Man defends war grave.

Of course the company wouldn’t be interested in recovering the crew if they didn’t want to put a wind-turbine on the crash-site; they are a commercial company motivated by profit…

…but, if this commercial company met the expense of excavating the site, recovering the crew and giving them an appropriate burial would that be a bad thing? Even if the primary motive was ‘profit’?

It boils down to whether you think the crew should remain ‘missing’ even if somebody was willing to fund their recovery?

So you are saying, if I understand this correctly, that any and every site designated a war grave should be open to the potential of commercial exploitation on the off chance that it might not actually be a grave?

No, more accurately, every site designated a war-grave should be open to commercial (or non-commercial) exploitation…

…BUT also that every case should be judged on merit by the MOD and very particular criteria would need to be met before any ‘exploitation’ would be allowed. And paramount among these criteria would be respect for the dead and the wishes of any living relatives.

The reason that this is not done by the MOD is probably because of the cost of administering such a process.

Have any known (or suspected) aircraft war-graves been excavated and remains recovered? Yes, but this may have been before the current rules were introduced.

If the wind-turbine company were to excavate the crash-site sympathetically and were to treat any remains recovered with the respect that they are due then personally I do not see the problem.

If the MoD were to allow it. Which they apparently don’t.
Has there been any precedent set previously?

It has, to my mind, been the case previously that those who wish to disturb war graves generally have their own interests at heart; in this case they want to put a wind farm on the site. Would they be as interested if they had no plans for the site?

Your theory seems to be that no ‘war grave’ can be disturbed under any circumstances even though you cannot possibly know whether an aircraft crash-site actually constitutes a ‘grave’ or not because not every case is as clear as the case in question (and even then there is room for doubt).

So you are saying, if I understand this correctly, that any and every site designated a war grave should be open to the potential of commercial exploitation on the off chance that it might not actually be a grave? I imagine that this would be why the MoD generally appears not to allow the digging of such sites but, of course, we shouldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of a business and its profit nor allow our respect for the unrecovered to play a part in any decision…

I’d suggest that the above theory is unworkable in practice and in the real world would probably lead to unknown ‘war graves’ that are stumbled-upon being treated with a lot less respect than they deserve.

Stumbled upon war graves, accidentally found in the pursuit of other projects, are one thing; deliberately digging up a known war grave (whether or not you believe there are bodies present) is entirely a different matter, as is digging at the site of a known aircraft wreck.

Try HMS Royal Oak, HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Repulse, etc. Their sites are known, it would have been difficult or impossible to try and recover bodies at the time and the chances are that there is little or nothing to recover now – so should we declare that these sites are no longer war graves..?

Exactly where did I suggest anything of the sort?

My point stands; ‘war grave’ is used by government to avoid the cost of recovering the bodies of war-dead, and especially so in cases where the location of war-dead is known (probably), such as in the case of two of the crew of this Lancaster bomber.

If the wind-turbine company were to excavate the crash-site sympathetically and were to treat any remains recovered with the respect that they are due then personally I do not see the problem.

Your theory seems to be that no ‘war grave’ can be disturbed under any circumstances even though you cannot possibly know whether an aircraft crash-site actually constitutes a ‘grave’ or not because not every case is as clear as the case in question (and even then there is room for doubt).

I’d suggest that the above theory is unworkable in practice and in the real world would probably lead to unknown ‘war graves’ that are stumbled-upon being treated with a lot less respect than they deserve.

Did anyone actually read the attachments in post #7 above?

Yes. Did you already have these or was it possible to download them from the National Archives of Australia?

They all open to a readable size, with No.1 stating that, “Bodies of those categorised Missing believed killed not yet recovered from wreckage”. One of the subsequent pages details how the dig was abandoned after the first 5 bodies were recovered, due to subsidance.

Did anyone actually read the attachments in post #7 above?

Um, no. Sorry, it was too small. But when I accidentally clicked on one it opened up further (although I am sure I tried this before, unsuccessfully).

Bodies unrecovered.

So a very vague chance that they came down in swamp or river? Didn’t think so…

Then that is a possibility, but unless the bodies are found elsewhere they had to have come down with the Lancaster, wouldn’t you say?

It is all speculation, of course, but that is the strongest option.

Did anyone actually read the attachments in post #7 above?

Had they parachuted then surely they would have been discovered before now? Bodies don’t tend to lay around on the surface undiscovered for long, generally. But since the Lanc crashed, without the two missing crew being found, it might be reasonable to assume that their bodies were consumed in the destruction beyond the ability available at the time to recover them; surely this makes it a grave site? The site is known, is not all that big (relatively), and there is a good chance that the undiscovered crew are lying there, in spirit if nothing else; surely that makes it a grave site?

