Warbird Information Exchange

Here is another one that has been removed from the Micronesia area - a C6N Myrt.

Speculation is that Paul has this one now as well.


As you can see it is in great shape. Complete with engine, wings, gear - should make for a great restoration.

At the risk of sounding counter preservationist, I do think there is something special about artifacts still being found on or near a battlefield or in theatre. I have been to Hawaii, Guam, Saipan and Palau and can attest to the feeling of history of seeing real physical relics in the field. I waded out into the surf zone on Saipan and there was still a Sherman tank that kids played on, and rusted out AMTRACK bits that still had the rubber rollers still attached. Palau was even more amazing. I have been to crash sites. I found it very moving to see this stuff still in plain view for all. It was glad to see it in-situ and better than in some rich guys trophy room. I realize not all artifacts are the same.

There also is the sense of what happened there should stay there. Some locals were quite adamant that things should stay there, while the majority did not really understand a long forgotten war, or our fascination with it.

Was it right for some of the "best" treasures of Egypt to be brought back to the London Museum? Form a strict preservationist sense, perhaps yes if it will last longer and more folks see it, perhaps no, they should have stayed....

Where to draw the line is indeed a tough one. Sure I would love to see a complete static Betty or Nell, but perhaps a recreation is the best path forward, and in many cases ~90%+ new metal would be required anyhow. I do agree however that a pile of exfoliated metal does little good to anyone.

Please don't get me wrong, I am very happy that some warbird relics have been brought in from the cold (or heat) like Swamp Ghost, etc. I just wanted to give a different perspective and to say there is no 100% correct answer. Not easy.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because it's the angle that's missed on every time this topic comes up. To a modern archaeologist, the artifacts belong to the people of the nation they reside in. One of the most infamous examples on this topic is the Elgin Marbles. I'm not going to rehash the story here, but I encourage everyone to check it out. Now, I'm sure someone will bring up the fact that these aircraft were originally owned by their respective governments. However, there are a couple of ways I can respond to that.

First, I can't speak for any of the other countries - or even the U.S. Navy - but, remember that the U.S. Air Force has relinquished control of all unrecovered aircraft from this period (barring human remains, of course). So legally they no longer "belong" to anyone from the United States. Instead, the wrecks revert to a "finders keepers" state - with the locals being the "finders".

Second, these wrecks are part of their history. Sure, our airmen may have been flying them, but the effect of the war on their way of life gives the locals just as much a claim to the aircraft as it does us - if not more so. To remove the wrecks from the island would be to deprive the locals of their history. (At what point do we have "enough" warbirds? Surely, if anyone has a need for more WWII airplanes it is them - not us.)

Third, lack of care for an artifact, aircraft included, does not indicate lack of ownership. For all we know, perhaps this is the way that the Pacific islanders believe their history is to be treated. This is not to suggest the ignorance associated with neglect, but instead maybe a reverence for the past. I know it's cliche, but compare with the idea of sacred land to Native Americans. Remember, after all, that the locals are the owners and the wrecks are theirs to do with what they wish.

Another counterpoint that I never see mentioned is the financial incentive from the warbird restorer's point of view. Warbirds and their restoration is big business. Someone who pulls a rare warbird out of some Pacific island can turn around and sell it for millions of dollars.

Interestingly, the Elgin Marbles analogy also serves particularly well in terms of another aspect of the recovery of warbirds - although this one has more to do with my personal proclivities regarding warbird restoration. One of the arguments in favor of removing the marbles from Greece is that they were better preserved in Britain. However, it has come out that apparently some of the cleaning work that was done to them actually may have ended up severly damaging them in the long term by abrading fine details from the surface. In the same way, I would argue that many of the recovered warbirds are "damaged" by those that claim they can take better care of them when they are restored by removing and replacing original parts. Of course the wrecks would eventually cease to exist if left in situ, but the end result of the airworthy restorer passing them by may be the static preservationist picking them up later. I guess my point with this paragraph is, don't be so sure that removal of the wrecks to another country will be the best way of preserving them.


