Concentration of Graves records. Good enough to change date of death?

[Matlock1418]

 

I suspect that the proper line of evidence will have to be got from CWGC, which I suspect(again) may have original paperwork as to how the GRU info. got back from France and Flanders and how it was processed in England- and,of course, vice versa

If anyone should know about the process it should be CWGC and in their files - but who has been in there and really knows?

I don't know what general and/or other individual information they hold [one fears much of the latter may have been destroyed for the war effort during WW2 like a lot of paperwork - and much with Sir Fabian Ware's blessing it seems - all chiselled in tablets of stone by then I reckon they thought!] - but the process probably does - if it still exists one also suspects that perhaps it might be elsewhere, but where?  I know you suspect the NA at Kew may hold other stuff on the process.  Or at the MoD? - how to extract??

 

I only wish I knew anything about how MS3 -Casualties-actually worked

I wouldn't mind knowing either [And C2 Casualties and MS3T etc. - though probably similar I guess] - the Casualty Branch(es) must surely have had a system

I can't vouch for its accuracy but it looks fairly handy - War Forces Revealed has a Glossary https://warrecordsrevealed.com/graves-registration-commission-directorate-of-graves-registration-enquiries-i-w-g-c-record-glossary but it doesn't cover process. 

I'm too old to research and write such a book(s)!!! ;-)

 

To come back to some of the original problems- 2 of the examples quoted by the original poster were for casualties on the Somme-were they "First Day" or 2nd July. I have also a local casualty who I am pretty sure was 1st July not 2nd. -2LT Tom Ide, The Essex Regiment. Again,I suspect that the borderline between "KIA" and "DOW" may have been rather fluid on 1st July 1916.

Why was the OP's first interest down as 2 July? [or your case] - there surely must be a potentially better than evens chance that they died in the earlier/day attack on 1 July or evening - but similarly it would have been a long following night and day too for many as you also highlight :-(

It certainly seems harder to date deaths if you have got out of your own trenches.

Yes, probably practically rather fluid definitions those days even if apparently there technically was a formal division as Tom has earlier pointed out [he didn't quote his source mind ;-)]

Middlebrook and Barton have concentrated-quite rightly-on the daytime of 1st July 1916,with a heavy emphasis on the early hours of daylight when the main offensive began,

    What I would suggest outright was that the night of 1st-2nd July 1916 was also the worst night in the history of the British Army.

Hard not to come to similar conclusions

 

Is it any wonder the paperwork might have been less than perfect???

Agreed - On 1/2 July 1916 ... and to be frank likely also back in 1914 and later in 1918 too

Any hectic organisation/reorganisation in the field [and record-keeping] under stress, and especially at night, is hard enough whichever way you look at it,

I don't think we are trying to apportion blame and it's hard to see how anything was but the 'best of a bad job' at the time

 

But given that - The fact is that there must have been plenty of 'don't knows" and how handled over time leading to them 'going firm' on a date of death is obviously of interest.

And quite a few potential 'on or after' scenarios seem to be on the pile
 

[And returning briefly, to offer an example timeline, for my main particular case of on-going interest: Why was my relative's death, earlier in the war, down as the second of the dates then, and still now, widely offered? - not the day of the unsuccessful late afternoon attack but sometime during the next day [there actually was a local armistice with the Germans on the second day and the battlefield between the lines was re-visited, with additional and sad consequential problems! (no evidence as to whether or not he was involved in those)] - However, somebody plumped for the day after the main action/second date for his death [as CWGC now use]

But I have never understood = Who and why/how? 

On the weighted balance of the hours passed?

And when actually done??

From a newspaper Casualty List it actually seems to have been formally concluded in the following 3 weeks that he was formally considered "killed", from another newspaper report two dates are clearly being offered and then from a further newspaper's 'Roll of Honour' a date was quoted by his family - within a total of 4 weeks it seems it was firmed up as the second of the dates.

And yet, regardless, by his family he was/had been considered 'missing' for some time after (not really that unusual really I suppose) and even after his death had been officially arrived at enquiries seem to have continued [or maybe were just slow running] and it was apparently suggested by a regimental officer that he might instead be a PoW - faint hopes and dreams to be cruelly dashed by the end. :-( ]

 

The more I think about it the more I realise that it is unlikely that I/CWGC arrived at the/any date - it appears they were just the functionaries for long-term commemoration [as they now still are in other and more recent decisions about commemoration] - somebody on the military side must have been coming up with such decisions

 

It's the probably military 'external' process(es) & rationale, and who & when, for recording & dating that is so uncertain - and I feel you, GUEST, like t56 & me [and probably others!] are likewise intrigued.  From there may come answers [and possibly new resolutions].

