Mitsubishi G3M2 "Nell" still at Gasmata

[Richard W.]

...
So, I'm not saying all the wrecks should be left in place, but there are also good arguments for leaving them as they are. Also, the vehicle in the third picture, on Guam, seems pretty well taken care of - which says to me that there are people who live there who care about this stuff.

That's a Cold War- era Otter, used by the USMC in Vietnam.

It's in a private museum on Guam founded by an American veteran to honor the Marines who fought on Guam, but also includes exhibits and vehicles from other wars in the USMC's history.

[Noha307]

our work, research, permits and meetings with locals were all arranged with the assistance of the National Cultural and Heritage Centre.

Well then, I really have to applaud you.

Regardless of whether I do or don't agree with your actions, I really have to give you credit for having the patience to deal with the government over there. From what I've read, between the bureaucracy and the corruption dealing with them can be really frustrating.

It was a Dauntless

our next project due for 2017 is a SB2U Vindicator.

I don't think my position on the issue precludes me from saying: Oooh, cool.

Sorry, but I have to ask another question: Where are these wrecks going? I hope it's not a secret.

I was initially (and still am) asking out of personal curiosity, but I realized this question gets at another aspect of the ethical issue. One of the things I noticed when I quickly read through the Swamp Ghost report I linked above is that it recommended only working with reputable museums and not individuals. I am not sure whether take this hard of a line on the subject, but it does suggest a different guideline to me: that any exports of wreckage be open and public. Even if it is not a mandatory regulation, but voluntary on the part of the exporter, it goes a long way towards demonstrating that the exporter has good intentions (or at least a lack of bad ones). Furthermore, from the point of view of the locals, it gives them the chance to have an national conversation on the subject of the exporting of war relics. Coincidentally, something I recently came across fits the above topic very well:

While attempting to find the identification of the NMUSAF's Zero for my work on the wiki page. I came across the Pacific Wrecks page for the museum's airframe. I noticed it had something relevant to our discussion in this thread, so I figured I'd post it:

Bogus Number, Markings
Problems erupted with the PNG government over the salvage, prompting the salvager to attempt to hide the plane's identity for export. It was meticulously repainted with bogus stencil 11593, and even a series of bogus victory markings on the side fuselage giving it the bogus identity of A6M2 Zero 11593.

Now, I know some people here don't like Mr. Taylan and may distrust him, but for the moment let's presume this statement is accurate. To me, it demonstrates a clearly deceitful effort on the part of the person exporting the wreck. This is what bothers me.

[fiftycal]

While attempting to find the identification of the NMUSAF's Zero for my work on the wiki page. I came across the Pacific Wrecks page for the museum's airframe. I noticed it had something relevant to our discussion in this thread, so I figured I'd post it:

Bogus Number, Markings
Problems erupted with the PNG government over the salvage, prompting the salvager to attempt to hide the plane's identity for export. It was meticulously repainted with bogus stencil 11593, and even a series of bogus victory markings on the side fuselage giving it the bogus identity of A6M2 Zero 11593.

Now, I know some people here don't like Mr. Taylan and may distrust him, but for the moment let's presume this statement is accurate. To me, it demonstrates a clearly deceitful effort on the part of the person exporting the wreck. This is what bothers me.

[/quote]

i really think you should climb onto your moral high horse and ride off to new guinea and see how many ***ks the natives give about your sentiment

[Noha307]

i really think you should climb onto your moral high horse and ride off to new guinea and see how many ***ks the natives give about your sentiment

Well, after all, we are only people on the Internet arguing over something that we (Digger excluded) have no involvement in. The classic truism always applies, "if you care so strongly about something, go out and do something about it". Yet, I don't interpret that statement to prohibit me from discussing my opinions on the subject.

However, I don't think you intended that I take that literally, so...

Are you comfortable with the knowledge that aircraft like the Zero I mentioned above had to be (or were attempted to be) snuck out of the county under false pretenses? Would you be willing to volunteer at a museum with one of these aircraft and inform guests that bribes had to be paid to get the plane to the United States?

I don't want to have to explain why the warbirds in our museums were stolen from another country. I have argued from both a legal and cultural/social/historical standpoint the wrecks no longer belong to us. This means we must seek the permission of the local governments to remove them.

