Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Wartime Compensation
Was there any compensation offered to people who lost their homes from bombing, etc. during WW1 and WW2, and if so, by whom ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Scylax. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Seems W.s Churchill suggested something of this course of action..
http:// histclo .com/es say/war /ww2/ai r/eur/b ob/phas e/p3/bo f/bli-i nsur.ht ml
http://
Time of big change - Megarry - big shot lawyer - made his name for his opinion on a bomb site -if it was rebuilt and leasehold, could the pre war leaseholder claim occupation ? (Yes I think)
Insurance was usually void for 'acts of war'
and I think the govt paid, you know
if you were bombed out - the govt arranged for mass production of 'Utility' furniture - they had the funny half-birds eye mark on them - designed by Gordon Russell - and I think you could refurnish a house for something like £25.
and finally - you remember the Wilson Govt 1964 - ? some clever clever fellow pleaded in court that the burning of the Burmese Oil Fields in 1941-2 was NOT an act of war because the Brit Govt did it to prevent Japanese exploitation and not in the course of war
and the result was .... an act of parliament with retorspective effect.
Not very left wing at all
howls of protest....
this question has been asked before only four uyears ago:
see
http:// www.the answerb ank.co. uk/Hist ory/Que stion87 4532.ht ml
Insurance was usually void for 'acts of war'
and I think the govt paid, you know
if you were bombed out - the govt arranged for mass production of 'Utility' furniture - they had the funny half-birds eye mark on them - designed by Gordon Russell - and I think you could refurnish a house for something like £25.
and finally - you remember the Wilson Govt 1964 - ? some clever clever fellow pleaded in court that the burning of the Burmese Oil Fields in 1941-2 was NOT an act of war because the Brit Govt did it to prevent Japanese exploitation and not in the course of war
and the result was .... an act of parliament with retorspective effect.
Not very left wing at all
howls of protest....
this question has been asked before only four uyears ago:
see
http://