In the current issue of Nekton, I featured an article on diving the HMS
Prince Of Wales and HMS Repulse. As war graves, it's a topic that's
generated a great deal of discussion on a number of forums in recent years.
It, therefore, came as little surprise to receive a private post from the UK
questioning my views about apparently encouraging such dives - and that dive
businesses conducting such dives were, in effect, disturbing the graves of
the dead. The writer asked me for my opinion of the question. As they'd
taken the time to ask, I took the time to respond - part of which follows
below.
It does seem to me to be a complex issue, but how do other folks feel? :-)
Strike
-----------
(snip)
The question of whether or not such wrecks should be dived is, of course,
one that has encouraged strong debate in recent times. Like many people who
have listened to all sides of the arguments, I have formed my own opinions;
ones that, by and large, are rather too complex to be simply stated in the
context of this post. However ....
As historical artefacts - rather than war graves - I believe that proper
documentation and filming of wrecks before they eventually collapse and
disintegrate serves a useful purpose. (Consider, for example, the many US
Court actions regarding filming and photographing the wreck of the Monitor
before its subsequent collapse and disintegration.)
In instances when relatives of those who perished are still living, the
question becomes far more complex. At a personal level, I tend to feel that
properly conducted diving expeditions that are mindful of the possible
emotional impact of individual actions do, at least, act as reminders of the
respect and honour that we owe to all of those whose lives were sacrificed
during battles at sea. (Consider, for example, the wrecks of Truk Lagoon
that, for decades, have been documented by photographers from around the
world and that are respected as war graves!)
In that regard, (and very much to my way of thinking) dive trips conducted
under properly regulated guidelines - where the divers are strictly
observers - are, in a sense, little different from the annual memorial
tributes that are held each year in, say, Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, or on the
many other WWII battle-grounds in Borneo, Papua New Guinea, etc.
While I accept your point of view regarding the impact of commercialisation
on the sites of these historic and significant wrecks, I actually believe
that regular visits leads to better regulation and control over diver
activies and helps maintain the dignity of the sites.
There will always be a minority keen to possess artefacts from wrecks, (the
modern-day equivalent of those early Egyptian grave robbers!) Stories
abound of wreck hunters researching and discovering the sites of wrecks such
as the HMS Prince Of Wales and HMS Repulse, and stripping them of easily
removable items that often make their way on to the black market.
It's something made especially easy when those wrecks lie in waters that -
unlike, say, Scapa Flo - are impossible to police on a regular basis, and
when the vessels themselves, (and their often heroic actions) remain in a
dusty and forgotten corner of history known only to a few.
In that sense - and lacking the necessary government resources to easily
patrol these waters - commercial dive operators are not only known to be
regular visitors to the site, but also have a vested interest in preserving
their own business reputations by monitoring other less mindful diving
activity.
I agree with you when you say that those young souls who perished really
didn't want to be there! But, it seems to me, even worse is the prospect
that, having given their all, their sacrifice is subsequently forgotten by
successive generations!
I doubt that I've adequately answered the questions that you pose but, as I
say, it's a complex issue and one where, as far as I can see, there's no
clear 'one-size-fits-all' solution!
(rest snipped)
|