So, while the natives may not care whether the wrecks stay or go, that does not necessarily make exporting them okay. The ends do not justify the means.

[RyanShort1]

So, while the natives may not care whether the wrecks stay or go, that does not necessarily make exporting them okay. The ends do not justify the means.

Huh? If the natives do not care - then there is no moral issue. It's simply a matter of paying off some CORRUPT government official most likely - like a lot of the world. Moving something, doing business, whatever is not MORALLY wrong, but you have to pay a bribe or they will do X to you. If paying off a bribe to some corrupt government official who is making up some non-existent rule is what it takes, I don't feel they've injured anyone from a moral standpoint.

[Noha307]

So, while the natives may not care whether the wrecks stay or go, that does not necessarily make exporting them okay. The ends do not justify the means.

Huh? If the natives do not care - then there is no moral issue. It's simply a matter of paying off some CORRUPT government official most likely - like a lot of the world. Moving something, doing business, whatever is not MORALLY wrong, but you have to pay a bribe or they will do X to you. If paying off a bribe to some corrupt government official who is making up some non-existent rule is what it takes, I don't feel they've injured anyone from a moral standpoint.

I reject the notion that paying off a corrupt government official is not a moral issue. However, I think you do make a good point. You made me wonder about a hypothetical case in which I would have to pay-off a Nazi in order to smuggle art out of Europe to prevent its destruction. Would I do so?

My answer to that question is irrelevant for this discussion. What is relevant, however, is that you made me realize that my problem is with the larger issue behind why an item is being smuggled. The disingenuous actions the people who export these aircraft take are not the problem themselves, but evidence of the bigger problem behind it. (I think my philosophy classes are kicking in. Sorry if I go to far in that direction. )

I guess my point is, regardless of the need to bribe an official, the fact remains that what the warbird exporters are doing - at least in the way many of them have done it - is wrong.

To address your original issue: You do not need to morally injure a specific person or group of people - in the sense that they disagree with with what you are doing - to do something wrong. (I'm not sure how good or well explained this next part is, but I'm going to throw it out there in an attempt to provide some sort of insight into my argument.) The warbird exporters have "injured" a larger concept that does not exist on an individual level. Whether it be the notion of ownership or cultural heritage, I still think there is a problem.

To put it another way, although the "non-exisitent rule" that the official made up may be, well, non-existent, there are other problems that really do exist.

I hope this makes sense.

[fiftycal]

Are you comfortable with the knowledge that aircraft like the Zero I mentioned above had to be (or were attempted to be) snuck out of the county under false pretenses? Would you be willing to volunteer at a museum with one of these aircraft and inform guests that bribes had to be paid to get the plane to the United States?

I don't want to have to explain why the warbirds in our museums were stolen from another country. I have argued from both a legal and cultural/social/historical standpoint the wrecks no longer belong to us. This means we must seek the permission of the local governments to remove them.

So, while the natives may not care whether the wrecks stay or go, that does not necessarily make exporting them okay. The ends do not justify the means.

im 100% comfortable, we won them all when we kicked the Japanese arses and as for the allied planes, us, we the tax payer paid for them, theres nothing really to be stolen, of course its the right thing to do to throw the land owner something though

[Noha307]

we won them all when we kicked the Japanese arses

It's not quite that easy. To the best of my knowledge, legally we do not own the Japanese aircraft. There's all sorts of technicalities you could throw in to this question, but I'm going to ignore them for now because we could spend all day arguing about that and get nowhere. (For example, I don't know what happens to captured aircraft. I imagine they are technically owned by the United States now, but I'm not sure.)

Let's take the wrecks of German u-boats, for example. I do know that they are still owned by the modern-day Federal Republic of Germany, as it is the successor state of Nazi Germany. There is good reason for this. Many nations would rightly be upset if someone were to disturb these sites as many of them are graves and it would be deemed disrespectful to those entombed there. Therefore, to prevent this, they are given control of the wrecks. This is just one of many reasons for setting up the jurisdiction in this way. Now, it's clear that these rights of ownership apply to all nations, Japan included.

