'Owning' Military History

[Mike Cecil]

Gents,

I look at a site called 'Armoured Advocates' from time to time. It is a web-blog written by Lt Col Bruce Cameron MC (rtd) wherein he comments on a broad range of matters relating to current and not-so-current issues of interest to him. A day or so ago, he posted a commentary that ended with the statement:

"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."

Now, I know the author is not a collector, and indeed from the statement above, appears to have little understanding of a collectors mind-set, but the fundamental aspect he seems to have overlooked in that statement is that we 'collectors' collect what our various governments SELL and collect the cash for, and that once legally in private hands, are no longer the concern of government (or anyone else, for that matter). Trucks, tanks, aeroplanes, manuals, paperwork, tents, rifles .... all sold off by governments and legally collected by the likes of us. (Medals/medal collecting is a little different: given by a grateful nation to an individual, who is then, in most instances, able to dispose of them at some later date as they see fit.)

And if it wasn't for the likes of us collectors .... would there be much held in public collections? I know when I was at the AWM, we were very, very grateful to the collecting fratenity, as they were a constant source of items for the collection, items that Government has not seen fit to 'collect' at the time the items left service.

Given the broad range of experience and expertise on this forum - museum professionals, small and large scale collectors, researchers and authors - I'm interested in your comments about the 'moral' question raised by Lt Col Bruce Cameron MC (rtd) .....

Mike

[Mike Gray]

Mike,
Yes, I agree. Bit of a catch-22. The governments sell it off as surplus, no longer wanted. But eventually it finds it's way back to government museums for display. Witness the wholesale destruction and scrapping of surplus WWII aircraft at the end of the war. Now there are only two flying Lancasters in the world. Thanks to hard work and dedication of collectors and enthusiasts. And the public loves it.
I am an assistant at a private military museum. There is no charge to view. School classes come in for educational tours. I have a private collection of my own, which we put out on display every chance we get. 99% of the people can not say 'thankyou for doing this' enough times.
Just my 2 cents in on the subject.

[rob love]

Personally, as both a collector and as a museum employee, I feel the governments are trying to use legislation to cover up the expense of their short shortsightedness in the past. Unfortunately, here in Canada, we do not have property rights, and the government can legislate private property back into crown property without compensation.

The Canadian Forces are much better today about ensuring that examples of equipment remain in the museum system, but it was not that many years ago I saw that there was no interest in the "currently being disposed of" stuff. For instance, how many 5/4 tons or M151A2s do you see in any museum in Canada.

His statement smells like communism to me.

[maple_leaf_eh]

I echo what Rob says about current vs old artifacts. Today I was pulling map sheets from shelves which were soon to be emptied. One for me, and one for the Canadian War Museum. The Warrant Officer in charge of the map depot has bigger things on her plate than sheets for places we aren't going back to and would rebuild next time around anyways. They are old stock that doesn't move. Therefore, those sheet are dead stock getting in the way of more important inventory.

Unless the government is going to employ "armies" of restorers and reenactors continuously, the argument of reserving ownership is groundless. Soldiers need to get and stay current on the most important job of the land, namely defence (and offence). To distract them with another job is irresponsible.

You might ask the good LCol if he would extend his argument to culture and literature. Would he agree that books, plays, music and art are equally important for the health and identity of the nation? Just the same way he is protective of medals, cap badge collections and a few leaky old AFVs? I think having served in uniform only qualifies him to comment on a subject, not take ownership. Any number of much better informed opinions would pummel him for trying to exert government control over culture. In some places that is called censorship.

(I have a similar argument with those who believe only police and soldiers should have firearms - why, because they get issued one and that qualifies as being an expert?)

[Private_collector]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

"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."
Given the broad range of experience and expertise on this forum - museum professionals, small and large scale collectors, researchers and authors - I'm interested in your comments about the 'moral' question raised by Lt Col Bruce Cameron MC (rtd) .....

Mike

Perhaps the gentleman concerned may wish to see if he could get any govt. or organisation interested in restoring the vehicle below?!?!?! Of course they wouldn't. I couldn't disagree with him more. For each person or group who take pity on a pile of rusted parts, there will be another vehicle returned to usable condition. There would be massive amounts of vehicles and equipment available for public viewing, IF governments took the time and thought to consider future value of war material, INSTEAD OF DUMPING THEM overboard from ships, or off jetties. They were happy to take money for the ones that came home, and went up for auction. They sold theor right to these 'historically significant' items when the cheques got cashed following the sale.

It's thanks to our 'personal gratification' that most of what still exists, is even around to be speculated on by misguided individuals who perhaps have a bit of green envy?!? Take the Ford Gun Tractor which was recently taken on strength by the AWM. That thing was languishing (in sections cut apart by gas torch) on a dump pile, on a farm in central Queensland. If the gentleman who restored it had jot done so, it would have remained there, to be slowly consumed by corrosion, or worse, sold to a scrap dealer for a handful of sheckles.

