Fromelles - The searches past and present

[ianw]

In my opinion this is the most interesting recent Fromelles thread but it is not in the Fromelles section of C & Ms. Could this be remedied?

This thread has also developed to cover a much broader discussion of many of the facets of the 95 year history of Fromelles, the battlefield clearances etc and the thread description sells it very very short.

A considerable light is hidden under a bushel here. I am sure other Forum pals have valuable insights to add to this thread but may well not be aware of it.

[Scotty]

I agree Ian. I'm sure there are many potential contributors to this topic who are unaware of the thread. Scotty.

[green_acorn]

Pals

I do not think that it alters the sentiment of Hendo’s point but for clarity there was no use of Chinese, Indian or African Labour Corps in the main 1919 clearance and concentration process. I quite believe that in their work of clearing debris, munitions and filling shell holes and trenches they would have discovered bodies but they were not formally given areas to search.

A detachment of Canadians cleared around Courcelette and the Australians around Villers-Bretonneux (not Pozieres as is often stated). The rest of the area allotted to Britain was cleared by British Labour Companies. Other areas were cleared by the French.

Peter

Peter,

Thank you very much for the clarification on the use of the various labour corps units. As you suggest, the sentiment doesn't really change, when you become so inured to death, maintaining respect and generous humanity can be difficult.

Cheers,

Hendo

[green_acorn]

I have only gotten to my PC after quite a few hours. I have not read the new page of comments yet, but I would like to ask the mods to separate the content referring to the Live TV coverage which I thought would be a quite a short thread, and lock it. Thank you David Faulder for bringing it to my attention. Could the mods move the discussion about the conduct of the immediate post war and more recent searches to a new thread in "Battlefields" which reflects the content of what I believe, thanks to the contribution of pals such as Auimfo (Tim L), Scotty and IanW, has become a most interesting and important thread. May I suggest something like "Fromelles - The searches past and present".

Cheers,

Hendo

[ianw]

I had a quick look at the AWM records and found the record of Captain Allen Charles Waters Kingston DCM MSM.(NAA 7373109) He had a good war enlisting in September 1914 as a former farm hand and winning the DCM in late 1918. So I suppose as a decorated war hero, he was pretty much bomb-proof. As an ex-ranker he would have been happy carousing with the NCOs. One can see why Lt Lee had to go. Has anyone else tried to find the files of any of the other main protagonists.

I note that Major Allan rears his head again (in "Clearing the Dead" by Hodgkinson linked earlier in this thread)) accusing exhumers at Hooge(?) of splitting bodies to increase the body count. More controversy. Again, Allan is an interesting character -looking a little like a jovial Vincent Price to my eye. I wonder how long he stayed in France and Belgium. He seemed to have powerful supporters such as Birdwood.

Pleased to see Hendo's posting so that we can hopefully give more Pals access to this thread. I am sure there will be some very interesting further information out there.

[AlanCurragh]

Hendo - I think the easiest thing to do is rename this thread and move it to the Fromelles section - I don't think there is a way we can "clone" it and create a copy for the TV discussion

Alan

[ianw]

Great that it's now appearing in the Fromelles Section with Hendo's suggested name change.

Hopefully this will prompt some more interest and comments.

[Scotty]

Pals,

As Peter mentioned on an earlier post, the Australian participation in the recovery of the fallen ceased around August 1919. From that point on the AGS required permission from the IWGC for any exhumation work. I came across a case a few years ago that highlights this requirement. In 1921 the OC at Base Records (Melbourne) contacted the AGS with a slight problem. He was in possession of two different location sheets for one soldier. The soldier was shown to be buried in two different military cemeteries, about 5k apart. I’d rather not identify this soldier on the forum, and I’ll refer to the cemeteries as X and Y. To add to the mystery there was a full regimental cross erected to this soldier over the grave in cemetery X. The OC of the AGS, Major Phillips, contacted the IWGC asking for details regarding the grave in cemetery Y. The IWGC replied that they held an exhumation report for the cemetery Y grave that included a disc positively identifying the soldier. As for the grave at cemetery X with the regimental cross, it was to be marked as an unknown Australian. Major Phillips replied to the IWGC stating that this would be a dangerous thing to do without further investigation into the cemetery X grave. Requests for an exhumation were denied. I have attached an excerpt of Major Phillips’s reply to Base Records (Feb. 1922) on the matter. It’s a shame that the soldier in cemetery X had an excellent chance of identification, yet permission for an exhumation was denied. According to Phillips, this was in no way an isolated case. Scotty.