 

t56, GRU Concentration records really just don't seem deep enough to consider any change! [but I guess we all had earlier come to that position!!!]

:-/ M

[jay dubaya]

A recent casualty that flashed across my radar fits the bill here. CWGC, service record, WD, medal rolls, MICs, soldiers effects and SDGW all state 1st July, the service record contains an eyewitness account that describes his death and states the 2nd July - the soldier remained with the body prior to its removal for burial. The officer concerned is buried in the same grave as 3 of my men hence the initial interest. Checking the GRRFs I note the date of death as 31st June which is the only one in the cemetery.  2 IWGC plans dated March and April 1925 are detailed with the first burial taking place on 31st June... 

Somewhere in the depths of my files is a screen shot from 18 years ago, it's the CWGC casualty page for my great uncle. He was KiA with the 50th Bde RFA on 18th July 1916, I did my research, I transcribed the diary for the 50th Bde and went back to CWGC some years later to print off a memorial scroll for him -  the CWGC page had been amended to C Bty, 53rd Bde! I had realised his grave had been concentrated and contacted the CWGC who provided his previous resting place. It was only a few years ago the CWGC released the archive of cemetery reports so even more information becomes available. My great uncle was exhumed and reinterred during the spring of 1920 along with 2 others from his brigade, the impression given from the typed CoG and GRRF is that they all died on the same day - information that may have come from the original GRU registered crosses, only one one cross may have stated battery but it may appear all three recorded a date or an assumption? As it turned out all three died on separate days a week apart and one was from a sister battery. The Cog notes 53rd Bde for one whilst the GRRF notes B Bty 53rd Bde for all 3. Although great uncle Levi has surviving service papers they only relate to his prewar TF days with the artillery. At the time I had missed the importance of the date on his MiC, he embarked from Southampton on 10th May 1915 with the D (How) Bty 50th Bde - the overhaul of the RFA during 1916 put him in C/53.  I have never seen any document that records him being with 50th Bde and believe this could only have been recorded/retrieved from his service papers which were available to the IWGC in the UK. My great uncle was exhumed and reinterred during the spring of 1920 along with 2 others from his brigade, the impression given from the typed CoG and GRRF is that they all died on the same day - information that may have come from the original GRU registered crosses, only one one cross stated battery but it may appear all three recorded a date or an assumption? It would appear that all three died on separate days a week apart and one was from a sister battery. 

Another that comes to mind goes back to a surreal image I saw many years ago that as a youngster fascinated me. It is a white grave marker surrounded by grenades and a naked childs doll with blank eyes, surrounded by the destruction of the battlefield, you couldn't quite make out the writing on the cross. I have since discovered whos grave it was, who buried him and the photographer who took the image a few weeks later. The war diary records his death on the 28th August and which was instant and witnessed. On 29th the diary records the failed attempt to bring the body in, during the evening an officer from the incoming relief agrees to bring the body in and bury it. This was duly done on the 30th. All records I have seen to date state death on 29th August... but the war diary...

It's difficult to perceive how many related pieces of paper there was by the mid 20s, a seemingly endless paper trail not to mention those bound in legers from floor to ceiling. I would think that the GRU had access to battalion ledgers and casualty lists to aid them in any initial identification after they had registered a grave and any details that may have been recorded on their markers, also the lists and reports which some officers compiled are evident within the CoGR and GRRF archive. A recent study of several hundred service records has been illuminating regarding the search for information pre and post Armistice, correspondence from Paymaster & OC Records via War Office, IWGC and individual eyewitness accounts can be found in many of the records. Whilst much of this information relates to the identification process there are a small number of cases the question the official dates of death we see today. Something else to consider here is the cemetery registers and their final verifications, this was seen as a great hindrance to construction of the cemeteries and subsequently the production of headstones.

 

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

That is a fair point. But- The nature of the surviving "burnt docs" suggests that  one of the multiple sets of docs. on a soldier was the basis of info.  It would be interesting to know where CWGC got their records from- ....