I have a lot of respect for Justin. I find it hard to fault what he did. IMHO, all he did was basically educate the government to the value (not necessarily monetary) of the artifacts they have and alert them an illegal salvage operation going on. I think it's likely that a lot of the warbird recoveries from the past couple decades in that area of the world were done on a less than fully legal basis, and the people recovering the planes were well aware of that. It's fair to say that working with governments like those in the Solomons and PNG can be long and time consuming. Therefore, I imagine that warbird people involved found a local official that was more than willing to give a semblance of legitimacy to the project in exchange for a little extra cash. If you read the PNG government's report on the Swamp Ghost case, it becomes very clear that Robert Greinert gave the PNG National Museum and Art Gallery at least several thousand dollars worth of "gifts" for the "right" to export Swamp Ghost. This is not to suggest that the PNG doesn't have its own problems - obviously it needs to take a serious look at corruption. However, this does not absolve Mr. Greinert of wrongdoing. I will also note that it does not seem impossible to conduct these recoveries above board. From what I have read, I find no fault with MAAM's P-61 recovery. By trading the P-61 wreckage for a Stearman they showed that they were willing to engage in a fair transaction with the Indonesian government.


As far as selling merchandise goes, that is something that WIX more or less does through the ads on the side of the website. I don't see anything wrong with trying to make some money to keep your website going.

Finally, as sandiego89 above me very correctly noted:



The world is gray, not black and white. I am not strictly opposed to these warbird recoveries. As a matter of fact, I would likely support them in some cases. I hate to see preservable wrecks rusting away in a field. However, I want to see them done in a way that respects all parties involved.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Hi all, happy New Year.

I'm afraid this is a multi faceted problem, obviously highlighted in recent times with the recovery of swamp ghost which in hindsight, we can say was as much a political issue as much as it was a preservation issue.

The situation with the recovery around SG was and still is clouded by the political forces that became involved. Its no secret that PNG is not considered a "stable nation". This includes Politically, economically, socially and
environmentally. Yes a lot of overseas individuals and organisations are partly responsible for this and some of these are Australian. The apparent lack of self interest claimed by many preservationists is both difficult to
understand and even more complex when considering what is best for the locals and when I speak of preservationists I mean both sides, those who want wrecks left in situ and those who would like to recover them.

Lets be totally honest, those who want to recover wrecks have a level of self interest in doing so, whether this is monetary or ego based it doesn't matter, what matters is that the law is complied with - remember this point.

I for one am all in favour of recovery for restoration for public display. I visit the SWPA for holiday and research, not in PNG, but I can tell you that many locals consider these wrecks to be of no value - until some outside
fella expresses an interest. Another observation I have made is the access that locals have to "electronic news". Many carry mobile phones and its staggers belief (for me in Australia) to see these people using mobile
phones in what would be impossible locations here. So, the word gets around that money can be made and this has and continues to trigger wider problems.

Politics + Money = corruption in any country and I most certainly include Australia in that basic equation.

PNG is currently experiencing a drought and significant crop losses = starvation = inclination to obtain a benefit so families can eat = quick way to achieve this is via criminal conduct.

Wider problems = It is a growing trend that we now hear of inter tribal fighting over rights to such wrecks. A recent incident was a group of tourists who had been taken up to see a number of spots that included
the B-17 at rest in Black Cat Pass. Clansmen from the mountainous region in which the pass is located attacked and killed several PNG nationals who were supporting tourists to visit these locations. There now exists
a fragile arrangement between tribes that one group will not trespass against the other without some kind of compensation = money.

Leaving these wrecks is place for tourist attractions. As the above example demonstrates this theory is impractical because the costs relating to the payments that will need to be made for each trespass will simply
escalate to the point where tourists will simply say no and to add to that, the crimes associated with attacks on tourists will become more common knowledge and people will simply stay away.

There are more mechanisms at play and my explanation is a simple one, but basically, having someone step forward and say this is worth X number of dollars in the US or UK has only set in motion the gradual decline
of self sustainability. There is little or no infrastructure in place to help save crops during droughts. Would it not benefit a native group to have money to spend on a water pipe? or have a ever reducing number of
outsiders paying money to see a wreck that will eventually break down to nothing. Its that old saying - give a man a fish and he shall have a meal for a day, but give him a fishing rod, real etc and he shall have many more meals.

PNG is considered to be a part of the Arc of instability in our region - its a potential breeding ground for terrorists because it has a significant mob crime problem making many parts of provincial towns no go
zones and it is very much a place where the law can not be complied with. So, the point I mention above about complying with the law, now leaves us to choose between the two evils, let the wrecks stay and watch, or
recovery via negotiations for items that can help with the agricultural based living.( I know this is a simple example but I think you get the idea)

Having spent many hours finding and assessing wrecks for potential recovery in the Pacific region I see the problems in PNG only getting worse, nevertheless I'm not trying to put anyone off research, locating and
recovering wrecks, but the costs have escalated to the point of unequal economic viability. Hence why we turned to the US for our B-25, a better option than going to PNG. As for the Japanese Bomber or any other
aircraft that still remain, I believe that careful considerations to all factors should be considered and these factors are not limited to what I have raised here.

my $2 worth

_________________
Peter
ESAD (E-Science and Digitalisation)

The Elgin Marbles aren't that bad of an analogy. The Ottomans and the PNG are both local "caretakers" of items not created by themselves, and both apparently governments in which what would be called corruption are the norm for conducting business. You could spend a lifetime arguing the moral and functional differences between bribes paid locally and fees paid centrally without coming to any objective conclusion. The fact that there is an argument at all 200 years later means that there is NOT a clear cut answer.

