Violating war graves

[Wrecktec]

Hi George

Probably at least three quarters of all those lost were due to conflict and the majority of those by German U-boats, mostly WWI.

I don't think there is much difference what kind of ship the artefact came from, unless it was from a famous vessel of course. There are numerous websites and sources that purchase almost anything off a wreck, but bells and telegraphs etc command the highest prices, often £100s or even £1000s, so it is little wonder people collect them.

I still cannot see why Merchant navy personnel are treated any different to the RN when it comes to war graves though; maybe one got paid a bit more than the other, but both took huge risks and died for their country. I think I would have rather been on a large warship than a slow merchantmen.

However I would certanly not like to see a blanket ban on diving wrecks, just a bit more respect.

Cheers Ron

[dycer]

Ron,

Merchant seamen and Fishermen,went to Sea in War, for personal profit.

I do not question,that either our Country's survival,both in material and food depended on them.

It is possible that the enemy,at that time saw easy pickings,i.e why torpedo a Ship in the North Atlantic,when you can sink a Vessel in the North Sea carrying goods that came from North America,and are destined for France,or prevent,a catch of fish,which would supplement,basic commodities i.e. flour,sugar,etc being landed.

My Grandfather,had no inclination to go to sea,prior to WW1,serving his time as a sign-writer,but joined up and did his War service,on Minesweepers, the only Vessel, I know,he served on was not sunk.Whether he witnessed other vessels sinking,or suffered a sinking himself I do not know..

I cannot now read his mind,but I feel if he witnessed a Naval Vessel's sinking,he would ask her to be left alone,but if people wish to explore wrecks and retrieve artefacts they confine their searches to civilian ones.

George

[Seadog]

Ron,

Merchant seamen and Fishermen,went to Sea in War, for personal profit.

Did you actually mean to post this remark. If so I would be very much obliged if you will substantiate it with verifiable facts,

I look forward to such evidence.

Norman

[britman]

This has been one of the most interesting threads I've read on this forum.

From my point of view, I feel that all wrecks that occurred during any Wartime Period should be off limits for looting. Sure, subject to permission, divers should be able to dive around the outside of the wreck, take pictures, etc. Lay a wreath or plaque, that's fine too. To go inside should be a big no no, unless approved for historical and archaeological research. If they find items outside the wreck, then maybe it's fair game for the divers to take. I guess it depends how far away it is from the wreck. 50ft, 10ft, I can't tell you. I appreciate the laws in place regarding wrecks.

As for the debate on inland battlefields. I've been to many WW2 and a few WW1 sites, I personally do not go hunting or looking for items. Even if I find something, I leave it. That's just me though. I've seen other people pick up items and I don't agree with that. I wish that all items get donated to the local museum rather than someone's home. Again, that's just me. I also appreciate the diggers and other archaeological researchers who get the proper authority to research a specific site. Another thing to remember is that broken mechanical items, ie: Tanks were either reclaimed or left and sold for scrap metal. Unlike their Naval counterparts.

Of course, these are just my views and I'm sure other members will disagree. But, this issue does really come down to each person's views. A very passionate debate.

[Wrecktec]

Hello Seadog

What I meant was that merchant seamen were paid a wage for working on the ships, compared to RN personnel who 'Served King And Country' for washers and that I think was a'bone of contention' during wartime. My Uncle David was torpedoed twice in the Arctic Convoys and lost both legs through frostbite the second time after being adrift for almost four days. He said they were rescued by the RN who treated them worse than they would have treated Germans (in his words), just because he was MN. It always stuck in my mind; he died in the 1950s, so I cannot say any more than that.

Both services were heroes and you cannot really compare one against the other, although I think you were more likely to be sunk in the MN, due to the type of work they did, except for the work done by the little RN trawlers. Just my opinion though;)

Cheers Ron

[Clio]

Agree with Silent Warriors last remarks. The MN and the Auxilliary Patrol stood between freedom and tyranny as surely as any branch of the armed services.

I believe the overwhelming majority of divers are decent, respectful individuals with a very real role to play in the forensic interpretation of wrecks. However as some of the observations on this thread reveal, they are undermined by a crass minority. The law is a well-intentioned paper tiger. It is really up to the diving fraternity to deal with its own retards.

[George1916]

Of course Merchant seaman and fishermen were in it for profit, unless of course you tell us they were conscripted and or did the job fee gratis for the love of King and Country. Please keep perspectives, lay romantacism aside. Yes it was a dangerous job, but it was and still is a dangerous job before, during and after war.

[Seadog]

With reference to Post 105. Thanks for the response; you are quoting one person’s opinion which in no way is indicative of the relationship between the Royal and Merchant Navies. If you want an example of how the MN went to war for “personal profit” there can be no greater example than this of the suffering endured by the MN which I had the privilege to record and remember this is one of many.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/08/a2112508.shtml

Norman

PS Well done "George" at a stroke you have insulted the memory of the thousands of MN seaman who gave their lives in the cause of freedom.

