French economy vs Battlefield preservation

[guy taylor]

Dear All,

Another example of the primacy in France today, of commerce and economics over heritage, has just come to my attention. It seems that the powers that be want to erect a wind turbine site near the historic battlefield - 4 turbines, each half the size of the Eiffel Tower !!!!! Fortunately quite a few of the local residents (including the mayor) are against it, and there is to be a public enquiry.

Of course the fact that it was a catastrophic French defeat, when they were odds-on favourites, may have had some influence on the civil servants & planners.

I know at first glance this may seem a bit off-topic, but I feel that this has considerable ramifications for all other battle sites; as well as rail and road developments we now have to watch out for the weather! Do we have any meteorologists who are familiar with the wind characteristics of the western front ?

Guy

PS Further details on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3439083.stm

[Christina Holstein]

Guy

It's the same in the Meuse. The forestry office rules pretty well supreme because of the value of the forests in the area to the French economy. To suggest that such major sites as Verdun and the Argonne forest are worth more than the trees that are felled there cuts no ice at all. Money is king in the end and sites disappear under the bulldozer every year.

Christina Holstein

[paul guthrie]

The Verdun foresters & their bulldozers destroy the battlefield, windmills do not and are good for the environment in a way; they do detract from the visual experience however.

[dycer]

I have to confess I see both sides of the argument here.

I suppose the first thing to say is. Had the post-War authorities wanted the Battlefields preserved they would have prevented them being cleared and returned to farming,etc in the 1920's.

The Cemeteries,Memorials are an ongoing reminder to the sacrifice that occurred and hopefully will remain for ever.

We are people who have a genuine interest in the War but we are in the minority and should our interest prevent the ongoing economic development of France?

It could be argued that the remaining Battlefields should be preserved and the French Authorities actively promote them as a tourist attraction.I for one would not like this to happen.The Battlefields would become too tacky(A Picardie Euro Disney!) and they would not generate enough local income.

George

[guy taylor]

George et al,

I see your points and agree to some extent. There is a real dilema regarding the preservation and access/tourist economy balance. In some ways it may be better to write off small (less significant) bits which can be preserved /restored as a tourist and educational focus and thus limiting the erosion of other parts. Tony Pollard (one 1/2 of 2 Men in a Trench) reckons that most battlefield sites in Britain will be archaeologically useless in 10 years time as a result, primarily, of tourism, treasure hunting and agriculture; I just hope the same does not apply to the Western Front.

I suppose looking at it philosophically, at least road and rail projects are so huge, expensive and slow, that they permit (and indeed pay for) fairly thorough excavation and recording before all is buried under concrete.

Guy

[dycer]

Guy,

Thanks for replying I was getting worried I had killed another debate!

Although I have two Uncles buriied in France and clearly would have concerns if the known burial was to be moved(I appreciate this is possible although unlikely in his particular circumstances).I seem to recall reading that the CWGC moved graves at the request of the Singapore Government so the precedence has already been set.

I have only been to France twice and the only "Battlefield" I have visited is Vimy.To be honest and with no disrespect to my Canadian colleagues I found it a bit devoid of emotion.Possibly because of the people visiting who had "fun" walking between the "front-lines" but without much thought to the history of the Ridge.Again I must stress I mean no disrespect to my Canadian colleagues and fully support the efforts of the staff at the Visitors Centre but just question the "tourists" motive for visiting.(possibly I went on a bad day!)

Because of my experience at Vimy I have no desire to see this "tourist" policy extended to new sites.

I have to add that my Son gained a greater experience of the horror of War from the Somme Exhibition in the Imperial War Museum than he did from visitng Vimy.

I have a general concern about Britain as well .We seem to trying to turn the Country into a vast Museum,everywhere you go there seems to be some point of historical interest open to the public.I fully accept the vast amount of world breaking history within the Island but this occurred because of our Imperial past when the Nation looked forward and far beyond its shores.

For some reason we seem to have lost this ability and try and bury ourselves in the past. I would not like other Countries to follow our example.

George

[Mark A]

Dycer,

Interesting point about Vimy. Despite it's preservation I too felt a bit removed from what happened there- a bit like at Beaumont Hamel where the visitors centre and proscribed routes seem to have "packaged up" the experience somewhat. But then these sites get thousands of visitors so facilities and set paths are needed to protect the sites. You have to move with the times.

