Tomb of Unknown Warrior (NZ)

[Captain Dave]

It's only taken the Govt 80 odd years to get around to this. In Nov 11 2004, the NZ Govt will unveil the Tomb to the Unknown (NZ) Warrior. An unidentified NZ'r will be taken back from the battlefield cemetaries of France and laid to rest in Wellington.

Personaly the whole thing reeks of vote gathering from the current Labour lunatics in power.

Links

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.cfm?DocumentID=15669

And...

http://nationalwarmemorial.govt.nz/unknown/

If I get the chance to attend the activity, I will try and post some shots of the event.

[Mat McLachlan]

Dave,

I totally agree with you. When the Australian government pulled the same stunt in 1993 I was, and still am, appalled.

Our 'Unknown' came from Adelaide Cemetery in Villers-Brettoneux and the stone that now marks the grave sums it up: "The remains of an unknown Australian soldier lay in this grave for 75 years. On 2nd November 1993 they were exhumed and now rest in the Tomb of the Unknown Australian Soldier at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra".

Whoever wrote this inscription probably thought their words were inspiring. To me they are callous. You would think that travelling to the other side of the world and dying in a foreign field would earn you the right to remain buried alongside your mates, and not dug up, wrapped in Glad Wrap and shipped back home as the centerpiece of a transparent vote-winning exercise.

For shame...

Mat

[Guest bonza]

My opinion is exactly opposite to those expressed above.

Pat Gavan

[Andrew P]

I agree with Pat on this and I stand to be corrected but as far as I am aware the WW1 veterans who were still alive when this took place raised no protest about this unknown soldier coming home. Indeed some took part in the ceremony.

I find it strange that bringing Australia's unknown soldier home has been labelled as a political stunt.

[Mat McLachlan]

Andrew/Pat,

I agree I was a bit over the top labelling this as a political stunt - I'm sure the authorities involved had good intentions, and it doesn't do anyone any good for me to jump on the 'dirty politicians' bandwagon.

I don't have any problem with Australia immortalising its fighting men in a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. If the government had decided to do it immediately after the war (as the British government did) it would have been a great idea.

My concern is the way in which it was done 75 years later. The unknown soldier who was shipped home has laid in peace next to his mates in France for a long time, and it seems a bit callous to dig him up and bundle him off to Australia after so much time has passed.

A number of Australian historians (John Laffin included) suggested in 1993 that this method was a bit harsh, and a better suggestion would be to wait until an unknown soldier (who could be identified as Australian) was found on the battlefields. This soldier would need to be laid to rest somewhere, and the War Memorial in Canberra would be as fitting a place as any.

Now I know this sounds like a longshot - it could be decades before an unidentified soldier is found who could be proven to be Australian. But this is the price we pay for having overlooked this for so long. Digging up an unknown from a cemetery in France seems like a bit of a quick fix more than seven decades on.

As Australians, we pay our respects to these men by acknowledging that they were once someone's son and brother, not simply a collection of bones that is ours to do with as we wish.

Mat

[Guest bonza]

Mat

Personally, I have no problems with you holding, or with you expressing, that opinion. At least you have thought about it, and have thought more than I did.

However, I consider the procedure which was adopted was transparently random, and although it can fairly easily determined that he would have been among those killed around Villers Brett in 1918, he is truly unknown. Had a missing soldier been subsequently found [for Laffin], the experts would have narrowed down his identity to a fairly small list of possibilities.

My interpretation of the significance of the Tomb is therefore that any descendants or relatives of missing soldiers may identify with the Unknown Soldier.

I am thankful that my family doesn't have to seek that consolation, and can honour the relatives of others in Canberra.

All the best

Pat

[mcderms]

To add a Brit point of view, I believe that the soldier buried in Westminster Abbey was intended to represent all the Fallen of the Empire. This was something we were all still part of in 1918. I totally understand that a nation state such as NZ or Oz wants an equal commemoration of its sacrifice but isn't it all a little bit too late? Also what happened to WW2 and why not confer this honor on the many bodies that are uncovered every year. A number of soldiers remains have been ID'd as Oz or NZ in recent years.

Either way, Lest We Forget...

[Mat McLachlan]

Pat,

You are absolutely right about the problems of recently discovered remains being able to be identified. Whilst all this debate was going on (in the early nineties) two Australian soldiers were found on the battlefields and both were subsequently identified.