At this point we can conclude that all the sunken WWII Japanese ships are under the legal control of the current Japanese state. However, what about the aircraft wrecks? This is where I have to reach into source that is very controversial to say the least: the U.S. Navy. The Navy has attempted to argue, and I think at least partially rightly so, that the aircraft wrecks fit into the same category as ship wrecks. This means the aircraft wrecks have the same protections as the ship wrecks. If this is true, again it must be universalized so that Japan can claim the same status for their aircraft wrecks.

Now, there are some counterpoints to this argument. First, I will redirect you back to the question of captured materiel. The u-boats that were taken by the Allies after the war and scuttled in Operation Deadlight and other similar situations are probably under British jurisdiction. However, for the Japanese aircraft you would have to make the case that they were technically surrendered through a transfer of ownership and not simply left behind.

Second, the agency that originally owned the ship/plane can relinquish control of the wreck. This is what the U.S. Air Force has done for all of its aircraft wrecks provided they don't fit into one of the excepted cases (e.g. wreck still contains human remains, etc.). However, even if you can prove that the responsible Japanese government agency has relinquished control, that does not make the wreck free and clear to any salvor. You would then have to reach an agreement with the country who's territory the wreck was located on.

I am not going to pretend that I have all of the answers, but I am also not going to pretend that this is a very simply solved question.

[RyanShort1]

I'm pretty sure we could easily establish a scenario where you would consider a bribe to be perfectly acceptable - maybe smuggling some condemned Jews out of Germany? I would have NO trouble bribing a guard to let me through with human beings who were being hunted without moral justification, so you cannot say that ALL bribes are immoral. The question then becomes one of circumstance.

[Noha307]

I'm pretty sure we could easily establish a scenario where you would consider a bribe to be perfectly acceptable - maybe smuggling some condemned Jews out of Germany?

I think we would all be willing to pay that bribe. Heck, that's basically the plot of Schindler's List.

so you cannot say that ALL bribes are immoral

At the very least, I will say that if all bribes are immoral, there are times that the good of the whole overrides the...hmm...

I will have to give this explanation more thought. Anyway, I would definitely pay the bribe in the situation you laid out above.

The question then becomes one of circumstance.

Exactly.

I hope this morality discussion isn't getting too off topic for anyone. We are on a website about warbirds after all.

[RyanShort1]

Keep thinking!

[Digger]

The Dauntless will end up in the USA and the Vindicator, if we are correct with our research etc, will stay with us (Reevers)

if it turns out not to be a Vindicator then whatever it is will determine its fate. Regarding the Bribes and Corruption topic - this is a very Western view, in some places I have visited
it is customary to make an offering - in my case it was several pigs which are highly valued - but essentially it was a payment made and a benefit gained by the chief. Of course this
gift was to show respect for the people, land and their way of doing business. Who am I to judge? I'm just some short fat bloke from Australia wandering around asking silly Q's.

As I said previously about SG, it was as much about local politics as it was about anything else, certain individuals think they can act on behalf of locals, believing they are doing the
right thing, but once again, they do these things via a western perspective.

The US Navy has no authority outside of the USA - if someone can provide me with documentary evidence to disprove this, and I mean an original or officially endorsed copy of
an original, then I will be on a plane the next day handing that document to several Pacific Nations who have for decades been trying to have the US Navy clean up wrecks, harbours
airfields etc.

The problems arise when people mix the two ethical standards. Its my understanding that compensation for SG was made and locals were happy to see it go, however politics at
the national level got involved and, wanting to be re-elected or look powerful to the people, other issues got in the way.

Bottom line, be honest with yourself and the people you are dealing with. Use a local authorised official to mediate and if it gets too hard, leave your ego at the door and walk away.

Recent events in PNG of raping and killing of Tourists supports my previous claims. I'm no expert in this topic and my efforts of recovery are small compared to many others. We are
still learning as we go and we know that one day we could be faced with a SG type scenario, hence are use of officials and good record keeping.

[Noha307]

Regarding the Bribes and Corruption topic - this is a very Western view, in some places I have visited it is customary to make an offering - in my case it was several pigs which are highly valued - but essentially it was a payment made and a benefit gained by the chief. Of course this gift was to show respect for the people, land and their way of doing business. Who am I to judge? I'm just some short fat bloke from Australia wandering around asking silly Q's.

