Let the Diggers rest

mark says:

08:01am | 03/09/09

Agree somewhat with your sentiments, however if it’s at all possible, don’t these young men deserve a headstone of their own ? It seems little reward for giving up one’s life for ‘King and country’.

Peter says:

08:12am | 03/09/09

Strongly disagree.  Were it me, I would want my own name on my own gravestone.  Deny them their names and their own graves and they are just statistics.

RT says:

08:44am | 03/09/09

I agree. Lest we forget is what we always say, but when it comes to disinterrment of long-dead war victims - forget it.

Chad says:

09:35am | 03/09/09

Great article, i watch them talk about this on the news and i thought i was the only one that was asking why this was happening? Why were these soldiers graves being disrespected. And further more why were we diverting funds for this.

DG says:

10:16am | 03/09/09

I tend to agree with the article - had I fallen fighting with my friends in battle, I would want to be put to rest with those friends (if I could not be returned to my partner for burial). It is one thing to send troops home immediately, to loved ones who need the closure.

There is nothing to come home to more than 80 years later - instead they are left at peace with their fallen comrades, together in arms until the end of days. What more fitting eternity could await a soldier killed in battle? Is it really just that a man who died on the front line be removed to some obscure, out-of-the-way, plot and buried by people who never knew them (but have some distant blood relationship), or should he be left, where he currently rests, as a shrine to his ultimate sacrifice in the battlefield and a standing reminder to all of the war in which he fell?

Having said that I do appreciate that the plan is to move them a little more than 120m (rather than across the globe), but I think the same result could be achieved by building the shrine at the new place and indicating the place where the fallen lay at rest.

David Andersen says:

11:29am | 03/09/09

Regardless of whether people died or not, our knowledge of WW1 in particular, must always grow. Education about these conflicts is the best way to prevent ones of this scale from occuring again. Archaeology, regardless of whether its hallowed ground or not is vital for this. It is also vital for preserving the war for future generations (as everything about it should be). Furthermore it is not disrespect to dig up a body and identify it and give it a proper burial in a proper place. We know so little about the lives of many of the deceased, and how they died, or even where they are. Knowing this about them is actually respectful, rather than disrespectful, it allows us to honour them without ignorance, and to actually tell their individual stories. It may have only happened 90 years ago but we know surprisingly little about many of the individuals (who were mostly from the working classes).

Tom Reynolds says:

01:41pm | 03/09/09

I absolutely agree. Not only that, there are stories filtering through that the methods employed are more akin to desecration rather than honouring their sacrifice.
http://thomasr.org/blog/2009/08/fromelles-diggers-exhumation-nightmare/

I also question whether is is in fact morally correct to exhume these men: http://thomasr.org/blog/2009/05/exhuming-anzacs-technically-possible-morally-correct/

They received a proper burial at the time and ought to beleft to rest.

Tom

Cuppa says:

02:12pm | 03/09/09

You are wrong.If i fell in a foreign land, i would want someone to bring me home.It seems a bit strange that you agree with bringing aboriginal remains back(very PC) but not the brave men who built this country & defended our freedom.I am pretty sure most of them would like to rest in the land they died defending.

Fiona says:

03:08pm | 03/09/09

I think it is up to the families to decide. Not you - nor me. It may be that they may want their loved ones home so they can have closure and I respect that.

DC says:

03:25pm | 03/09/09

Cuppa and those of you that have made similar comments, in what sense is teh remains of a human still that human? in order to explore this question it is necessary to refrain from getting emotional about what is left over when we die. one the one hand if we have some sort of afterlife, whatever it is that survies clearly does not require the remaining body. if what happens when we die is that we cease to exist then it is difficult to see how what remains is us in any significatnt way.

so any statement that includes reference to a ‘you’ after you have died seems rather starnge. in what sense is what remain ‘you’? in what sense could ‘you’ be brought home? surely whatever is left is not you. the corpse has none of your memories, none of your hopes and desires, none of a great list of things you would most likely claim as necessary elements of what it is that is ‘you’.
our language seems to allow us to make claims about what we will want after we die but how can we make sense of something that does not exist having wants?
we should treat teh remains of people who have died with respect but we should remember that what is left behind is not in any significant way the person who has died.

DG says:

03:29pm | 03/09/09

@Cuppa - 2 things:
(1) I very much doubt that the people who died care where they are buried - the only ones that care are those that are still alive [it is worth nothing that they died defending France (our Allies) from the Germans rather than defending Australia (unless you adopt the US approach to defence)]  - further there is no suggestion that they would be transported back to Australia (so far as I am aware), they are planning on building a military grave some 120m from where the bodies were found. So all this fuss is about digging up dead bodies, that were laid to rest during the war, and moving them 120m so that the tourists can visit more easily. I would go so far as to say that those who went to war EXPECTED that they would be buried on the battle field should they fall (on account of the fact it was common practice during the war).

(2) Now comparing aboriginal remains and fallen soldiers: On one hand we are talking about people who were born here, died here and were taken to another country as ‘artifacts’  or trophies and stored in a museum (or private collection) as compared to people that went to another country, were killed in battle, and were buried on the battlefield. In fact there is very little that the two have in common (beyond being dead and currently located outside of their home country).

graham s says:

04:53pm | 03/09/09

The sad facts regarding this particular site is it’s discovery is within our current awareness of WW1 and any activity regarding the site has in some way an effect on some very elderly persons whose late brother or uncle may well be one of the dead. If this grave site was found to contain soldiers from some battle two or three hundred years ago then there wouldn’t be this debate in fact it would be an unemotional archeological dig.. Ditto if the same site was discovered in 2109, it would be be seen as a foot note in history and probably have a car park built over it as it has no relevance to 2109. My view is leave them where they are, that’s where they died and that’s where they were found.

marley says:

07:46pm | 03/09/09

Rupert Brooke wrote of the field burial of the dead during the FIrst World War:  ‘‘there’s some corner of a foreign field that is for ever England.”  I tend to think we should let the dead of Fromelle rest there, a little part of Australia in a foreign field.  I see no purpose in disinterring long-undisturbed remains for DNA testing, or any of the other technologies modern science has brought.  In the end, young men died in those foreign fields, perhaps for a questionable cause, but surely for what they saw as their country, their duty, their comrades.  And no advance of science or technology will change that.  We know what happened.  Let the dead rest.

Richard says:

09:42pm | 03/09/09

Cuppa,

If I fell in s foreign land, I think I’d be beyond caring where I was buried… as have been the vast majority of servicemen who fell abroad. When and why has this egalitarian practice changed?

Denny Carr says:

10:36pm | 29/06/10

Bit late on the scene but:

They asked the families what they wanted and went with the consensus.

WagnerMara21 says:

11:28am | 30/10/11

I took my first personal loans when I was 32 and that helped me a lot. But, I require the student loan as well.