Laffin had even suggested that one of the soldiers, found at Bullecourt, should be Australia's official 'unknown'. Good thing they didn't follow his advice - soon after the remains were identified as those of Sergeant Jack White and he was buried in Queant Road Cemetery with members of his family present.

In a similar case, the Vietnam soldier at America's Tomb of the Unknowns has recently been identified, and has had to be removed and buried under a named headstone.

This is almost certainly the reason our government elected to choose a 'random' unknown from one of the cemeteries.

Ironically, current discussion about the discovery of a mass grave at Fromelles could be the answer everyone was looking for. It's highly likely that an investigation will reveal these remains to be Australian, and it will be virtually impossible to identify any of them. It could be that soon we will have up to 250 Australian unknowns to re-inter and any one of them could have served as our official unknown soldier.

My preference would have been to have waited for an unknown Australian to be discovered on the battlefields rather than disturb someone who has rested with his mates for the best part of a century. It was the speed with which the decision was made and the shovels put to work that put a bad taste in my mouth and raised the issue of political posturing.

Cheers,

Mat

[Stephen Nulty]

Guys

My view is nearer to that of Pat, and I agree with the "policital" viewpoint. If this had been suggested and implemented by a Veterans organisation, then that's one thing, but anything that politicians do, they do for a reason...to catch a headline, or grab a few votes.

My only relative who died in the First World War is in a known grave (he's with the Aussies at Villers-Brettoneaux), so I'm not in a position to comment for those whose family lie in an unknown grave. But I recall that the Unknown Soldier at Westminster Abbey was brought home to lie with Kings & Queens, and all the families whose husbands/sons never came home could think that perhaps he rests in the abbey with the great and the good.

Steve

[Mat McLachlan]

Just to clarify, I think the idea of an Unknown Soldier is a great one. There is no doubt that the Hall of Memory at the AWM now has a much greater focus with the addition of the Unknown Soldier. And the people that pay their respects at the tomb have no idea it hasn't been there since the end of the war.

If I recall correctly, when the War Memorial was being built, the inclusion of an Unknown Soldier was discussed and eventually decided against. Not sure exactly why.

My only problem is the way in which our soldier came to be there. It has always felt a bit thoughtless to me. But this in no way diminishes the significance of the tomb or its importance to the families of missing soliders.

Let's hope they've all found peace.

Mat

[Guest bonza]

Mat

Just taking up one point, the undue haste. Perhaps a very significant amount of behind the scenes work was done in selecting the "Unknown" before an announcement was made. I do not know the details, except that a major pre-requisite for selection was absolute randomness, [if there is such a word].

Pat

[chrisharley9]

Sorry I dont really want to upset anyone, but I was led to believe that the CWGC would not allow another Unknown Soldier after the critiscms following the Australian Unknown Soldier

All The Best

Chris

[Dave_59]

I agree with mat,

I think it would have been far better to wait for an Australian to be found on the battlefield. Having an 'unknown' soldier is a good idea (in my opinion), however, this unknown soldier had a resting place designated in that cemetery. I think it was wrong to remove the body from it's designated place of rest, although I suppose you could say that the battlefield is a place of rest.

Dave

[Terry Denham]

Chris

The Canadian unknown soldier was exhumed from Cabaret Rouge British Cemetery in 2000 - seven years after the Australian.

[Terry Denham]

CWGC have just confirmed that the NZ Unknown Soldier is definately being repatriated.

See this link for pictures of the new tomb.

http://www.nationalwarmemorial.govt.nz/unknown/design.html

[Mat McLachlan]

Pat,

I'm sure several years of planning went into the decision-making process. However, this is only a fraction of the 75 years that passed before a decision was made.

When history looks back on the Unknown Soldier episode, it seems to me it will look like this: 1918 WWI ends, 1920 UK dedicates Unknown Soldier, >>>>nothing happens for 73 years>>>> 1993 Australia repatriates Unknown Soldier, 2000 Canada repatriates Unknown Soldier, 2004 NZ repatriates Unknown Soldier.

As I've said before, the Unknown Soldier is an excellent idea, but it does seem there is a slight element of political "follow the leader" going on. After all, it's not as if Australia has overlooked her WWI heroes for all these years. The Australian War Memorial, memorials in France as well as thousands of memorials in almost every town in Australia stand as fitting tributes to these men.