I would worry more about a circumstance like the the Temple of Bel, the Lion Gates of Ashurbanipal, and various other sites though Iraq. it wouldn't take too much of a stretch to imagine a populist, isolationist neo-traditionalist movement scouring sites and melting down everything as a means of settling tribal disputes over ownership, tourist guide fees and providing a short term influx of cash and materials.

Maybe that marks me as a "colonialist' or 'paternalist' or whatever. I would rather see things recovered by someone with an eye towards preserving "my" history, than hacked up piecemeal for beer money, or rotting away in some misguided 'natural healing process of the jungle'

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

I think you're very correct. While I still have many problems with the motivations of the wreck recoverers - and I would continue to be critical of them for it - I think I would be comfortable with what they are doing if they do it on a lawful level.


Thanks for sharing this insight. I will readily admit, I have no first-hand knowledge of the people of the area or their opinions. My suggestion above about the locals attitude towards preservation was a hypothetical - partially for this reason.

However, I will point out that (as much as we may wish it was not the case) even the fact that the individuals don't place any value on the wrecks does not give us the right to take them.


I have to admit, I don't really see that happening. I'll definitely give you the fact that there are local disputes over this sort of thing, but as far as nationwide anti-WWII relic campaign for ideological reasons goes, it seems unlikely to me.


I don't think so. Simply expressing a difference of opinion does not necessarily put someone into one of the "-ist" categories. I had to learn this lesson (in my case, sexism) myself a few years ago in college. (Ironically enough, even though it didn't have anything to do with the subject, the context was a class on archaeology.)


I'm sorry, but the idea that somehow the corruption in these countries justifies the illegal actions warbird restorers have taken I just can't agree with. The end does not justify the means.

I'm not really sure I can say much more on this last point without moving into a debate about ethics and morality, and I'm not sure people want to hear about that on a forum about warbirds, so I'll just stop here unless anyone wants to pursue the subject.


Oh, yes, Happy New Year!

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

[Double Post]

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

I think the real issue is that we - as westerners who do have a set of laws, ethics and protocols to follow - are forced to deal with nations that don't have the same
understanding of western laws, they tend to make things up as the situation progresses.

Here's an example of a very rare individual Chief I worked with.

Yes, they would sell the wreck, they did not know its value, so they placed a value on it by comparison to an old boat. A boat so old and sad looking, I wondered why
the chief wanted this agreement so I asked him. Living on an island he said, we need many things, one is fish and the other is people who want to dive on old wrecks.
He continue....if we can sink this old boat in a specific location then the divers will come and so will the fish. The divers will want somewhere to stay, so we can have
our young men build basic places for them to stay for one, two maybe three days. While the divers are here they need to eat, we can feed them the fish that gather
around the wreck and the fruit that grows wild on the island. And more divers will come.

I realised this is why he was the chief. He wanted rid of the wreck because it caused problems - what they were I did not know - but land disputes are common place.
Having several wrecks strategically placed would give each village an opportunity to host divers. In most parts of the SWPA the oceans belong to all - there are no disputes
about boundaries.

So their laws, ethics etc are different to ours and a payment of a old rotten ship, boat or whatever for a WW2 wreck which is considered a prize to us, doesn't concern them.
Not until someone steps in and steers them away from their own thoughts, ethics and Kustoms. So, am I guilty of unethical behaviour by Western standards? We paid
very little for the boat, but we had to clean it of all oils and other materials that could cause pollution - and that is reasonable. Now the wreck is gone from the island
and gone from their memories, but they have divers who visit, stay play and pay. By their standards I was fair, reasonable and justified in the entire transaction. Its
western opinions that have been forced onto these people that make all this a mess in so many other places.

