The Ministry of Defense will not give the citizen back their homes
By AmberLynn
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
United States
October 26, 2019 8:13pm CST
Imber is a village in the United Kingdom that was once inhabited and might have flourished if it wasn't evacuated for the war effort.
The entire village was evicted in 1943 to provide an exercise area for American troops preparing for the invasion of Europe in World War II.
The village is located in Wiltshire, England and you can visit it if you'd like(during certain days of the year), but don't try asking if you can rent or buy any of the homes. The Ministry of Defense just won't allow it.
The village of Imber was evacuated in 1943 and is still deserted to this day. It was evacuated in November to aid the training of American soldiers for the D-Days landing. In 2019, the church…
10 people like this
11 responses
@marguicha (230365)
• Chile
27 Oct 19
@ScribbledAdNauseum I can understand aa tactical reason in the middle of a war. But they should have given the houses back to the people. And if they weren´t all found, the land and houses should be sold again.
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
@marguicha I agree with you. It seems that atleast part of it is now able to be toured. There are still relatives living today that would like to have it. The children of the owners are most likely still living, or even the grandchildren of the owners. It makes me wonder if it was not given back because it was still in use after the war.
1 person likes this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
I do not see a good reason for it myself.
1 person likes this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
I don't know if it's so much a law as just what was done. There were plenty of places used in the UK during WWII, I know of a manor house or two that was turned into a hospital for the wounded. I think it eventually fell back into the hands of the residents. I am not sure why this place wasn't.
1 person likes this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
@JustBhem I think they use it as a training grounds even now.
1 person likes this
@JustBhem (70555)
• Davao, Philippines
27 Oct 19
@ScribbledAdNauseum Maybe because they want to preserve something there.
@louievill (28846)
• Philippines
27 Oct 19
A great injustice was committed in my opinion, the surviving heirs and descendants should be compensated, they are heroes for contributing to the country's war efforts
1 person likes this
@Freelanzer (10782)
• Canada
27 Oct 19
I am sure a lot of folks would benefit from the homes there that are not occupied.
1 person likes this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
Unfortunately, not even the original families were allowed back in them.
1 person likes this
@Deepizzaguy (122405)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
27 Oct 19
It is a shame that the homes in Imber are not eligible to be rented or bought by the Ministry of Defense.
1 person likes this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
It's the Ministry of Defense that is causing them not to be bought or rented. The Ministry would not even let the original owners back in them.
1 person likes this
@Deepizzaguy (122405)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
28 Oct 19
@ScribbledAdNauseum That is a shame that happened in that village.
1 person likes this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
I am not quite sure. I think they were ordered to leave, and I am not sure if they were given other accommodations or made to deal with that themselves.
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
@evans777 Yes, but this was also a different time.
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
That wasn't explained in what I read (a wikipedia article + the website I shared above). I am guessing it's either to preserve it's history? I don't know.
@LadyDuck (502944)
• Italy
27 Oct 19
Imber was always an isolated community, now it remains under the control of the Ministry of Defence. I believe that also in your country "Military Places" are not open to civilians. They surely have a reason not to let the few people who asked to go back. If it is a military secret of course they cannot explain the reason.
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
Yes, I agree but I still do not think it was right that they promised these people they would have their homes back and then tell them that they had changed their minds. I am wondering if they were reimbursed, I haven't actually found any information about that out.
As for the US, and I could be wrong, but I do not think there are any military bases that were one owned by civilians.
1 person likes this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
@LadyDuck We were once "invaded" by British troops when we were fighting for our independence in the American Revolutionary War.
1 person likes this
@LadyDuck (502944)
• Italy
27 Oct 19
@ScribbledAdNauseum Your country has never been "INVADED", UK and all European countries have been invaded, so the military had to do what they needed to do and quickly. This happened even in Italy. Some villages had to be used as military bases, people should have come back after the war, but the villages have been totally destroyed. I suppose that this is going to happen in Syria A LOT.
1 person likes this
@moffittjc (128861)
• Gainesville, Florida
27 Oct 19
Who is to blame in this instance, the British government for not giving the village back to the people, or the Americans for taking it over in the first place. It's interesting how our own Constitution forbids the military from occupying private residences during peacetime, yet I guess the British laws may not have the same guarantees.
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
I guess not. I don't know that much about how the British handled the war. I know there was atleast once manor house that had been converted into a hospital of sorts for the incoming wounded, but I feel as if it was given back to the owner's control once the war had ended. I may be mistaken on that though.
I wonder what they claim to be the reasoning for not giving the land back to the original owners? Preservation of history? I couldn't find any reasoning in my cursory search last night.
1 person likes this
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
@moffittjc That's another good suggestion, but it can be toured so unless there is some parts that are off limits, I don't think that's that case.
It might be that it had been used for secret operations just after the war. That would explain why they didn't give it back to the families that lived there.
1 person likes this
@moffittjc (128861)
• Gainesville, Florida
27 Oct 19
@ScribbledAdNauseum That would be my guess, is that it is to preserve history. Unless the British military is currently using the area for secret operations.
@Poppylicious (11134)
• United Kingdom
28 Oct 19
The land the village stands on was {and still is} owned by the War Office. As such, they could do what they wanted with the land. I think most people were happy to leave because it meant they did their bit for the war effort. It's very unfortunate that they couldn't return home afterwards though. Keeping it like this is both a monument to their sacrifice, and also allows for the MoD to retain a base which could again be used for training if needed.
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
28 Oct 19
Yes, I read more on it after my initial research. I had to go to several different sites just to find everything out. They do let you tour part of the village, but it seems it's still in use for training purposes.
It seems there were a few that wanted to go back and were upset when they were not allowed to do so.
@ScribbledAdNauseum (104615)
• United States
27 Oct 19
It would have to be given to the children, grandchildren or great grandchildren of the original owners. There could be any number of reasons as to why they didnt give it back. It may have still been needed after the war.
1 person likes this
@dya80dya (36805)
•
27 Oct 19
@ScribbledAdNauseum Maybe there are some secret reasons.
1 person likes this