Probably like most of the pals here I can see both sides of it- countries need new roads, rails and shops and they'll usually (and sadly) win out over sites of history or scientific interest in the end. As Guys says, we have to hope that proper records are made as they do it- like in Southend where a road widening scheme lead to the discovery of the Saxon king- pretty damn incredible.

m

[Guest jbd]

I suspect that the protests about wind farms in Agincourt has nothing to do with the historic nature of the site. It is almost certainly about the devastating impact on the landscape and the noise that is produced when the damn things turn.

I think most of us are very concerned about the environment but wind farms are a very mixed blessing. I suspect that they generate more money for the owners than they do electricity for the nation. It is noticeable that the UK government is now stating that future developments should be off-shore.

France is a very large country and I cannot help but think that a number of developments that affect the battlefields could be placed elsewhere.

As for our own obsession with the past, I see nothing wrong with preserving what we can of our history. On a visit to the USA some years ago, the guide was relating how this paricular house was almost ninety years old. My wife looked at him and with some disdain exclaimed "I have patients who are older than that"

If you have ever done any geneaology you would understand why preservation of what went before is important to the present.

Barrie Dobson

[Marco]

Am I the only one that feels a bit uncomfortable when Brits discuss what the French/Belgians sould do with their land? "What have YOU done lately?" springs to mind and that is not because of the recent brest incident.

Regards,

Marco

[paul guthrie]

I don't feel uncomfortable, these sites have significance beyond their borders, and most of all to the UK.

[Marco]

Paul,

If the Brits had a good track-record themselves for perserving things I would agree with you.

Regards,

Marco

[paul guthrie]

Marco you are right and further I don't say or think others should make their decisions, merely that there is nothing wrong with having their say.

[Guest jbd]

Am I the only one that feels a bit uncomfortable when Brits discuss what the French/Belgians sould do with their land?

I thought we were all members of the EC these days. Both Brussels and Strasbourg are very good at telling we English what to do, why should we not reciprocate?

I rather think that if we were to repatriate the Menin Gate to (say) Sheffield and the Theipval Memorial to (say) Leeds, Belgium and France might be the losers.

Barrie Dobson

PS Greece has no part in this discussion.

[Marco]

My point exactly Barrie, if one country is an EC dodger it's the UK, but they tell everyone else what to do. Your in or you're out, make up your mind.

Your other points are not to the point and therefore ignored. It would be a different matter (meaning to the point) if the Belgians kindly asked you to remove the Menin gate.

Regards,

Marco

Ps. to the moderator: I did not bring up politics!

[Guest jbd]

It would be a different matter (meaning to the point) if the Belgians kindly asked you to remove the Menin gate.

If only they would. They do brew decent beer in Sheffield and we have built all the motorways we need in Sheffield

Barrie Dobson

[Marco]

Barrie,

It's frighting how much we agree when we are talk and thinking in straight lines:

and we have built all the motorways we need in Sheffield

And when the Belgians want to do the same (on Pilkem ridge) every Brit is shouting b***y murder.

As said 'what have YOU done lately'

Regards,

Marco

[Guest jbd]

:

and we have built all the motorways we need in Sheffield

And when the Belgians want to do the same (on Pilkem ridge) every Brit is shouting b***y murder.

Marco,

I am so sorry that I did not explain myself very well!

We stopped building motorways in Sheffield over 30 years ago. The main one, the M1 is older than that. The house I was born in vanished under the M!. The difference is that we re-housed everyone BEFORE we built it.

I agree with you about Pilkem Ridge. Quite right that those people in this civilised island complained. It is a pity that a few more didn't in Belgium

Barrie Dobson

PS As well as our ability to brew decent beer, we can import our chocolates from Belper (25 miles down the road) and rock from Cleethorpes.(just follow your nose to Grimsby)

After the pint?you cannot beat fish and chips

[salientpoints]

Plenty on this discussion here http://www.1914-1918.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5292&st=0

and no doubt elsewhere on the forum!

Its not ever going to go away and successive governments will move with whatever they sit fit to suit during their time in power. I always wonder why they dont have like a universal policy on certain items rather than think about starting something for 4 years or so then never complete it before they are out...think of all that money...

