ESTABLISHMENT OF A BATTLEFIELD BUYING FUND

[Mr BJ]

Hi there,

Reading some of the posts to this topic of endangered battlefields, there are a large number of people who have stated how they would like to have the money to buy some of the buildings, etc, that still exist and so preserve them for all time.

I have only recently joined this forum and was close to tears when I saw what had happened to the red chateau at VB. This disgraceful incident cannot be allowed to happen again.

Some people in this topic have said that people need to take action NOW if this is not to happen again - I could not agree more.

Consequently, I would like to propose the formation of a fund that will allow for the purchase of places of significance, their conservation and, perhaps, restoration where appropriate and as funds permit.

I can tell you now that the road will be long and hard but, with the right people in the right places, I believe it can work.

Firstly, we need a co-ordinator. This might have to be some sort of committee but there still needs to be a head who has the time and the skills to do this (remember, this is an international effort).

Next, we need a constitution that states our objectives and all the necessary whys and wherefores that we need to run. This will require a lawyer/s to effect this properly.

We will then need to seek the status of a charitable organisation with the appropriate government/s to allow the donations and other money raising activities to be free of tax and the donations to be tax deductible to the payers.

In time, we will need historians and the like to determine those things to be saved and other professionals to determine if they are saveable and then others to determine if it is viable to save (ie, the ongoing costs can be defrayed via entrance fees or can otherwise be sustained with donations (adopt a derelict building....etc)

I am sure there are plenty of people out there who can help in any number of different ways. I am an accountant in Australia so can help in some financial capacity if need be (don't really want to be the treasurer, though).

Let's not sit on our hands on this one. There are plenty of reasons why this would NOT work and I want to hear them. I also want to hear why it WILL work.

Throw some ideas into the ring and let's see what we come up with.

Over to you

Cheers,

Brad

[KONDOA]

Nice thought Brad but requires a significant amount of money. My view would be to pursue the imposition of preservation orders in the countries applicable which would reduce the capital and upkeep of such purchases. Without significant lottery funding or a "white knight" it would be difficult to mobilise funds in sufficient quantity to make an impression on the degradation of remaining properties/landscapes in a reasonable time frame.

Roop

[Hedley Malloch]

Before you go rushing off to save key bits of the battlefields, you would do well to consider that most of the places you will want to save are in France, Belguim and possbly Turkey. These are some distance from the UK and have their own property ownership laws, heritage preservation policies and legal systems. It's not like buying a piece of land in Eastbourne or Woollagong. No, not at all. And don't assume that the natives will always welcome outsiders, no matter how well meaning, coming in and telling them how they should be managing things.

Actually, this has been tried before when the WFA bought the Butte de Warlencourt in 1990. They have not tried to repeat the exercise. Ask them why before you embark on your endeavour. You may find that your good intentions, no matter how honourable, are not enough.

[NIGEL]

I agree with everything that has been put here, the amount of money needed would be absolutly huge i think each member of the forum would have to be a millionare to finance such a project.

Also YOU may think its great to preserve something that was part of the war, but you grandads/gg grandads probably couldnt wait to see the back of it, and if you asked the survivors today they would say knock it down but remember our sacrifice.

Then you are a Brit telling another country what to do------a big no no in some countries

[Chris_Baker]

The acquisition of the Butte de Warlencourt by WFA certainly brought with it some difficulties that have been overcome over the years only by a good deal of hard work, expenses and headache.

The Butte is covered with trees, bushes and grass. These things grow and not only completely block the view from the summit but cloak the very shape of the Butte. There have been many attempts at a solution to this, including making local arrangements with contractors to cut it back every now and again. Not easy to do from a distance.

Warning signs saying that the Butte is dangerous and you enter at your own risk have been lost / stolen /vandalised on numerous occasions. The WFA only finds out if someone - often a member - sees it and remembers to tell WFA. The replacements have not been an insignificant cost.

In recent years, the site had to be fenced to prevent encroachment. This cost a lot of money too.

Finally, the position regarding risk is no small thing. At the extreme - What would happen if a party of schoolchildren were killed by the explosion of ordnance or escaping gas? In these litigious times a huge lawsuit would fall on WFA, and specifically the elected Trustees of the charity. But at a more likely level - what if someone slipped on the steps that WFA has provided (and improved over the years) - same thing is becoming more likely.

The Butte has some unique qualities and features that "just a field" would not. But many of these considerations, continuing expenses and risks would apply.

That is not so say it should not be done, though!

[Max Poilu]

The most obvious 'saved from a certain disappearance' must be Lochnagar crater. I am sure many of us who visit the battlefields regularly are still drawn there every time we visit. Imagine if Richard Dunning had not had the foresight and endeavour to secure it for future generations - one of if not the most impressive original features of the Somme battlefield would be gone forever.

However, this is one thing - to secure a large field or wood or basic geographical feature ie a hill or ridge would be something even more (if not impossibly) difficult to achieve.

