Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Further mass burials


towisuk

Recommended Posts

I may be alone in this but I feel that where mass battlefield burials are believed to be, they should be left undisturbed, with the exception of a marker. Disturbance of a grave and transfer of the bones from their true grave site to a regulated and orderly cemetery I believe to be rather unnecessary and distasteful. If however individual graves are uncovered by plowing or development then I can accept relocation.

khaki

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be alone in this but I feel that where mass battlefield burials are believed to be, they should be left undisturbed, with the exception of a marker.

Khaki - no, you make a valid point and one that I am sure is shared by others on this Forum.

There is no doubt that Australian pressure led to the extraordinary events at Fromelles, but I personally don't think that it should necessarily be a one-off.

The great worry for many is the seemingly neglectful way in which British remains appear to be treated. This seems to be a case of familiarity breeding contempt and pure ducks bottom syndrome by the relevant authorities. There is little doubt that the authorities were pressured in respect of the BL 15 to try for ID's - and this has apparently been a success.

The simple fact is that modern forensic ID techniques will often deliver a positive ID's when the remains in question are from a closed group of people. This really is a game-changer in my opinion - perhaps an inconvenient game-changer - but it can't be ignored. My simple belief is that we owe these men a known grave. I know that others will point out that the ID's have cost x numbers of nurses or medical operations - but I personally don't buy simplistic tosh like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Ian

My view point is based partly on the purely sentimental/religious notion that we are returned to the soil from whence we came,and that following the degradation of the remains in the soil to the point that only bones remain, means essentially (to me) that despite the removal of the bones, that site remains the grave site and therefore you have two graves sites. When we say we honor the dead, by identifying them when we can (DNA) to what ends? There is now no one left alive who actually knew them, there will always be hundreds of thousands of unidentified and missing dead, we are not going to excavate the CWGC cemeteries 'unknowns' in the hope that we can ID them for some genealogical purposes. Scotland has mass 'clan' graves at 'Culloden' and they will remain so and in my opinion, so they should.

Just my thoughts

khaki

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we say we honor the dead, by identifying them when we can (DNA) to what ends? There is now no one left alive who actually knew them,

I played a small part in finding the relatives of Lt Pritchard H.A.C whose 1917 remains were found at Bullecourt a few years back and buried earlier this year. All I can say is that although they never knew him, his surviving family were delighted to be involved in his eventual interment. It was most definitely a great emotional and life enhancing journey for them.

Lt Pritchard was a fine singer , as are several of his family now. They arranged to sing in Bullecourt church in his honour and all present both French and British had a wonderful experience.

Not sure how you put a $ or £ value on the efforts made to ID him and find his family (DNA not required by the way) , but in my opinion , it was worth every cent/penny.

My view is also that when Lt Pritchard fell leading his company facing overwhelming odds , he might well have thought that his country would at the very least give him a named headstone if possible. It's therefore a debt of honour , in my opinion.

Incidentally the field he lay in at Bullecourt for almost a century is thought to have many other remains there from both sides of the conflict. Bullecourt will expand in future years over that field. I hope that his companions both Allied and German are treated with respect when their rest is eventually disturbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Great War has cast a long shadow which affects those families who have lost loved ones even today such a long time after the event. I have personal experience as no doubt other members have from talking to various individuals where the memory and legacy of the fallen is handed down through the generations. Therefore if some form of closure can be obtained by using the most modern identification techniques when through an accident of fate the fallen are discovered then we as a country have an obligation to discharge that responsibility in a proper manner.

Regards

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... we as a country have an obligation to discharge that responsibility in a proper manner.

Yes, I agree Norman. It's a debt of honour.

It would seem exceedingly churlish for a nation to accept the ultimate sacrifice from a citizen and then deny them the chance of an honoured named grave when it may well be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Ian

My view point is based partly on the purely sentimental/religious notion that we are returned to the soil from whence we came,and that following the degradation of the remains in the soil to the point that only bones remain, means essentially (to me) that despite the removal of the bones, that site remains the grave site and therefore you have two graves sites. When we say we honor the dead, by identifying them when we can (DNA) to what ends? There is now no one left alive who actually knew them, there will always be hundreds of thousands of unidentified and missing dead, we are not going to excavate the CWGC cemeteries 'unknowns' in the hope that we can ID them for some genealogical purposes. Scotland has mass 'clan' graves at 'Culloden' and they will remain so and in my opinion, so they should.

Just my thoughts

khaki

This same discussion was had some time ago prior to the recovery of the remains from the Pheasant Wood mass graves. My opinion then holds true today and I'm pleased to say that by the reaction of families whose ancestor was identified, I feel very at ease my point of view.

