David_Bluestein Posted 15 April , 2003 Share Posted 15 April , 2003 The case of 2224 Dmr. Stanley George Watson 1/4th Cheshire Regt. Died of wounds received at Gallipoli, and buried at sea. CWGC: Listed as Died on August 27th 1915 (Helles Memorial) SDGW: Listed as Died at Sea August 27th 1915 From Original letter by brother Capt. H.M. Watson RE states: “…H.M.T. Euripides was pressed into service as a hospital ship and on passage from Imbros to Alexandria Drummer S.G. Watson together with certain other gunshot wound casualties died of their wounds and were buried at sea, 19 August 1915.” Log Book of the H.M.T. Euripides: “Drummer S.G. Watson shown as Died of wounds and buried at sea also the 19th August 1915.” Magnificent Brass Plaque from local village church shows his date of death as: August 18, 1915. Well there you have the mystery! I have been researching this soldier for many months, and have become more and more confused as I go. I have three possible dates of death. I was anxious to get thoughts from other forum members as to what date you believe? Or where do I go from here? Much thanks in advance David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenwoodman Posted 16 April , 2003 Share Posted 16 April , 2003 I would be inclined to go for the log book of Euripides. It is an official legal document completed at the time. And therefore should be accurate. The only thing that would alter that is if the entry had been made on completion of all business (ie after the burial). And therefore he may have died during the day/night before his burial. Thus died 18th, buried 19th, logged on completion 19th. The word "also" may cast doubt, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 16 April , 2003 Share Posted 16 April , 2003 Agree with Richard entirely, plus I have personally come across some errors on CWGC. As for Soldiers Died Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 16 April , 2003 Share Posted 16 April , 2003 The log is probably correct although the actual log should be viewed to be certain. Even though probably correct, the info is still second hand being quoted in a letter by a relative. We all know how n-o-k info can sometimes be wildly out! The CWGC & SDGW lists come from the same source (ie the military) and so it is not surprising that they agree (though not always the case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Bluestein Posted 16 April , 2003 Author Share Posted 16 April , 2003 Ian and Richard, I tend to agree with both of you. I have felt from the start that the ships Log must be the most accurate. The question then becomes, where on earth did CWGC get August 27? Also, was SDGW records compiled after CWGC records or the other way around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 16 April , 2003 Share Posted 16 April , 2003 CWGC and SDGW were compiled from the same sources generally and these will be the origin of the error with the later lists just perpetuating the mistake. Both these lists were initially compiled with info supplied by the War Office. Of course, the church date could actually be correct depending on the time of death and burial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 16 April , 2003 Share Posted 16 April , 2003 We have the luxury of being able to compare databases in the touch of a computer key. The people who prepared these lists worked on a purely manual basis. I am always surprised they got the vast majority of the info. correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Bluestein Posted 16 April , 2003 Author Share Posted 16 April , 2003 Ian, I have always been a great supporter of the CWGC and the fine work they do. As you say, the method by which information was gathered would have been difficult without assistance from the modern machines of today. Yet, they obiously did their work with great care and concern for the most accurate information they could find at the time. Given the numbers of war dead, a seemingly impossible task! My hats off to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenbecker Posted 16 April , 2003 Share Posted 16 April , 2003 I agree, Ships log is the best. So many deaths around the April 25th-28th 1915 were unclear and could only be given as an approx. Many AIF are simply list as KIA 25th April 1915 when they could have died at any time around then. S.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Bluestein Posted 17 April , 2003 Author Share Posted 17 April , 2003 I have seen the same for Canadians killed during that very same approx. time frame of April 22-30 1915, at the 2nd Ypres. The fighting must have been so intense and confusing that many casualties were listed as "Killed April 22-25 1915". (I'm sure this would have been true for other actions of the war, particularly at the Somme.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 17 April , 2003 Share Posted 17 April , 2003 Someone has contacted me off-line and asked that I apologise for my laughing smilie after mentioning SDGW on this thread. I wholeheartedly apolgise for any offence this may have caused. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now