Maybe the Lt Col., now that he is retired, may wish to turn his efforts to actually SAVING history instead of criticising those that do something other than lament the passing of such things. Jeezus he makes me mad! My own restoration has swallowed up tens of thousands of dollars of my own money, and time, so that just one more vehicle gets back to the shape it once had. Yes, I will certainly get a lot of satisfaction and attention once it takes to the road again. And so it should. These rolling museums will get people thinking again of that point in world history, and that's the important thing. If the equipment of war is not saved by individuals, then the efforts of the participants in combat fades from mind quicker. Such items are a jolt back to remember who actually used them long ago.

Like most countries, the Australian government was quick to dispose of everything it could, following world wars. It is THEIR fault entirely, for not having the foresight to realise people would want to know, and more importantly SEE how these endeavours were fought and ultimately won. You can't divest yourself of everything, then complain in decades to come, that private folks shouldn't be allowed to own (and maintain at own cost) war materials.

I think your man needs to crusade for a point of view that actually has a valid arguement. He might wish to turn his attention to the thousands of hard won service medals which are being sold each day, and often get broken from their sets, never to be joined again. Now THAT'S a tragedy that should be outlawed. Maybe he should consider why he sought to rise through the ranks of the military. Was it to serve his country in positive capacity, or was it, like so many others, to achieve a status of power and, dare I say it, 'personal gratification'?

[Wayne Henderson]

I would hope the statement of the Lt Col is not taken out of context but here comes my opinion of how the military cares for it's history.

They don't. Examples...

10th Light Horse.
Turk 105mm gun captured during the Beersheba Charge.
Left to rot in Kings Park Perth.
Given to volunteers (RAAHS) to restore when beyond restoration, at their cost. Only the barrel remains, lost.
I rescued the front shield from the scrap for my personal gratification.

Swan Barracks Naval Guns.
A pair of 1880 naval guns.
Restored by volunteers at their cost. When finished a fight broke out between Navy, AWM, Army and Albany Fort as to ownership.

Army History Unit.
A joke, an arse covering exercise.

The Artillery Barracks museum funding fiasco.

2009. RSL wanted WW1 truck for 2014 parade.
I found 1917 FWD but had to restore this at my own cost.
RSL said their budget was spent on organisation and promotional material by 2010.
RSL rang in 2014 to ask for a loan of any WW1 vehicles we had.
T model Ford was supplied by a Lt Col (RT) (dec) and a group of volunteers.

Sabre jet in Raymond Terrace, is that still there?

The Airforce cadet Vampire Project. Sad, Sad, Sad.

Anyone remember the fate of the WW1 railway gun?

International Acco Wrecker
Tried to save this one as it had just been serviced before decom.
Engineers turned it into a recovery aid.
One year later received a request for a International Truck from the AHU Good thing we saved the twin booms and gear off the back.

Anyone ever tried to get a Staghound of a firing range, legally.
Personal gratification for over two years.

RSL paying to put on Anzac Day marches, wtf

I have plenty more.

To be fair, the good...
The AWM, only 3000kms from here.
The graves and shrines around the county and overseas (guns not included)
Bandiana (when open)

Bugger off

[Mike Gray]

Good comments all. Our Canadian Government feels that cheaper is better. And puts our Canadian Forces at risk. Recall the purchase of the Oberon Class submarines. These things were museum pieces when we bought them. Who in their right mind would actually sail in one? All were scrapped as unseaworthy.
The one on display in Rimouski, Q.C. was bought as surplus for a whopping $4.00.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Canadian War Museum Fox (at Canada's national military museum) vs. a privately researched and restored one. Guess which one runs and has somebody who knows something about it. Oh, and guess which one had its owner spend his time and money getting it to that state.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Wayne Henderson

I would hope the statement of the Lt Col is not taken out of context but here comes my opinion of how the military cares for it's history.

...

Army History Unit.
A joke, an arse covering exercise.

...

Bugger off

The Canadian Armed Forces has a Directorate of History and Heritage (DHH). It is mostly civilian academic historians. Do you see any vehicle restorers on the staff list? Note in their mission statement that their activities are in support of government policy.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-.../index-eng.asp

[Mike Gray]

Bruce,
Well said. Your dedication and ability at preservation and restoration of history is appreciated by so many.
The 'First World War Comes To Life' group, out of Lindsay, Ontario, maintains and restores a stunning collection of WWI vehicles and equipment. Most of which have never been seen before. Their first display of the season was in February. Admission was by donation to local food bank. They served up period food from WWI as well. Also free.
I believe the amazing collection of Gulf War AFV's and re-enactors that was at Aquino Tank Day in Oshawa last year is owned and funded by a private collector. It would otherwise never be seen either, if left in the hands of government departments and institutions.
Who is in a better place to recover, restore and display our military heritage?
We are.

