CWGC confirms that John Kipling is buried in the correct grave

[Guest]

It is rather sobering to think that there are still over 20,000 British and Commonwealth bodies still in the soil of Loos.

As mentioned much earlier in the thread, if one takes the line that the regiment was not correctly identified, one would really need to have some basis to make this assumption....the consequences are quite onerous. Even if the 600 odd lost subalterns' last sightings could be established, I still think it does not advance the debate; we know that casualties were moved miles during Loos, and that the Field Ambulances in some cases stopped recording names, so even if we find Lt Bloggs of the Countysire Regt was last seen near the Chalk Pits it simply adds to the complexity. Your starting assumption simply makes it less likely to be resolved. We know DNA is not an option (quite rightly in my view) so this may be intractable.

It is clear that rather than prove something from scratch, we are asked to disprove someone's theory:

A: I believe X and you must prove otherwise

B: I believe Y and you must prove otherwise

And the two entrenched sides remain in deadlock. At risk of becoming a crashing bore on this subject, I don't believe there is sufficient proof it is Kipling, but alas the arbiter (MOD/CWGC) does.

[laughton]

For the benefit of those that do not have the IWM Trench Map DVD, I noticed this morning that there is a very good circa September 1915 trench map on the McMaster site from the Chasseaud collection. You can find it at this link:

Auchy - Lens : [Loos Battlefield 1915]

http://digitalarchive.mcmaster.ca/islandora/object/macrepo%3A71109

This large sheet was a redrawing of the earlier (May) Haisnes and Loos demy sheets, which were prepared when the line S of Cuinchy was taken over from the French Tenth Army. These sheets had been copied from the French war plans directeurs (but with British squaring) and printed by the Printing Company RE at GHQ, not at the OS. The Auchy - Lens sheet was superseded by regular series 1:10,000 sheets in July and August 1915, but in fact many formations and units continued to use it up to the start of the Battle of Loos on 25 September;

[CdrSAN]

I've just seen these interesting posts on the Kipling/Jacob puzzle. I've checked the LIR Association website and my father's unpublished book on his Great War experiences in the 1st Bn LIR, RFC & RAF. He, Laurence Dircks & Arthur Jacob joined up very early on and were great friends (known as The 3 Musketeers). Laurie Dircks & Philip Bateman (my father) were school friends (Merchant Taylors, London) who were promoted to full Lt backdated to Sept 1914. They were all at Loos where Dircks was wounded but survived and my father was unscathed. I don't know whether Jacob was also backdated to Lt, but the LIR website lists him as a Lt in their Roll of Honour - see the attached documents from their site. Thus Jacob was buried wearing 2 pips, and Kipling with just one as his promotion was backdated long after his death. These are quotes from my father's memoirs:

"The story of Loos and Hill 70 has been told too often to need repetition, and I will only relate the facts that came to my immediate notice during those fatal 48 hours. At twilight I met Laurie returning from a bombing expedition in the spinney ahead of us and he told me that Jack was dead. He had been shot down almost as soon as he left the trench and must have died without much pain".

"Laurie was in an ambulance on his way to the nearest CCS within half an hour. He was hardly conscious when he left and I felt that I was in for a very bitter spell of duty. Jack was in a grave somewhere in the darkness on our right and Laurie was on his way to England".

JACOB_ARTHUR_LESLIE_HAMILTON.pdf

JacobKIA.doc

[laughton]

1. Laughton. Thanks for the clarification on the Holt's earlier work.

2. Has the CWGC ever reversed a decision on identification? MG

Martin:

I was able to locate the original comment I made about the Holt's work, as I do not want to leave any impression that they are not due full credit for the primary research:

The people that really deserve the credit for this research are Tony and Valmai Holt. If it had not been for their excellent reporting, followed a considerable time later by our research into the Canadian Lt. Donald Wallace McDonald, we would never have come across their work and have been able to assist them in solving the puzzle. The Holt's were first across the finish line, we were a distant second, and at best .....

On the question of the CWGC, the question is partly answered by this case. The grave stone was unnamed until I believe 1992 when it is reported that the CWGC Chief Records Officer (a Canadian) put forward the case for the change. I believe that there current position is that this stone will not be changed. The only case I am personally aware of on a third stone being cut was here in Canada, but that was due to a spelling mistake in the name. If the CWGC was to reverse its stance on the Kipling matter I am afraid it will be the end of any hopes that we have in Canada to name the 50 plus UNKNOWNS we have now identified who are awaiting new stones. I think they will now just say "leave it as it was". That is why we have to abide by the very strict rules that the CWGC set out for our investigations, which require peer review, checks and cross-checks, before any action is taken.

