OK I did not want to hi-jack the other french fries=freedom fries...whatever.

BUT the proposition of removing the remains of US service men killed and buried on foreign soil does compel me to ask, why?

Why can't we have them removed and buried on US soil? Why were US service men left on foreign soil in the first place!?

Further it astounds me that in France (Once again this has nothing to do with the Iraq broo-ha) that we, the US, PAY France rent and maintenenace on the cemetaries for the men that died liberating them! I mean WTF?

Sorry I am kinda passionate on this issue. I just believe US service people deserved to be buried in the country they were serving...rant over.

The U.S. has to pay the maintanence? That stinks

How so – who do you expect to foot the bill – this is normal procedure – all countries with cemeteries on foreign territory pay for their upkeep. Id also like to add that if you were ever to visit any of the American cemeteries both in the UK and France – you would be deeply gratified by the care and attention they receive. The American military cemeteries are without any doubt the best-maintained US government sites in Europe - more meticulously kept than the grandest embassy.

You may also be surprised at the fact that may of these graves are visited by locals on a regular basis and remembrance services are always very well attended.

I stinks because these men died fighting for the liberation of that country. Little gratitude would be nice.

Besides the point, what about the famalies/friends of those men that want to visit and pay their respects. Why should they have to fly to Europe?

**shrug** As I say - normal procedure - these cemeteries are considered to be 'foreign territory' as are embassy buildings, military bases etc etc - would you expect the host countries to maintain these too? I would imagine also that part of the reason for the deceased country's agreement to pay and thus monitor their upkeep is to reassure the families of dead servicemen that they are not being 'abandoned' on foreign soil.

As for friends and families having to fly to Europe - something you'd have to take up with your government I guess.........the reasoning behind your servicemen being buried in European cemeteries is quite simple - over 32'000 US personnel died on European soil - the cost of shipping them back would have been exorbitant.

Since when did gratitude equal enslavement? The French are grateful, just as we should be grateful for their help in the American Revolution (though hardly anyone even seems to remember that). In neither case does it mean one country should express their gratitude by aping the other's ideological and military mistakes, always and forever.

Hercules,



Yep, the whole issue over France is a hot button right now. Let's not do stupid things out of passion.

The liberation of France was a side issue in WW II. The US did not go to war to liberate France but to protect US soil, where no lives were lost from invasion, bombings, and so forth.

I don't have an opinion about the grave sites. The families of the fallen vets are the only people who have the right to form an opinion.

Isn't it heartening to know that the citizens of foreign nations honor our fallen through visitations? That's an opinion we have a right to form (and the opposite view too).

I wish we could return to the feelings of unity with the world that were prevalent after WW II. Ah, I wish for so much! Perhaps that will come out of our reengineering of the ME? I want to believe that.

I assume you're referring to the maintenance. And even then those workers are going to get compensate one way or the other. 'Enslavement' is a little harsh choice of words don't 'cha think?

And they can always unburden themselves of that maintenance by offerring, at a one time cost, to exhume and ship the remains for burial.

For a person that gave his life for them, I think that would be a fair trade, IMHO.

I look at it a bit differently. It is inconvenient for the family to fly to Europe to pay thier respects, but I find the thought of transferring the graves around to be highly disrespectful to the dead. It hasn't seemed to have been a problem up until this point, and I can only assume that this has little to do with the families and more to do with ideological differences, as Platypus suggested, particularly since they have only suggested removing the bodies from France.

This is not mature behavior, and it isn't helping to further our cause in any, way, shape or form. This is about revenge. It's as though burning the bridge wasn't quite enough. We have to make sure that it's been completely incinerated.

Please let me reitirate my very first statement and point out I am NOT solely looking at France.

Yeah they're in the lime light now, that's just a co-inky-dink.

But the aspect of having one of my relatives buried on foreign soil has always irked me and that was my original question (And the real reason for the passionate rant, BTW).

And to be honest (Once again this is me). If I were to ever die fighting I would insist to be buried in MY country. Whether it was the day I was killed or 50 years later. I'd want my final resting place to be HOME.

My apologies, Hercules. In reading the entirety of your initial post, I assumed you were referring only to France, and I'm a little impassioned about that today.

I still, personally, find it to be disrespectful to be moving graves around, but that is, of course, irrelevant, because morals are decided by each individual. I think that decision should be up to the families of the deceased, but I think that if they decide that the body should be moved, they should foot the bill themselves.

Well, maybe each family needs to make the choice then? Who pays for the transportation and reburial? Is there a process for this already?

I am sympathetic to the family's wishes on this issue.

However, if all foreign grave sites are cleared out by government decree, regardless of what the families want, then this is most definately using our fallen vets in a disgusting show of emotions run amuck.

