuhänders für die Sicherstellung der 
Kulturgüter über die Tätigkeit in der Untersteiermark.” In Viri o nacistični 
raznarodovalni politiki v Sloveniji 1941–1945, 401–03. Maribor: Obzorja.
———. 1980d. “Bericht des Generaltreuhänders für die Sicherstellung der Kul-
turgüter über Besprechungen in Graz.” In Viri o nacistični raznarodovalni 
politiki v Sloveniji 1941–1945, 341–42. Maribor: Obzorja.
———. 1980e. “Dankschreiben des Chefs der Zivilverwaltung in der Unterstei-
ermark für die Sicherstellung der Kulturgüter.” In Viri o nacistični raznarodo-
valni politiki v Sloveniji 1941–1945, 584. Maribor: Obzorja.
———. 1980f. “Richtlinien und Anweisungen des Reichskommissars für die Fes-
tigung deutschen Volkstums zur Aussidlung von Slowenen und Ansiedlung 
von Deutschen in der Untersteiermark.” In Viri o nacistični raznarodovalni 
politiki v Sloveniji 1941–1945, 60–63. Maribor: Obzorja.
———. 1980g. “Verordnung des Chefs der Zivilverwaltung in der Untersteier-
mark über die Festigung deutschen Volkstums in der Untersteiermark.” In 
Viri o nacistični raznarodovalni politiki v Sloveniji 1941–1945, 70–71. Mari-
bor: Obzorja.
Gallé, W., Hubert. 1991. “Iz zgodovine družine Gallé.” Celjski zbornik 26 (1): 
199–204. Celje: Kulturna skupnost občine.
———. 2007. Die Gallé: eine Familiengeschichte. Self-publishing.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   75 14. 01. 2025   13:40:37
76 Davor MLINARIČ: Wartime and Post-War Confiscations of East Asian Objects ...
Godeša, Bojan. 2005. “Kultura med okupacijo.” In Slovenska novejša zgodovina: od 
programa Zedinjena Slovenija do mednarodnega priznanja Republike Slovenije: 
1848–1992, edited by Zdenko Čepič at al., 661–65. Ljubljana: Mladinska 
knjiga.
Kater, Michael, Hans. 1974. „Das Ahnenerbe der SS 1935–1945. Ein Beitrag zur 
Kulturpolitik des Dritten Reiches.“ Studien zur Zeitgeschichte 6: 28–36.
Kodrič-Dačić, Eva. 2000. “Federalni zbirni center in njegov prispevek k dopol-
nitvi fondov Narodne in univerzitetne knjižnice.” Knjižnica: revija za področje 
bibliotekarstva in informacijske znanosti 44 (4): 51‒63.
Komelj, Ivan. 1976. “Ob jubileju ‒ At the Jubilee: leto 1945 in varstvo kulturnih 
spomenikov na Slovenskem.” Varstvo spomenikov 20: 5–52.
Kozina, Brane. 1990. “Komisija za upravo narodne imovine.” Arhivi: glasilo Ar-
hivskega društva in arhivov Slovenije 13 (1/2): 15–19. Ljubljana: Arhivsko 
društvo Slovenije.
Krajevni leksikon dravske banovine: krajevni repertorij z uradnimi, topografskimi, 
zemljepisnimi, zgodovinskimi, kulturnimi, gospodarskimi in tujskoprometnimi 
podatki vseh krajev dravske banovine, 1937. Ljubljana: Tiskarna Slovenija.
Lazar, Tomaž. 2017. Poti samurajev: japonsko orožje in bojevniška kultura na Slov-
enskem. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije.
Lazarini, Franci. 2016. “Slovenske grajske stavbe in leto 1945.” Studia Histori-
ca Slovenica: časopis za humanistične in družboslovne študije 16 (3): 731–748. 
Maribor: Zgodovinsko društvo dr. Franca Kovačiča.
Lukezić, Irvin. 2004. Povijest riječkih konzulata: konzulati u Rijeci kroz povijest. 
Rijeka: Adamić.
———. 2006. “George Louis Faber – britanski kraljevski konzul u Rijeci.” Vjesnik 
Državnog arhiva u Rijeci 47-48: 213–66. Rijeka: Državni arhiv u Rijeci.
