Fromelles

[Mat McLachlan]

Thanks for all the worthwhile comments. The points made about the excavation are certainly interesting, but we've covered this extensively elsewhere on the forum. Just to keep this thread on track, I'm interested in people's opinions about the cover-up theory - the suggestion that the battle is missing from the historical record.

Thanks!

Mat

[Mark Foxe]

Hot off the press ...

Tuesday, 18 March 2008

024/2008

WAITING OUT THE WET AT FROMELLES

The planned excavation of a suspected World War I burial site near Fromelles, France has been delayed.

The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon Warren Snowdon MP, said adverse ground conditions have meant work on the site will be set back a month.

“The limited excavation to confirm the presence of up to 400 Australian and British war dead was originally planned to commence in April 2008,” said Mr Snowdon.

“It has now been rescheduled to late May due to the high level of the water table.”

The soldiers believed to be buried in the mass grave at Pheasant Wood, fought in the battle of Fromelles on the 19th and 20th of July 1916.

The battle was responsible for one of the greatest losses of Australian lives in one 24-hour period.

The excavation work will be carried out by a team from the Glasgow University Archaeological Division under the auspices of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

“The work is being planned with approval of French authorities and assistance is being sought from the British Government,” said Mr Snowdon.

“Should remains be discovered, I look forward to working with the British and French Governments to ensure that the sacrifice of these soldiers is appropriately commemorated.”

[armourersergeant]

Nothing much new to add to this thread but I see no cover up, just one mans history.

To the British the 1st July is WW1, to the Australians it is Gallipoli. I see nothing from this side of the world to believe there is a cover up and perhaps many use the word to add weight to coverage of their 'topic'. It would, though on a larger scale, be like me saying that the battle of Arras is the result of a cover up! It is how ever a much forgotten battle, worthy of more interest, if for no other reason than it worked on day one, had more daily casualties than other battles. Its what captures the imagination of people.

However we all like a good conspiracy and the words 'cover up' can add good weight to an angle or interest someone may wish to get for a certain topic.

regards

Arm

[truthergw]

Thanks for all the worthwhile comments. The points made about the excavation are certainly interesting, but we've covered this extensively elsewhere on the forum. Just to keep this thread on track, I'm interested in people's opinions about the cover-up theory - the suggestion that the battle is missing from the historical record.

Thanks!

Mat

I would have thought that the majority of posts make it fairly obvious that there is no cover up and never was. I think you need to show some evidence that there was one. Fromelles was a sideshow to the fighting on the Somme. The commemoration and documentation given to it, far exceeds that given to other sideshows for any other battle. The Fromelles title in The Battleground Europe series by Peter Pedersen, numbers 33 secondary sources in the bibliography. No cover up and never was.

[Mat McLachlan]

Mate, no argument from me.

[Auimfo]

Totally agree that there has never been a cover up. But if I may address Chris's points, that's why I suggested everyone be mindful of the difference between the forgotten battle angle and the forgotten missing. I don't think those who have been pushing for an examination of the Pheasant Wood site have claimed any cover-up and they use the word forgotten in regard to the missing. That media outlets etc. use it incorrectly is something out of their control.

And to simply place a memorial at Pheasant Wood is fine if that's the general consensus of the families involved but to do so first requires an archeological excavation to establish that the remains are actually there. That's what's being conducted in May - not an exhumation. So yes, there is something to be gained - proof that they are there. If located, I believe what comes next is an issue best left to the descendants.

Sorry - that's a bit off track to what Mat asked.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[truthergw]

Regardless of what is found, what happens next will depend mainly on what the owners of the land decide.

[Mat McLachlan]

I don't think those who have been pushing for an examination of the Pheasant Wood site have claimed any cover-up and they use the word forgotten in regard to the missing. That media outlets etc. use it incorrectly is something out of their control.

Tim,

Just on this point, I disagree slightly. The first time I ever heard about Lambis and Pheasant Wood was the Ray Martin 60 Minutes piece that aired around the time of the anniversary in 2006. This was the first time I had also heard any reference to Fromelles being somehow 'missing' from the historical record, and I was quite surprised that was the angle that the story embraced. I also assumed it would be the last I'd hear of it, since it was so patently untrue but, unfortunately, that's the angle that the press seized on and are running with.

Patrick Lindsay's Fromelles is also as much a documentation of the whole Pheasant Wood saga as it is a history of the battle, and it's the book that pushes the cover-up angle more than any other. It seems the Pheasant Wood excavation and the cover-up theory are inextricably linked. Whether this is by design or coincidence, I can't say.

Cheers,

Mat

[Mat McLachlan]

Regardless of what is found, what happens next will depend mainly on what the owners of the land decide.

I interviewed Roger Lee, head of the Australian Army History Unit, a couple of weeks ago, and he made it quite clear that any decision about whether to exhume bodies from Pheasant Wood was being made collaboratively between the CWGC, the Australian and British Armies, Australian War Graves and French authorities, including the landowner. There's so much international attention being given to the site that every body which potentially has a stake in what goes on is being consulted. Any decision will be truly international.