Thanks for sharing that Brunie. I feel all warm and fuzzy now

--cheers

When you're dead, I imagine you couldn't care less where you're body gets buried.

Does the decomposed corpse really matter? Why can't families just put up their own marker in their home town? I'll bet that has happened. Honoring someone's memory doesn't really need a set of bones, unless you're into actual ancestor worship...

Why are you so adamant about not being buried on foreign soil? Just an aside, soil's pretty much the same everywhere. I mean, even if you believe in life after death, it's not still with your body.

This is why I'm choosing cremation.

Simply put. A loved-one is buried in a country who is an ally at THAT time. 10-20-30-?? years down the road, crap happens. These allied countries hate each other now. Those dead, and their memories, are now a political pawn. Being made the butt of jokes and possibly worse if the anger heigtens.

I just don't cherish the thought of an uncle being exhumed and tossed into a furnace at random 'cause he's an American today, but was a hero years ago.

As Quark brought up, I don't see that it is necessary to have a set of bones to honor American soldiers fallen in foreign lands. Beyond that, I'm sure there were many soldiers counted as dead who were simply never seen again. I have read in books that the total number of people killed is actually incalculable since there were so many that also went MIA. Were we to exhume and ship those bodies in foreign cemeteries back to America, should we also commit extensive search teams to scour the land for the remains of those unaccounted for? Perhaps those unaccounted for already have graves, sans remains.

I don't see the attachment to having the physical remains when the rememberance of the individual is more a clinging to the abstract and gone. After life or no after life, the body remains, and all that's left to hold onto is the memory of the individual.

As was already mentioned, we didn't assist in WWII to liberate France but to turn the tide against a tyrant bent on world domination. It was only sensible in the spirit of freedom and democracy that we free France in the process. And if we want to think they owe us for that, perhaps we should ask what we owe them for blockading the British during our revolution, allowing America to exist in the first place, rather than serve as an extension of the crown.
I'd like to think that were I alive to have served in WWII, I'd have been honored to fight for the freedom of the nation that ensured my liberty.

Are you suggesting that the exhumation and incineration of bodies is on France's agenda??? As far as I've heard, the only discussion of doing anything with the bodies of American soldiers has come from a demented junior representative from Florida. It is we who are using our dead heroes as political pawns - and in an unnecessarily infantile fashion, I might add.

Once again may I remind everyone that I am NOT specifically speaking of friggen' France! GEEEZ, get outa France people!

IMHO, American soldiers who fight and die on foreign soil deserve to be buried at home. Always should've been that way.

Why? Because today's ally might be tomorrow's bitter enemy.

Whether it be France, England or any other ally -- present or past -- you did imply, Herc, that they would be so disrespectful and crazed to exhume bodies for incineration.


While Wertz might have accidentally applied this to only France, it is still a far fetched notion. While I wouldn't imagine many nations taking such a course of action to desecrate American graves, I find it even more unlikely that they would put the time and energy into exhuming bodies for mass incineration.

I would again, though, state the my stance that the physical remains are irrelevant compared to the cherished memory (an abstract principle). The same way a soldier MIA for the rest of eternity doesn't stop a family from remembering and honoring, neither does the soil in which a body is buried. In both cases the remains are, in most cases, out of the reach of family and friends, but does not diminish the value of the fallen soldier's life and deeds.
*Edit: I'm actually not so sure Wertz's and Cyan's relating this issue directly to France is misguided afterall. While your original statement might have neglected to single France out, the Topic of this post is listed as: Our men killed in action, French cemetaries... reason enough for posters to make the reference.

Sorry, Hercules, but I was kinda mislead by the subtitle of this topic and the fact that your opening post refers to hijacking "the other french fries=freedom fries" thread. Let me rephrase in light of your subsequent disclaimers: "Are you suggesting that the exhumation and incineration of bodies is on anyone's agenda???" The rest of my post stands.

While I recognize that you are being wildly hypothetical here, I don't see how that serves a debate in "Domestic Policy" since the only recent policy regarding the interment of American soldiers is the one I cited. If you're addressing our policy at the end of the second world war, maybe this would be better placed in "Old News"?

I would agree with your opinion on the most recent permutation of your topic, that there should at least be the option for members of our armed forces to be buried at home, rather than in the fields of allied countries where they fell. I don't believe that it has ever been the policy, though, to bury dead soldiers in enemy territory if there was any other available option.

I think it fits to have our soldiers in some cemeteries on foreign soil. I expect that part of the impact of the D-Day battlefield is the graves of American soldiers. If down the road we have become enemies of France, then we will have symbolically lost the ground they poured their lives into liberating.

They seem to be in the right place to me. But I have no direct or immediate connection to any individual soldier there.

On the other hand we brought John Paul Jones back from France at the turn of the twentieth century.