Lancastria "should be war grave"

[audission]

Looks like there's a petition going to restrict access to the Lancastria:

Bombed ship 'should be war grave'

A man who survived the sinking of a ship during World War II in which 4,000 troops died is urging the government to declare the site a war grave.
The troop ship Lancastria was bombed in St Lazaire off the coast of France on 17 June 1940.

Reg Brown, 87, of Bedworth, Warwickshire, said he was "disheartened" after hearing divers are looking for souvenirs on the wreck.

He is to hand a 3,000-name petition to Downing Street next week.

Thousands of troops and refugees were on the ship as part of the evacuation of France.

Mr Brown, who boarded it an hour before the attack, was one of 2,000 men rescued.

He said: "As the boat sank and turned over upside down, there were hundreds singing 'roll out the barrel'. They knew they were going to die."

From memory, I think this ship has one of the highest death tolls of any recorded shipwreck.

Has anyone dived it?

 

[Flightlead]

Right on! Personally I think all wrecks where people died s/b considered a grave. Like any local gravesite, that would mean you can visit the gravesite any time. You can take photos, shoot video, pay your respects, or just enjoy the scenery. You don't go rifling through the graves gleefully comming away with a goodie bag full of plates, jewlery, headstones, name plates, potholes, or skulls. Unlike the local gravesite, you don't leave anything other than bubbles.

But then that's my personal opinion.

Deliberate sinkings (a la Oriskany) or accidental non-fatal sinkings I believe s/b subject to maritime law regarding salvage.

flame on?

 

[captndale]

Right on! Personally I think all wrecks where people died s/b considered a grave. Like any local gravesite, that would mean you can visit the gravesite any time. You can take photos, shoot video, pay your respects, or just enjoy the scenery. You don't go rifling through the graves gleefully comming away with a goodie bag full of plates, jewlery, headstones, name plates, potholes, or skulls. Unlike the local gravesite, you don't leave anything other than bubbles.

But then that's my personal opinion.

Deliberate sinkings (a la Oriskany) or accidental non-fatal sinkings I believe s/b subject to maritime law regarding salvage.

flame on?

Do you mean that there should never be salvage from any wreck in which there was a fatality?

 

[H2Andy]

well, like it or not, life is for the living

it makes no sense to restrict diving on a historic wreck, even if fatalities were involved

perhaps declare it a national monument (or something along those lines) and prevent anyone from taking artifacts or remains off the wreck unless by special license?

 

[Flightlead]

Do you mean that there should never be salvage from any wreck in which there was a fatality?

No. Re-reading my post I realize I was not clear. What I meant was that fatal sinkings should not be a free-for-all for boatloads of divers to take things off the wreck.

How do you distinguish between salvage operations and "grave robbing"....THAT is a tough nut to crack. Sort of like Ed Meese's take on pornography "I know it when I see it"

 

[Oyster Diver]

Just curious, but what would you think about a wreck that originally occurred without fatalities, but then a section sank much later taking a salvager down with it? I'm thinking of the African Queen, the bow sank but the stern was salvaged. Fun wreck to dive and lots of boat anchors to find.

Also, what would you think about taking artifacts from unidentified wrecks where the history is completely unknown? You may find something that identifies the wreck. I am not talking about human remains, they should stay undisturbed.

I know there is no "right" answer to these questions, everyone must answer to their own consience.

Andrew

 

[H2Andy]

well, my view is that loss of life will almost always be present in a historic wreck, and that is not enough reason to limit diving there

a few wrecks are so historic (think the USS Arizona) that diving should rightly be prohibitted.

most wrecks are not that historic, and perhaps a "protection" program could be put in place where artifacts can't be removed without a special license or perhaps not removed at all.

but the diving itself should not be curtailed simply because fatalities were part of the wreck

 

[Flightlead]

I don't think diving on the wrecks s/b prohibited regardless. Damage to thw wreck, taking things from the wreck, dropping anchors through the wreck....various things that can and should be prohibited for various types of wrecks. Much like national parks, national monuments, etc are. However history should be there for citizens to see and enjoy. I was PO'd when the put up a fence around Stonehenge, and for the same reason think you s/b able to visit, see, experience but not change the wreck.

 

[Gilldiver]

Should it be preserved as a no disturb zone, sure why not. There were a lot of men lost on her and they all should be remembered. But to not visit, why the restriction? At least 6,000 were killed at Gettysburg, but you are encouraged to visit that battle field. Just don’t start metal detecting.

Part of the considerations should be how intact the wreck is and the chance that there are human remains within the wreck. In the case of the Lancastria, she was sunk in shallow water and part of her remain above water for some time. The area is also very exposed to the seas and the wreck is now reputably a scattered debris field of plates. I would also almost guarantee that the wreck was heavily salvage after the war for scrap, so due to the current condition of the wreck the no diving restriction is just not justified. There just is no “ship” left that would contain the remains.

 

[Bob Vincent]

Hey guys there are wrecks in the pacific that still have human skulls lying around. They are a grave yard and shouldn't be handled. But that shouldn't stop divers from diving it. Respectfully.