War cemeteries a sham?

[egbert]

Mike, your revelations are always stunning. Thanks for digging this up -some early posters here won't like it.

Not quite on subject , but anyway interesting:

http://skegnessvideo.com/2010/02/war-grave-identity-mix-up-soldier-still-alive/

[ph0ebus]

There is also plenty of historical precedent for collections of unidentified remains to be divided up amongst grieving families so that each could have a funeral. Give it a google and see... If it is happening today (and it is), I see no reason why it was not happening back then.

-Daniel

[Guest]

Grey River Argus, 28 May 1920, Page 3

Click

" WAR GRAVES IN GERMANY. GERMAN RECORDS UNRELIABLE

A CASE IN POINT.

(Received at 5.5 p.m. May 27). LONDON, May 26. Australia House is investigating a complaint arising out of alleged obstruction by officers of the Graves Section in order to prevent a relative from Australia from attending the exhumation of the body of a soldier who died in captivity. It is understood the Australian authorities accepted the German report regarding the grave, but the relative made enquiries during a visit to France, and became suspicious that the report was inaccurate, The relative applied for leave to attend, when in accordance with practice, the body was being exhumed preparatory to burial in an Australian cemetery. The relative complains that obstacles were placed in the way, but finally, by British intervention, he saw the grave opened. It then transpired the grave contained six British soldiers, but no Australian. The mistake was obviously due to faulty German records. "

Mike

[geraint]

Ohh dear! This is becoming a can of worms! it makes you truly wonder as to how reliable all inhumation records at all the mass carnage cemeteries really are.

[Guest]

STILL UNBURIED

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 45, 23 February 1931, Page 9

Verdun

STILL UNBURIED

FRENCH DEAD AT VERDUN

NEW OSSUARY NOT YET READY

LONDON, 21st February.' "The Times" Paris correspondent states that the terrific slaughter at Verdun,' estimated at 400,000, is recalled by 'the revelation that the bodies of 12,500 French soldiers are still lying unburied in an enormous shed at Douaumont, packed in sevens in rough wooden boxes, not even nailed down and sometimes without lids.

A total of 9800 has lain unburied for six years. M. Deribes, Minister of Pensions, who is in charge of the war graves, has investigated the matter, and explains that the new ossuary is not yet ready, and the bodies must be "provisionally accommodated."

He deplores the fact that they are so long unburied, and says that the problem is complicated by constant additions clue to the accidental discovery of bodies at the rate of 5OO a month

He adds that there is no question of searching the Verdun battle area for the dead, as the remainder, estimated in tens, or even hundreds, of thousands must be left in the soil. The digging up of such a vast expanse-is impossible. It is recalled that the ossuary at Douaumont was opened in 1927, and has long been crammed, to capacity ■with 8000 bodies.

Mike

[SteveMarsdin]

Does anyone believe that there are no human remains buried in the CWGC cemeteries?

Does anyone believe that every single grave marker carries the correct details of the man it represents, and that it is precisely positioned above his remains?

As Chris intimated earlier, all these "revelations" do nothing to suggest differently. Given the scale of the operations and varying methods employed, deliberate and accidental errors will have occurred.

[egbert]

ALIVE, BUT DEAD.

WAR OFFICE METHODS

SOLDIER'S NOVEL RETALIATION

'By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Aust.-N.Z. Cable Association.) London, November 5.

One of the most curious war sequels is a much-wounded Buckinghamshire man who long ago applied for a pension. After some- delay he was informed that he was dead. He replied denying the accusation, but the correspondence was abruptly closed by the War Office giving him the number of his grave and its location. He now objects to paying income tax.

[ph0ebus]

ALIVE, BUT DEAD.

WAR OFFICE METHODS

SOLDIER'S NOVEL RETALIATION

'By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Aust.-N.Z. Cable Association.) London, November 5.

One of the most curious war sequels is a much-wounded Buckinghamshire man who long ago applied for a pension. After some- delay he was informed that he was dead. He replied denying the accusation, but the correspondence was abruptly closed by the War Office giving him the number of his grave and its location. He now objects to paying income tax.

I like the cut of that fella's jib!