[ianw]

Scotty,

Is it clear why the AGS had the ability to do exhumations removed from it. Am I right in presuming that the Canadians also lost the right to do exhumations? Was this just a concentration/rationalisation of exhumation activity under the British or a reaction to perceived inadequacies in

exhumations done by the Australians?

[Peter Woodger]

Hi

The Australians offered to clear the area around Villers-Bretonneux. When this was completed they sent their men home. The men had already exceeded their service of War plus 4 momths and they were still paid a great deal more than the British.

Peter

[Peter Woodger]

Hi

We are on the verge of entering a discussion that could create a loss of confidence in the registers of who is buried or commemorated in CWGC cemeteries. This is not necessarily a problem but we should all be aware that it could upset some.

When I was working and we had a problem where it could be a c**kup or a conspiracy we always assumed the former. I do not believe the many problems we could bring up to be a conspiracy.

Let us clarify the procedure between the Army and IWGC. During the 1919 concentration and clearance exercise the role of the IWGC was one of layout design. All the work of record checking and creating belonged to the Army.

The Labour Companies would submit burial returns to DAD (C of G) (effectively GRU). The information on these forms along with any effects found with the body and GRU files on the man would be examined and a Location Sheet would be produced. This “living” document would be checked by the Army records branch and often minor corrections of numbers or spelling would be made. Sometimes there would be no trace of the man whose name was on the location sheet. ( I have tried to find many of these men but have also come up with no trace)

The next step was to issue “living” copies of form W 3372. These were in effect an update of the burial return being in the same order of burials. The form still listed the map reference at which the body was found. These may still require small correction but finally a W3372 marked “Comprehensive Report” was issued and this was now in grave order and in multiple pages covered the whole cemetery.

At the handover of a completed cemetery to the IWGC the Comprehensive Report 3372 was what they formally received. IWGC also informally received some burial returns for some cemeteries.

Active searching for bodies ceased in mid 1922 the Army went home in September 1921. From this date on any bodies found during reconstruction were reported and IWGC gardeners would complete the exhumation and perform the reburial.

The reporting procedure was the same as earlier and eventually extra pages would be added to the 3372. I believe that this meant that IWGC staffs were burying in certain cemeteries that had not yet been handed over to them but I am not sure. There are examples of late burials in cemeteries that had had their registers produced, Ovillers and Point 110 New are examples.

In summary the Army (GRU) were always responsible for naming those buried but I believe that IWGC was responsible for the special memorials that commemorate those “Known to be buried” (KTBB) or “Believed to be buried” (BTBB)

When I first saw a KTBB I thought that there was paperwork to show that he was buried but the site of the burial was lost. I am now convinced that these small numbers of cases are covered by headstone with “Buried near this spot”. I supposed that BTBB meant that there used to be paperwork like KTBB but they had lost that as well.

In many cases that I have researched the evidence falls well short. If a Cross was found on the battlefield, either loose or with no body found under it, it was taken to the concentration cemetery in use at that time because it was the intention to make Memorial plots for the missing.

There are cases where the cross was, by accident, erected over a grave but subsequently evidence is produced, but not recorded on file, which proves the grave to belong to someone else. The IWGC then argues that since the man to whom the memorial cross applied was buried in an area from which a substantial number of unidentified bodies were found and reburied in the cemetery then he must have been one and a memorial stone with Known to be buried is erected.

There are many cases where again the cross was placed over a burial and in all good faith the NOK was informed that this was the burial place of the late soldier. The mistake would not come to light until later when the man’s body was found on the battlefield and formally identified. Only then would rechecking prove that a notice of the finding of a cross had been misinterpreted as an exhumation.

Sometimes the body under the cross was exhumed again to see if identification was possible but of the cases I have read this was never positive which may be why reluctance was shown in the case Scotty quotes.

Just one more case, 3 men were buried in a single grave. On exhumation only 1 body was found. That 1 body is buried as unknown but there are memorials to all three as KTBB.

There are bound to be errors when you consider the conditions. I can feel regret over some cases but do not feel the need to blame anyone.

Peter

[Peter Woodger]

Hi

There is a 1922 in the middle of my monlog which should read 1921 but I cannot make the editor work

Peter

[ianw]

Peter,

Thanks for taking the time to give us the benefit of your obviously considerable knowledge of these matters.

I for one accept what is recorded in the registers and engraved on the stones of the cemeteries but am also fascinated by the processes and personalities involved in creating them. Given how ghastly this work was, you will never hear me blaming anyone for any of the inevitable shortcomings.

However, I would say that the process may well have been declared closed prematurely and I would blame the parsimony of Governments for that.

As regards the personalties, involved I have now reviewed the whole of Captain Kingston's record and note that none of his "problems" in France

are referred to in his record.