Khaki, you have touched on a fairly common argument, "there's no one left alive who actually knew them" and I can understand that thought but from recent experience I can assure you that the loss of that family member and the ripple effects of his unknown whereabouts have on a great many occasions filtered through the generations of family and the sense of unresolved loss remains strong. Some people can still genuinely identify with the direct loss, the effects of which they remember from the soldiers parents, siblings or child and in other cases, the family loss had enormous effects on the manner in which they were brought up. So although it may be true that no one is left who physically knew them (or at least very close to no one), it's not correct to assume that therefore the effects are no longer felt through the generations of family. Perhaps watching this 60 Minutes TV segment might help to explain what I mean: http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8684710

Secondly, we must look at what these men wanted for themselves. Although we obviously can't ask them to find out, we can make a good assessment by analysing what they did for others. It's fairly clear that soldiers made every effort to provide a named grave for their comrades and in many cases risked themselves to recover a mates body - just so it could be buried with dignity and a name. Clearly this was important to them and no doubt what they hoped would be afforded them should they be killed. The passage of nearly 100 years does not diminish their wish for a respectful place of burial and nor should it detract from our efforts to provide one if at all possible.

Finally, there was an argument that it was unfair to those unknowns buried immediately post-war because they never received the benefit of scientific advancement that soldiers recovered today have. But I don't agree with that for a second. It has nothing to do with what processes are available at the time and everything to do with the application of effort. Every available effort was made immediately post-war and every effort should similarly be made today. The fact that science and DNA technology has made huge leaps is irrelevant and to not apply all opportunities today would actually be unfair to those we recover now because we wouldn't be making the same amount of effort.

Perhaps a little oddly, given my position on this issue, I am certainly NOT a supporter of exhuming unknown graves in CWGC cemeteries for the purposes of DNA testing and confine my thoughts only to those we either accidentally discover or find through research (i.e. Fromelles) who have not yet been recovered from the field and buried in a CWGC cemetery. It worries me that if we began permitting DNA testing of CWGC unknowns, then it would lead to hundreds of crackpot theories and wholesale unnecessary exhumations. For this to work there would have to be ultra-strict, evidence based protocols to first be met - but no doubt these would eventually be challenged and gradually broken down, so I agree it's best to simply ban the idea from the outset.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept my relative was KIA. I have the hope that he was buried. As he is on Thiepval Memorial I hold the belief that his body was found and identified.

What I have difficulty in believing is that he has no known grave. Some one at the time knew where he was buried but of course the records could have been lost. I have read many WD's and private diaries and have seen reference to the digging of pits before a battle.

My relative lies somewhere quite close to Thiepval and that is fine. As I beleive he was found I doubt any ID would be found to positivley identify him so leave him in peace.

This my opinion and I accept others rights to theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnboy, you are completely entitled to your beliefs and I can most certainly understand your point of view.

But out of interest, (and totally hypothetically) if a WW1 soldier was recovered during roadworks near Thiepval and research narrowed the remains to a number of chaps including your ancestor, would you be offering DNA with the hope of providing him a named grave or would you advocate the opportunity not be taken and recommend the remains be re-buried as an unknown?

I don't believe there is necessarily a right or wrong answer to this question - just differing opinion.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please "knock on the head" once and for all the idea that graves in CWGC war cemeteries marked as "Unknown" be opened and the remains subjected to DNA analysis, this suggestion is completely ludicrous and not worthy of discussion on this forum. Tim there is a right answer to the example you describe in your last post and the procedures to attempt identification of the discovered soldiers will hopefully continue to be applied. If such remains lend themselves to DNA profiling then that should be carried out as it is a valuable tool which in certain circumstances may lead to identification and the dignity of a named grave.

Regards

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be alone in this but I feel that where mass battlefield burials are believed to be, they should be left undisturbed, with the exception of a marker. Disturbance of a grave and transfer of the bones from their true grave site to a regulated and orderly cemetery I believe to be rather unnecessary and distasteful. If however individual graves are uncovered by plowing or development then I can accept relocation.

khaki

I quoted my original post to reinforce that my objections related to where known mass graves are believed to be, accidental discovery is acceptable in my opinion. There is a difference between graves that have been deliberate internments no matter how rough and ready they were, as opposed to those bodies buried by shellfire. I understand that in some ID'd cases descendants have been located and have appreciated the opportunity to be involved etc, but what of those descendants who would have prefered that the remains had been left in situ close to where they died together with their comrades, were they consulted?

khaki

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept my relative was KIA. I have the hope that he was buried. As he is on Thiepval Memorial I hold the belief that his body was found and identified.

What I have difficulty in believing is that he has no known grave. Some one at the time knew where he was buried but of course the records could have been lost. I have read many WD's and private diaries and have seen reference to the digging of pits before a battle.

As you say, you are entitled to your opinion, but please accept that a name being placed on the Thiepval memorial does not mean that a casualty was found or buried or even that his comrades reported seeing his death.

Many of those on the memorial, I have researched a handful only, were initially reported missing, and death was presumed in some cases months later after it was confirmed that they were not POWs. In other cases death was later confirmed by men who reported seeing a comrade killed, whose body was not, so far as the commission or their units were concerned recovered.