Anyway thats by the by - personally I think the only way to preserve battlefields in this age of the 'playstation and fat kids' is to embrace the tourism but understand it and control aspects of it in conjunction with heritage organisations - that is those that can agree with each other!

Ryan

[dycer]

What a "can of worms" I seem to have started!.

My real problem is with the word "Tourist"

Historically no Country has been seen as a "Tourist" one but as they have evolved and left their mark later generations feel the need to visit and draw inspiration.Greece and Italy are obvious examples of this.

Britain,Belgium and France also fall into this category due to their rich history.Britain because of its Empire.Language,etc.Belgium because of its Artists(not beer).France again its richness of the Arts,Culture,etc.

The southern European Countries(as do the Southern States of North America(how many Canadians escape the Winter?) have the benefit of a warmer climate which is attractive to the Northern Dwellers.If you can throw in a bit of culture so much the better.

I do not class the "Battlefields" in the same light.

Yes,people should visit and learn about the futility,courage,etc of War.

I'm not sure,though, that tramping Vimy,Verdun,etc actually brings the sacrifice home.

I would not for a moment countenance The Menin Gate,etc being repatriated.Which Country has the claim?Surely all the Commonwealth Countries who participated have a claim on these Memorials.

As long as these Memorials and Cemeteries remain in situe for all time "Tourists" can visit and reflect.

The remaining "Battlefields" can then be used for development(and as has been pointed out to stumble on unknown archeaological features).

George

I'm not going to get into a discussion about the "Elgin Marbles" being returned to Greece.

[healdav]

I think we have to be reasonable about this.

If every battlefield was to be preserved exactly as it was at the time of the battle, most of Europe would have to live on artificial islands (anchors avoiding the sunken ships).

Within about 2 hours drive of my home I have:

2 places where allied evaders hid in WW2 (actually in the same village)

a post-WW1 American hospital,

two concentration camps,

Battle of the Bulge front line (complete with foxholes that are untouched),

Innumerable Maginot Line forts (some well known, but most abandoned),

Umpteen Sere de Rivière forts,

Vauban coming out of your ears,

Medieval fortification of all types ,

WW1 trenches in pristine condition, machine gun posts, pillboxes, you name it, from every war you have ever heard of (and a few you probably haven't).

That's just for a start.

How on earth do you preserve these things and allow the human race to get on with its life?

It is noticeable that no town or city in the UK voted to remain 'blitzed' after the last war. They were all rebuilt.

Future generations will wonder why, according to the preservation at all costs lobby.

I agree with Christina, though, (being a neighbour this is wise, although in this case I do anyway), the destruction of pristine areas in Verund and the Meuse-Argonne is just plain scandalous, but to be honest it doesn't wring my entrails at all to see a field with nothing on it used for something.

To be honest, and stir up trouble, when I went to Newfoundland Park a couple of years ago I wondered what all the fuss was about. OK, interesting to see, but the place could easily have been constructed a week before as a children's play park.

All that beautifully mown grass. Not a shell in site, and no nasty, sticky mud.

Come further east and tramp through the forests, stepping carefully over the piles of unexploded everything, clamber through teh barbed wire that still lies in its thousands of miles. That's worth preserving.

[dycer]

I know I should not start a one to one healdav but I agree with you about leaving Uk Blitzed towns as they were.

However I have to say we British could have learned a lot from our European partners.

I've not been to Ypres but it is noticeable the post-War effort that went into restoring the Cloth Hall.

Similarly in my travels around Europe,Germany,Belgium(Antwerp area) there seems to have been an attempt to restore some of the Centres to their pre-WW2 glory.

Possibly because of the amount of devastation we could not restore the UK Towns and Cities in the same way but I think the Country is architecturally poorer because of this oversight(but hindsight is a great word!)

George

[guy taylor]

Healdav - do you ever manage to drive for more than 2 hours ! I envy you your situation !

Pals,

When I refered to visitor centres there was an implied hope that they would be of a really high quality - you can now do post-graduate degrees in museums and interpretation studies.

Now to step onto dangerous ground - there is so much misinformation floating around that there is a danger of the myths being perpetuated (and they must be true because we learned it at school) rather that further truths and insight being revealed by historical and archaeological study. You can STILL hear people (and sometimes even journalists) refer to 'the millions of British toops who died on the Somme'

Sorry about the rant - but at least I feel better for it..