I wish we had this fellow's name. I wonder, does he still have a grave?

-Daniel

[SteveMarsdin]

He now objects to paying income tax.

Thanks for posting this and your Skeggy link, Egbert. It just highlights the confusion that can occur when you're dealing with hundreds of thousands of deaths. It is of great credit to those responsible that we can still view with reasonable certitude the last resting place of so many of the identified victims.

[silkman3811]

This is clearly an emotive subject. It seems to be a modern day phenomenon to always look for a "second gunman".

Below is a fascinating excerpt from an article called 'Clearing The Dead' by Peter E. Hodgkinson, a contributor to the WW1 Resource Centre.

If you've not already seen it, the article examines the process of the clearance and burial of the remains of British soldiers from the Great War battlefields; and some of the practical, psychological, social, and political issues that surrounded this. It gives first hand accounts from soldiers who participated in this ghastly but necessary procedure.

Considering the scale of the task, I have no doubt that mistakes were made, remains placed in the wrong graves and an incalculable number of remains not exhumed... but for anyone who seriously believes that there are empty CWGC burial sites all over Flanders, or that there was some sort of conspiracy, please take the time to read the article...

Post-War Exhumation - The Army's Response (November 1918 - September 1921)

The end of the war left uncleared recent dead, isolated graves, and a myriad of accidental inhumations. Three tasks now faced DGR&E and the Imperial War Graves Commission (IWGC) which had come into being on 21 May 1917. The first was to concentrate an estimated 160,000 isolated graves; the second was to concentrate small cemeteries into larger ones; and the third was to locate and identify the missing, estimated at over half a million.

A memo from Major-General J. Burnett Stuart to the War Office, dated 14 March 1919 records the start of the process of exhumation.³⁴ On 18 November 1918 the Adjutant-General hosted a conference on the matter at GHQ. Three days later exhumation work began in the 5th Army Area and was extended to the 3rd and later 1st Army areas. Volunteers were recruited with extra pay of 2/6d. per day. The Canadians offered to search the Albert/Courcelette area and Vimy Ridge,³⁵ the Australians followed suit at Pozieres and Villers Bretonneux.³⁶ Although the British began to search the Aisne/Marne area for 1914 casualties, the French took this over, maintaining responsibility for three areas north of Amiens: Kemmel Ridge, Meries and Meteren; an area just south of Arras ; and Sailly to Bray.

The sheer physical difficulties of the work were significant. On the devastated battlefields much initial effort had to be directed into erecting accommodation and providing supplies. The weather added to difficulties - on 20 January 1919 frost stopped work. Up to this point five to six men were required each working day to exhume each body, transport it to the cemetery and re-inter it. When work resumed on 17 February 1919 nine men were required per exhumation per day. By 14 March 1919 there had been only 1,750 exhumations (excluding Canadian efforts). Manpower rapidly became a problem - with demobilisation, volunteers began to disappear. An undated memo of a meeting at which both Winston Churchill and Field-Marshal Haig were present, noted the 33,000 "labour men surplus at home who are retainable," but records the decision to pursue the route of volunteers.³⁷ It was estimated in March 1919 that 12,000 men would be necessary. This was increased the following month to 15,000 Labour Company personnel, 1,500 Cemetery Party personnel and 1,787 DGR&E personnel. By 17 May Major-General Burnett Stuart was requesting 15 more "grave registration squads" from England.³⁸

The area of conflict was divided into three areas. The southern area was based at Peronne; the two other areas based on Assistant Directors DGR&E at Douai and Lille. These areas were subdivided further. The process of exhumation was as follows.³⁹ A Survey Officer selected 500 yard squares to be searched, indicating to the Burial Officer the anticipated number of remains based on the records of DGR&E. These were often inaccurate. In one map square of 1000 square metres "information reported 11 isolated graves, careful search reveals 67. In another area in one fortnight no remains found under 4% of crosses erected."⁴⁰

Exhumation companies comprised squads of 32 men. Each squad was supplied with "two pairs of rubber gloves, two shovels, stakes to mark the location of graves found, canvas and rope to tie up remains, stretchers, cresol (a poisonous colourless isomeric phenol) and wire cutters."⁴¹ A stake was placed where remains were found.