The dedication of the Unknown Soldier reflects a growing interest in remembering WWI in Australia and there is nothing wrong with this. However, I think that after 75 years we could have waited for an Australian unknown to be found on the battlefields and do the whole thing properly.

Cheers mate,

Mat

[Dave_59]

Spot on Mat, I agree totally.

Dave

[Guest bonza]

When history looks back on the Unknown Soldier episode, it seems to me it will look like this: 1918 WWI ends, 1920 UK dedicates Unknown Soldier, >>>>nothing happens for 73 years>>>> 1993 Australia repatriates Unknown Soldier, 2000 Canada repatriates Unknown Soldier, 2004 NZ repatriates Unknown Soldier.

Mat

"When you hear two versions of a car accident, you wonder about history"

Our versions here are different. I believe the UK soldier was a representative of British Empire servicemen, and would have been appropriate at that time.

Times have changed, particularly in the diversification of the Australian population.

I do not know the background to the 3 Commonwealth decisions, but would expect the impetus to have come from RSL or similar organisations. I also believe that the soldier selected is truly unknown, and more symbolic than any recently discovered soldier. The one selected is one of many thousands in a specified category. Modern research is such that future finds may well be positively identified, but if not will still be from a very restricted list of 'possibles'.

There might also be some doubt as to when WW1 actually ended

ooRoo

Pat

[Mat McLachlan]

Pat,

Fair enough. Like you, I'm not exactly sure where the impetus for all these colonial Unknown Solider burials has come from. At the very least, the governments of the day have certainly not shrugged off taking credit for the move, so it's almost inevitable there will be accusations of "politicising" the event.

My main objection to disintering an unknown soldier from a cemetery is almost a spiritual one - I believe these men now lie where they belong, next to their mates. I don't like the idea of moving them, for any reason.

It was out of respect for these men as individuals that we chose to commemorate all soldiers of the British Empire by name and why the vast majority of them have individually marked graves. We chose to honour them by not bundling their remains together in mass graves like the French and Germans did, but by remembering them as individuals, even if we didn't know their name.

To dig one of them up after 75 years seems to go against the spirit that honoured him in the first place.

You are right though - I may not agree with the process that brought him here, but I remember his sacrifice every time I look at the Tomb. And that's the reason the Australian War Memorial was built in the first place.

Cheers,

Mat

[Guest bonza]

Goodonyer Mat[e]

[Andrew P]

Maybe it was felt that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in England no longer properly represented countries like Australia. We are after all a country in our own right.

Wasn't it important for national identity to be able to remember our own soldier on our own soil?

Unfortunately many Australians will never have a chance in their lives to visit The Unknown soldier in England or the battlefields of WW1, but the Unknown Soldier laid to rest at the AWM indeed gives Australians a chance to pay their respects.

[Mat McLachlan]

Unfortunately many Australians will never have a chance in their lives to visit The Unknown soldier in England or the battlefields of WW1, but the Unknown Soldier laid to rest at the AWM indeed gives Australians a chance to pay their respects.

Andrew,

Very true. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is a tangible link with the sacrifice of WWI and is therefore probably more 'real' to many people than a memorial made from bronze or stone.

Cheers,

Mat

[dycer]

It is not for me living in the UK to question the decisions of the Australian,Canadian and New Zealand Governments and I fully support the arguments that have been expressed.

A rhetorical question though.Are we/can we be certain that the Soldier lying in Westminster Abbey was a UK Soldier?

George

[Andrew P]

Hi George

Annoyingly I can't remember where I came across it but I have read that the UK unknown soldier was taken from an area of 1914 burials which, if true, would point to a large chance of it being a UK soldier.

But I'm sure someone here can confirm or refute this.

Cheers

[dycer]

I possibly should put this in Utterly Off-Topic but can I ask my Australian,Canadian and New Zealand Colleagues why your Governments decided to repatriate a Servicemen from World War 1?

The "Empire" ties were looser in Word War 2 and I can fully support the assertion that Australia,Canada and New Zealand fought World War 2 as Independent Nation States and the sacrifice your Servicemen made could better be recognised by repatriating an "Unknown Casualty" from WW2.

Immediate apologies if the question causes any personal upset

George