Two Versions of a War Diary

[Gareth Davies]

I seem to have found 2 different versions of the 11th Bn Tank Corps War Diary.  Has anyone ever come across this before?

[DavidOwen]

Sources Gareth?

 

[Gareth Davies]

One is the NA version, one is held by the TM.  

[DavidOwen]

 TM, tank museum?

Seems most odd that they are so similar but different.

I doubt for a moment that censorship is involved but who or why would it be "enhanced"?

Or should that be I don't doubt.....?

[Gareth Davies]

Yes, the Tank Museum.

 

They are signed off by different officers.

[AOK4]

8 hours ago, Gareth Davies said:

Yes, the Tank Museum.

 

They are signed off by different officers.

 

It looks two times the same signature to me...

[Gareth Davies]

Yes. So they are.

[Ron Clifton]

War Diaries were kept in duplicate. One copy was retained by the unit, and the other copy was sent on a monthly basis to the AG's Office at Rouen. It is the latter set which now constitutes class WO95 at Kew.

 

They were usually created using carbon copies but it is possible that the unit copy was damaged and re-typed later. The differences seem to be restricted to the layout, not the content. What we have here is unusual but probably not unique.

 

Ron

[Gareth Davies]

It's not just a formatting/layout issue, the content is clearly different Ron. 

[DavidOwen]

OK so here is my take. The TNA is accurate in that Galsworth was KIA on 27th September 1918 (ref CWGC) yet the Museum version whilst wrong on that count is correct re Major Bell being KIA on 2nd detail that is absent from the TNA version. However Lt Wilde died 3rd September according to CWGC.

 

Inconsistencies on both sides but I suspect both have been either written or transcribed from an original handwritten version at some later date (probably by two different clerks?)

 

Daft question but could either Major Bell or Lt Wilde have been responsible for writing the diary at the time of their sad demise?

[Ron Clifton]

1 hour ago, Gareth Davies said:

It's not just a formatting/layout issue, the content is clearly different Ron. 

Point taken, but on having another look at the content, the differences are very small. Those officers "wounded but remained at duty" on 27th are omitted from the TM version, and casualties for 28th and 29th have been combined. Locations on 28th have also been altered. To me, this suggests that the TM version is an amended "2nd edition" written after the Kew one. Given the dates, when the forcing of the Hindenburg Line was in process, minor discrepancies are perhaps not that surprising.

 

Ron

[Gareth Davies]

"Point taken" - does that count as you admitting that you were wrong?

[Gareth Davies]

1 hour ago, DavidOwen said:

OK so here is my take. The TNA is accurate in that Galsworth was KIA on 27th September 1918 (ref CWGC) yet the Museum version whilst wrong on that count is correct re Major Bell being KIA on 2nd detail that is absent from the TNA version. However Lt Wilde died 3rd September according to CWGC.

 

Inconsistencies on both sides but I suspect both have been either written or transcribed from an original handwritten version at some later date (probably by two different clerks?)

 

Daft question but could either Major Bell or Lt Wilde have been responsible for writing the diary at the time of their sad demise?

 

I don't know the process that the 11th Bn used to compile the WD but it is possible that both men contributed to the daily return from Coys that was sent to BHQ although neither of them are the person who signed it at the end of the month (yes, I know they were dead by the end of Sep).  The previous two signatures are copied below.  

[Ron Clifton]

On 11/09/2018 at 11:19, Gareth Davies said:

"Point taken" - does that count as you admitting that you were wrong?

Up to a point, Colonel Davies. (How well do you know your Evelyn Waugh?   )

 

Ron

[johntaylor]

Hi Gareth, you've certainly uncovered something odd here.  There are sometimes differences between the NA and TM versions in terms of the appendices, maps etc that have been kept with them, but I've never come across a completely different War Diary.  The only substantial difference is that the NA one lists the three companies at the top, and generally goes into greater detail.  It seems in that sense to be a War Diary to company level, whereas the other is more of a battalion level document.  For instance on 23/9, the NA one gives the location of companies, but the TM one just gives battalion HQ.

 

However this doesn't really explain anything, because the War Diary was supposed to be an official record of the unit, so I don't understand why these different versions should have been created, or what their purpose was. And the discrepancy on 2/9, where an attack isn't mentioned in the NA version, is very strange.

 

It's an interesting one.

 

John

Edited 4 October , 2018 by johntaylor

[Steven Broomfield]

3 hours ago, Ron Clifton said:

Up to a point, Colonel Davies. (How well do you know your Evelyn Waugh?   )

 

Ron

 

You aiming fr a scoop there?

[David Filsell]

As you go through the pages are there any serious differences in content - or is one simply more detailed?

If the same you almost have the famous "Two proofs" I suppose.

Reasons are interesting,-  paperwork can get lost in the system, or be judged inadequate first time and it be asked they are rewritten. And things do get lost withn the system - and are consequently rewritten. Nevertheles a strange and interesting find 

 

[johntaylor]

There's one obvious discrepancy - one version says that on 2/9 they were refitting at the tankodrome, while the other says they were fighting a battle in which two officers were killed and six men wounded.  Hard to reconcile those two.

 

John

[Gareth Davies]

I haven't been able to sit down and goo through every single page of both versions and I doubt I will be able to do that this side of Christmas (yes, I know I used the C word in October).