Experience was the only method of knowing where to dig. Indeed, the IWGC noted "Unless previously experienced men are employed...80% of the bodies which remain to be picked up would never be found."⁴² Indications of remains included:

i. Rifles or stakes protruding from the ground, bearing helmets or equipment;

ii. Partial remains or equipment on the surface or protruding from the ground;

iii. Rat holes - often small bones or pieces of equipment would be brought to the surface by the rats;

iv. Discolouration of grass, earth or water - grass was often a vivid bluish-green with broader blades where bodies were buried, while earth and water turned a greenish black or grey colour.⁴³

The remains were placed on cresol soaked canvas. For identification purposes, a careful examination of pockets, the neck, wrists and braces for identification tags was required. A description of attempts to identify a late exhumation might be as follows:

Exhumed a grave found in a wood between St Marguerite and Missy. This grave contained an unknown British soldier wearing boots made by UNITY CO-OP SOCY LTD RINGSTEAD 1913. The remains were found in a swamp and had to be recovered from a foot of water. Nothing by which the remains could be identified could be found.⁴⁴

Another soldier was found at Tower Hamlets, Ypres in December 1921: Body reported by one of a gang. This was not identified even partially, though very careful search was made, the boots scraped and coloured silk handkerchief examined. This was probably a 1914 soldier as date on boots was 1914. ⁴⁵

Effects found were dealt with as Lieutenant Knee described above. The body was taken to the cemetery and interred under the auspices of the Registration Officer.

Arthur Cooke, an engineer working on Gallipoli (April 1923-July 1924) described the somewhat eccentric exhumation and reburial of Lieutenant-Colonel C. Doughty-Wylie VC:

Within a few inches his body became visible - enveloped in a ragged uniform with belt hunched in a crouched position...my men removed the body from the grave...then they placed his skull at the top of the grave and made a geometric pattern of his bones, even down to the finger bones.⁴⁶

Clearly many men were happy to answer the call to volunteer for this task. The War Diary of the 4th Canadian Infantry Works Company recorded on 19 January 1919 that the request for volunteers was "greatly responded to."⁴⁷ The work proceeded without problems. Thus, the War Diary of HQ Canadian War Graves Detachment notes No. 2 Detachment at Courcelette on 6 June 1919 as "in excellent shape, men contented, working away happily," one of several such references.⁴⁸

Captain J.C. Dunn encountered Australians exhumers at Villers Bretonneux in April 1919 and recorded:

Large numbers of troops were engaged in burying or reburying their numerous dead, left where they fell since the historic advance on August 8th 1918. Most of the actual work was done by troops freshly drafted from England, men who had not previously been in France. ⁴⁹

Things did not proceed as smoothly with the Australians. Private W.F. Macbeath, one of the soldiers described by Dunn, wrote home on 23 April 1919: "I think they have got the roughest lot of officers they could find in the AIF with this unit, and by jove they want them it is the roughest mob I have ever seen, they would just as soon down tools as not."⁵⁰ He continued: "Although we have only been going a few weeks we have had two strikes, we refused to work until we had better means for handling the bodies, had better food and cut out all ceremonial parades." Similarly, Captain A. Kingston reported: "The men were constantly getting drunk... The majority of the men were a bad lot and very inefficient. They were neither dependable nor reliable."⁵¹ Major-General Fabian Ware referred in November 1921 to "Australian officers who should be withdrawn immediately as confusing records and otherwise causing much mischief."⁵²

Clearly there was far more indiscipline in troops in France in general after the Armistice than before it, and the AIF would be seen as having more of a problem in this respect than other elements of the BEF. The extent to which similar problems existed in the British Labour Companies is unclear. Captain W.E. Southgate certainly reported discipline issues and financial irregularity in No. 83 Labour Company working at Cambrai in September 1919.⁵³ This unit, like the Australians, had problems with insufficient materials. He wrote: "This unit joined this group on 18/9/1919 and has only been able to exhume and rebury 190 bodies. This is due to lack of canvas..." He also had transport problems: "There is no Motor Ambulance doing duty with this unit, although one was detailed to report over two months ago." He lacked even the basic requirements: "We have only 30 picks and there is a shortage of shovels (we have about 200 for nearly 500 men)."