_________________
Peter
ESAD (E-Science and Digitalisation)

This has really turned into a terrific, thoughtful discussion about the issues surrounding the war relics in the Pacific, and I just wanted to express my appreciation for the knowledgeable comments here. Lots to think about here, but I think the real takeaway is that if we are to have any realistic hope of recovering and preserving or restoring these aircraft, any interested party must take the needs of the locals into consideration, and help them meet their goals as well. That is only correct and fair.

Thanks again, everyone!

Lynn

What about this stuff left in place?? should it be hauled away by folks with money?? another side of the coin maybe
http://www.cdsg.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=506

In the least, document their present state and location with photos, video, maps and battlefield records. Note which ones are combat damage or just abandoned junk. Then, get them out of the muck and mud and at least under a shelter to keep them dry and slow down rust and decay.

Rotting monuments in the jungle visited by an occasional blowtorch doesn't do much for preservation.

_________________
"They done it, they done it, damned if they ain't flew." December 17, 1903

I think Peleliu might be the best preserved battlefield left in the world and I personally wouldn't call anything there a "rotting monument" to any Peleliu Marine no matter if he is 90 years old. i just think some things are best left alone...

they should be hauled away by anyone with the cash to recover and display them in a western nation to show the people of that nation what happened in the past, people of these islands dont really care apart from the occasional person making money from tourism but Palau is in the middle of nowhere and barely gets any visitors anyway

You're making this complicated. Good. I like that. It's a the most accurate representation of how the world actually is.

First off, I would make at least some level of distinction between you and men like Mr. Greinert. According to the way you describe it, you are neither in it for the money or have acted in an underhanded way. (Although I could be wrong. ) To be clear, by saying "underhanded way" I don't mean that what you're are doing could not be construed as illegal - I certainly assume from a certain angle that it could be (not to say that it is). What I mean is that you, personally, seem to have good intentions. While that may not have much standing in a court of law, it means a great deal to me.

However, with the above being said I don't want to give the appearance I'm trying to wiggle my way out of your main question about the ethicality of your behavior. Whatever the mindset you had when you negotiated with that chief, has little bearing on the question of whether it is right to remove the wrecks from the country. Here's what I'll say: I think I would have tried harder to reach out to the cultural authorities in the national government for their approval. Maybe you tried this, maybe they don't exist, I don't know. However, someone at a nationwide level would (ideally) have the best perspective on all the wrecks in the country. AFAIK and IMHO It is not necessarily wrong for a government to allow the removal of some cultural heritage. (Although I may seem like I'm being contradictory at this point, I don't believe I am.) After all, it's often said that "history" belong to everyone; and there's a reason that countries let exhibitions from their museums travel the world. Furthermore, and I may have seen someone else suggest this, the money from sales of the wrecks deemed less important could be used to properly care for those that are. Only people at the higher levels could have the ability to handle this. I guess what I am saying is that I would question whether the Chief has the right to sell the wreck.

So, yes, I would question whether some of the actions you took are fully ethical. Not because I believe you are in any way a bad person, but for other reasons. I am not trying to offend, so I hope it does not come off this way. Instead, I want to make sure that when I am presented with a difficult choice I am willing to bite the bullet and not avoid the question. For what it's worth, and this may sound strange given what I just wrote, I admire what you have done.

As an aside, two questions: Why was the Chief "a very rare individual"? Also, just out of curiosity, what was the wreck?

Finally, once again thanks for sharing! This story was fantastically interesting and offered excellent first-person insight into the region that I imagine most people on this site (myself included) don't have.



One of the problems with moving an artifact from its original location - be it a few yards or thousands of miles - is that it takes that artifact out of context. I think documenting them correctly is a partial solution towards fixing this. However, there are still problems. Let me make a comparison.

A large portion of the warbird community believes that the aircraft should be airworthy rather than static. Why? There are many reasons of course, but one major one is the fact that the aircraft "lose something" on the ground. You gain a much more full understanding and appreciation when the plane flies by you because it is placed in its proper context - the sky. In the same way, an unrestored wreck on the original battlefield makes much more of an impression than one that has been hauled to a museum. Looking at the pictures you linked to above reminds me that they are where men died. War is as much about the carnage and destruction as it is about the amazing technology in the machines that fought it. A fully restored vehicle in a museum does a much better job telling the latter story, but the one still in the jungle does a better job with the first.

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.


Very well said.

I'm certain there's more aspects of each of these questions I have missed, but I can't spend all day writing posts online.

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Hi Noah307 - no offence taken

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

This particular Chief is a regional chief which puts him high in the order of authority.

It was a Dauntless

our next project due for 2017 is a SB2U Vindicator.

_________________
Peter
ESAD (E-Science and Digitalisation)