'Owning' Military History

[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!