 

There was cooperation between the War Office / HMSO (who were putting together the databases for ODITGW and SDITGW) / and the IWGC during the immediate post-war years. It is not however an area of CWGC archive records which I have spent much time looking at and whilst I know that a master card-index existed I am nowhere near knowing the the minutiae of how the final data came into existence.

 

That aside, I have to go back to my earlier statement that if nobody can substantiate "GRU reports had access to the original soldier files" then I'm going have to record a long string of question marks against that claim. If anybody can quote solid evidence contradicting my view then I'd be very pleased to hear of it. I simply don't believe this claim as the logistics would have been an absolute horror story during the immediate post WW1 years - huge numbers of cases - quickly diminishing resources in terms of manpower and finance - no computers, etc etc etc.

 

The claim that "GRU reports had access to the original soldier files" cannot be allowed to stand without solid substantiation. If such a claim was allowed to become common currency then it would be used to blow holes in future ID commemoration cases.

Tom

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

 

There was cooperation between the War Office / HMSO (who were putting together the databases for ODITGW and SDITGW) / and the IWGC during the immediate post-war years. It is not however an area of CWGC archive records which I have spent much time looking at and whilst I know that a master card-index existed I am nowhere near knowing the the minutiae of how the final data came into existence.

 

That aside, I have to go back to my earlier statement that if nobody can substantiate "GRU reports had access to the original soldier files" then I'm going have to record a long string of question marks against that claim. If anybody can quote solid evidence contradicting my view then I'd be very pleased to hear of it. I simply don't believe this claim as the logistics would have been an absolute horror story during the immediate post WW1 years - huge numbers of cases - quickly diminishing resources in terms of manpower and finance - no computers, etc etc etc.

 

The claim that "GRU reports had access to the original soldier files" cannot be allowed to stand without solid substantiation. If such a claim was allowed to become common currency then it would be used to blow holes in future ID commemoration cases.

Tom

 

    I based my statement on looking at a large number of service files, both officers at Kew and the Burnt Documents=and SE for every one of them.  Do you know for sure when annotations of names, number,date of death-in manuscript-were actually added?      Put as many question marks as you like. The Army kept records -in multiple-for a reason.  You seem to assume that everything on a GRU form was done at much the same time. Which is not so.

     I have deleted the posts concerned and am off to "prove"/"disprove" something more engaging- eg Did Lord Lucan eat Shergar?

Just where do YOU think the information on FINAL GRU forms came from-especially the annotations-Oh, and bounce up some proof as well.

[Guest]

If such a claim was allowed to become common currency then it would be used to blow holes in future ID commemoration cases.

 

      I think this claim is a wild exaggeration and total rubbish,

 GRU reports.   Although the tale of Fabian Ware,etc is well-known-especially from "Unending Vigil", there is a gross distortion in "what happened" end of History in all of this. CWGC is reasonably well-covered and ongoing.  BUT-and its a  Beachy Head size BUT- GRU was an Army responsibility until the end of 1921.  Thus, all of the GRU forms so carefully digitised on the CWGC website "Debt of Honour" are those generated as British Army records (I speak with one small caveat- I do not know what arrangements were made by the Dominions,Portuguese etc for recovery and concentration-in any event, it was the British Army that did -quite literally-the spadework. Nor do I know what happened vis a vis co-operation with the French or the Germans- there must have been times when multiple search teams were out and about at the same time)

    Thus, we -at least me- may have been unintentionally lulled by these accounts of the work of CWGC. But until the end of 1921 it was the junior partner in the task of clearing up the battlefields.This begs very serious questions-which may appeal to members of GWF (That means you Craig) as to WHAT records were kept by the War Office casualty branch(es) during and immediately after the war. What CWGC has is what looks like a transfer made in 1921 or thereabouts. But it begs several questions-

1) What was the structure of the War Office casualties branch?

2) What records did it generate?

3) In 1921 (or thereabouts) what records were transferred to CWGC, what were retained and what was destroyed? Perhaps there are destruction  schedules at Kew or even 1%,2%,etc sample files. I profess I cannot identify on Discovery where these may be.

     The War Office went to considerable trouble in the immediate war and post-war years. For instance, where are the (daily?) updates, invariably done on purple ink-duplicator and often found in officer files especially, recording what info. had come in about a missing OR or officer- the interviews with other men of the same unit (usually in hospital-sometimes even as POWs in Germany) or the returning POW information. It would be nice to think that there is a sporting chance that there is a file set of this stuff out there somewhere. The War Office also collected information from a man's family- the familiar routine of letters to the family (He suffered no pain, death was instantaneous,etc) were a source the War Office valued- Often, letters from those who were there meant a family had more up to date knowledge than the War Office.