And one thing that I think should be clear: the potential descendants of the missing soldiers will be kept informed of developments, but the decision as to what should be done at the site won't be left up to them. The same situation occured with the recent ID of Pvt Hunter and Sgt Calder in Belgium: both families were kept very much up-to-date with proceedings, but the decision as to what to do with the bodies was made by the Army and War Graves. And the big difference at Fromelles, of course, is that it's highly unlikely any of the bodies will be individually identified. DNA testing won't happen without consent from the British and, as far as I can tell at this stage, the official word from London (as it always has been) is 'no DNA testing'.

Cheers,

Mat

[truthergw]

Bringing men in from the cold, which goes on all the year round and has gone on ever since the war ended, relies heavily on the good will of the farmer or landowners. If the owner decides against a mass excavation there is very little likelihood that the French authorities would try to force him. I am not at all sure that they could.

[Mat McLachlan]

I appreciate the clarification. I was simply pointing out that, in this case, the landowner is very much onside, so the decision about the site will be a collaborative one between all the parties involved.

[Neil Mackenzie]

Mat.

Some time ago I was reliably informed that a recently discovered British soldier had been 'identified' from very unusual dental work. The family involved insisted that DNA was used and this proved negative - so a soldier who potentially could have had a named headstone now (rightly or wrongly) doesn't. I don't know the name of the soldier involved.

Neil

[Mat McLachlan]

Hi Neil,

Wow, that's a new one. Don't really know what to make of that...

Mat

[Paul Reed]

Being familiar with the case that Neil speaks of, let me just correct a couple of things. It was a Commonwealth soldier, not British and he was provisionally identified because of several unusual teeth which were mentioned as distinguishing marks on his Attestation Papers which tallied with what was found. He had no dental records. The next of kin did not insist on DNA, it was in fact paid for by the Commonwealth nation concerned who was also used an Army dentist from their own forces to confirm that the teeth belonged to the skull they were found with. The DNA test proved a negative connection with the surviving relatives of the named soldier - but this may have only confirmed that he was not the father of his own children rather than prove a mis-identification of him. The whole process is complex and expensive, and it is only Commonwealth nations who will pay for DNA, as I understand it. To my knowledge no DNA test has been completed in respect of a WW1 British soldier.

It is also worth remembering that Dental Records were rare, and not a compulsory part of every soldier's record.

[Ozzie]

I see that some have mentioned that it is up to the Army and the CWGC to decide what happens?

Do the relatives not get a say.

It was their brother, father, husband, GT Grandfather, Gt Uncle that they have lost, and probably never to be known.

The Army had them for a short time, the family lost them forever.

Does this not give descendants a right to have a say in what happens to any remains that may be found?

I appreciate that much more has to be done, on determining the bodies beneath the soil, and that some may wish this to be marked as a gravesite, but I wonder at the feelings of the families that never got to know the missing, because of the war, in which they served their country for, that took their lives.

For those that are missing, buried beneath the soil of a foreign country, it is too late, they have given the ultimate that a soldier can give. Is it right for any other than their relatives to say what should be done with their remains?

Many people and departments are involved in this, it would appear some are in it for their own agendas, but have a thought for others, who are trying to help, volunteering their time and effort, for no recognition or gain.

Do you call them misguided, or simply trying to help relatives find their missing soldiers?

Agreed , there is an element that do beat ups to draw attention, but please do not tar everyone involved with the same brush as those that publicity seek.

Economics and Politics are sad words when compared to loss that families endured during WW1. If we reduce the memories of those who have served our countries, and given their lives, through the troubled times of war, to economics and politics, then how sad are we as a human race?

As someone who lives in a democratic society, I believe that it should be up to the relatives who believe that their forefathers might lie in this mass grave, to make the call.

[Neil Mackenzie]

Paul.

Thanks for the corrections - erroneous memory on my part rather than any incorrect provision of information.

Neil

[truthergw]

As Matt and Ozzie have both pointed out, there are many interested parties here. I think that most people on the forum would wish to see a full investigation of this possible site. We know that there are tens of thousands of men still lying in the fields of France and Belgium, and elsewhere. Most of them turn up singly, are recovered and re-interred. That is right and proper, long may it continue. The fields where they are found are simply farmland. They belong to farmers and are ploughed and worked just like farmland all over the world. The land belongs to the farmer and he has the first and last say on what will happen. If he chooses to leave what is relatively speaking, a small portion of the fallen where they fell and continue to work the land where they lie, there is not much can be done. Men have fallen in battle in Europe for hundreds of years. This particularly applies to Belgium, The " Cockpit of Europe". Most were buried in mass graves on the field where they fell. If all of this land was to be declared somehow consecrated ground, almost the whole of Belgium and most of Europe would become one vast churchyard/military cemetery. We as a group here on the forum have a special interest in what is a historical event of 90 years ago. We cannot expect our interest to override that of people who go about their everyday lives in an area where ' our battles ' took place. Lastly, there are already stories of remains being hastily re-interred by the finder because the necessary investigations and bureaucracy will delay urgent work. These are by the nature of things, only rumours, but are not hard to believe. Any attempt to impose an unwelcome interference on the landowner, would I believe, be to the detriment of the recovery of remains in the future.