It is also possible that this indiscipline was partly related to the nature of task. In January 1920, Brigadier-General E. Gibb, Commanding Officer, British Troops France & Flanders reported that on 3 January 1920 the paper strength of the exhumation companies was 9,000, but the working strength was 4,593 with daily sick parades of 500 men.⁵⁴ It is inconceivable that a significant part of this absenteeism was not stress-related. Major A. Lees, commanding the Graves Registration Unit on Gallipoli wrote in July 1919 of the stress of the task: "One of my section officers went to hospital with a nervous breakdown and I have one or two others on their last legs.⁵⁵

Private W. Macbeath described his job baldly in his diary for 15 April 1919: "Working in the fields digging up the bodies, a very unpleasant job."⁵⁶ Two days later his simple diary entry encapsulated the pity of this task: "Working in cemetery. An English lady came over to see her son's grave, found him lying in a bag and fainted." In describing this incident in a letter home two days later he wrote, with phlegmatic understatement: "I cannot say I am exactly in love with the job." The writer Stephen Graham, who had served as a Private during the war returned to the battlefields in 1920 and detailed his conversations with British exhumers. He noted: "It is a ghoulish work, but they have become as matter of fact as can be."⁵⁷ An exhumer who reports with delight at Ypres that he has found a Brigadier-General missing since 1916 remarks wryly: "It's jolly hard work. But it 'as its better side. Some fellers the other day came on a dug-out with three officers in it, and they picked up five thousand francs between 'em."⁵⁸ Yet Graham was aware of the necessity for psychological defence - another exhumer was asked whether after six months of sleeping on the battlefield he saw ghosts: "The man smiled. He saw none. He felt the presence of none. Imagination did not pull his heartstrings. If it did, he would go mad."⁵⁹

It is notable that the described effects of wartime clearance were emotional in nature, namely depressed mood (and other post-traumatic symptomatology), which was both marked and common, if transitory. The post-war exhumers were more prone to behavioural disturbance: drinking, insubordination, and rowdiness. It would be predicted that the psychological impact of exhumation would be greater on the latter than on wartime clearers because there was no real break to the task, and the distraction of other duties was absent.⁶⁰ It is of course possible that the men who volunteered for this work were those who had no reason to return to civilian life swiftly. Some may have been 'psychological misfits' who would be prone to this 'acting out' behaviour. Lieutenant-Colonel E.A.S. Gell, the senior IWGC representative in France after the Army ceased the clearance task in September 1921, gave a fascinating example of self-selection into this work when he described the IWGC gardener (now responsible for exhumation) at Klein Vierstraat: "The gardener here, who was for 14 years in the 1st Bn. Somerset LI... looks exceedingly gloomy, poor fellow...seems to spend his whole time in the wilderness."⁶¹

The IWGC had a poor view of the efficiency of the way the work was being carried out: "Exhumation Companies, obsessed with the idea that their reputation depended on their concentrating the highest possible number of bodies in the shortest possible time have often paid little or no heed to the essential matter of identification."⁶² (Indeed, identification errors by the British at Hooge Crater led to an inquiry where the Australian Major A. Allen accused some British units of "chopping men in halves in order to double their body returns.")⁶³

On 27 October 1919 Major Lees on Gallipoli wrote home: "We have identified not far short of 10,000 which is a fair average and many more than I thought possible at one time." His attempts to achieve identification are clear in his letters. On 28 August 1919 he wrote: "Ask Harold for an exact description of a Grenadier Guards button. We have found a button on an officer with a crown on top G. R. and G. R. reversed and then a grenade; if it is Grenadier Guards it is Col Quilter, but no one can identify the button." On 10 Oct 1919 he wrote: "Not absolutely certain about Col Quilter's grave. He is buried in rather a mysterious little cemetery where there are 10 candidates for five graves but if I can't find him elsewhere I will give him a home." Lees appears to be implying that he would 'manufacture' identification to put the search of those at home to rest.