[Private_collector]

Here, here, Mike!

[rob love]

In fairness to the General, here is his complete post:

8 March 2016
Log Books
It’s interesting that 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 retrospect this would’ve been the preferable thing to do with the Centurion log books.
Presumably the log books were considered part of the vehicle and therefore accompanied the tanks sold to the public. Unfortunately the purchaser of the tanks later on-sold all the log books as a single lot to a private collector on a confidential basis. This collector now refuses to provide any details regarding the history of these tanks, eg. that owned by the Cairns Arty and Tank Museum.
The only Centurion log books now publically available are those at the AWM. These are for tanks which were supposedly disposed of as range targets … 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’.)
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.

Now he may have been talking about ownership of military artifacts, or he may be talking about the fact that a private individual ended up with the centurian logbooks and won't share them.

Note where the log books that were sent to the tank museum aren't....

I say it all goes to the planning and preperation of the governments in power. Save the history while it is still relatively fresh. It's not fair game to claim them back 50 years later, or put restrictions on the sale that were not there in the first place, thereby depriving the owner of the full market value of his investment.

[Mike Cecil]

Unfortunately, Rob, Lt Col Bruce Cameron MC (rtd) has not done his research. The statement :

"This collector now refuses to provide any details regarding the history of these tanks, eg. that owned by the Cairns Arty and Tank Museum."

... is simply wrong. I know for a fact that 'This collector', as he describes him, regularly provides information to both public and private museums (including the museum in Cairns) and to individual owners when requested. He just doesn't see the need to grandstand about it on public websites to appease the likes of Bruce Cameron, for the simple reason that it is nobody else's business but the 'collector' and whomever he is corresponding with.

Sadly, there are a number of statements on the Armoured Advocates blog that are in error, the above being just one of them. I didn't feel any need to waste the time of anyone on this Forum by discussing them.

Hence, my original post was about the more general 'moral' question raised by Cameron, which I thought was an interesting one. I have to agree with the majority of respondents that govts and public museums have severe limitations when it comes to preserving the full range of a nation's military history. Thank heavens there are avid collectors who act as the custodians of what the various governments discard!

Mike

[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

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

The Canadian Armed Forces has a Directorate of History and Heritage (DHH). It is mostly civilian academic historians. Do you see any vehicle restorers on the staff list? Note in their mission statement that their activities are in support of government policy.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-.../index-eng.asp

I had a chance to have a Professional Development visit to DHH. They are busy with everything Past Present and Future. That does not include vehicle restoration or artifacts, in the conventional sense.

DHH's Navy CPO1 explained just one of their challenges. Who issues regimental colours? They do. (Heads up - RCD's your guidon is ready.) Who gets new ones embroidered? They do. Who researches and monitors production all badges, crests, insignia, flashes and accoutrements? They do. Who controls the official symbols, like base flags and brigade patches? They do. Where are the physical records for operations kept? There. What happens when units go off on their own? Chaos and unapproved symbols. Sure it looks right, but there is the equivalent of copyright on the parts of an official symbol.

As I stated above, DHH has academics. They control the records they have. One worker commented that one group of records only starts in 1968, when one function changed from the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps to a central office. If he wants to get older information, he has to go to a militaria show and buy it. This is the situation the Australian LCol was griping about. Is it wrong for information to be in the public realm? Is it better looked after? Dunno, but I would not begin to expect that organization as it is currently mandated, to hold an example of every vehicle or piece of equipment Canada ever issued.

[motto]

I long ago realised that we are only temporary custodians of the items that come into our hands. Some custodians are superb in their endeavours to collect, preserve and display. Some struggle to look after what they have and some are deplorable in being no more than hoarders who expend nothing on preservation and allow artefacts in their care to decay into oblivion. We've all met them. I am troubled by one at the moment who has a unique device that he will not part with and will not look after. Would I want the government to intervene at any level? No way! Governments have proven without doubt that they are as adept at incompetence as any private individual. The wider the dispersion of materiel the better the chances of some of it surviving. It is not an ideal world. The Colonel ha s his opinion and I have mine.

David

[Mike Gray]

Dave,
Unfortunately, you are correct. We have all met them. They collect and hoard because they can, and these things never see the light of day again. However, they only represent a small percentage.
Recently we acquired a stunning and complete RCAF Women's Division uniform, WWII. Medals with it. It will be on display for anyone to view. We have her name, place of service, even her service number. Found in the inside pocket of the tunic. We would very much like to put a face and a story to her service. (The request for info is posted here in the Your Relatives forum).
Seeking any information on her from DND, Directorate of History and Heritage and National Archives Canada is like running into a brick wall. Apparently she never existed.
All we want to do is return the medals to the family.