PPS I hope you do not find an excess of "romantacism" in the story and that "perspectives" are maintained.

[dycer]

Norman,

I mean no disrespect to the MN.

I am well aware of their casualties,and the service they gave to the Country.

I would remind you,however,that the title of this Thread refers to violating War Graves and no commercial vessel lost at sea,due to enemy action,is classed as such.

George

[grantowi]

A given 20thc battlefield may or may not be defined as such in French or Belgian law. Verdun is afforded a certain amount of national protection but by contrast the area of say the 1918 Battle of the Lys, is not. A known battlefied may have the status of a site of historical interest, it does not however, hold the status of a war grave....

........ Therefore the removal of artefacts from a battlefied, as opposed to a war grave maintained under the aegis of one of the bodies listed above, is invariably a civil matter between the landowner and the culprit removing said item.

Let me get this ritght, according to you, if I have the landowners permission I can take a digger and dig as many holes in the battle field that his land covers and becauce I have his permission I am within the law ?

Grant

ps - you still haven't given us the names of those two dive clubs with all the treasures on the walls

[grantowi]

Question: 'How do you know that this periscope is not from a WW2 Uboat that was scuttled or used as target practice after the war?'

Answer: Because its precisely my job to know things like that.

And yet again you fail to provide any evidence as to what Uboat it was from, When it was taken and which dive club it resides in (apart from in your photo)

For what it is worth, one of the leading lights in this particular diving club was the subject of a 'World in Action' documentary expose following his skilled handiwork on a UC boat (also a war grave) in the same region back in the 1980s.

Have you reported this diver / club to the reciever of wrecks reguarding items removed from war graves ?

Grant

[grantowi]

I still cannot see why Merchant navy personnel are treated any different to the RN when it comes to war graves though; maybe one got paid a bit more than the other, but both took huge risks and died for their country.

........However I would certanly not like to see a blanket ban on diving wrecks, just a bit more respect.

The majority of divers that I know, see no diffrence wether a ship went down with Navel, Merchant or a civillian people onboard, all wrecks are (as they should be) treated with respect and nothing taken apart from photos.

Grant

[grantowi]

It is really up to the diving fraternity to deal with its own retards.

To become a diver you have to train fairly hard (well you did in the old days ), as a reward for our hard work we get to see things that in relation only a few people get to see - on a single day the M2 submarine might see 50 divers, on that same day a few thousand people will trapse across any battle field - we feel honoured to be the ones who can visit and see where out forefather died, unlike a land site, we can see where they actually died, we bring back photos to show people where their loved ones are laid.

I have yet to see a single item removed from a ship wreck displayed on this forum !!

However there have been numerous postings - possibly thousands - of photos of items removed from battlesites, they have been fawned over by members of the forum, congratulated on their finds by members of the forum, but I have yet to see someone called a "retard" for displaying their items by members of the forum.

It must be some sort of double standard that non divers suffer from

Grant

(Whose still waiting for the names of the two diving clubs with wall covered with dive "treasure")

[Wrecktec]

The majority of divers that I know, see no diffrence wether a ship went down with Navel, Merchant or a civillian people onboard, all wrecks are (as they should be) treated with respect and nothing taken apart from photos.

I don't dive any more and have not done so for a number of years, but I am still in touch with many dozens of divers up and down the country and there are very few if any that would not lift a nice artefact like a telegraph or even a porthole and I am sure they are in the majority; maybe you are one of the few. You are correct about the type of wrecks, because 99% of divers don't really care what sort of ship it is that they are diving on, so long as it is an interesting dive site.

It would not really be a good policy for Clio to start naming clubs and diver's names on the Internet, because it is already policed by the RoW on a regular basis; that would really start the rot with more legislation. It would not affect me at all, but might do a lot of damage elsewhere.

Cheers Ron

[grantowi]

It would not really be a good policy for Clio to start naming clubs and diver's names on the Internet, because it is already policed by the RoW on a regular basis; that would really start the rot with more legislation. It would not affect me at all, but might do a lot of damage elsewhere.

But that is why the RoW is there, it is up to responsable divers (and non divers) to report these thing to prevent us all getting tarred with the big brush that clio is brandishing.

At the moment we have enough legislation and laws, but they only work if people report wrong doers as the OP started out as doing and which I whole heartedly agree with.

Grant

[jon_armstrong]

Merchant seamen and Fishermen,went to Sea in War, for personal profit.

and

Of course Merchant seaman and fishermen were in it for profit, unless of course you tell us they were conscripted and or did the job fee gratis for the love of King and Country.

Can we assume then you apply the same casual disregard for the lives of regular soldiers, who, after all, profted from their service, were not conscripted, and certainly did not do the job "free gratis"? And, indeed, anyone who joined up before the Derby Scheme?

