WIX Archives

Re: Why the petty sarcasm?

Posted by Mikael Olrog on Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:15:49 PM

In reply top Why the petty sarcasm? posted by Tony on Thu Sep 05, 2002 07:14:54 PM

Tony, Thanks for stopping the "Hun-hunt", that was good.

The problem of war prizes are well known, some countries still lay claim to things lost several hundred years ago. This was an issue as late as this summer when some claims were made by political parties in Denmark regarding stuff concuerd by Sweden. The Danish government didn't put forward any official claims though.

I think that the stuff the poles have is theirs, if they want to part with anything of it it's their decsion and Germany can't lay any claims to it. What Sweden conquered from Poland, Germany etc is now Swedish property, if it should not be this way, I guess we could ask to get Finland back from UN? (If we at the same time could get Norway, or at least their oil I'd be very gratefull.) LOL ;-) Just kidding about this one.

But somewhere you have to draw a line, what is lost, is lost. When Germany surrended, no German government controlled, could lay claim or had access to the aircraft in Poland or in Norway, therefore they cant be claimed by Germany. Now a legitimate German government excists, and can lay claim to any property from the previous government found on their current territory, but never outside it.

So, to sum it up, in my view US Navy policy sucks and haven't got anything to do with reality. If they're not controlling the artefact, then they can't lay claim to it. They could by US law (if such existed) "controll" any US Navy wrecks on US territory, but they can't controll it on foreign soil or on neutral territory for any indefinete time. Of course if an operational aircraft crashes, and the US Navy moves quickly to lay claim, explicitly express an interest in the wreck etc, then it still would be their property, but when they haven't spent a thought on that specific aircraft for some 50-60 years, it's crazy to claim it as rightfully theirs (unless it is on US territory and there is a law that supports that claim).

Norway are of course using they're resources to their advantage, but they are doing it (in my opinion) in a way that benefits other museums and collectors (including German museums). There are numerous examples of countries and museums that don't cooperate in this way.

I'm vary happy that the German organizations are trying to restore their heritage and I support them, but what is their heritage, is also automatically someone elses when the artefact is outside german territory. Who has the most right to it from a historical or judicial point of view?

Take this P-36 recovered lately in Russia for example, who should have it from a historical/judicial point of view? Russia since it was recovered there? US since they built it? Finland since they operated it at the time of the crash? Norway since they bought and payed it in the first place? France since they where an important operator of the type? or Germany which captured it and used it before passing it along to the Finns?

Most of these countries could lay claim to the P-36 from a historical or/and judicial point of view, depending on how you argue. My view is very clear on this, it's Russias, since the wreck was there when the previous owner "lost control" of it. Then they can choose to trade it, sell it or do anything they want with it, much like the owner of an aircraft can make a restoration which sucks or put on an incorrect paint scheme on it (Then we at WIX will of course use our legal right to hazzle them online about it...).

Anyone still reading? ;-)
/Mikael

Follow Ups: