WWI Diggers in Fromelles

kinetic (Steve) · #1 19-08-2009, 08:47 PM

Firstly , apologies for any perceived lack of sensitivity here,
it is by no means intended.

Does anybody think that the excavation and re-interring of over
300 WW I Diggers remains in a field in France is justified?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...005962,00.html

It's such a sensitive subject.
Why can't any soldier, of any nationality , once discovered , rest in peace
in the place where they ended their life?

regards,

Steve

PCH (Paul) · #2 20-08-2009, 05:25 PM

It would be my considered opinion that, given the passage of so much time, they would be happier to remain where they fell.

I think I would, but I don't think I would have been brave enough to have been there in the first place.

iceman (Mike) · #3 20-08-2009, 05:42 PM

Interesting question.

Hard to know what the best option in when it doesn't directly affect me or my family, but my feeling is that the families would probably want their remains returned for a burial in Australia.

Sandrosen (Tait) · #4 20-08-2009, 10:24 PM

To me, it's a number of things:

As an Australian, I would want to be buried in the country I call home.

As a soldier, it is a "never leave your mate behind" kind of thing.

These guys left home thinking they were supporting their country, they were probably expecting that if they were killed, they would be buried in their country too.

So long as the repatriation process is treated with the necessary respect.

mithrandir (Andrew) · #5 20-08-2009, 10:42 PM

I would expect the families would prefer to know where their remains lie. If by exhuming and identifying them they can be reburied with grave markers close to where they died it could satisfy both historicity and their families.

My sister died last week. I would not be happy if I did not know where her remains were now.

Starkler (Geoff) · #6 20-08-2009, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinetic

Why can't any soldier, of any nationality , once discovered , rest in peace
in the place where they ended their life?

A grave is a grave. If the original resting place can be guaranteed permanence and appropriate respect, I see no reason to disturb remains placed so long ago.

gman (Grant) · #7 20-08-2009, 11:53 PM

To me, the Golden Rule is you never leave your mates behind.
We owe it to the fallen to bring them home, albeit many years after.

They can have the proper homecoming and finally RIP in a proper burial ground that will always remain so in the country that they fought and died for.

I would not leave it upto another country to look after our own.

PCH (Paul) · #8 21-08-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandrosen

To me, it's a number of things:

As an Australian, I would want to be buried in the country I call home.

As a soldier, it is a "never leave your mate behind" kind of thing.

These guys left home thinking they were supporting their country, they were probably expecting that if they were killed, they would be buried in their country too.

So long as the repatriation process is treated with the necessary respect.

Rupert Brooke said ...

If I should die,
think only this of me.
That there's some corner of a foreign field
that is forever England.

He was a war-time poet, and these words sound to me like these boys expect to be left where they fall. Of course this is just my interpretation, but it seems clear enough.

PCH (Paul) · #9 21-08-2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gman

To me, the Golden Rule is you never leave your mates behind.
We owe it to the fallen to bring them home, albeit many years after.

They can have the proper homecoming and finally RIP in a proper burial ground that will always remain so in the country that they fought and died for.

I would not leave it upto another country to look after our own.

I know the Brits have a War Graves Commission that looks after war graveyards in several countries where their soldiers have fallen. The Aussies must surely have a similar body. So it's not left up to another country's government to look after the graves - in effect it's paid for and carried out by our own. It just happens in another country.

Davros (Lauren) · #10 21-08-2009, 10:10 AM

The burial site is a mass grave dug by the victorious German forces of the day. The interred soldiers are not buried individually but all dead of both ANZAC and UK forces were buried en-mass the land is now threatened by development. The excavation and repatriation of the remains is in my view, warranted.

PCH (Paul) · #11 21-08-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davros

The burial site is a mass grave dug by the victorious German forces of the day. The interred soldiers are not buried individually but all dead of both ANZAC and UK forces were buried en-mass the land is now threatened by development. The excavation and repatriation of the remains is in my view, warranted.

Agreed

Though it beggars belief how any authority could or would even consider redeveloping such an important site. Heathens

multiweb (Marc) · #12 22-08-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinetic

Why can't any soldier, of any nationality , once discovered , rest in peace in the place where they ended their life?

I think I can answer this one Steve. It's pretty simple. Families want some closure and it doesn't matter where they've fallen. They want them home. The trenches 1st world war was a massacre. I remember my great-grand father with a missing eye and "bit and pieces". He was the lucky one. A lot of them came home in "small boxes". They then burried them within the families cemeteries locally and it was much easier for everyone. Visit them at Easter, etc.. have a personal place to put flowers and remember.