Mikola, Milan. 1992. “Zaplembe premoženja v Sloveniji v letih 1945–1946.” In 
Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 32 (1/2): 155–71. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo 
zgodovino.
Mikola, Milko. 1999. Zaplembe premoženja v Sloveniji 1943–1952. Celje: 
Zgodovinski arhiv Celje.
———. 2007. “Koncentracijska taborišča za pripadnike nemške in madžarske 
narodnosti v Sloveniji leta 1945.” In Dokumenti in pričevanja o povojnih kon-
centracijskih taboriščih v Sloveniji: koncentracijska taborišča Strnišče, Hrastovec, 
Brestrnica in Filovci, edited by Milko Mikola, 11–26. Ljubljana.
Mohar, Katarina. 2020. “Nacistično plenjenje umetnostne dediščine na Goren-
jskem med drugo svetovno vojno in primer oltarjev iz cerkve sv. Lucije v 
Dražgošah.” Acta historiae artis Slovenica 25 (1): 213–30.
Murovec, Barbara, and Karin Šmid. 2022. “Continuity in Collecting Cultural 
Objects. The National Socialist and Socialist Confiscating Centre in Maribor 
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   76 14. 01. 2025   13:40:37
77Asian Studies XIII (XXIX), 1 (2025), pp. 45–77
Castle.” In Transfer of Cultural Objects in the Alpe Adria Region in the 20th Cen-
tury, edited by Christian Fuhrmeister, and Barbara Murovec, 319–86. Wien, 
Köln: Böhlau Verlag.
Orožen, Janko. 2013.  “Westen.”  In Slovenska biografija.  Ljubljana: Slovenska 
akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 
2013. www.slovenska-biografija.si/rodbina/sbi838010/.
Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon, 1815–1950. 2002. Wien: Verlag der ŌAW.
Rodulović, Branko. 1990. “Komisija za upravo narodne imovine in zaplembe im-
etja. Nastanek in organizacija KUNI.” Arhivi: glasilo Arhivskega društva in 
arhivov Slovenije 13 (1/2): 12–15. Ljubljana: Arhivsko društvo Slovenije.
Slatinek, Zoran. 2013. Lemberg: grad in trg. Lemberg: self-publishing. Slovenski 
poročevalec. Glasilo Osvobodilne fronte. 1945. 3/45, 27 January 1945.
Trnovec, Barbara, ed. 2021a. Kaj počne tukaj samuraj?: vzhodnoazijski predmeti v 
zbirki Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske 
fakultete.
———. 2021b. “Samuraj z gradu Lemberg.” In Kaj počne tukaj samuraj?: vzhod-
noazijski predmeti v zbirki Pokrajinskega muzeja Celje, edited by Barbara Trno-
vec, 41–47. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete.
Vampelj Suhadolnik, Nataša. 2021. “East Asia in Slovenia: Collecting Practices, 
Categorization and Representation.” Asian studies 9 (3): 7–18.
Vodišek Tanja. 2012. “Federalni zbirni center in njegova zapuščina slovenskim 
muzejem.” Bachelor thes., University of Ljubljana.
Vodopivec, Barbara. 2020. “Zakonodajni in institucionalni okvir transferjev pred-
metov kulturne dediščine v povojni Jugoslaviji.” Kronika. Časopis za krajevno 
zgodovino 68: 273–92. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije.
Wedekind, Micheal, 2019. Die Besetzung der Vergangenheit: Archäologie, Früh-
geschichte und NS-Herrschaftslegitimation im Alpen-Adria-Raum (1939–1945). 
Innsbruck; Wien; Bozen: Studienverlag.
Wurzbach, Constant von. 1873. Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, 
enthaltend die Lebensskizzen der denkwurdigen Personen, welche 1750 bis 1850 
im Kaiserstaate und seinen Kronlandern gelebt haben, Th. 25, Wien.
Žnidarič, Marjan. 2004. “Okupacijska uprava v slovenski Štajerski leta 1941.” Lex 
localis: revija za lokalno samoupravo 2 (1): 21–43.
Žontar, Jože, 1990. “Povojni prisilni odvzemi zasebnega premoženja.” Arhivi: 
glasilo Arhivskega društva in arhivov Slovenije 13 (1/2): 5–11. Ljubljana: Ar-
hivsko društvo Slovenije.
Azijske_studije_2025-1_FINAL.indd   77 14. 01. 2025   13:40:37