Further mass burials

[johntanner]

Although the Hansard extract is interesting as a contemporary statement it is a well established principle that a Government cannot be bound by the decisions of a previous administration.

John

[Auimfo]

Although the Hansard extract is interesting as a contemporary statement it is a well established principle that a Government cannot be bound by the decisions of a previous administration.

John

I would agree with you from a purely political position John, but the point of what's being said is that the Hansard comment reflects the beliefs of society at the time and therefore includes the expectations of soldiers who fought. I suppose it brings up an important question when debating this topic. Whose expectations and beliefs should we try to fulfil - our own personal convictions or the wishes of our ancestors who were killed? Which is more important in terms of honouring our war dead?

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Seadog]

Tim your input is as usual much appreciated. As regards your last post how can we from this passage of time fulfill the wishes and beliefs of our ancestors who where killed for how do we know just what those actually were?

We can only act as things are now and in my opinion it is an absolute that the war dead are treated with the utmost dignity and respect when they are discovered and all the investigative techniques available at the time should be used to ascertain identification. Another poster has summed it up succinctly as being “A Debt of Honour” that we owe to those dead and their relatives.

I am not an advocate of randomly digging in the hope of finding the dead but as was proved with the Pheasant Wood case if there is indisputable evidence of human remains existing in a specific location then we as a country must discharge our responsibilities in a manner befitting the debt that we owe to all those who died.

Regards

Norman

[towisuk]

Just wondering if anyone has come up with a number of "missing" from the 61st Division that attacked on the right flank of the Australians.....

From what I can gather their casualties were 1,547 but I'm having trouble finding a number for those that remain unknown in the battlefield.

regards

Tom

[Auimfo]

Norman,

I believe there remains evidence of what the soldiers of the day largely expected. Their actions throughout the war and into the post-war period display the efforts they would go to just to ensure comrades received an identifiable and individual grave and is no doubt what they would have expected for themselves. The Hansard comment also reflects the thoughts of society at the time, similarly confirming that continual effort be made to recover war dead and bury them in a CWGC grave. Hence I am a strong advocate for recovery and identification wherever possible - because I believe it's what they themselves wanted.

Like you I am not in agreement with just randomly digging holes across the old battlefields and believe that evidence based on thorough research needs to be completed of any specific site first (like Pheasant Wood).

Cheers,

Tim L.

[ianw]

Norman,

Like you I am not in agreement with just randomly digging holes across the old battlefields and believe that evidence based on thorough research needs to be completed of any specific site first (like Pheasant Wood).

Cheers,

Tim L.

My thoughts accord with yours , Tim.

Those that gave their lives in a great cause, deserve a named grave in my opinion - and as you say expected one.

We now have an undreamed of ability to deliver on their expectations and should do so.

[Seadog]

Just wondering if anyone has come up with a number of "missing" from the 61st Division that attacked on the right flank of the Australians.....

From what I can gather their casualties were 1,547 but I'm having trouble finding a number for those that remain unknown in the battlefield.

regards

Tom

A good question Tom, there is just one man on my local church Roll of Honour who was killed in the battle of Fromelles and he is recorded on the Loos Memorial. Is it perhaps the case that bearing in mind the thankfully lower number of British dead compared to the appalling Australian losses that this man is either buried as an Unknown or still lies somewhere on the battlefield? Or is there indeed a possibility that the British dead were also buried in a mass grave?.

Victor Richings

http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/1767629/RICHINGS,%20ALBERT%20VICTOR

Regards

Norman

[ianw]

Although the Hansard extract is interesting as a contemporary statement it is a well established principle that a Government cannot be bound by the decisions of a previous administration.

John

Unless, I suppose the decision is put into statute or embodied in regulation e.g the binding climate change legislation that has been passed and would need to be repealed in parliament.

[MelPack]

Just wondering if anyone has come up with a number of "missing" from the 61st Division that attacked on the right flank of the Australians.....

From what I can gather their casualties were 1,547 but I'm having trouble finding a number for those that remain unknown in the battlefield.

regards

Tom

Tom

The definitive figure was 332 of which about 260 plus have had DNA compatible donor relatives referred to the SPVA since 2009.

Mel

[towisuk]

Tom

The definitive figure was 332 of which about 260 plus have had DNA compatible donor relatives referred to the SPVA since 2009.

Mel

Many thanks for the information Mel ...much appreciated....

regards

Tom

[Auimfo]

Although not specifically WW1 related, this current issue poses questions that relate to all shipwrecks as we were discussing earlier in this thread and their status as war graves. If this kind of thing is commonplace then it would be best that any remains from underwater war graves be recovered if at all possible!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-14/wwii-shipwreck-hmas-perth-stripped-by-bounty/5157076

Cheers,

Tim L.

[towisuk]

Many thanks for the link Tim, unfortunately there will always be scum who plunder graves for monetary gain. The seas are more difficult to police than battlefield areas on land, but it is a difficult problem..

At what point do we say its ok to remove and recover ships like the Mary Rose which contained human remains, and those from more recent conflicts..

regards

Tom

[Seadog]

Tom the reality is even worse, in the case of the Merchant Navy only two ships are deemed to be protected sites under the Protection of Military Remains Act. I was involved in a support role when a test case was brought for one of the ships the WW2 merchant ship SS Storaa and application was made for protected status as there was evidence that human remains were still in-situ. The application having initially been rejected by the MOD the case went to appeal where the ruling was overturned and the MOD accepted that this vessel would be granted protection. A full list of vessels so protected can be read here:

MCA

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-home/emergencyresponse/mcga-receiverofwreck/mcga-protectedwrecks/mcga-protectedwrecks-military.htm

In the case of the Storaa the wreck including the human remains was sold by the government to a private individual for £150 and was then used for leisure diving. The owner even wanted his money back when the case was completed. You will see from the list that not one merchant ship from WW1 is protected although there must be many cases similar to the SS Storaa.

The case in detail

http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/taxonomy/term/18

Regards

Norman

[Auimfo]

I have to be somewhat careful because this is perhaps straying into WW2 a bit too much but is relevant to underwater war graves from all conflicts.

Further notification also confirms that a Dutch submarine and the USS Houston sunk nearby the HMAS Perth have suffered the same fate. There is also some discussion that similar illegal salvage has been conducted on the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales.

http://www.ccrexplorers.com/showthread.php?t=16139

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Seadog]

I see no problem Tim as all this relates to "mass graves" and following the case of the Storaa which was ground-breaking to say the least it was anticipated that a WW1 merchant ship would be the next subject for an application as a protected site but this does not seem to have materialized no doubt due to the hassle and expense involved. It must be pointed out that in the case of the Storaa the not inconsiderable legal fees were waived by the lawyers involved as the case was considered to be setting a legal precedent.

Regards

Norman

[Ian R]

Well that was 5 pages of light reading for a Boxing day !! Some very well put points on both sides of the argument and I can see all points of view. One line I diid pick out was this My simple belief is that we owe these men a known grave I accept it is very simplistic but I do side with it, I think !