[Rabe Anton]

Chris, going just a little off of, and beyond, Horst Weber's question, I wonder if there isn't a deep difference of philosophies at work in the ways that the U.S. and the U.K. approached investigation of missing aircrew at the end of World War II?

The United States pursued a policy of finding and accounting for every single casualty (impossible, but still the ideal), and then collecting the remains for reburial in overseas national military cemeteries, in continental military cemeteries, or in private cemeteries as the family decided.

As a European historian, I'm wondering if British (and perhaps Commonwealth) policy wasn't somewhat different in that the fallen were allowed to "rest in place" wherever initially interred, if that was an honorable resolution of their loss. Investigative processes following such a philosophy naturally would have been, therefore, of a much smaller magnitude than the massive U.S. graves registration effort that followed the cessation of hostilities. I further wonder if British policy might not have arisen out of the tradition of the ages in Europe that the fallen be buried where they fell, usually on or near the field of battle, whereas America, a relative "newbie" in extraterritorial conflict, might have been following less practical but understandable democratic impulses?

All of the above is a bit of speculation, but I'd still like to hear your thoughts about it.

RA