      The basic point in this - that the British Army generated the records up to the end of 1921. Given the annotations, I suggest,is evidence that other British Army records were used as well in identifying and "tidying-up" the mess that was the Great War. Has no-one ever bothered to think why Army records were kept in Arnside Street or,later on at Hayes??- I suggest it was because they were there to be used in Whitehall. -where a large accumulation of records could not be held.

(As an aisde, the only IWGC recovery form I have seen is for a local casualty, Frank Douglas Green, The Essex regiment, KIA in May 1917-whose body was recovered in one of the large systematic trawls in 1934. He is unusual in that he has both a CWGC grave at St Vaast -and a mention on a "Missing" memorial. I cannot see how CWGC could have set a date for death for him unless it had access to his service file. Where else is it going to come from??  As it was, quite a lot of kit was recovered, including his NCO whistle-which suggests strong that "for official purposes" his "Missing" date was reliable as date of death.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

I based my statement on looking at a large number of service files, both officers at Kew and the Burnt Documents=and SE for every one of them.  ...

You seem to assume that everything on a GRU form was done at much the same time. Which is not so.

 Did Lord Lucan eat Shergar?

My views are based upon examination of large numbers of relevant documents over thirty plus years of British WW1 military research. Obviously we have reached different conclusions.

I cannot comment on "... and the Burnt Documents=and SE for every one of them." as I don't understand what its meant to mean. 

I have assumed nothing about GRU forms.

 

 I think this claim is a wild exaggeration and total rubbish,

 

(The claim that "GRU reports had access to the original soldier files" cannot be allowed to stand without solid substantiation. If such a claim was allowed to become common currency then it would be used to blow holes in future ID commemoration cases.)

The concluding statement is based upon long-term and quite intense "negotiations" with the relevant authorities. For example see the WFA "Bulletin" reports on the Bertie Jeffs - Ernest Haxton cases. In some quarters "faux evidence" trumps examination of evidence and plain old common-sense time after time again.

 

''' the interviews with other men of the same unit (usually in hospital-sometimes even as POWs in Germany) or the returning POW information. ...

 

Goodness - quite probably one of the most unreliable sources of information about the fate of an officer ! A quick look at the last batch of officer's files examined for  a forthcoming volume of the "Zero Hour Z Day" series of books - Harold Mynel Glastonbury in WO339/30871 appears in various witness statements as >

1 - Fell back into British front trench with rifle bullet through head 7:10am.

2 - Seen wounded in leg in shell hole between British and German front lines.

3 - Wounded in leg with piece of shell and taken to dressing station.

4 - Wounded in leg by machine-gun bullet and seen crawling back to British front trench.

and so it goes on - these "witness statements" are generally of no use at all.

 

The basic point in this - that the British Army generated the records up to the end of 1921. Given the annotations, I suggest,is evidence that other British Army records were used as well in identifying and "tidying-up" the mess that was the Great War. Has no-one ever bothered to think why Army records were kept in Arnside Street or,later on at Hayes??- I suggest it was because they were there to be used in Whitehall. -where a large accumulation of records could not be held. ...

 

I'm afraid that that is a flawed assumption. Look for example at material generated by the Lord Chancellors Office and others in documents such as WO32/21769 and PRO1/387 at The National Archives. Arnside Street was was essentially just an available and nearly empty building under War Office control which was repeatedly flagged as being used unsuitably as a repository for the records held there - collections of WO records and physical material which went way beyond the WW1 soldier's service records.

 

I have previously raised the issue of certain parties referring to the identifying of the dead post WW1 as being some kind of "Crime Scene Investigation" - it was not.

Tom

[Guest]

      You dodge the essential point- that GRU reports are largely-that is, up to the end of 1921, BRITISH ARMY records, not IWGC. The annotations on them are-usually but not always undated-and could have been done at any time after the sign-off stamp, signature date on the form. My suspicion is that as these are invariably in red, then it was agreed office practice-and as some annotations are clearly post-1921, I assume (without smoking gun evidence) that this was a IWGC practice. How and whether GRU forms were shared before the end of 1921 is  is something I would like to know.