It's a great idea Brad and one many of us would have sympathy with but I fear it really is infeasible.

[ianw]

This is an interesting idea that has been mooted before. I agree that the problems would be significant but think that it could conceivably be made to work for a low maintenance area such as a field - even a small wood might present severe maintenance problems.

My lottery win project would be to buy a Somme wood. However, open areas such as the fields in the valley before High Wood are also of great significance. I wonder what the value of such fields is per hectare ? I think one could be certain that there will be a local agricultural value and then a much higher one if the seller got a whiff of the fact that les Anglais wanted to buy it !

[KONDOA]

I guess the most economic way of securing landscapes would be a form of nominal freehold with existing farmers as leaseholders. This would secure the landowners economic right/livelyhood whilst ensuring maintainance but the lease would allow control of development or usage of such assets. However as has been said such flexible but workable arrangements may be impossible in other countries.

Roop

[truthergw]

  And don't assume that the natives will always welcome outsiders, no matter how well meaning, coming in and telling them how they should be managing things.

  You may find that your good intentions, no matter how honourable, are not enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is always going to be a very sensitive subject where it would be all too easy to unintentionally cause pain. On the Western Front, the cemeteries and monuments are to men who fought to repel an invasion. We, their descendants, might feel that they are entitled to a degree of respect. In Gallipoli I think we have to recognise that the situation is different. The monuments and cemeteries are to men who fell while invading. The local people will be aware that this attempted invasion failed. I do not think we can demand sympathy or respect for the relics of a failed invasion of nearly a century ago. Some of the holidaymakers who make use of the new roads etc. will be the descendants of the men who lie there. The tourists themselves, will look blankly at you if you suggest they are lacking in respect.

[Mr BJ]

Well, there are some positives and negatives here and I thank you all for your comments so far.

I was really looking at the smaller picture but it seems that others have bigger eyes than I do.

Although the heading states "battlefields" I was really thinking more along the lines of significant buildings or places (such as the "Red Chateau", Lochnagar crater, bunkers and the like) rather than acres of fields - although the concept is interesting and, perhaps, more likely to be self funding as Roop suggests.

Small steps to start with, though is what I was thinking. I wouldn't have thought that some of these places would be that expensive to acquire. Also, there is always the option of joint ownership with other interested parties or grants from governments (the Australian government is one for "co-payments").

Also, as Roop suggested, encouraging the imposition of heritage permits could be another method of securing things.

But surely it is better to have tried to do something, and failed, than to have sat on our hands and done nothing.

Cheers,

Brad

[Hedley Malloch]

Butte de Warlencourt : As I recall the Butte was cleared at the end of the 80s by a squad of officer cadets drafted in from Germany. Several spent time in army hospital afterwards with gas blisters, including some on those parts of a gentleman officer's cadet's anatomy not normally considered as suitable for discussion on a public Forum. They had been contaminated by contact with the soil on the Butte, still gas-impreganated after 75 years. They were lucky they were treated by the RAMC, as your average GP and Accidents and Emergeny out-patients' house officer don't see many mustard and chlorine gas cases in a year.

[NIGEL]

Reading this again i think Roop has come up with the most feasable and constuctive comment where as the farmer or landowner is given a grant and tied into a period of time to preserve the areas, maybe given financial and expert assistance from some of the people here maybe to develop the area's into WW1 tourist spots as a sideline to his farm this way you could prevent the accidents, and all this could be done for a tiy amount compared to trying to buy up such areas

[Piscator]

Having spent sometime reading thro these posts, I think that the idea of preserving small area's of the Battlefield a wonderful idea. However I can imagine that any approach to purchase an area may be sharply rebuffed, but the idea proposed by Roop may overcome this problem as well as reducing the initial cost, even so its still going to be expensive and funding would ultimately depend on the area chosen for preservation, some contributor's may have their own agenda regarding a particular spot, unless they can be persuaded otherwise.

If the site was of a sensitive nature, access would to some extent have to be controlled and under the supervision( ie Butte de Warlencourt as an example)of an experienced guide or local Pal, this way would help towards the insurance that would be required to cover any litigation.

Ian's idea of a wood might be workable, most woods I saw over there were fenced in already and wouldnt need too much work to restrict access, and again quite a few had notice's round them.

As for the Oldtimer's saying get rid of it, well I think they'd be upset if someone built a housing estate where their mates fell and still lie.

Len

[KONDOA]

Just to simplyfy my thoughts before the subject gets too expanded. Farmers (despite their bad press) are the best guardians of landscape given the right reasons and can see a benefit in doing so. The general idea proposed could possibly come under EU farming policy if given enough clout by notables. In England currently we are paying farmers to do just what I envisage in that diversity policies are being incorporated into payment schemes and include special cases ie Hill Farming. I could see a possibility that an existing EU farming scheme could be specialised (combined with freehold/leasehold) to include the type of general preservation we seek.

The input of an estate manager would be welcome.

Roop