Sunday Telegraph (9/11/08) The Unknown Warrior

[NigelS]

This article in today's Sunday Telegraph "Seven" Magazine by John Preston tells the story of the selection, return to Britain, and internment at Westminster Abbey of the Unknown Warrior.

http://tinyurl.com/5uqugo

I have read some of the details previously, but not that given in the two final paragraphs, and have to admit being very uncomfortable and saddened by it as, if it's true, in my view it rather flaws the whole concept of the Unknown Warrior, particularly as the events described took place post war.

Preston Says:

Amid all the public anguish, no one thought to wonder what had become of the other three bodies that had been disinterred from their unmarked graves. A rather less exalted fate awaited them.

After Brig Wyatt had made his choice, the Union flags were folded away. Then the three bodies were loaded onto the back of a truck, tipped into a shell hole beside the road near the town of Albert – and promptly forgotten.

Unfortunately he gives no further details or indication of where the information came from.

NigelS

[Tom Morgan]

John Preston is dramatising.

The remaining bodies were not tipped into a shell hole and forgotten. I believe they were reburied in an area where battlefield searches were going on along the Albert-Bapaume road, and in an area where it was practically certain that they would be found.

They were not disinterred from unmarked graves in the battlefields - they were disinterred from marked graves. The instructions were quite clear that the remains had to come from graves maked as "Unknown British" and from graves which were dated as having been made early in the war. I understand they were taken from established British cemeteries.

Tom

[centurion]

Given that the War Graves Commission was up and running it would seem surprising that this would be allowed.

[keithfazzani]

I too read that with some horror and total disbelief. A shameless example of rewriting history for dramatic effect. I hope someone from CWGC reads the article and responds appropriately.

[Chris_Baker]

"Tipped into a shell hole". What piffle.

"Promptly forgotten". What utter piffle.

[Peter Bennett]

Hopefully this is not going off at a tangent, but one of the BBC Numpties this week quoted "eleven thousand men buried in Tyne Cot, of whom three thousand are unidentified..............................

[John Milner]

"Tipped into a shell hole". What piffle.

"Promptly forgotten". What utter piffle.

According to the letter written to the Daily Telegraph by Brigadier Wyatt in November 1939, the four bodies were in the chapel at HQ St Pol, and he says;

"I selected one, and with the assistance of Col Gell, placed it in the shell; we screwed down the lid. The other bodies were removed and reburied in the military cemetery

outside my headquarters at St Pol."

Regards

John

[Tom Morgan]

Peter's post reminds us that journalists looking for a seasonal story often make mistakes, so they end up reporting inaccuracies. But the Telelegraph article is unforgivable because it's all written to lead to that final paragraph. The point of the article seems to be that behind all the formal show and pomp, the reverence and respect, there was an organisation which had no respect - which threw bodies into shell holes, covered them up and walked away - job done, men forgotten, and we have all been fooled.

This does a great disservice to the men who stayed on in France, Belgium and elsewhere to make sure that no-one was forgotten if it was humanly possible, and to their modern-day successors who can be seen at work every day when we visit the battlefields.

It's just appalling.

Tom

[JimSmithson]

"According to the letter written to the Daily Telegraph by Brigadier Wyatt in November 1939"

The fact that there exists such a letter makes the article the more disturbing for its lack of research and attempted journalistic effect. We should all write and complain to the S.T. on behalf of any of the relatives of the Brigadier and all others involved for deformation of character.

Jim

[edwin astill]

No doubt the Telegraph paid well for this, and in good faith. They should ask for their money back... they have not had the goods they might have reasonably expected to get (unless they asked for the article to be 'spiced' up).

Edwin

[geraint]

The dark side of deliberately publishing this sort of misinformation is that it creates future urban myths. Am I being presumptuous in stating that in 10 years time this 'story' will be relayed as 'fact' in schools, and will be hard to rebut.

[peter__m]

The dark side of delibertely publishing this sort of missinformation is that it creates future urban myths. Am I being presumptuous in stating that in 10 years time this 'story' will be relayed as 'fact' in schools, and will be hard to rebut.

Absolutely and I can see it being the only part of the tale told by the teacher in some future classroom that pupils will remember.

[rendellers]

This point deeply troubled me when I read The Unknown Soldier by Neil Hansen p 434

'Wyatt said that the other bodies were at once reinterred in the military cemetary at St Pol, but a later and perhaps more accurate account claimed that their burial site was deliberately more obscure. The area had been the scene of heavy fighting, and there were shell holes and "old trenches running in all directions. The burial party quickly selected a spot and ... the three bodies were buried in a shell hole on the road to Albert, to which the chaplain added a simple prayer'

sources cited as Brigadier General Wyatt letter to Daily Telegraph 11 Nov 1939 and Sir Cecil Smith to the Dean of Westminster July 1978 Westminster Abbey

Can anyone clarify further?

[Heid the Ba]

It would take very good evidence to make me overlook the words of the man concerned.