What was missing in the work to date was that there was no Peer Review of the research, at least not that I am aware of at this time. One of the options I am investigating is to have an independent article written that lays out the case presented here, inclusive of your very fine research on the matter of the 2nd Lieutenant rank. That would mean an article written in components by those here at the GWF, assembled into one well written paper. I have contacted Dr. Matthew Ford at the British Journal for Military History to see if they would consider hosting such an article and arrange for the peer review. You do not need to be a member of the academia group to submit a paper to that Journal, so that removes one of the primary blockades, while still allowing for implementation of the peer review process. If it is not peer reviewed it would appear only to be a rebuttal presentation and we would have a case of "he says ... she says". I don't think that would benefit anyone.

Leaving the case "as is" would be a travesty, as the inaccuracies would be "etched in stone" forever.

Richard

[charlesmessenger]

Richard

BJMH is a good idea, but I know that they have quite backlog of papers to publish and so it might be some time before yours sees the light of day.

Charles M

[trajan]

BJMH is a good idea, but I know that they have quite backlog of papers to publish and so it might be some time before yours sees the light of day.

I recently had a meeting with our Dean when he raised the point that I didn't publish much in certain international journals preferring national ones, and his answer to my reply relating to the possible wait of up to five years for something to appear after acceptance (I jest not, for an annually published international journal in archaeology!) he replied - 'But, if accepted then even in the queue, it gives us points in the TLS yearly summary!"... But back OT. There are other possibilities. E.g., the Journal of Conflict Archaeology - I am not connected to this - which is peer-reviewed.

[Bernard_Lewis]

I'm not familiar with 'peer review' in the context of writing about history. Is it common practice and, if so, in which journals? If Professor Bodgit published his take on e.g. 1 July 1916 would he typically get it peer reviewed first?

I can understand it for science writing where the scientific evidence has to be capable of withstanding challenge and being replicated by experiment but the 'correct' version of say cause and effect on 1 July 1916 does not lend itself to such checks, surely? It would be Bodgit's view and his analysis of the evidence could be challenged but potentially not categorically debunked?

Bernard

[charlesmessenger]

Bernard

Academic journals, as well as scientific/medical ones, usually have submissions peer reviewed by a couple of people working the same field ,to make certain they are not talking rubbish. This helps maintain the standing of the journal in question. It also means that someone who is an academic is fulfilling his claim to be so.

Charles M

PS I am not an academic.

[Bernard_Lewis]

Thanks Charles. I wasn't aware of that re history but I can see it makes sense.

Bernard

[Joseph Kerr1]

Joseph

You appear to have an informed view of some key debating points. I would be very interested to know what your take on all this speculation or 'proof' as some would have us believe. Do you think Kipling is buried under the headstone? Curious to know your thoughts.

Also curious to know if you believe the standards of proof are sufficient? MG

Is this the body that is now claimed to be Kipling's or another body?

Hello Martin. Sorry about the delayed reply but I was waiting for another get together of the NS&EKSHBAS in order to see what a better informed opinion might be. That having happened the conclusion seems to be that –

Given the information available the authors of the stand to article seem to have reached a reasonable conclusion "on the balance of probabilities", as they say.

They have not reached a proven conclusion "beyond reasonable doubt", as would be required if this was a criminal trial. On the basis of the information available or likely to become available, short of D.N.A. testing, nobody can reach a conclusion regarding the burial in this grave "beyond reasonable doubt".

Whilst many of the counter arguments are interesting they have not reached a conclusion regarding the burial in this grave being other than that of Kipling "beyond reasonable doubt" either. Whether the counter arguments have reached a conclusion "on the balance of probabilities" could be debated from now till the cows come home, and while it is interesting to see various regulations, customs, practices, and routines quoted, all of these second guess what might have been local custom in Kipling’s battalion in the field at that particular moment.

The tone of a lot of posts on this topic, including many which have been deleted or censored, has been very revealing in terms of what this forum believes and accepts to be a reasonable way to deal with issues. On the plus side the topic has been a godsend for the armchair generals and those devoted to trying to establish just how many angels are dancing on this particular pin head.

just an opinion mind.

Joseph

[charlesmessenger]

I am saddened that some very thorough and impressive research to counter the claim that Kipling was wearing the badges of a senior subaltern when he was killed is described using the angel on a pinhead parallel. As for armchair generals, at my time of life I am entitled to be one.

