Hi Philip
Another aspect of this is that possibly the owners of the railings might have been able to claim compensation after the war. I think you may know that one of my interests is the War of 1812 fought 1812-1815 between Britain and United States. I have just written an article about ships that were sunk in Baltimore harbor to stop the British getting past Fort McHenry in September 1814. The owners of those ships were able to claim compensation for their losses in terms of damage done to the vessels while they were submerged. Since around eighteen of the ships were in the harbor the whole of the winter of 1814-1815 you can imagine that the damage sustained was substantial. Most of the ships were raised and were usable although at least one of them was shipwrecked in a subsequent voyage, which might be attributable to damage incurred during the submersion despite repair after she was raised.
The matter of compensating the owners of the twenty-four ships damaged in the damaged by submersion in the harbor was brought before the U.S. Congress, and although it took appeals year after year to get the compensation, eventually, twenty years later, all of the owners received some reimbursement.
div>
I do realise that, after the Second World War, Britain was in financial straits and still on rationing and that also the taking of the railings etc could have been viewed as a national need for the government to do and a patriotic duty for the citizens to give up the railings. However, I wonder whether even in Britain after 1945 some landowners etc did receive compensation for damage the armed forces did in requisitioning their lands or buildings, so why not the private owners and civic bodies who owned railings or other confiscated iron entities as well?
All my best
Chris
Bookmarks