[centurion]

Even if Hansens account is true (which I doubt) it is still far from 'tipped into a shell hole'. It seems clear that whatever happened the bodies were reburied with some reverence. This seems more of the "wicked high ups doing down the poor soldier" stuff that emerges from some quarters (including some, but not all, recent BBC reports).

If one asks 'who benefits' the authorities had no motive for just dumping the bodies. If they wanted to ensure that no clue remained as to the service to which the body chosen belonged just burying the other bodies in the usual anonymous 'known only to God' grave would have sufficed. Ah but no doubt Wyatt was just another 'wicked general'!

[edwin astill]

Having read the extract above from Hansen (thanks, Rendellers) I wonder if that account differs from the treatment given to other unknown soldier remains at that time - ie buried with a chaplain reading a simple prayer. I presume the spot would have been marked with a wooden cross, and at some later stage incorporated into a CWGC site. I would not have expected the three to have had any more or less than the thousands of their comrades being found at that time.

Edwin

[Brian Curragh]

Hopefully someone can write to the Telegraph & put them right?

Brian

[jay dubaya]

What piffle. What utter piffle.

Just about sums up modern media reporting on the Great War.

Jon

[rendellers]

I wonder what happened to cause Wyatt to write to the Sundayor Daily Telegraph in Nov 1939 (other than the obvious Remembrance connection)?

[geraint]

I've read Hanson's discription a few times (p434), and perhaps, in all honesty, if his account is true, then the Telegraph has only reported the event using today's orthography. Perhaps it does appear callous today, but in 1918 the obvious need to inter thousands of bodies was a health necessity. Thousands of others had been quickly buried in shellholes and trenches, and to the inured burial party these three were no different. At least they had a chaplain to pray over them. I do agree with Edwin above.

Still, even in those circumstances, one could have hoped for a better outcome. But that is putting today's values in the minds of men who were closely involved in that war 90 years ago.

[dfaulder]

This point deeply troubled me when I read The Unknown Soldier by Neil Hansen p 434

'Wyatt said that the other bodies were at once reinterred in the military cemetary at St Pol, but a later and perhaps more accurate account claimed that their burial site was deliberately more obscure. The area had been the scene of heavy fighting, and there were shell holes and "old trenches running in all directions. The burial party quickly selected a spot and ... the three bodies were buried in a shell hole on the road to Albert, to which the chaplain added a simple prayer'

sources cited as Brigadier General Wyatt letter to Daily Telegraph 11 Nov 1939 and Sir Cecil Smith to the Dean of Westminster July 1978 Westminster Abbey

Can anyone clarify further?

I cannot necessarily offer clarification, but might try to offer an alternative possible narration from the description above.

The ideal of the "unknown soldier" was that he should be unknown.

To reinforce this those in the final selection should also remain unknown.

Therefore the unselected needed to be returned to a state of anonymity so that they could not be identified as being part of the final selection group ("deliberately more obscure").

At the time the easiest way to do this was to (re)bury them in a similar manner to an in-battle burial; a placing in a convenient hole, a covering over, a prayer, and a cross so that at a later stage more appropriate final provision could be made.

I don't think I can object to this narrative.

David

[David Filsell]

As an ex journo I am not swift to come to the defence of them, but genuine mistakes do happen, not through stupidity, or carelessness but because of pressure, inability to find sources, misleading "experts", ignorance and a variety of reasons. Not least sub editors "correct" copy. Few papers and magazines have "fact checkers" like Readers' Digest did (and perhaps still does) When I started working with - not on - national papers each of them had a range of specialist correspondents. At one time the Daily Telegraph had three motoring writers on strength. Virtually all specialities had similar teams, with particular expertise within the speciality. Finally you are only as good as your sources - and I have been lied to and mislead by independent experts who should have know the facts. Now news teams are far smaller, there are less specialist writers and more freelances and the pressure is far greater - particularly when you consider the sheer range of media which they have to serve. It was a bad mistake but most journos do their damdest to get it right - and most papers are fairly well prepared to publish corrections. Thankfully, I have never made a mistake serious enough to be flogged round the fleetr- or told a deliberate lie (even as a PR man - although there were times when I had to give less than the full truth). However but for the grace of God I could have been the man who dropped such a clanger - at was ignorant, but I think not deliberately malicious.

[NigelS]

At the time the easiest way to do this was to (re)bury them in a similar manner to an in-battle burial; a placing in a convenient hole, a covering over, a prayer, and a cross so that at a later stage more appropriate final provision could be made.

I don't think I can object to this narrative.

David I find your narrative far more agreeable, and would hope that that is what actually happened; the version given in the article indicates a total lack of reverence and, hopefully, is just "piffle". I can't understand why an article which had, at least in my eyes, been sound until then was ended in such a "shock & awe" manner, particularly as, from what has been said previously, there appears to have been no real evidence of the "tipped" and "promptly forgotten" comments.

NigelS

[ChrisC]

See letter in today's Sunday Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...getRule=0#head9

Chris C

[geraint]

Thanks for that Chris.