Historic trees felled in Normandy

[dhermann1]

This was in today's Times of London. The comment about this being typical of France is probably unfair, but it certainly is typical of bureaucrats the world over.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4124354.ece
And another related comment:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article4124707.ece

 

[leaette]

That's sad. All for stupid paper. Well, that's one less artifact of WW2 that our children won't see.

 

[Roadrunner]

Actually if you notice it's a French historian quoted as saying this is typically French.

 

[Spitfire]

Trees don't live forever - memories do.

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

They ordered Patrice Robin, 79, who owns the land, to prune branches overhanging the road. “I said no at first,” he said. “But they threatened to take action against me.”

It costs about €800 (£630) to prune a beech tree, but only about €200 to cut it down. Mr Robin chose the cheaper option. “It’s complete madness - but I couldn’t do anything else.”

Mr Navarro said that more than 150 trees were felled last year, a destruction that went unnoticed beyond the district for months. He is determined now to preserve the ones that remain.

The sad thing is, I bet people would have paid him just to have the cut trees so the graffiti, at least, could be saved. I'd also like to think people would have been willing to raise money to just prune them and keep them in place.

 

[Spitfire]

I find it hard to join in the critic and the feelings for some trees!!!!
Just because some GI's cut their names in some trees somewhere in France, the trees should be preserved forever?
How many people visited this "sacred place" each week? 1000, 100...10?
Each month then?
Each year maybe. 100?
If we should preserve everything as it was back then in 1944, why not 1914?
Or 1814?
In order to memorize the great effort of terrorbombing a whole city, Dresden should never have been rebuild?
Or Berlin should have been left just like the allied left it in 1945?
Every toilet in every english pub, where a GI had scribled his name or whatever, should be saved forever and ever?

The beaches in normandy should've been left with barbed wire, mines, obstacles and bunkers or - as to day - cleared of everything, so the locals can use them for swimming and sunbathing? Wasn't it the exact reason for the invasion, that the nazi ruling over Europe should be stopped and we could have peace? And go to the beach for a swim.
(Besides that - it would have been nice for historic reasons and understanding of the whole thing, if just a small piece of one of the beaches, would have been left as it was. It would give a better explanation and insight than 100 sandtables in museums. Just a 200 meter broad peice of beach, with everything. 1:1)

It should be forbidden farmers to plow up the leftover airfields all over UK - so that they could bring back the farmingcountry it once was. before the war?
In order that we all can have food on the table. Instead of a concrete strip, nobody comes to see anyway.

Trees becomes paper when they died (among other things) Lets just say that these trees have turned into books, showing photos of these trees.

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

@ Spitfire: Playing devil's advocate? I'll play along.

I actually understand much of what you're saying. I hate taking away historical landscapes and objects, but change does have to come, sometimes. The issue that I think is being missed here is that the trees weren't destroyed to make paper. That was just what happened to them after they were cut down. The property owner was fine with them just the way they were.

From the article:

He described the beech trees as one of the finest Second World War souvenirs left in Normandy. But Les Arbres des Noms - most of which stood along a small, winding road in the middle of the forest - were deemed unsafe by local officials. They ordered Patrice Robin, 79, who owns the land, to prune branches overhanging the road. “I said no at first,” he said. “But they threatened to take action against me.”

It costs about €800 (£630) to prune a beech tree, but only about €200 to cut it down. Mr Robin chose the cheaper option. “It’s complete madness - but I couldn’t do anything else.”

So, perhaps they were unsafe. Pruning sounds reasonable. (As long as they were truly unsafe, not just according to some zoning official's inaccurate diagnosis.) Only the property owner couldn't afford to prune them, so he had them all chopped down (the cheaper option).

So in essence, we have historic trees chopped down in the name of "safety", against the original wishes of the property owner.

Now, if they had cut them down for paper, I'd probably still be against it. Because there are plenty of newer, un-graffitied forests to chop down. Not everything old has to be demolished to make way for the new, especially when there are alternatives. Again, I understand your sentiment - but sand on a beach or scribblings in a toilet don't much compare to a historic forest.

At the minimum, if they needed to be cut down, they should have been preserved, IMHO, if at all possible. As I said, I bet people or a museum/historical society somewhere would have paid for *at least* a few of them. It sounds like the owner simply wasn't aware of that option and, trying to get officials off his back, demolished some poignant pieces of history.

 

[Spitfire]

Sure I am playing a tiny bit of the devils advocat here - and sure you are right.
The owner should have thought a little, before he went along with the motorsawmassacre. If he had turned to some specialist, they might have been able to preserve the pieces of the trees with grafiti on them. (Don't know how - but I am sure someone knows how to preserve "dead" wood)
They could have been put in a nice little local museum - with photobackgrounds of the original forrest - as it looked before the motorsaw.
If the will and the money was there.

 

[John in Covina]

Pony up the bucks or put your money where your mouth is.

Money talks, BS walks. If these trees were truly historic and worth saving then the local, state or national government should have taken the actions necessary to preserve and protect them.

Since they forced the financial burden on the owner, it was his choice. People usually have no problems with spending other people's money. The real challenge is to get out the check book and write a check for what one stands for.

 

[dhermann1]

The thing is, trees are not granite. They won't last forever. These were just ephemeral moments that were preserved by accident. A great stone monument may give us information, but something like initials carved in a tree trunk gives us a sort of organic connection to the person and the moment when they were first carved. It's the idea that these great events were experienced by people just like us that is so important to realize about history.
The trees are gone. A small thing in the great scheme of things. A silly bureaucratic glitch triggered the destruction. Bleep happens. But it's still just a sad shame.

 

[blacklagoon]

My grandfather named my aunty Mametz ( her middle name ),after the battle of Mametz wood in france.He was disgusted nobody in the army would acknowledge the massacre of so many welshmen,or consider a memorial to them,so he decided to remember them in his own way.My aunty continued the memorial of the massacre,by naming one of her daughters Mametz ( her middle name ).
A memorial has since been erected.here is a link to it.

http://www.hellfire-corner.demon.co.uk/mametz.htm