Identification was of course the main psychological preoccupation of the bereaved. Corpses could only be identified by the accompanying effects, and remains found with such were very much in the minority. In April 1920 it was noted that of corpses found with effects, 20% were identified by identity discs; 25% were confirmed by discs; 30% were identified by other methods; with 25% unidentifiable.⁶⁴ A name on a compass, a photograph case, a key tab, a spoon or a pipe bowl might reveal the owners name. In France, however, as the task went on, the emphasis on identification fell away. E.A.S. Gell wrote in May 1921 that DGR&E were only undertaking exhumations for identification "when they had the time."⁶⁵ Although 600 bodies a week were being recovered at this time, identification was achieved in only 20% of cases.⁶⁶

The IWGC Replaces the Army

On 6 August 1921 the Colonel Commandant DGR&E certified that with the exception of certain indicated areas, "the whole of the battlefield areas of France and Belgium have been finally researched for isolated graves, both British and German. It cannot be guaranteed that no graves either with or without surface indication remained in the area ..."⁶⁷ Some 204,654 remains had been concentrated.

Yet it was clear the task was far from over. On 12 July 1921 H.R. Chettle, Director of Records at the IWGC had noted: "It is... clear that there is as yet no falling off in the quantity of the results of this work..."⁶⁸ The War Office reported on 8 October 1921 that all military staff involved in exhumation had now returned to England. At the 37th meeting of the IWGC on 18 October it was recorded: "Sir Robert Hudson said that if it was known to the public that bodies were being found at the rate of 200 a week at the time the search parties were disbanded, the public would want an explanation."

Questions were indeed asked in parliament by Captain Thorpe MP, and Sir L Worthington-Evans, Secretary of State for War was forced into the following response reported in the Times on 10 November 1921 to address "public anxiety": Since the Armistice the whole battlefield area in France and Flanders has been systematically searched at least six times. Some areas in which the fighting had been particularly heavy, were searched as many as 20 times. In the spring of 1920 the work was easy and rapid owing to the number of surface indications, but since then in the cases of, approximately, 90% of the bodies found, there was no surface indication. These invisible graves were found by various local indications recognised by the experience of the exhumation parties. It is probable that a number of these invisible graves have you not yet been found, and are likely to be brought to light during the work of reconstruction and in the opening up of areas at present inaccessible owing to the thickness of undergrowth, the marshiness of the land etc. The searching, however was most thorough, as the whole the battlefield area was divided up into map squares, to which a platoon under a subaltern was allotted. The actual search party usually consisted of about 12 men under a senior non-commissioned officer. These parties systematically searched the whole of the surface of the areas.⁶⁹

The public remained unconvinced, as well they might with approximately 300,000 dead unaccounted for. On 17 March 1922 a Mr Chapman, residing in Mailly Mallet wrote to James Gillies, Minister of Lesmahagon, whose son was missing at Serre: "Today a Belgian found a body and reported, on his being questioned he admitted that an old cigarette case was there but had been thrown away. Well, I threatened and frightened him and at midday it is produced and inside it is a photo of the poor fellow with his name and address." On 26 May 1922 he wrote again of "Hundreds if not thousands" of British bodies being exposed. He deemed the two franc reward inadequate when the Frenchman might lose seven or eight francs walking seven kilometres to inform someone of the discovery of remains. He wrote of "The searching and desecration of the dagos who are doing the work of clearing the ground... Last week I pointed out some bodies with the result that an action was immediately taken, identifications secured at least two cases... The whole circumstances are a disgrace to our nationhood." Ghillies then wrote to Captain Elliot MP: "I visited the Somme district in November last. The ground for the most part lay as at the Armistice - & thousands of unknown British soldiers are being brought up as the work of restoration proceeds."⁷⁰

A memo from the Vice Chairman IWGC on 5 May 1921 concluded that "Search might usefully be continued" in the following areas:⁷¹

i. Passchendale - Becelaere - Gheluvelt - Comines - Messines - Zillebeke

ii. Neuville St Vaast - Arleux - Oppy - Gavrelle - Fampoux - Roclincourt

iii. Martinpuich - Geudecourt - Les Boeufs - Combles - Guillemont - Montauban

It might be considered that this roughly corresponds to the whole area of BEF major operations from July 1916 to August 1918.