Many of those named on Thiepval and the other memorials to the missing, will have been buried as unknowns in CWGC cemeteries, but others were blown up beyond the possibility of recovery, and some of course were covered by battlefield debris and not recovered. We have also seen a few battlefield graves found by accident in recent years, and of course there is at least the possibility or even probability that there are other burial sites like that at Fromelles but unless one has a specific item of documentary evidence, to draw any conclusion about the burialof a man listed on a memorial only is surely just a leap of faith. I have not in my own research ordered death certificates for casualties on memorials, so whether any of them have any specifics I cannot say, but the CWGC will have a record stating how their predecessor organisation was informed of the death.

As to the main point of the topic, I fully support the view that when bodies are found as a result of ground disturbance, it is only proper to make all reasonable attempts to see whether surviving records or the remains themselves make a realistic possibility of identification by DNA possible, and where there, as there was with the BL group a serious prospect of some success, then that work should be done. I'm not remotely in favour of seeking out undisturbed remains that have lain buried for 95 years or more. When redevelopment means that a site is to be disturbed where bodies are likely to be found, then of course due caution should be exercised, and remains treated with respect. The possibility of identification will obviously vary considerably in such cases, depending on what exactly is found, and the precise history of the location. Then I believe a judgement has to be made, not on financial grounds, but purely on the prospect of identification..

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnboy, you are completely entitled to your beliefs and I can most certainly understand your point of view.

But out of interest, (and totally hypothetically) if a WW1 soldier was recovered during roadworks near Thiepval and research narrowed the remains to a number of chaps including your ancestor, would you be offering DNA with the hope of providing him a named grave or would you advocate the opportunity not be taken and recommend the remains be re-buried as an unknown?

I don't believe there is necessarily a right or wrong answer to this question - just differing opinion.

Cheers,

Tim L.

No, I would not offer DNA. He is commemerated on a Memorial in France and one in the area he came from. He is not forgotten. If he has lain with comrades for almost 100 yrs then leave him with them.

Over the years I have relatives who were cremated and have a small plaque on the wall of a crematorium... no marked grave.

Just my opinion on the case of my relative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your opinion of course and I do not know the circumstances surrounding your relative but I assume he is one of the missing. What then if due to roadwork’s etc he is found should he be buried as unknown or as will happen every attempt will be made to identify him including if applicable DNA profiling. Are you actually saying that you would prefer him to be buried again without any chance of being given a name, if so you are in the minority.

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be in the minority. But it is my opinion about my relative, not any body elses. What others would/will do is thiers and I respect that. This is not something that should be done on a majority vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you have totally lost me with your opinions. Perhaps you can answer my question in Post 40 hypothetical of course but I would be interested to know.

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer is the same as in post #39 in answer to the same question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, but that was specifically concerned with the use of DNA whereas my question is more generalized so let us assume that artifacts have been found with the remains that point to a definite identification. In this case would you still insist that the man is buried as an unknown for it is a fact that he cannot be placed back in the location he was found. In reality you would have no say in the matter anyway given the scenario that I detail here.

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q Seadog In reality you would have no say in the matter anyway given the scenario that I detail here.

Let's stick to reality.

1] I don't know if my relative was initially listed as Missing

2] His DOD matches the first day of the battle for Thiepval 26/9/16

3] His will is lodged

4] His name is on the Memorial

Now allow me my thoughts, although I have had to argue on another thread, I am willing to believe that his paybook was removed from his body and his will removed from it.

Whether he was buried is something I have to trust in. As has been suggested, he could have been blown to bits.

The undisputable fact is that he was killed and lays somewhere around Thiepval. He died fighting for his country and has been commerated, so not forgotten. After all these years I don't think a marked grave would make any difference. After all how many people go to see the grave of a relative in France? I know a lot do but there must be graves that have never been visited. I have never visited Thiepval and doubt I ever will.

I may be blinkered in my beliefs but they suit me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if so you are in the minority.

Norman

Rather presumptuous, Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Norman, really !

It doesn't coincide exactly with my own views but isn't that far from them:

  • Unknowns in recognised military cemetery (e.g. CWGC) - leave to rest in peace
  • Unknowns buried in battlefield grave/mass grave with no current markers (i.e like those buried at Fromelles) - leave to rest in peace (except where subsequently disturbed, as below)
  • Unknowns discovered in the course of day-to-day activities (e.g. roadworks, agriculture etc) - only when there is a realistic chance of identification (such as at Beaucamp Ligny) should DNA profiling take place
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Steve has expressed my view, only more succinctly than I managed earlier.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Norman, really !

It doesn't coincide exactly with my own views but isn't that far from them:

  • Unknowns in recognised military cemetery (e.g. CWGC) - leave to rest in peace
  • Unknowns buried in battlefield grave/mass grave with no current markers (i.e like those buried at Fromelles) - leave to rest in peace (except where subsequently disturbed, as below)
  • Unknowns discovered in the course of day-to-day activities (e.g. roadworks, agriculture etc) - only when there is a realistic chance of identification (such as at Beaucamp Ligny) should DNA profiling take place

I don't agree with the second point and feel my thoughts to be justified after what I saw and experienced throughout the Fromelles recovery. But I'm happy to agree with the first and third points.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...