[Ozzie]

Tom, I can see that. All a man wants to do is look after his farm, and then along comes the government bodies, trying to tell him him what to do.

It is a hard predicament for the man who owns the land, and he must follow his heart.

It is a two sided question.

The relatives might need to know, but the land owner has the right to his land.

One would hope that there is a middle ground.

They gave so that the present landowner may have the land. If he can reconcile this with earnings from his land, then all would be well.

Some came from far lands, with no allegience to France or Belgium, does not that mean something these days, as the farmer ploughs his soil, and turns up the evidence of these men?

[truthergw]

I think that Terry Denham among others will confirm that remains are found and dealt with, in the main, with all due respect. The discovery of a mass grave is a totally different matter. I have seen people arguing about who is to carry out the investigations, others are arguing about which country should be in charge and so on. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that this is not some vast tract of barren land where archaeology can be carried out at a whim. It is extremely densely cultivated, in the main, in small farms. Some only consist of a few fields and the loss of one for a growing season may be a serious financial consideration. The farmer has to be accorded a lot more respect than is obvious in most of the references I have seen up to now. Small farmers are stubborn creatures in every country. If you treat this one badly he may just tell the team to clear off and pull the plug on the whole investigation.

[towisuk]

The field involved which is suspected of containing the bodies of the missing soldiers is of no great size. I cannot see that renumeration to the farmer for the

loss of his field for the duration of the test digs etc would amount to any great amount of money. The position of the field in question also does not preclude access to any other part of the surrounding area, it is "tucked out of the way" of the rest of the farmed fields in the vicinity.

If the farmer at the Vampire dugout dig can get renumeration for the loss of crops whilst the archealogical team carry out their investigations then whats the problem regarding Fromelles? I do think there are people who look for problems where non exist, and I think I am correct in saying that some of the team involved at Vampire will also have responsibility for the Pheasant wood excavation.

regards

Tom

[Fedelmar]

I am sure that all those people involved ... officials, volunteers and others, will follow due process affording respect, honour and courtesy as would be expected.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[truthergw]

The field involved which is suspected of containing the bodies of the missing soldiers is of no great size. I cannot see that renumeration to the farmer for the

loss of his field for the duration of the test digs etc would amount to any great amount of money. The position of the field in question also does not preclude access to any other part of the surrounding area, it is "tucked out of the way" of the rest of the farmed fields in the vicinity.

If the farmer at the Vampire dugout dig can get renumeration for the loss of crops whilst the archealogical team carry out their investigations then whats the problem regarding Fromelles? I do think there are people who look for problems where non exist, and I think I am correct in saying that some of the team involved at Vampire will also have responsibility for the Pheasant wood excavation.

regards

Tom

Should we tell the farmer our decision right away, or wait a bit?

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

So here's the plan -

1. All the amateur historians and "Hooray Harries" with an axe to grind make a song and dance about a conspiracy which has led them to a potential find of a mass grave and then demand that it be disinterred to satisfy some or another agenda.

2. The bodies of anything up to 500 men of British and Australian origin are disinterred.

3. None of the disinterred skeletal remains can be identified due to British opposition to DNA testing - and for good reason.

4. So now what? There is no plan from here on.

5. Re-inter the remains as unknown soldiers?

6. Can someone tell me what would actually be achieved since they are already buried as unknown remains of soldiers?

I understand why the Australian Department of Defence Historical Team is involved - so that the remains can be treated with the deference they deserve and to shut out the amateur expeditions that are ready to be mounted by the conspiracy crew. Tom's fears expressed above are based upon a solid foundation.

Apart from satisfying some ghoulish or prurient individual need through finding unidentified remains, nothing will be added to our knowledge of the grave site. The presumed relatives will be not one step closer to discovering the final resting place of their ancestor except have their hopes cruelly raised with no possibility of satisfaction. There does not appear to be any upside to this adventure.

So for those who believe that this excavation should go ahead - what is the plan once every body is disinterred?

Bill

[Andrew P]

Hi Bill

Not forgetting the fact that no actual decision has yet been made regarding what to do with this site before the further exploratory search in late May, I'm sure the Army History Unit & others in the government involved in this excercise have plans in place for all possible scenarios that may occur.

They would not be able to proceed this far without showing they have set plans & procedures in place once a final decision is made as to what to do.

Whether they want to share these plans yet with interested people from the community before a decision is made on the site is another matter.

Cheers

[Simmo]

Is there not a precedent for this - the 51 soldiers found at Ovillers in 1982?

Re the Pheasant Wood site, I believe personal effects belonging to a missing soldier have been found. If during further investigations, identifiable effects are found with a body, then that can be accepted as proof of identity, and the soldier would be reinterred under a named headstone. All unidentifiable bodies would either remain where they were found and the site classified a war grave, or if impractical, re-buried at another location.