It was clear to Lieutenant-Colonel E.A.S. Gell, the senior representative of the IWGC in France, that some areas had never been searched. He noted on 16 December 1921: "To Bourlon Wood to see the condition of it, as report goes that large numbers of bodies are still missing there. We worked our way through part of the wood, but soon the tangled undergrowth became so thick that progress was impossible. Brambles grow in such profusion, that I give it as my opinion that no systematic search is possible. I do not believe that wood has ever been searched properly let alone re-searched."⁷² Four days later he noted the same at St. Eloi: "Patches of country are left untouched."

The reasons for areas remaining uncleared appear as follows:

i. The weather conditions at the time of year the areas were searched were unfavourable;

ii. The ground was in too broken a condition;

iii. The area was heavily wooded or excessively marshy, and hence difficult to access;

iv. British volunteer manpower for the task diminished;

v. Private owners, quickly reinstating themselves, made difficulties for access and asked to be allowed to level their own properties;

vi. "The money has been exceeded."⁷³

It is an inescapable conclusion that definition of the army's task as ended in 1921 was arbitrary. Worthington-Evans's statement gave the impression that some turning point had been reached. It had not. The withdrawal of the army was more a response to diminishing manpower, problems on the ground, and finance. The task was simply passed to the IWGC. In April 1922 E.A.S. Gell reported nine gangs of 30 men and 20 gangs of 10 men working at Ypres; 150 men "(mostly Poles) working under an intelligent French foreman,"⁷⁴ at Neuve Chapelle, and 25 gangs working south of the Vermelles-Hulloch Road and on Hill 70 at Loos, this being merely 3 of the 8 areas still being searched. As time went on, the IWGC relied more and more on local reporting as ground was levelled, drainage dug, and roads created. Between 1932 and 1936 4,079 bodies were recovered (7% in Belgium, 93% in France). Fifty-two per cent had been found by metal searchers; 30% by farmers/others; 18% by French government search parties.⁷⁵ The figures for body recovery alone indicate the incompleteness of the task in 1921. 28,036 bodies were found between 1921 and 1928 (with 25% identification),⁷⁶ and approximately a further 10,000 up to 1937.

It was not unreasonable that the transfer of responsibility should have happened sooner or later. The government was not shirking its financial burden as it was, of course, financing the IWGC. That it should have sought to dress this as a task nearly completed (when all involved know this was not the case) was not, perhaps, surprising. Those who argue that the idealisation of the dead (through the developing rituals and memorials on which remembrance focussed) served the inhibition of criticism of Britain's social and political structure must acknowledge that if the dead were consciously being manipulated in this way, the abandonment of the formal search for them was not something likely to support this inhibition. If the decision to downgrade the national effort to recover the war dead was made on a judgement that the public were sufficiently distant from the war and distracted by ritual and monument for this to pass with less resentment, the evidence for it has yet to be found. The evidence suggests it was based on far more prosaic matters such as manpower, local conditions, finance, and, perhaps, simple loss of impetus.

The link to the website page and the rest of the article is: http://www.vlib.us/wwi/resources/clearingthedead.html

[lynbu]

My dad always said dont let the truth stand in the way of a good story I think thats how it went. Remembering Service No 3733 Lance Corporal Thomas Henry Elmore AIF Unit 6th Batallion died 20/09/1917 memorial at Ypres Meningate and Private James Frederick Elmore Service No VX66131 AIF 2 /21st Batallion died 23 / 05 / 1945 aged 23 Commonwealth War Grave Ambon War Cemetary . LEST WE FORGET Lynette

[nigelcave]

Whilst working on my book on Flesquieres in the BE series I came across the interesting fact that two cemeteries there were closed late on - one of which (51st Highland Cemetery) seems to have been well, if not fully, established. The remains were concentrated to Orival Wood cemetery. Whilst on a visit to Maidenhead to the CWGC head office soon after the book came out, I saw the exhumation reports, which seemed to me to be extraordinarily detailed, with descriptions of remains - eg colour of hair, condition of teeth etc etc. I have no problem in believing that the remains there, therefore, are where the headstone says they are.

