> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Boylan P
> Sent: August 31, 2000 08:53
...
> However, it is much more doubtful whether an individual soldier etc. can
> take such captured property for his/her personal use, unless explicitly
> authorised from a high military level.  (In August 1945 my father, and all
> the first 100 British troops who led the liberation of Thailand was given
> a captured Japanese officer's sword by the British Commander in Bangkok,
> so presumably that was officially sanctioned.) However, I would suggest
> that such an action (or even a forced "purchase" - whether from captured
> enemy personnel or otherwise) without proper military command authority
> should be regarded as theft and be subject to normal military law and
> sanctions.

***** Thanks for your comments Patrick.

***** Acquisition: I believe one should be careful to not be too judgemental
about the acquisition of enemy weapons, helmets etc. in war. Talk to any
veteran and you will discover that such items are left lying around a
battlefield for ANYONE to pick-up. The former owners are dead, have moved on
or are prisoners. The weapons etc. are in limbo. So, theft from whom?  I
know that the lawyers and philosophers could have a great time with this "If
a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a
sound?" type of argument. Just to help those who would decide too quickly -
today in Poland one can walk in the woods and find weapons, helmets,  and
human remains from the German and Soviet military battles in WWII. The
Germans were forced out and left much behind. The Soviet victors did not
even bother to clean up the battlefields, much less bury their own dead. The
Polish laws are quite lax on this and it is 'finders keepers' - including
machineguns, as long as they do not work.

Bringing items home: Now the question of military personnel bringing weapons
home is another issue, the answer to which depends upon the laws in effect
AT THE TIME for the person bringing them. Thus museums being offered Civil
War [English OR American  :-) ], Boer War, WWI or WWII souvenirs should
consider them in view of the regulations of that time and not apply the 2000
souvenir regulations. In those days the law and general practice was
different. Souvenir taking was 'the norm' - e.g. Baron Manfred Von
Richtofen's (spelling?) home was filled with his WWI war trophies which in
turn disappeared when the Soviets occupied his hometown at the time of WWII.

For a museum a nice point about souvenirs obtained from a veteran as opposed
to being bought from a surplus store (with a nice LEGAL receipt!) is that
they usually come with a history which makes them MUCH more meaningful.

If one were to apply modern law and ethics retroactively, one might have to
empty out half of the military museums in the world!

> On your second point, I had a similar experience when I bought ...
> for my then museum a former Royal Air Force nuclear
> bomber, only to find that it was stuffed with top secret avionics and
> weapons systems (though thankfully no "H" bombs!) which had mysteriously
> found their way back into the aircraft despite it being stripped of such
> items before its original sale.  (No doubt this stuff has been
> "liberated" and supplied to the aircraft's previous owner- I believe free
> of charge - by sympathetic technical and military personnel.
>
> Patrick J. Boylan
> (Professor of Heritage Policy and Management)
>
> City University, London,
> Department of Arts Policy and Management

***** The stripping of classified parts from military aircraft, ships,
vehicles etc. going to museums makes sense WHILE these parts are still
classified, BUT it would be nice to see procedures in place whereby these
parts, along with the installation instructions, could be crated
and held in secure military approved storage and then when the equipment is
obsolete, be released to the museum for reinstallation. I know that many
museums have a
challenge restoring aircraft, ships etc. that were stripped of this gear
(e.g. radio, radar, sonar) and the gear usually later ended up being
scrapped when it was obsolete. A WWII B-17 bomber looks much more complete
and is more educational when it has its once secret (but now surplus and
declassified) Norden bombsight. Likewise a Vulcan bomber (or whatever) is
more realistic and educational if it is "complete" (for museums waiting 20
years or so for obsolescence to install the remaining parts is no big deal).
In Canada the aging Sea King naval helicopters will be replaced in about
five years but the special gear mounted on some of them for the 1991 Gulf
War will likely be stripped off and unavailable to museums. Trying to find
those pieces in surplus stores and scrap yards in the future will be a real
challenge.

Colin Macgregor Stevens,
Curator,
Burnaby Village Museum,
Burnaby, BC, CANADA

[log in to unmask]

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).