[45jim]

Interesting thread. Upon re-reading the original comments that started this thread it appears the author is more concerned about the disposition of the "history of a thing" rather than the "thing" itself. In that he is probably correct.

The "history" should be maintained in a public archive open to all as "the public" paid for that history through effort and tax dollars. The history itself really has no monetary value that can be realized at the time of disposal (that value only develops over time) and there are tangible reasons for its retention. That is in a perfect world.

The "thing" itself is just an asset acquired to fill a need and if the need no longer exists or the item is obsolete then it should be disposed of and new assets procured. The Government should do all it can to recover the most it can from the scrapped or surplused items so as to lessen the burden on the taxpayer. The taxpayer should also have the ability to purchase these surplus items and re-purpose them for civilian use.

Thankfully, items were surplused and private citizens re-purposed them and preserved them for us to acquire and restore. Museums of all types rely on the private citizen, they provide the funding, they volunteer their time and they often provide the artifacts that would have been lost to time without their efforts. Its a thankless enterprise, but governments will never do it.

I was really intrigued by Rob's statement that Canadians have no "property rights" could you elaborate? Just as a discussion not a legal opinion.

Just as an aside, the US government spent billions on the Saturn V rocket to launch their moon missions. After the missions were complete, there came a need to retain this new and expensive technology and that meant a huge amount of work. Drawings had to be converted to CAD from paper, special materials developed for the program needed to have all that data archived so they could make it again if required, special processes developed needed to be transcribed and a team of people kept on staff to keep the specifications up to date as new materials were developed and old ones obsoleted. Faced with that cost, the US Government and NASA decided just to let it fade. The had the unused rockets to set up at museums but couldn't make another Saturn V if they needed it. Preserving history isn't just the "thing" there are many other facets that need to be preserved for posterity.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by 45jim

Interesting thread. Upon re-reading the original comments that started this thread it appears the author is more concerned about the disposition of the "history of a thing" rather than the "thing" itself. In that he is probably correct.

The "history" should be maintained in a public archive open to all as "the public" paid for that history through effort and tax dollars. The history itself really has no monetary value that can be realized at the time of disposal (that value only develops over time) and there are tangible reasons for its retention. That is in a perfect world.

A perfect world, indeed: for example, much of the data surviving today on Royal Netherlands Army Sherman numbers etc. came from two men who collected vehicle registration numbers. They copied the data from cards which were slated for destruction after the vehicles were struck off charge. They could not have the cards, but were allowed to copy the information. Then they were destructed by the Army. Sadly not all cards could be copied as they had to write down the information on paper, photography was not allowed.

Just as an aside, the US government spent billions on the Saturn V rocket to launch their moon missions. After the missions were complete, there came a need to retain this new and expensive technology and that meant a huge amount of work. Drawings had to be converted to CAD from paper, special materials developed for the program needed to have all that data archived so they could make it again if required, special processes developed needed to be transcribed and a team of people kept on staff to keep the specifications up to date as new materials were developed and old ones obsoleted. Faced with that cost, the US Government and NASA decided just to let it fade. The had the unused rockets to set up at museums but couldn't make another Saturn V if they needed it. Preserving history isn't just the "thing" there are many other facets that need to be preserved for posterity.

Back in the mid-1980s, various projects were launched to build those wooden sailing ships as the Dutch used exploring and conquering the world back in the 17th and 18th century. 300 to 400 years ago they were churning out these ships by the hundreds without power tools, computers etc. In this day and age it takes much much longer (years versus months) to build a replica, and the best shipwrights were breaking their heads over some of the construction features, even when they could rely on period drawings and ship wrecks. The expertise, both in engineering and construction, has been simply lost. As mankind, we should strive to preserve just that, learning from how things were done in the past to prevent making mistakes in the future and to further mankind's knowledge.

Just ask yourself: what could modern military vehicle acquisition programs learn from the Canadian Military Pattern vehicle design, manufacture and use?

Just my EUR 0,02 worth

Hanno

[rob love]

Originally Posted by 45jim

I was really intrigued by Rob's statement that Canadians have no "property rights" could you elaborate? Just as a discussion not a legal opinion.

Property rights are not entrenched in our country. While an individual cannot steal your property, the government may take it without compensation. For instance if the provincial government decides that they have the mineral rights to all lands, without compensation to the owners of the surface rights, then the owner is S.O.L. If the government decides that a certain guns should be forfeited to the crown, off they go without compensation.

Here is a page that describes the current situation in Canada: http://propertyrightsguide.ca/are-pr...-canadian-law/

[Private_collector]

Oh Canada, indeed!