I am also quite willing to believe that there were some false returns on bodies reported by local people in the post post war clearance period - adding a few British buttons or whatever to a corpse to get the relevant 'bounty', which I have always thought was paid after the GRUs had finished their job. No documentary evidence for this, just what I was told maybe thirty or forty years again and which I heard several times from completely different sources.

As regards 'bogus' headstones, I have always been under the impression that the newer Turkish cemeteries at Gallipoli are just that - either entirely or in great part. Whilst on the subject of Gallipoli it is perhaps worthy of note that the number of men buried in a cemetery CWGC there is usually much much higher than those actually commemorated by a headstone - take, for example, The Farm: several hundred buried there in rows with nothing above them (all unknowns) and only seven special memorials.

[michaeldr]

Quote from Nigel Cave - Posted Today (8 June 2012), 04:36 PM

Whilst on the subject of Gallipoli it is perhaps worthy of note that the number of men buried in a cemetery CWGC there is usually much much higher than those actually commemorated by a headstone - take, for example, The Farm: several hundred buried there in rows with nothing above them (all unknowns) and only seven special memorials.

Surely this is explained by the Helles Memorial and those commemorated thereon: ie they have No KNOWN Grave.

Whereas, I understand that the Special Memorials, commemorate those who are indeed known to be buried in the cemetery, but that the exact location of their grave is not precisely known.

The Şevski Paşa maps of 1916 are highly detailed and show 23 Turkish cemeteries which were established during the fighting or very shortly thereafter. The newer Turkish headstones upon which you comment thus - “As regards 'bogus' headstones, I have always been under the impression that the newer Turkish cemeteries at Gallipoli are just that - either entirely or in great part.” - should perhaps be more charitably viewed as being equivalent to the CWGC's Special Memorials ie: commemorting those known to be buried in the cemetery, but the exact grave location is unclear.

[roel22]

A very informative thread, thanks to all contributors.

Roel

[michaeldr]

more charitably viewed as being equivalent to the CWGC's Special Memorials ie: commemorting those known to be buried in the cemetery, but the exact grave location is unclear.

A further word of explanation on my above remark:

The Şahindere Cemetery is perhaps an example of the “newer” Turkish cemeteries

This is how it is described by Gürsel Göncü & Şahin Aldoğan (translated by Serpil Karacan) in their 'Gallipoli Battlefield Guide', MB Books, Istanbul, 2006, ISBN 975-9191-07-5

“This sheltered area was right behind the southern Turkish defences and during the campaign there was a large field ambulance operating here. It was at this site that initial medical treatment was provided to sick or wounded soldiers serving on the Seddülbahir front. Inevitably, a large cemetery also came into being.

Almost all of the individual and mass graves where soldiers who served with the 1^st, 3^rd, 5^th, 6^th 7^th, 10^th and 11^th Divisions were buried have disappeared as the land was cultivated over the past 91 years. Of the 2177 Turkish soldiers buried here 1969 have been identified. These fallen soldiers are also commemorated by symbolic headstones in the shape of the Turkish military headwear of World War One and their names are written on low walls.”

Personally, I am OK with this form of commemoration: the site has been identified, as has a good majority of those buried there. They are not forgotten

[phil andrade]

Why go to all the bother and expence of doing individual head stone's, when mass graves and a list of names would suffice. How many individual WW1 headstones are there on the Western front ? That's one hell of a illusion to pull off by any organisation without it getting out

To my mind this ranks up there with Holocaust denying,Hitler is still being alive, along with 9/11- Titanic- JFK - Elvis - Add nauseum conspiracy theories.

Agreed.

Every headstone corresponds to a body that has been recovered, known or unknown. Some headstones might record the internment of more than one body.

The memorials to the missing commemorate all those who were never found, or, if found, could not be identified.

The latter are all buried with a headstone marked " Known Unto God."

What on earth would be the reason for erecting a headstone over an empty grave, when all the missing and/ or unidentified are commemorated on those memorials ?

