'Owning' Military History

[maple_leaf_eh]

I get a sense of moral outrage that some private citizen has chosen who can read the books in his library. So what? The books are papers, bought and sold to whoever had the most money at the time of disposal. The fact that they are now privately held doesn't seem to register with the LCol. The current owner has unique and privileged information. If someone asks nicely, I'm sure the two can work out a way to share it. However, if the requester is hostile or demanding, maybe the response is equally uncharitable. Give and get.

[Ian Johns]

I know with our small museum when it comes to vehicles we just can't afford the full restoration cost. I mean we are all volunteers. I would say for every dollar the museum can afford to invest in our vehicles at least five leaves my pocket. When we have an event at the museum it's the private collectors that bring out their vehicles and they know who they are, that make our event. Without them our show wouldn't be the same. We can never thank them enough.

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Terry,

Yes, 'a sense of moral outrage' - probably a very apt description of much of what underlies the blog, I suspect. Whether it is genuine or not is another question.

As I said, the only thing that has caught my attention and I thought of interest to this more widely experienced audience was the broader 'moral' question posed. I think that has been resoundingly responded to.

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

"This raises the question (more a moral one than anything else) as to the extent that private individuals should be allowed to ‘own’ Australia’s military history for personal gratification."


Didn't this question get sorted in the Cold War? You know, the right to own personal property? As opposed to everything belonging to the State?

In any case the Colonel's proposition would only have merit insofar as the State could be trusted to preserve military history more successfully than the individual. On that score it's the Colonel himself who provides the most compelling argument for private individual ownership, by comparing the fate of records held in private individual hands to those NOT in private individual hands:

1. Records NOT in private individual hands: "there are three requests on the 3 Cav site for information about the ‘history’ of M113A1s that have been allocated to RSLs. One would have expected the log books to accompany the vehicles. I’ve suggested that the RSLs ask Defence for them. If Defence hasn’t included the log books as part of the vehicles, then one hopes that they’ve been sent to Archives."

In other words, the fate of these records is surrounded by confusion, uncertainty, diffusion of responsibility, bureaucratic bungling, and downright disinterest. Result: RECORDS LOST OR DESTROYED.

2. Records in private individual hands: "with the Centurion log books...the log books were considered part of the vehicle and therefore accompanied the tanks sold to the public...the purchaser of the tanks later on-sold all the log books as a single lot to a private collector"

In other words, these records have been safely preserved, by separating them from the tanks where their safety under new ownership could not be guaranteed. Furthermore, they've been kept together so that the body of information they collectively represent can also be analyzed and documented.

Of course, the Colonel's concern is not with preservation of records, but access to information. Certainly it will be easier to access information catalogued in public archives, insofar as it may exist, than to track down individuals in possession of information NOT held in public archives. Just as it will be easier to access objects on display at AWM than to track down individuals owning objects NOT on display at AWM. However, what seems to have escaped the Colonel, despite the RSL log book lesson, is that if it were not for these individuals, the objects and information of interest to him WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST!

[rob love]

I think the line:

their log books went to Archives and thence to the AWM. (Unfortunately the log books for the tanks in the Tank Museum and elsewhere within Puckapunyal have simply ‘disappeared’.)

also says a lot.

[Mike Gray]

Ian,
Yes, I agree. There is no doubt all of us who do this need to have deep pockets.
That being said, anyone ever try to pry military manuals/files/documents from the governments? Good luck.
The Halifax restoration crew, at CFB Trenton came to our museum for files and tech specs, as they heard we had a complete file. Which we gladly turned over on a loan basis. No charge.

[Mike Cecil]

Sure does Rob, and it also says a lot about assumptions and guess-work as opposed to doing some real research:

"their log books went to Archives and thence to the AWM"

.... is just wrong: all but one of the log books currently listed on the Archives Recordsearch as available at the AWM went from Army at Bandiana direct to the Military Heraldry and Technology (MHT) Section of the AWM way back in 1989/1990, and were transferred in two batches to the Research Centre between 2008 and 2014.

The one other was the log book for 169056, which, several months after the tank was transferred to the AWM in 2008 or 2009 (cannot remember when the tank was actually recd), was located by Defence and transferred, initially to the AWM's MHT section, and from there to the Research Centre.

As I have mentioned previously, there are a number of comments throughout the blog that are simply incorrect.

Mike