Man defends war grave.

Profile picture for user D1566

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,020

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/man-defends-war-grave-wwii.html
Original post
Profile picture for user Sabrejet

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 1,737

Seems to be a 5th April 1945 crash - Lancaster III ND639 of 1667 HCU, which crashed at Crowle: Airborne 2200 from Sandtoft for a Bullseye exercise. Crashed Crowle 0258, after presumed loss of control. P/O J.E. Grayson RAAF KIA, Sgt S.J. Crawhall KIA, F/S M.B. Kilsby RAAF KIA, W/O E.J. Castor RAAF KIA, F/S W.S.Bennett RAAF KIA, F/S T. Evans RAAF KIA, F/S D.L. Hayes RAAF KIA.
Profile picture for user ian_

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 1,943

Perhaps the turbines could be named after the crew. Quite a fitting memorial...
Profile picture for user mmitch

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 1,726

If they plan an 'archaeological dig' how does that sit with the MOD's stance on not disturbing a war grave? We have seen before that even with a land owner and relatives agreement wreck recovery has been resisted. mmitch.
Profile picture for user Sabrejet

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 1,737

...and paint the blades black, with yellow tips.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

What a badly written article; yes, the Runnymede Memorial does contain the names of 'more than a thousand' servicemen (airmen) who have no known grave... ...about nineteen thousand more than a thousand! :rolleyes:
Profile picture for user Sabrejet

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 1,737

Some interesting correspondence here, courtesy of National Archives of Australia: [ATTACH=CONFIG]229041[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]229042[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]229043[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]229044[/ATTACH]
Attachment Size
a.jpg 174 KB
b.jpg 190.48 KB
c.jpg 173.08 KB
d.jpg 164.06 KB

Member for

6 years 3 months

Posts: 9

THE EXCAVATION OF AIRCRAFT AS PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS Hello Everyone, I am offering this comment as a neutral conflict archaeologist's perspective on this issue. I hope it might help the discussion, particularly as this kind of issue is likely to become more common given the increase in development applications for rural areas [and please note I am not taking sides on the windfarms debate!]. This is primarily a planning issue and the site will come under both local planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPC] which has provision for both recognised and unrecognised heritage sites. Obviously the other key piece of legislation involved is the Protection of Military Remains Act, although it should be remembered the exhumation of all human remains of whatever age is controlled by legislation. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/burials-and-coroners/exhuming-human-remains-faq.pdf This site will require an Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] which will include a desk top study of potential archaeology. This should in turn throw up the likelihood of a crashed aircraft and human remains covered under the Protection of Military Remains Act being present on the site. It is then a case of implimenting a well practiced process of negotiation, decision and mitigation involving the local authority, the developer and other interested parties. It is likely that a non-intrusive Geophysical Survey of the entire site would be requested to assess any buried archaeology [in which Lincolnshire is rich], including any impact crater and surviving debris related to ND639. The County Archaeologist will also almost certainly also liaise with JCCC as the MoD branch responsible for historic casualties to acertain their view. Where aircrew of other nationalities are present, as they are here, it would also be customary and correct to seek the views of their Governments. It is well known that different nations take differing views as to how to treat their unidentified MIA's. On the basis of that assessment the Local Authority Planning Ctte will be offered recommendations which might range from rejecting the application, through varying the application, for example by moving the pylons/services to miss the crash site, to allowing the application. As part of this process archaeological conditions may be attached, for example requiring excavation within the footprint of the pylons and services, or even an open area excavation to assess the archaeoloigy across the site. Certainly the possible presence of the aircraft with human remains which are protected by legislation will be a material consideration to the planners. There is nothing in this which contradicts MoD Policy. The MoD in the form of JCCC may recommend preservation in situ, but if the planners deem there is an overwhelming public interest in the development going ahead the proper protocols exist for the archaeological excavation of the aircraft under JCCC Licence and the forensic archaeological exhumation of any human remains. It is not so well known that in addion to the strictly controlled exhyumation of human remains by archaeologists under a Justice Department Licence, thousands of sets of human remains are moved to facilitate developments, sometimes by commercial exhumation companies, The cemetery at Kings Cross/St Pancras moved for the HS1 Channel Tunnel Link is a case in point. A good overview of this subject is found in Duncan Sayers' book "Ethics and Burial Archaeology." With the development in forensics and archaeoloigcal techniques we are better placed than ever to excavate such sites with the sensitivity the missing and their families are entitled too, but only if it proves necessary. No archaeologist would recommend the deliberate excavation of a site where it is likely or known that human remains are present without an overriding reason. In UK Practice those are, 1. A fully funded, properly constituted Research Project [like the Richard III Project]. 2. An immediate threat to the security of the site [for example a major national or regional infrastructure project]. This might seem complicated but it works reasonably well and is much better than a development free for all. Future problems my lie in the current Government's weakening of planning controls in its drive for building. This, coupled with the cuts in local authority archaeology provision make it more difficult to see a measured solution which does not involved JCB's big yellow trowels being let loose regardless. In this case, if anyone does have concerns, the most positive way forward would be for concerned individuals to contact the County Archaeologist in Lincolnshire and flag up the issue to ensure it is dealt with as part of the process. However, if you look at the original article in the Scunthorpe Telegraph all seems to be proceding as it should in this case- http://www.scunthorpetelegraph.co.uk/don-t-want-wind-farm-war-graves/story-21004029-detail/story.html No Drama...but a useful opportunity to discuss the issues this story raises for all of us involved in the archaology of aviation. Best wishes Andy B
Profile picture for user snafu

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 2,748

It is a war grave: therefore it shouldn't be disturbed. No war grave should be disturbed for any reason, no matter how much money is thrown at it, or by whom. End of story.
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 16,831

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

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

It is a war grave: therefore it shouldn't be disturbed. No war grave should be disturbed for any reason, no matter how much money is thrown at it, or by whom. End of story.
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?

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

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.
Profile picture for user adrian_gray

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 2,935

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
Profile picture for user Moggy C

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 16,831

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

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

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.
Profile picture for user JDK

Member for

16 years

Posts: 8,195

HMS Edinburgh.

Member for

7 years 4 months

Posts: 151

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.

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 914

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 ?
Profile picture for user D1566

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,020

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.
Profile picture for user snafu

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 2,748

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?
Profile picture for user mmitch

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 1,726

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.