Charles M

[Guest]

Hello Martin. Sorry about the delayed reply but I was waiting for another get together of the NS&EKSHBAS (what is this?) in order to see what a better informed opinion might be. That having happened the conclusion (whose conclusion?) seems to be that –

Given the information available the authors of the stand to article seem to have reached a reasonable conclusion "on the balance of probabilities", as they say.

They have not reached a proven conclusion "beyond reasonable doubt", as would be required if this was a criminal trial. On the basis of the information available or likely to become available, short of D.N.A. testing, nobody can reach a conclusion regarding the burial in this grave "beyond reasonable doubt".

Whilst many of the counter arguments are interesting they have not reached a conclusion regarding the burial in this grave being other than that of Kipling "beyond reasonable doubt" either. Those making the counter-arguments are simply stating that no-one knows, so they are in furious agreement with this statement. I dont recall anyone stating it was someone else, simply that there is not enough evidence to prove (by any standard) that it is Kipling. The CWGC and MOD seem to believe they know, and the Stand To! article appears to agree or at the very least seek its approval. They certainly don't state that there is not enough evidence to make any conclusions. ...in fact they state "The Irish Guards lieutenant (sic) found on 23 September 1919 must be Lieutenant John Kipling". (my underlining).

Whether the counter arguments have reached a conclusion "on the balance of probabilities" could be debated from now till the cows come home, and while it is interesting to see various regulations, customs, practices, and routines quoted, all of these second guess what might have been local custom in Kipling’s battalion in the field at that particular moment. I would politely disagree with this. There is no guessing involved; we have many hundreds of examples of promotion protocol within the Guards Division including Routine Orders, war diaries at Battalion , Brigade, Division and Field Ambulances that recorded the ranks of the men concerned. We can use these hard facts and compare them with the promotion timeline and the London Gazette. The Guards Division Routine Orders quote the London Gazette when announcing promotions as do hundreds of other war diaries. There are over 600 pages of Routine Orders in the Guards Division files for 1915 alone. Within the Irish Guards we have scores of examples of Officers not putting up rank (unless it was Temp), and there is zero evidence that Kipling put up rank. There is zero evidence of some imagined Regimental or Battalion protocol. In fact there is plenty of evidence to counter the idea that he put up rank. There was no 'research' on this aspect by the authors, at least none that was presented. If it had been researched, they would have found 108 subalterns in the Guards Division (including Irish Guards Officers) who in theory could have put up rank during the period in question, but didn't do so. They are recorded over 200 times in the diaries. How do the authors explain that? This part at least shouldn't be a debate as the theory of 'local custom' is unsupported in fact.

Edit: Presenting conjecture or 'what might have been' as evidence to support an argument rather stretches concepts of proof.

The tone of a lot of posts on this topic, including many which have been deleted or censored, has been very revealing in terms of what this forum believes and accepts to be a reasonable way to deal with issues. The GWF does not have a singular view. There are very disparate (and balanced) views on many topics, usually backed up by fairly rigorous research. The GWF is increasingly being acknowledged by authors which might indicate some respect the collective knowledge of the GWF. Some posts and comments were deleted were because they don't reflect the values of the GWF.

On the plus side the topic has been a godsend for the armchair generals and those devoted to trying to establish just how many angels are dancing on this particular pin head. I assume this was not intended as a compliment to the members of the GWF. Would armchair generalship include or exclude rigorous research in the place of speculation or conjecture? Curious to understand the benchmark here.

It is not about angels and pinheads. It is about the mis-identification (or otherwise) of someone who gave his life. The concept of 'standards of proof' held by the MOD/CWGC is in question, which seems to have quite important implications for the thousands of unidentified bodies. The Loos Memorial records over 20,000 men whose bodies have never been identified and a very small number whose bodies have subsequently been positively identified. I doubt very much that the families of these men would use your unfortunate choice of words. The MOD/CWGC assumptive close is being disputed. It is after all a Forum. Respectfully. MG

Edit: Does the angels and pinheads argument extend to the MOD/CWGC as well? After all, positively identifying men who made the ultimate sacrifice appears to be quite important to them.

just an opinion mind.

Joseph

Joseph

Thanks for your considered reply. To avoid any mis-interpretation I have put my response in blue in the quote above. I still don't know if you think Kipling is under the gravestone with his name on it. MG

Edited.

[Muerrisch]

Please what is the decode of the massive acronym or abbreviation referenced?