Once again, thanks for sharing! Your interactions with the locals are fascinating.

The US Navy has no authority outside of the USA

I was just thinking about what I wrote above regarding the Navy's argument, and I think the reason it works for them is that it refers to wrecks found in international waters - where no one has jurisdiction. It was in my argument that I extended it to cover wrecks within the territory of other countries and in doing that I was extending the argument too far. I think the US Navy does have jurisdiction outside of the United States, but it is limited to the very specific areas around wrecks that lie outside the control of other countries. In any event, it does not have jurisdiction over the wrecks you are dealing with.

if someone can provide me with documentary evidence to disprove this, and I mean an original or officially endorsed copy of an original, then I will be on a plane the next day handing that document to several Pacific Nations who have for decades been trying to have the US Navy clean up wrecks, harbours airfields etc.

Bottom line, be honest with yourself and the people you are dealing with. Use a local authorised official to mediate and if it gets too hard, leave your ego at the door and walk away.

I have to admit, this sounds pretty good to me.

Recent events in PNG of raping and killing of Tourists supports my previous claims.

I didn't even know this was occurring, but I guess living in Australia - and therefore being somewhat nearby - means that it makes the news over there.

I'm no expert in this topic and my efforts of recovery are small compared to many others. We are still learning as we go and we know that one day we could be faced with a SG type scenario, hence are use of officials and good record keeping.

How many recoveries have you been involved in to date? Just the two you mentioned (Dauntless and Vindicator), or have there been more? Are you aware of anyone else currently carrying out warbird/airplane wreck recoveries in the Southwest Pacific? Finally, and I may have missed this, but what does SG stand for?

I hope you don't mind the questions - this is interesting stuff.

[Kudzu]

Hi,
Just thought I'd throw in a few thoughts I've had while reading this thread. Having almost completed an Archaeology degree ( late 80's ) as well as being a volunteer at an aviation museum for 23 years dragging in planes to restore ( usually a half step ahead of the scrap man ), my views cover both sides of the debate. As an Archaeologist, when a “site” is excavated, it is “destroyed” in the process so it is vital that as much information as possible is gathered and recorded for future researchers ( the structure might remain but all the info about the inhabitants diet ( collect all the bones etc in the trash pits, sort, weigh, and tada their menu ! ) and other information in the “dirt” is lost ). This is why most sites today are only partially excavated, if at all, and then only after much thought and planning. The exceptions are for “rescue Archaeology” where the site is about to be destroyed by man or nature so an effort is made to save as much information / material as possible. All this being said, most standard “sites” are stable and not going to change very much in another 10-200 years. Aircraft, ships and most other “modern” tech items / relics are another matter. In another 100 years all that will be left in most cases will be glass and a few stainless bits buried in a pile of discolored and polluted dirt. There may be a few unique exceptions ( ice, sealed in clay, dry desert etc ) but even then, if the sites are in ANYWAY accessible to people, some @$$**** will decide to get off by destroying the item / site ( human nature, always has been, always will be – “You just can't fix stupid!” ). Just as quick examples: grave / tomb robbers for hundreds of years; the jerks who had to pay money and ride for several hours across the desert just to bash up the WWII P-40 in Egypt, like WTF!!!; the current idiots in Middle East / Africa blowing up REALLY old sites; and here in the US people pushing over rock formations, vandals damaging displays just for the h### of it, etc, etc. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that while “in situ” sites are cool to visit, they are NOT going to last for any real length of time. In my option though, ships and other large war grave sites should NOT be disturbed except for ID'ing and other non salvage types of research. Smaller sites, Aircraft, etc containing remains should be ID'ed and the decision to recover the crew / airframe made only after consulting the relatives and their respective government, as well as receiving the permission of the land owner and the local government. I think any other aircraft should be open for recovery if the land owner and the local gov. are both agreeable. Should every scrap of wreck be picked up and put in the big black hole warehouse from the “Indiana Jones” movies ? No, of course not, but the really rare / good examples that still survive should be preserved for the future. Preserved vs restored to fly ? Tough question, on which I lean more towards preserve if the information is available to build a “replica” without taking apart / destroying the original plane. If the type is fairly common but no rebuild data is around then do the “restore” but collect as much info as possible and share it! Finally the really sticky wicket, the last of it's kind plane that has to be disassembled to acquire the info to make a new one? That is kinda like a no win call plus open invitation to be a dart board from both sides at the same time. Any of the above actions should be given thought, planning, as well as fund raising before starting the process and making a mess out of the recovery ( PBY in Gulf comes to mind, as well as many other planes that have been pulled up/in then allowed to sit out in the open and rot at a MUCH faster pace because a preserve-restore plan & money was not in place, just the good intentions of “hey guys, lets save this”. I've been guilty of that myself, which is why I try to help others learn from my mistakes.