Every headstone represents a body recovered, or, in some cases, more than one body. There are no Cenotaphs in the CWGC cemeteries. Those headtones do not mark empty tombs, even if only fragments are interred beneath.

Phil (PJA)

[Simon Mills]

The notion of knowingly empty graves with headstones seems very unlikely to me.

Aside from the fact that we have to consider that not all of the bodies would have been intact (in some cases it’s quite likely that most of the body might not even have been found), the soil in which they are buried can also be a factor. I don’t know very much about the nature of the soil in northern France and Flanders but I do recall reading that if bodies are buried in a particularly acidic soil then over a period of time the bone material can be dissolved in the water. They found something on these lines when they exhumed several of the Titanic graves in Halifax (Nova Scotia) ninety years after the disaster. Few of the unknown graves that were opened yielded any usable DNA material and the one grave that did had practically nothing left in it, except for a sliver of bone that had apparently been covered by the metal plate on a coffin that had long ago rotted away. Had it not been for the copper salts in the plate protecting the bone then they might not have found anything...

Even so, I wouldn't say that the IWGC didn’t make mistakes. Several years ago I went through a two-year battle with the JCCC to have a name on a grave in the Cyclades changed because an officer in the Graves Registration Unit back in 1919 had incorrectly identified its occupant, but we did get there eventually – even if I did have to drag the MoD into it. When dealing with casualties on the scale of those sustained between 1914 and 1918 it seems inconceivable that there won’t be mistakes, but I don’t think that they would go to the time or expense of inscribing so many headstones just to put them on an empty grave.

S.

[roel22]

I don't believe any graves in the present CWGC-cemeteries are empty.

I'm not too sure about the old battlefield-cemeteries in the period right after the war.

I can imagine the grave-markers weren't always used to mark a grave, but sometimes also to comemmorate fallen soldiers who were left behind in no mans land.

When these markers weren't clearly designed as memorials, it would have been easy to mistake them for grave-markers after the war.

Roel

[phil andrade]

To suggest that the CWGC would knowingly erect headstones over empty graves is an affront to the organisation that has gone to such great pains to ensure that every individual is decently commemorated by name. It fills me with a kind of dismay, when I see that such a suggestion is given any credence whatsoever.

Phil (PJA)

[SiegeGunner]

There are no Cenotaphs in the CWGC cemeteries.

Isn't a Duhallow Block, commemorating men known to have been buried elsewhere, whose graves were subsequently lost, a sort of Cenotaph?

[JimSmithson]

Tend to agree Mick - the 'Known to be Buried...' headstones will not have remains directly with them and do serve as a kind of marker for the fallen who may lie elsewhere in the cemetery. But that is not the argument of this thread as those stones clearly indicate their purpose.

Jim

[ph0ebus]

I was just visiting Long Island National Cemetery earlier, and I submit the following two photos for your consideration, given the topic at hand:

And, the plaque next to this section of headstones:

-Daniel

[phil andrade]

That's an interesting thing to behold, Daniel, thanks.

Presumably each headstone carries a name.

The big difference is, of course, that this American model does not purport to mark internment under every headstone : there is an explicit admission that each marker is for commemoration of a missing body.

The headstones in CWGC cemeteries are very different, in so far as they mark the internment of the dead, either directly beneath or somewhere in the cemetery. It would be a monstrous deceit if the headstones were a "sham", erected purely for an illusion of burial.

What would be the purpose of doing that ?

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

Isn't a Duhallow Block, commemorating men known to have been buried elsewhere, whose graves were subsequently lost, a sort of Cenotaph?

Thank you for pointing that out. I have to admit that I did not know about Duhallow Blocks. I would like to know more about them.

But that is very different from a "smoke and mirrors" attempt to deceive people with sham graves. Not CWGC style, surely ?

Phil (PJA)

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

... There are no Cenotaphs in the CWGC cemeteries. ...

If you mean cenotaph as derived from the Greek - empty tomb - then that claim is way off the mark.

Tom

Edit - sorry, I should have been clearer. I do mean empty graves under headstones in CWGC cemeteries, not some play on words, or edifice (cenotaph) other than a conventional headstone.

Edited 10 June , 2012 by Tom Tulloch-Marshall