And what about those not old enough to join the army, but who served and died on merchant vessels? Were they just grubby little profiteers?

[grantowi]

Lets try and stick to the thread chaps - self moderating and all that stuff

Grant

[Wrecktec]

Grantowi

Are you aware that it is just a few years ago that the Admirakty were intending to sell HM S/M Umpire for salvage but changed their minds after a protest. Good men also died on Umpire and yet it has also been well salvaged professionally, so it is not just divers to blame. The Admiralty should have protected Umpire after she sank.

Ron

[grantowi]

Ron,

The majority of salvage was been carried out by professional salvage companys, just look at the Hampshire !

As I mentioned a few posts back, an American company has "earned" the rights to salvage a cunard ship that was carrying a cargo of gold and silver coin, sunk by torpedo in 1917, two civillian women (Americans) went down on her.

The average diver just hasn't got the equipment nor the rescources to carry out salvage. Years back we "salvaged" a small fibreglass boat for the fisherman who had got a net caught in a wreck and capsized the boat, it was only in 25 metres, but it took us nearly a week to untangle it and raise it.

Grant

[manchester terrier]

Hi George,

you stated

I would remind you,however,that the title of this Thread refers to violating War Graves and no commercial vessel lost at sea,due to enemy action,is classed as such.

At post 71 Norman/Seadog placed a link to the High Court judgement in the case of the SS Storaa.

Here it is again to save time, SS Storaa judgement.

I suggest reading the judgement in full. It's well worth the effort.

cheers

baz

[dycer]

Cheers Baz,

I spent 40 years being paid to interpret similar judgements and now you make me do it for a hobby,in retirement.

I quite understand the thought process,the vessel was in convoy, carrying war materials and had weapons of defence on board and naval gunners to man them she should,therefore be classed as a war grave and the judgement requires the SofS to review existing Legislation.

Has the SofS made any decision?

It would be easier, for all, if all such vessels were re-classified,as war graves,and afforded some protection.I suppose there would still be a grey area surrounding fishing vessels,lost to enemy action,whilst pursuing their normal occupation.

But the judgement does refer to the conflict between the wishes of the modern social diver and the significance of these wrecks.

I am not a diver,but can appreciate the thrill of exploring such wrecks compared to just viewing marine life or diving on a wreck that has been deliberately scuttled for diving pleasure.

By their nature I would have thought diving on war wrecks would be classed as dangerous as digging around in a piece of uncleared ground,in certain parts of Northern France, so the old adage "look but do not touch" seems to apply equally to both.

However as we know thrill seekers rarely follow this advice,until its too late.

George

[Clio]

Thanks to all those who contacted me privately in support and above all thanks to Grantowi

for so eloquently proving my last point.

[peterhogg]

Maybe it's the length o the thread but you've lost me Clio. How did he prove your point?

[Wrecktec]

"tarred with the big brush that Clio is brandishing."

Grantowi

I am sure that Clio is not accusing all divers as being "grave-robbers", just by the notes she/he has posted, in fact I think it is the opposite. It all began when Clio complained about someone (a diver)offering for sale an artefact that had been removed from a designated and (supposedly) protected war-grave. The Government designated these few wrecks as "protected" because they knew it would be impossible to police all the wrecks around our coast and the diving fraternity could enjoy their sport/hobby or business without too many problems. Unfortunately, if some individual divers wish to spoil that, then they deserve to be punished, as I sure you would agree. Why pillage from a protected wreck-site when you can legally pillage from nearly all of the other wrecks, so long as the items are officially declared to the RoW ??

However I am sure that not everyone will agree with that, especially when it involves removing/pillaging from ships that sank with the loss of people and inparticular RN ships, but there is no end to this dispute.

Cheers Ron

[grantowi]

Maybe it's the length o the thread but you've lost me Clio. How did he prove your point?

Thank God for that, I thought it was me !!

If I have proved anything, it seems that to clio, if its recovered from a battlefield then it's all hunky dory and the law dont apply, you will be a hero in the eyes of fellow "collectors", and there will be no need to feel guilty about the nice little display on your mantlepiece. You might be able to sell it and make a nice little profit without a thought to the person whose death led to it being in that location.

If it's recovered from a wreck, then a diver picking up that same article is a Grave robber, a violator, a law breaker and a retard !

clio is obviously not a diver (maybe the training was too hard for him), yet he is an expert ("it's my job"!!) on Uboat periscopes that he has seen in a photo, claims to have visited two dive clubs that have walls lined with artifacts recovered from war graves (obviously hasn't taken the trouble to report these to the proper people). He provides no proof of these "facts", just assumes that his word is taken as gospel

I have asked repeatedly for the names of the two clubs that he has tols us about, so that the details may be passed to the RoW - which is what his first post was about - he seem most eager to report a war grave violation that he has heard about, yet not too concerned about two dive clubs filled with war grave artifacts. Yet another case of his double standards ?

Grant