CWGC Markers in world 'Hot Spots'

[brownag]

Given all the media interest in the CWGC sites in Iraq are there any other places in the world at present where the cemeteries and memorials are being neglected? Since there must be a marker of some sort in practically every corner of the globe there must be a few more sites which CWGC staff can't get access to. I'm thinking of places like Myanmar, the former Soviet Republics, Afghanistan, Iran, the Balkans etc.

I know in India and Pakistan they gave up on the original outlying gravestones in smaller cemeteries and now have Memorials as the official marker. Is this the case in other parts of the globe now? Am I right in saying that this was the case in Eastern Europe as well during the cold war?

Cheers

Adam

[Terry Denham]

Adam

The rest of the world is in very good shape.

The potential problem areas are (possibly) Iran and Syria but, as far as I am aware, all is still OK. Myanmar is a 'closed' country to most people but there have been no reports of problems there either. There are no CWGC graves or memorials in Afghanistan.

Those in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are all being cared for in circumstances that have improved since the fall of Communism. In fact CWGC are seeking permission to build a new memorial in Baku, Azerbaijan.

There is always scope for local trouble and problems in places like Indonesia, Israel and some of the African locations (Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan etc) but, again, no reports of mass destruction. Local caretakers and gardeners always seem to do their best in these difficult circumstances. It is only when full scale war breaks out that matters seem to hit rock bottom (ie during the Lebanese Civil War).

The various wars in the Middle East have caused problems and at least one memorial in Egypt was destroyed. However, as CWGC say, these are short term problems and their task is a long term one. They have always rectified matters in due course.

[Drummy]

Interesting topic Adam. This is a subject I feel we should focus on a lot more. More sites/graves, both in the UK and abroad, are now becoming threatened through a variety of reasons. Personally I feel that in some of the more troubled areas of the world the answer should be in concentrating isolated graves or smaller number of graves into larger war cemeteries thus reducing the number of sites to maintain, as opposed to the method of just writing the soldiers grave off as 'unmaintainable' and putting his name on a memorial somewhere else, I still cannot understand the logic of that idea (i.e the situation in India). How can a grave for e.g in Serre No2 be immaculately maintained and yet if a soldier is buried in an isolated cemetery in India it can be just 'marked off' ... That to me isn't 'In perpetuity'.

Cheers Neil.

[Terry Denham]

There are very few 'isolated graves' outside Europe or indeed few very small cemeteries and concentration has already taken place mostly after WW2.

The situation in India was very problematical and CWGC only adopted their solution many years ago now after much discussion. The WW2 casualties were concentrated into large cemeteries but there was great difficulty with those of WW1.

This was not only because of the political situation and the geography but because of next-of-kin considerations - many of the casualties were in joint graves with family members who could not be touched. At the end of the day, practicalities come into it overseas just as they do in Shropshire or Kent.

As I said, the number of threatened graves overseas is actually not very great but there are far more threatened war graves in the UK!!!! I was recently told by a senior CWGC executive that they had no real problems overseas but that all their troubles were at home. It seems that a sector of British society does not care about their war dead and so we are blighted with vandalism and the reluctance of some councils to maintain their cemeteries (because more cost equals lost votes).

The CWGC are required to ensure that the casualty's name is recorded 'in perpetuity'. The preferred method is on a headstone over a grave but the accepted alternative has always been the official memorial.

[brownag]

Thanks for the replies, its good to know that at least abroad things are going pretty well.

Do you think most visitors to CWGC cemeteries abroad are aware of the work of the CWGC or do you think most visitors put down the effort to the locals showing respect / guilt for the dead? I ask because I have visited Kanchanaburi War Cemetery a couple of times during family holidays to Thailand and the people I visited with at first put the immaculate condition of the cemetery down to the Thais and did not realise that the CWGC was responsible for the upkeep.

This is the only CWGC Cemetery I have visited with 'Non-WW1 geeks' (I include myself in the description of 'WW1 geek' before anyone takes offence) and so this may not be a common reaction. Are the average passing visitors to the Cemeteries and Memorials in France under the impression that the French are responsible for them for example?

Cheers

Adam