It also might be reasonable to be presumed that the bodies are not on the site. This crash was just off marsh road. So if they had baled out, fell out and dropped into Marshy ground before the parachutes opened they would have been instantly buried without a trace.
Stainforth and keadby canal and Clearwater lake are in close proximity to the crash site.

Oh money, definitely.

Respect might cost nothing, but you can’t bank it either.

Hi
Going slightly off subject but what about HS 2
it appears on the news that at least one cemetery is to be excavated and moved as part of the overall building of the project
surely this sets a precedent for future planning applications
in the end a burial site is a burial site
wether planned or accidental it contains the same thing human remains
in my opinion if it forces the government to give the lanc crew a decent burial it is a good thing
cheers
jerry

PS
I wonder if the HS 2 route will go thro any crash sites ?

I was reading the other day that the Church of England’s bishops had expressed concern regarding the disturbance of graves. About 30,000 graves will have to be moved and they complained that during the clearance at Kings Cross JCBs were used. They want an assurance that this will not happen on HS2. It was also mentioned that several War memorials will be moved too. It will be interesting to see which is more important, money or respect?
mmitch.

I beg to differ.

Many WW1 burials are turning up in France where infrastructure projects are disturbing the earth. Soldiers whose whereabouts have not been known are, in all cases being given a decent burial with a headstone, and in many cases, finally named.

My Uncle was killed in action on the Somme. I’d love for a Guillemont by-pass to turn up his remains whilst I am still alive.

Moggy

The western front of WWI cut across hundreds of miles of Europe with the opportunity for lost men to be found at any point; this wind farm project is in one relatively small area where the crash site is known of. These two definitions are not the same.

Given that two of the crew are still ‘missing’ and that they could well have attempted to parachute out of the bomber as it fell out-of-control your ‘war grave’ could cover quite a large and indeterminate area…

…how exactly do you intend to define where anybody is allowed to construct anything?

Had they parachuted then surely they would have been discovered before now? Bodies don’t tend to lay around on the surface undiscovered for long, generally. But since the Lanc crashed, without the two missing crew being found, it might be reasonable to assume that their bodies were consumed in the destruction beyond the ability available at the time to recover them; surely this makes it a grave site? The site is known, is not all that big (relatively), and there is a good chance that the undiscovered crew are lying there, in spirit if nothing else; surely that makes it a grave site?

The term ‘war grave’ is absolutely government-speak for we cannot afford to recover (and ‘we’ means the taxpayer here), or try to recover, every missing serviceman from every war that Britain has ever been involved with.

Try HMS Royal Oak, HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Repulse, etc. Their sites are known, it would have been difficult or impossible to try and recover bodies at the time and the chances are that there is little or nothing to recover now – so should we declare that these sites are no longer war graves and officially allow divers to pick through the wreckage and take away souvenirs, rather than sneak it as they (apparently) do now?

Hi
Going slightly off subject but what about HS 2
it appears on the news that at least one cemetery is to be excavated and moved as part of the overall building of the project
surely this sets a precedent for future planning applications
in the end a burial site is a burial site
wether planned or accidental it contains the same thing human remains
?

Railways were built through graveyards/burial sites from the early 1800s, so HS2 is not proposing something new.

Hi
Going slightly off subject but what about HS 2
it appears on the news that at least one cemetery is to be excavated and moved as part of the overall building of the project
surely this sets a precedent for future planning applications
in the end a burial site is a burial site
wether planned or accidental it contains the same thing human remains
in my opinion if it forces the government to give the lanc crew a decent burial it is a good thing
cheers
jerry

PS
I wonder if the HS 2 route will go thro any crash sites ?

Gold/lost treasure overcomes everything, James…

I would appreciate this site (the Lanc) being scoured for remains of two of my countrymen assuming the families had been consulted and agreed of course. It seems like an opportunity.

HMS Edinburgh.

The term ‘war grave’ is absolutely government-speak for we cannot afford to recover (and ‘we’ means the taxpayer here), or try to recover, every missing serviceman from every war that Britain has ever been involved with.

While it cannot be criticized the case of the ‘missing’ men from the battle at Fromelles is also one of some convenience given the number of men located in a few mass-graves; costs would rise considerably if individual missing men had to be searched for, located and given a proper burial.

I think the term ‘war grave’ is official-speak for “We can’t be bothered / afford to give your relative a proper burial”

The operation at Fromelles is magnificent. Must visit.

Moggy

My Uncle was killed in action on the Somme. I’d love for a Guillemont by-pass to turn up his remains whilst I am still alive.

Same place, same sentiment, Moggy.

Google Pheasant Wood Fromelles.

Adrian

At the end of the day this will all come down to money and the setting of a precedent; if the MOD decides to recover one ‘missing’ airman that is known to lie (probably) in the wreckage of a crashed aircraft then the families of other missing airmen could reasonably question why similar efforts (and money) has not been expended in recovering the remains of their relative.