Regards Ian

[Scotty]

Ian,

I’ve never come across any documentation informing the AGS they were not permitted to carry out exhumations. One can only assume that their wings may have been clipped due to the indiscipline that had occurred at Villers Bretonneux. Also keep in mind that the AGS was not an AIF unit, it was run via Australia House in London by the Australian Government.

Peter,

I agree we are entering some sensitive areas here. That’s why I didn’t reveal the name of the soldier or the cemeteries involved in my previous post. I too have seen several cases of a regimental cross being located and registered in a cemetery, only to be discounted as of a ‘memorial nature’ a year or two later. Unfortunately errors, be they of the administrative type or an error in judgement, are part of the human condition. They no doubt occurred in the 1920s during the massive task of battlefield clearances, particularly without the aid of todays technology. Glaring errors can still be produced in this age of satellite navigation , mobile computers and phones. One excellent example I can give happened to me in 2008. After about six years of research and two years of waiting, my g-uncles brand new headstone was placed in Bray Vale British Cemetery. The big problem was that the contractor who did the work erected the stone 10 graves away from where my uncle is buried! Combine that with the error in 1923 that consigned my uncle to a misidentified grave for 90 years and you have a couple beauties that my family have had to cop on the chin without complaint. I intend to start a topic regarding the 2008 error, but I can’t decide if it should be in ‘Cemeteries and Memorials’ or ‘Strange Occurances on the Western Front’.

[topsey1234]

Just warched the TV covrage. Magnificent. At the very end the commentator said that Lambis was on the verge of another discovery.

Any more been said about this potential discovery?

Richard

[green_acorn]

Peter,

Thank you for the very informative post. I wholeheartedly agree with your comment that we could step into territory which would upset many and I would hope that Pals are mindful of this and focus on the searches for the Fromelles Fallen. As you say when you consider the conditions of the ground at the time; the circumstances and passage of war since the initial burial or loss; the sheer size of the recovery task; the complexity of the record keeping and verification task; the psychological pressure of the task on the individual and nation; and, the social, political and financial needs and circumstances of the time, there were most unfortunately bound to be errors. I too regret that errors occurred, but like you, I don't blame any individual let alone the CWGC.

Events that culminated in the ceremony at the new Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery are unique: the quality, commitment and eloquence of Lambis Englezos and friends evidence which convinced the Australian Army to investigate further; the decision of the then Chief of the Australian Army and the Government of Australia that it was morally correct to investigate further; the diplomatic agreement of both France and Great Britain on the search despite the long standing 1922 agreement; the most generous agreement of the land owner to the search and her subsequent offer to gift the land to the CWGC; the acceptance of the compelling argument by the Australian Army and MODUK to apply current forensic testing standards to each individual found; the generosity of the Fromelles community in ceding valuable land for the cemetery; the number of soldiers that have been able to be reinterred by name because of the compelling archaeological and forensic evidence; the generous and continuing support of the Fromelles community; and I am sure many could add numerous other factors.

Now that Lambis and Friends have enabled this wonderful precedent and in the lead up to the 19th of July 2016, would it not be better to accept that the errors occurred and be thankful that the Court of Enquiry and Germans were diligent in their record keeping and concentrate on finding, recovering and honouring the hundreds of other Fromelles missing?

Best speed to Lambis, the Tim's, Fedelmar and all the others who are involved that I do not know, in your task - Finding the Fallen.

Cheers,

Hendo

[Seadog]

Hendo, a very laudable and glowing testament to the persons, governments and organisations involved with events at Pheasant Wood. However it might be a good idea to ask the question of what is to be the reaction and attitude of those said authorities and governments when the next discovery of soldiers remains are discovered. Will they be just buried with no fuss or even notification to the media or will the investigative techniques used so successfully at Pheasant Wood be extended to "finds" that lend themselves to the possibility of identification by name.

How can the aforementioned authorities disregard the use of DNA matching etc in subsequent suitable cases having now set the benchmark for the identification of our fallen. Was Pheasant Wood a "one off" or will we enter anew era of scientific investigation of those who gave their lives for their country. It will be interesting to see the outcome as the Beaucamps-Ligny 15 are awaiting the deliberations of the British MOD as we speak.

Regards

Norman

[ianw]

Good points from Norman here.

In the recent Fromelles TV programme, Peter Barton stated that there were other pits but left the remark hanging. Might he and Lambis be exchanging notes? Given that the German documentation describing the location of the Fromelles pits was shown, it would seem likely that documentation referring to these other pits has also been discovered either in Germany or Switzerland. Norman asks the obvious question of whether the authorities will welcome the finding of additional unexcavated pits in the area of Fromelles or elsewhere.