Now to the PNG issues, and the original topic of this thread, sorry for “deep thoughts from Kudzu” side track!

It's been awhile since I read a certain tour guide's site / posts, other people's post's about him etc. so I won't throw any big rocks ( glass houses and all that ). I do however think he has a vested interest in leaving the planes to rot away in place so he can continue to make a living as a guide instead of considering what's best for the artifacts and the historical record. Judging from the picture of the B-26 in the other thread that was excavated at his request ( per other posters, I don't know ) the site WAS destroyed as an “Archaeological” site by the digging plus now that the artifact is exposed to the open air again, the corrosion will go into afterburner and TOTALLY destroy the plane shortly ( Okay slightly larger rock, but the plane was already identified and all of the crew accounted for ( survived ), so absolutely no need to excavate / destroy it just for a cool “hey, look what I found picture” ). He is working on helping bring home the MIA's, so my hat's off to him for that part of his operation. As far as dealing with the local people and their government on recoveries, I think “Digger” has been outstanding. To me, the main thing is the respect of their values and culture he has shown in his posts. In a lot of the world “gifts” are the way things work, and the way the people there WANT it to work as well. Most of the time, the local leaders and government of any given country have to keep their population at least somewhat happy or they get replaced. Just because we don't like such business practices as a general rule doesn't give us the right to force our view on them. It's their pool, so if you want to swim you have to follow their rules or go home. Can the recovered aircraft have a monetary value ? Of course, but as the saying goes, the way to make a small fortune with an airplane is to start with a large one. I've never recovered an airplane for pay or one that was later sold but I really don't see much, if any profit to be made after all the expenses are paid ( almost free planes here in the USA still get scrapped because of the moving costs, so just imagine where everything has to be shipped in / out at great cost ). All of the work I've done over the years was because of my interest in preserving history, not for ego, or to make a quick buck ( it's actually cost a lot of hard earned bucks ). It's been fun with some blood, a lot of sweat, and a few tears along the way but worth it for the moments like the time we hosted Collings B-17 / B-24. A veteran came up and thanked ME for not forgetting about him and all the others. I told him “I'm the one who is thankful to you and all of your friends sacrifices”. That's one of the priceless moments I'll remember forever along with my paid flight on “909” to Asheville where we were greeted by Col. Bob Morgan on arrival ( Memphis Belle ). Back to the idea of viewing the planes in place, it's not something that I think will ever bring in enough revenue to make any real difference to the locals standard of living etc. The number of people willing to spend money on touring historic sites like these is going to keep declining even without bad headlines. When I visited friends in Sydney back in 2005, I was told a little about PNG. One girl's uncle lived there with his local wife and family. She had visited them and traveled around safely but only because she was with her cousins ( kidnapping / robbing of tourists was not uncommon and the family lived in a guarded compound per her info ). It was and from what I've read, still is quite tricky to travel and visit due to all the different family / tribal areas. Here's a link to the article about some recent incidents which will further reduce tourism / income for the locals ( only takes the one bad apple to give the whole place a bad name ).

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ame ... ?ocid=iehp


Keep up the good work Peter,
if I ever get a chance to visit again, I'll try to see more than just the Sydney area.

Cheers and Good Night!

Brian
AKA “Kudzu”

PS “SG” is for the B-17 “Swamp Ghost”, now in Hawaii