this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
94 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38719 readers
2372 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Is my reading comprehension bad today, or is that article written weirdly? If I'm reading it right, this statue was dug up in Rome, in 1781, and purchased by Hitler (with shenanigans) and moved to Munich, where it was placed on a base made in the 1600's. After WW2, the Italians took the statue back, but not base. Now the Italians are asking the Germans for the base, while the Germans are asking for the statue, claiming that hitlers purchase was legitimate.

I'm assuming the base was actually made in the 1700's, after this statue copy was unearthed, which makes the article less weird. Either way, though, I can't imaging the base is anything intricate, and as an "aftermarket" addition, I don't know why the Italians would care much about it.

[–] ArtieShaw@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

Unless I'm also having an off day, the article is just really confusing. It makes sense to me that Italy would want the base back because it would be like selling a framed painting to Hitler and getting only the canvas back when it was returned. (Hitler, amirite?)

It's probably a pretty nice base. Probably custom made for the statue shortly after it was unearthed, and probably the sort of thing that art historians would care about keeping together with the sculpture for art historian reasons.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Since the statue can be separated from the base, perhaps the base in question was made in the 17th century - before the statue was discovered - intended for something different.

Here's an article that includes a picture of a little man with said base: https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/68934