I fully agree with Hendo that we have to keep true to the process of recovering and identifying these men. There is no time limit to Remembrance. It would be ironic if officialdom's indecent haste to close down the battlefield clearances in 1921 was in a way repeated 90 years on.

Scotty - thanks for reminding me that the AGS was not an AIF unit but run by Australia House. This well may explain why the Australian PM was so interested in what was going on. Certainly, Fabian Ware was privy to the problems at the AGS which would suggest that the UK Government knew and would have had a "quiet word" at the very least.

[green_acorn]

Hendo, a very laudable and glowing testament to the persons, governments and organisations involved with events at Pheasant Wood. However it might be a good idea to ask the question of what is to be the reaction and attitude of those said authorities and governments when the next discovery of soldiers remains are discovered. Will they be just buried with no fuss or even notification to the media or will the investigative techniques used so successfully at Pheasant Wood be extended to "finds" that lend themselves to the possibility of identification by name.

How can the aforementioned authorities disregard the use of DNA matching etc in subsequent suitable cases having now set the benchmark for the identification of our fallen. Was Pheasant Wood a "one off" or will we enter anew era of scientific investigation of those who gave their lives for their country. It will be interesting to see the outcome as the Beaucamps-Ligny 15 are awaiting the deliberations of the British MOD as we speak.

Regards

Norman

Norman, Ian et al,

I for one, as a simple Australian citizen with no hope, nor ability to, of influencing decisions otherwise, would hope that Pheasant Wood has set the standard that all subsequent recoveries follow, irrespective of whether they be Australian, British, German, Belgium, French and so forth. It would appear that Australia has made the decision that appropriate forensic testing will be done, PTE Mather at Prowse Point and the location, recovery, identification and repatriation to Australia of all missing Australian war dead from Vietnam and one from Borneo in the last five years being cases in point. But I am a pragmatist the decision is a national one, cost, a broad descendants DNA database, and the public interest will always come into it.

With the problems of the UK deficit, I could understand if they said we will take samples and at some point in the near future do testing, but until then we will reinter them all as soldiers of the Great War - not ideal, not sensible and I doubt they would be as silly not to do the necessary tests - but in the circumstances it would be pragmatic to bean counters in Treasury). Maybe it would be better to pen a short letter of enquiry formally posing the questions directly to your responsible national politicians? Not much joy will come from a fora like this.

Now, getting back to a question I had a few days ago, are all the file from the 1919 Fromelles/AGS Court of Enquiry online?

Cheers,

Hendo

[spof]

I fear I may have a problem with that as I may have inadvertently "zapped" the original larger image. I have some others but they are not as good - I had to take the shots quickly with 2 grumpy gendarmes wanting me to leave the area tout de suite and was also a good way away so had to use the full telephoto. I just got lucky with the original shot. Absolutely maddening but there you go.

However, happy to send you what I have got.

Regards Ian

Not quite as good as Ian's but there is a good image in the CWGC Image Library

http://www.cwgc.org/fromelles/?page=english/image-library

[spof]

Now, getting back to a question I had a few days ago, are all the file from the 1919 Fromelles/AGS Court of Enquiry online?

Cheers,

Hendo

Hendo

Go to page 3 of this thread and Scotty has posted a link in post #82. I don't trustthe NAA website to copy the link myself.

Have fun going through 790 pages

Glen

[ianw]

The official photographer was with the wagon when it was standing in front of Pheasant Wood but they seem to have not posted a picture of this -although the one they chose is very fetching.

If anyone wants a copy of the shots that I have remaining, I would be happy to email them. I think the closure of the path that I approached Pheasant Wood on would mean that no other pictures will have been taken by the general public of the wagon standing in front of the wood atop the pits.

[green_acorn]

SPOF Glen,

Thanks mate, I have that. It is only the general correspondence file to the Enquiry, I was wondering if anyone had the link to the other files, I would assume there is a Proceedings and Report file. But I will keep searching as no doubt they have also been digitised after Lambis and friends accessed them.

Cheeers,

Hendo

[Fedelmar]

On behalf of Tim L and myself ... thank you Hendo

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[ianw]

Is anyone Pal familiar with the Aussie archives aware if the interesting W.F. Macbeath Diaries (AWM PR00675) are available electronically?

He says some fairly ascerbic things about both the officers and men involved in the Australian clearances - basically saying that the roughest lot of officers were necessarily deployed to control the roughest lot of men. One can quite see why Captain Kingston DCM MSM would have been a good choice given his ability to communicate as an equal with the men but he appears to be less of a "poacher turned gamekeeper" than a poacher just given a nicer hat and a pay rise.