Guy

[healdav]

Oh, I do manage to drive fro over two hours, after all, to get to Calais I have to go the length of the western front more or less.

I don't think that you can claim, as you seem to, that British cities were more devastated than Ypres! - or Dresden come to that. It's more a question of mentality than anything else.

But, you can't preserve everything. We have to live. I take groups along the Battle of the Bulge front line and in the place where the American counter offensive started in Luxembourg I have to say, 'imagine that all these houses, the hypermarket and the garage are not here - oh, and the river wasn't canalised.'

Imagine the days when the river Nile came up almost to the Pyramids - you can still see the docks.

All is change.

[AndyHollinger]

I think we have to be reasonable about this.

If every battlefield was to be preserved exactly as it was at the time of the battle, most of Europe would have to live on artificial islands (anchors avoiding the sunken ships).

Within about 2 hours drive of my home I have:

2 places where allied evaders hid in WW2 (actually in the same village)

a post-WW1 American hospital,

two concentration camps,

Battle of the Bulge front line (complete with foxholes that are untouched),

Innumerable Maginot Line forts (some well known, but most abandoned),

Umpteen Sere de Rivière forts,

Vauban coming out of your ears,

Medieval fortification of all types ,

WW1 trenches in pristine condition, machine gun posts, pillboxes, you name it, from every war you have ever heard of (and a few you probably haven't).

That's just for a start.

How on earth do you preserve these things and allow the human race to get on with its life?

Herein lies the rub ... while we must respect the past, it is the future and making our way in the future that should (IMHO) precedence. The concept of a "park" is only a few centuries old, if that. The idea the past has value is also very new.

When it comes down to it, everybody's got to make a living - somehow. Tourism only goes so far. One might say, the biggest Tourist attraction in the world is the British Monarchy. The economic impact the concept of Royalty has in the English speaking world is immense ... the Heritage Industry in the UK does a tremendous amout of "good" in preserving the past, but only in as much as it can make money. But, the economy of the UK is not built on the Heritage Industry - It must look to the future.

We all have problems here ... the idea of a "planned community" or a Disney type theme park on the Wilderness Battlefield in the US ... highways around Ypres ... Heck, if you really wanted to "preserve battlefields" the entire Flanders area would be one large park ... and the various authorities of each "important" epoch would be suing each other over violations of its importance!

I use a quote in class to illustrate this point. "The difference between an environmentalist and a developer is the environmentalist already has his house in the woods.

It comes down to politics and money. The forces which can marshall enough get to have the park, and those who can't get to have the Toxic Waste Dump in their neighborhood. (Interestingly the city of Amarillo, Texas [known through-out Texas as maybe NOT being the Armpit of the world, but close enough to see it] has made a fortune out of being a nuclear waste area of sorts ....)

My thoughts are we must choose our targets carefully and anticipate the attacks on historical areas. Not every house and church or building is something we "must" save even if the Duke of Wellington's cousin used their bathroom while passing through. I think the idea of forming trusts to buy land, pay the taxes and therefore remove such land from speculation, etc. is helpful ... it's been done before and successfully with Marsh and Forest. Old buildings are "reconditioned" for other uses, etc. But, as we know the future holds for more development and necessarily so ... instead of arguing over you "can't" - we should already own important areas so the discussion never comes up.

... That is until a local government starts Eminent Domain hearings ...

[Simon R]

while we must respect the past, it is the future and making our way in the future that should (IMHO) precedence.

Quite, life can only be lived forwards and remembered backwards. But couldn't we also add that in most of human history, events can only be understood and explained in retrospect. That's why preservation (by record or otherwise) ought to be an issue whenever we break the earth of battlefield sites. I agree with you re: trusts etc.

'But you can't preserve everything. We have to live.' Well who would ever suggest otherwise? For most of us in the museum/conservation world, it's almost enough (and a big enough job) that we can actually get on with looking after what we've got already. If we're seriously adopting the 'you can't keep everything' argument then we all ought to be campaigning for systems of research, properly written into legislation and supported by trusts and voluntary groups etc, that can get down to the real business of preserving these sites by record. In my experience, there's never enough time and money and it's a hard job simply looking after what there is already nevermind digging up new sites, although I of course accept that they're better sampled than destroyed.