This armchair genera!/ angel researcher would like to tap it's wisdom.

[laughton]

NS&EKSHBAS

If you break it down into the "roots" of the word, it essentially means "an investment in bonds that has gone down the toilet".

Perhaps that is what the author thought of our posts on this most delicate and well researched topic?

I always stand to be corrected. We Canadians are not so familiar with the British sayings .

[Muerrisch]

It's probably not British and the polite accepted way of using an abbreviation for the first time is thus:

grumpy is less than pleased (GILTP)

[MelPack]

The tone of a lot of posts on this topic, including many which have been deleted or censored, has been very revealing in terms of what this forum believes and accepts to be a reasonable way to deal with issues. On the plus side the topic has been a godsend for the armchair generals and those devoted to trying to establish just how many angels are dancing on this particular pin head.

just an opinion mind.

Joseph

Hmmm methinks this is a case of not feeding the troll and perhaps encouraging the party concerned to take his 'pearl casting' elsewhere.

[johnboy]

Q Joseph Kerr1

Sorry about the delayed reply but I was waiting for another get together of the NS&EKSHBAS in order to see what a better informed opinion might be.

Are you saying that the contributions here by well respected members who have done some excellent research is tosh?

I haven't a clue who you met with but you obviously went with pre conceived ideas that they were better informed.

[Steven Broomfield]

Hmmm methinks this is a case of not feeding the troll and perhaps encouraging the party concerned to take his 'pearl casting' elsewhere.

Presumably the members of this Forum are the swine before whom he casts his pearls.

[MelPack]

Presumably the members of this Forum are the swine before whom he casts his pearls.

An inference that appears to be beyond reasonable doubt rather than one measured by the balance of probabilities - but that is a humble opinion from a High Priest of NS&EKSHBAS and the revival movement for the worship of Baal.

[Guest]

Presumably the members of this Forum are the swine before whom he casts his pearls.

Edited.

I have just noticed there are some seemingly remarkable coincidences:

Joseph Kerr 1 was asking for information on Guard's Officers' pay in Oct last year click just as the authors were putting their arguments together.... It specifically refers to the £70 Guards Subaltern pay as does the Stand To Article " "it includes thirty-four days at 8/6d and a percentage of the annual Guards pay of £70 per annum" (page 10 of the STand To! article)

Joseph Kerr1 was aware the detail of a meeting in Aug last year at CWGC where the Kipling/Grid Ref was disccussed*, at the same time as one of the authors " In August 2015 ....visited the CWGC to explain their findings..."? (page 3 of the Stand To! article)

* A quote from Joseph from post 215:

"It is probably best if it is recorded quite unambiguously that the map reference irregularities being referred to were fully set out at a meeting at the CWGC offices in Maidenhead 6/8/2015 (and the information revealed was being discussed in detail with third parties four weeks later). Your claim that your pointing out these errors to the Commission 26/10/2015 or some other later date was some new revelation is quite simply wrong, and the manner in which you, and others, have aggressively propounded your take on the issue has been quite distasteful."

Which seemed to indicate Joseph has some inside track on meetings held at the CWGC and was 'informed'...hence my question to Jospeh whether he believes Kipling is under the headstone. It is still unanswered. MG

[Steven Broomfield]

His (or her) profile says he (or she) is male. She (or he) is pulling our (or my) leg then isn't she (or he)?

Scamp.

[keithmroberts]

Hold on. Members choose their posting identities, and speculation about them is pointless. Please can members stick to the subject.

Keith Roberts

[Guest]

It would be helpful if Joseph told us who NS&EKSHBAS were, or did I miss that?

Mike

[laughton]

I never responded to Post #215 before because it had so many incorrect statements and I suspected that any reply would only activate the ZAP button. I was always amazed that some of the very good posts were eliminated but that one was allowed to remain? That author does not understand the matter of the Revised Squaring Process (i.e. all of G.25.a and G.25.c did exist prior to the revisions). The McPherson claim is valid to this date, as confirmed by the CWGC. However, we must respect everyone's opinion. As my dear wife often tells me "of course you can state your opinion, it is not your fault that you are wrong".

Perhaps NS&EKSHBAS is like HAL?

[trajan]

It would be helpful if Joseph told us who NS&EKSHBAS were, or did I miss that?

Mike

Could be abbreviation for "...a friends relative" for whom information was sought about pay as in MG's post 297 above. Or a car number plate - as used in the US of A? Either way, yes it would be nice to have it explained...