Impressed? Not very!

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Interesting topic which certainly needs more looking in to

IIRC (you know, having heard the bell ringing) in Britain and The Netherlands there were schemes that for when companies were buying lorries, they would get a subsidy when a certain type in a certain weight class was procured. Records of these were kept, and in the case of war the government then would have the right to requisition the vehicle. The civilian owners also had to keep it properly maintained etc. Sound like a "dual use" case.

Anyway, we should research this more thoroughly - thanks for bringing this up.

Hanno

[Lang]

I think we have had this topic before?

In the Australian case, anything impressed had to be paid for at the going market rate eg a team of car sales people with industry knowledge were employed to gather up the vehicles (very targeted makes and models). Full set price was paid and owners got first option to buy them back when not wanted also at a value placed on them by the experts. The buy-back price took into account depreciation and wear and tear.

There was the option of protesting confiscation if you could demonstrate the vehicle was doing essential war work eg farmers or factory trucks.

Houses and buildings etc were occupied on a case by case basis with compensation agreed by negotiation - obviously you could not refuse but had the option to strike a fair deal. Any damage had to be repaired or paid for on return to the owner.

Vacant land for camps and airfields was obtained either by compulsory purchase or "until end of hostilities" lease. Original owners nearly always got their land back even if it did have two miles of bitumen on it to prevent planting wheat!

There is a good oversight of the Australian arrangements I will try to find. I believe each country had similar but not identical arrangements.

Lang

[David Dunlop]

I don't think much of that type of activity took place in Canada during the World War Two, with the notable exception of Japanese Canadians on the West Coast who lost everything.

Manufacturing facilities were not seized. They were all surveyed for capability and capacity very early in the war. They were then advised what they would be making for the war effort and who their material suppliers would be and away they would go with their new production.

Oddly, the only item I have ever read about the Canadian Military needed and requisitioned from civilian sources were typewriters.

David

[horsa]

Seems handguns were also requested from civilian Canadians and Commonwealth living in the USA prior to the lend-lease act being implemented. Nobody went door to door taking them though.

[Lang]

Nobody in Australia had anything "taken" nor were manufacturing facilities "seized".

The required vehicles, and there was only relatively small number until war production got underway, were all paid for at the current Blue Book rate.

Manufacturers all bid for production on a commercial basis and many of their normal civilian products ceased, to cater for the huge war volume. Government inspectors identified and coordinated capabilities and bidding was often restricted to selected organisations - or even just one.

They also had to justify the consumption of raw materials for non military or civilian basic items and if it was deemed not in the interests of war production they would be denied or reduced access to purchase.

Despite all the PR about everyone pulling for the war effort nobody lost money and most manufacturers look back on the war period as a licence to print money. Wars are very expensive undertakings!

Lang

[Mike K]

Originally Posted by Lang

Nobody in Australia had anything "taken" nor were manufacturing facilities "seized".


Lang

I don't think there was any easy way the average joe on the street could put up a case if the Govt. wanted to impress your truck. It was probably an act of parliament that was enforced , maybe one of the emergency wartime acts .

Years ago I was talking to a chap at the Chevy parts place in Cheltenham. Col , the owner, ran the business from is home. Anyway an elderly bloke , the neighbour, was saying to me " I had my new 39 Chev truck taken from me and I wasn't happy about it " . I asked him if he got the truck back and he said " no never saw it again". He said "two guys came to my door and said we are taking your truck and that is it" .

I wish now, that I had queried him more about the money side of things e.g. did he get a fair price for the truck.

I bought this old wartime Victorian rego certificate at a swap meet . The ownership changes are interesting ! The Dept. of Defence owned this truck for a while, and Vic Drew who we all know of. Would this truck have had a ARN number while in the DD ownership ?

[jack neville]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

I don't think there was any easy way the average joe on the street could put up a case if the Govt. wanted to impress your truck. It was probably an act of parliament that was enforced , maybe one of the emergency wartime acts .

Years ago I was talking to a chap at the Chevy parts place in Cheltenham. Col , the owner, ran the business from is home. Anyway an elderly bloke , the neighbour, was saying to me " I had my new 39 Chev truck taken from me and I wasn't happy about it " . I asked him if he got the truck back and he said " no never saw it again". He said "two guys came to my door and said we are taking your truck and that is it" .

I wish now, that I had queried him more about the money side of things e.g. did he get a fair price for the truck.

I bought this old wartime Victorian rego certificate at a swap meet . The ownership changes are interesting ! The Dept. of Defence owned this truck for a while, and Vic Drew who we all know of. Would this truck have had a ARN number while in the DD ownership ?

I went to school in Maryborough in the 70's with a couple of Rinaldi boys Mike. I dare say there was a connection with the Rinaldi who owned that truck at one point.

[rob love]

Originally Posted by David Dunlop

I don't think much of that type of activity took place in Canada during the World War Two, with the notable exception of Japanese Canadians on the West Coast who lost everything.

I believe camp Ipperwash was taken from the Natives due to the neccessity of another training camp. After the war, it was not returned (nor paid for) which led to the native protests, including the shooting of Dudley George. It was eventually paid for in 2016 and control of the land returned.

In 1942 during World War II, the Government of Canada wanted reserve land from the Stoney Point Band to use as a base for military training and offered to buy it for $15 per acre. They also promised to return the land after the war ended. The Natives rejected the offer.
Under the War Measures Act, the federal government expropriated the lands from the Stoney Point Reserve and established Military Camp Ipperwash. The First Nations claim that the grounds contain a burial site. As of 2010, archaeological surveys have established that such a site does indeed exist.

More on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipperwash_Crisis