|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Impressed? Not very!
During WW2 (or at any other time of emergency), what was the procedure when an item or property was "Impressed" for military use? Was the owner give "tough luck" and thanks doing for your bit? Were they given a "Chit" and told they could reclaim their property at the end of hostilities, or were they paid a consideration, and was that at a prescribed value or market value?
The items most commonly associated with this forum would be cars, motorcycles and trucks, usually late model vehicles from the late 30's or early 40's. But there were also more significant assets required such as factories and workshops for small job War Production, or large stately homes and estates used for convalescent hostels. These would be of substantial value, and not something that an owner would b happy to say "Just glad I could help out". In the case of large homes used for convalescent hostels, I cannot think of many that reverted to private ownership post-war, indicating that the title had changed hands, but perhaps the conversion of the building rendered it unsuitable as a family home. It would seem common sense that the owners of these items were compensated for the loss of their asset, but the sheer volume of vehicles and property acquired would have been an immense strain on Treasury, which leads me to think that they were either valued at below market value, or paid for by delayed means (War Bonds?). Seizure without compensation on a wide scale would have caused an outcry. This occurred in the majority of nations in the Commonwealth, but the degree varied (ie in Britain the needs would have been more pressing than Canada, and therefore the volume and the cost). I do know that Australia's Federal Constitution has provisions that if the Government needs to claim private property (ie a portion of land for a road), or makes a decision that affects an asset (such as acquiring the usage of a workshop or factory), then the owner is entitled to fair compensation. I would expect that other countries would have similar. But perhaps because of the urgencies of war, and the potential squabbling and haggling over value, as well as the scale of the cost, wartime legislation was passed that over-rode those protections? I have heard many examples of assets being Impressed, but have never been clear on how the ownership was actually transferred. Any thoughts?
__________________
You can help Keep Mapleleafup Up! See Here how you can help, and why you should! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
private property impressed in time of need
The most ably informed member on this topic is our our MLU colleague Bob Bergeron.
I did a search of the Canadian National Defence Act for 'property' and got a number of responses, typically dealing with Her Majesty's belongings entrusted to the Canadian Forces, and things belonging to other people. Generally the language looked like, don't steal, don't waste and everything belongs to someone who we'll charge if it goes astray. A search for the word 'impress' had no returns. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/Searc...rty&h1ts0n1y=0 But, going back to my earlier training, I am reminded of a scenario used in an aid to the civil power lecture. If 'martial law' was declared, which is worse than an emergency or invoking the War Measures Act, troops would be empowered to do whatever is necessary to achieve their mission. I do recall however, that 'martial law' no longer exists as a state in Canadian law. Under that misinterpretation, the story goes that a section of troops on an exercise were briefed that martial law had been declared and they needed to go somewhere to do something. The directing staff having previously antagonized the speaker spoke those words, so the speaker took the man at his word and promptly requisitioned his car, and drove off base with six grinning grubby grunts piled aboard, FN C1 rifles poking out the windows. In 1988 the War Measures Act was replaced by the Emergencies Act. A search for the word 'impress' gave a nil response. There are five hits on the word 'property'. I believe your answer in a Canadian context is there. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/Searc...nt3ntTyp3=Acts
__________________
Terry Warner - 74-????? M151A2 - 70-08876 M38A1 - 53-71233 M100CDN trailer Beware! The Green Disease walks among us! Last edited by maple_leaf_eh; 05-09-17 at 17:30. Reason: found a better reference |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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
__________________
Regards, Hanno -------------------------- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
David Gordon - MVPA # 15292 '41 Willys MB British Airborne Jeep '42 Excelsior Welbike Mark I '43 BSA Folding Military Bicycle '44 Orme-Evans Airborne Trailer No. 1 Mk. II '44 Airborne 100-Gallon Water Bowser Trailer '44 Jowett Cars 4.2-Inch Towed Mortar '44 Daimler Scout Car Mark II '45 Studebaker M29C Weasel |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 Last edited by Lang; 07-09-17 at 01:01. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by rob love; 07-09-17 at 00:12. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Impressed Civilian Vehicles | Larry Hayward | The Softskin Forum | 4 | 10-03-06 13:41 |