The latest media reports on the discovery of the potentially looted art, combined with the Do 335 group build got me thinking:
Is there a difference between an ill gotten piece of art, and an aircraft?
As background, only one Dornier 335 Pfeil exists in the world. It is housed at the NASM, and was captured at the end of WWII along with a number of other significant aircraft. Initially these aircraft were collected by Col Watson of ‘Watson’s Whizzers’ fame, and shipped back to the US on a British carrier.
These FE (Foreign Equipment) aircraft were cataloged and sent to Pax River and Freeman Field in Indiana for testing. Many of these aircraft got scrapped and only a few have survived. NASM actually shipped their Do 335 to Dornier to be refurbished in the 90’s(?).
Are these aircraft ours, or should they actually belong to the German people?
Does your answer change if we’re talking about Gary Power’s U-2 or the Stealth Blackhawk that was used in Neptune’s Spear?
I am pretty sure that there are international laws that will apply to this somehow. To my view, equipment used by a combatant nation is fair game in war- they are engaged in armed conflict and usually such equipment, or at least a portion of it, is expected to be lost in combat operations. Art and personal property on the other hand, is just that, the personal property of individuals. Often- especially in the case of the stuff in the news lately, was taken by the Nazis from private or public collections of occupied lands in violation of numerous international accords.
In War, what you capture is yours. But in some cases is subject to international law, like Stik said. Such as POWs, of course. They must be freed at some point.
As far as Gary Powers and the U-2, we used it to overfly the USSR w/o permission, so the Russians had every right to keep it and examine it.
Not so much that as the societies involved- if they come from the same cultural background, are trained and regulated forces, and adhere to the same societal norms, they will likely follow the same rules. But if they are two vastly different cultures and traditions, the chances are likely for one or both sides to not adhere to those laws. And if one side is an “irregular” force that is not a signatory to any international conventions, it is far more that either or both sides can claim with some justifacation they are not legally bound to follow those rules.
Exactly- a piece of battlefield equipment brought home by the victorious force has legitimate purposes. It can be evaluated for techincal reasons and analyzed, perhaps later to be put on display, as in the case of the Do-335 or the Bovington Tiger.
And then we have situations like the Mig 25 defection in 1976, where the Soviet Union demanded the return of their “stolen” property. The aircraft was examined, disassembled and returned in lots of little pieces.
I don’t claim to have an answer here, but somehow I think that the status of the government may have some part to play as well. Obviously the National Socialist Party is no longer, so does that mean there is no righfitful owner?
If you’ve seen the pics of the roll out of the '335 upon resto, you can see some very proud engineers, some of whom may have worked on the originals. Seems a shame they don’t have one of their own. NASM did loan the restored version to Deutsches Museum in Munich for a period of time.
Ultimately, I’m thankful this one got saved, because it would be a genuine loss if there weren’t any surviving examples.
…But a still valid one. I’ve ready a few books lately on Nighfighters of the Reich and on WWII in general, and the question was brought up of the morality of Harris’s night area bombing of German cities/non-military areas. This would be a discussion for a dif. thread though…
A volatile (absolutely no pun intended) one, and frankly not a good idea. I disagree that it’s valid because the bombing of civilians is a horror that has no justification. There really cannot be any other conversation than weeping and sorrow.
The theft of art from private individuals who were forced out of their homes because of their religion is a horror, but on a more material level.
The first cannot ever be compensated for, the second stands a chance of justice.
Not equal, not even comparable.
However in the here and now, if villains stole your stuff, you deserve to get it back, right?
I hope the enquirer also questioned the morality of bombing Guernica, Warsaw, Amsterdam, London, Coventry, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Exeter, and sundry other small towns which were attacked simply because they appeared in a travel guide.
We are leaving now the path of the original question and enter the area of counting up one inhumanity with the other. But you can count as Long as you want, it will be always inhumanity. Ist time for EVERY side to stand to its inhumanity behavior.
Also I would like to see the planes back in Germany, restored and exhibited in a Museum rather than seeing them disintegrating in US Storages (like the Horten Ho 229), the laws are clear. These are weapons and technical achievements and this is something different to cultural goods like art. As long as there is consens that weapons and technological achievements are NOT cultural goods, these war prizes belong to the countrys who took them.
There was also a question regarding the NSDAP/ 3. Reich: Germany today / the Gemran gouverment is the judical successor of the former. Therfore Germany could claim things from this time and also have to carry the responsibility and the reparations.
Back to the planes: There are attempts between the museums to work together, like it was done with the Do 335 in the seventies. One example is the Arado 196 from Willow Grove. The plane was brought back to Germany and is now under Restauration. As return service, willow grove will give the Arado as loan for at least 10 years. I think this is a good way. It is savead from Deterioration, the interested People in Germany have ten years time, to visit the restored plane, and Willow Grove will get back an restored plane which will be a gain for their Museum.
Targeting of civilians, in and of themselves is against the laws of war, at least since the early 20th Century. But bombing has its slippery slope. Targeting of war industries is legitimate. Those wworkers are civilians, and while at their jobs, by extension, legitimate targets. Now turn back the calender 70+ years and look at airpower. Precision guided munitions did not exist. Freefall munitions were all that was had. While occasional low level accurate strikes could and were flown, the name of the game was usually medium to high altitude bombing. Adding in the variable to that formula and the mess begins. Now once an aerial bombing campaign has begun and the large factories damaged or destroyed, they are dispersed to become cottage industries in the local town/city/etc., thus in some views legitimizing the targeting of those areas. And again, arguably, does a civilian war worker lose their target status while they are off the job? A soldier/sailor/airman does not- they can be killed off duty under the laws of war…
Defections- I think the major area there is the standing of the two nations to one another. If in the case ofthe US and North Korea immedaitely after the Korean War where the MiG-15 defected, no peace treaty existed between those nations. Technically a state of war still exists in Korea to this day, only a cease fire/armistace is in effect. That MiG sits in the USAF museum today. The previously mentioned MiG-25 isa different case. The US & Japan were not in a state of war with the Soviet Union. That MiG was dissected, analyzed, and returned to its’ legal owner in accord with normal peacetime protocols.