   Use of other British Army records?  I will stand by what I say on the "evidence" of non-evidence.  (Though I am well aware of the old judicial principle that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"). Are you going to suggest that IWGC had a complete run of service records?  Doesnt stand up. Unless YOU have some evidence that IWGC did.

   Army service files were there to be used-and used they were. Think perhaps of the listings of communications between different bits of the army that are common in officer service files (even though they are post-Arnside constructs themselves). No, I cannot prove absolutely that IWGC and/or GRU had access to service files but where else could info. on name,number, date of (missing/) death-and family address be got???

    As to the claims that IF GRU are questioned then the whole edifice of "cases" to CWGC  disintegrates-Well, that's not a runner. Th excellent work of the late Richard Laughton shows that CWGC generally accept the GRU details and annotations as being sufficiently authoritative.

     Returning  POW/ wounded man reports?  I agree with you-up to a point,Lord Copper- that these, in toto, are less reliable than other sources. But they are a source and cannot be ignored. Depends how they are weighed. There are examples either way- I will give 2:

2Lt Frank Harry Bethell, "disappeared" at Loos. His batman said that he was killed outright but a wounded CSM reported that Bethell and another officer were wounded but did not think their wounds were fatal. Acceptance that he was dead seems to have come after the usual ICRC enquiries showed he was not in German captivity.

2) Captain John Stewart Calder, MC and Bar, London Rifle Brigade. Disappeared on 21st March 1918. Several returning POW interviews in his file- the most authoritative being from a wounded corporal in the same shellhole, stating that Calder was badly wounded in the chest and could not have survived- Calder was a teacher in peacetime, the Corporal was one of his former pupils. This seems to have been enough to get Calder  declared dead in 1919. (The corporal reported that Calder was bleeding heavily from a large bulet wound in the chest and was beyond speaking- Calder's last action last action to his former pupil was to reach into his pack and give the man his own flask of coffee-its the most poignant story of any of my local casualties)

    Yes, heavily variable and unreliable by the bucketful- BUT still a potentially valuable source that has to be evaluated. There is no golden source in all of this- evaluation of what there is gives the challenge. 

    My belief is that the scrutineers of cases for CWGC evaluate ALL evidence with a fresh eye. In the end, neither I nor you can "prove" anything that happened 5 minutes ago, let alone a century and more- that is the nature of history, that is the challenge of critically using evidence that there is.

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

I don't believe that the IWGC paid any great attention to any War Office generated service records

      I believe exactly the opposite.  If,as you say, both CWGC and latterly the CWGC scrutineers evaluate.evaluated ALL evidence, then it is plainly nonsense to put up the Red Herring that CWGC would ignore anything from the War Office.

 

1 hour ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said:

I'd suggest from the card index database which was built up during the preparation of the ODITGW and SDITGW databases. 

 

    

    This is a circular argument- Just where do you think CWGC got the information for the card index/indices?  The standard information on Attestation forms or the myriad forms for officer recruitment give ALL the information that is on GRU reports. I repeat-Where else would the information come from if not from British Army records held at or under the direct control of the War Office? All you have done is shift the goalpost without thinking through WHERE the info. on index cards at IWGC actually came from.

      In respect of this- and as a neutral proposition- this does lead to a couple of speculations that you might be able to comment on :

1) Did IWGC start its card index from scratch-or was it using some form of Ur-text from elsewhere.?  I know from a local newspaper snippet that the London T.A.Association maintained a card index through the war-based somewhere on the Embankment and employing a raft of soldiers all unfit for active service.  Again, we do not really know what the War Office kept-though I would be surprised it is was anything other than a card index. 

2) The Ur-text for most of the burial work done on the Western Front would have to be the original burial records kept at the time by each unit . Its all well and good having the digitised stuff on  CWGC but  where are the original records, the burial officer's returns, padre's notebooks,etc????   I have never seen any real mention of this stuff at all-let alone what happened to it.  Did,for instance the War Office hand over original burial forms, etc in 1921???   Again,I suspect all long gone-whoever chucked it. I remember the matter of the recent discovery of 13 (I think) men of the Grimsby Chums recovered during some road scheme or other- All laid out neatly side by side but all unidentified. I would have thought that the burial party must have kept a record but nothing moved on that. The layout of the burial- one long shallow grave and the bodies all neatly placed next to each other suggests burial with time to spare rather than dumped in a shell crater etc. Just a thought-there must have been a stock of this ad hoc sort of record sent in through the war.

3) My best guess is that IWGC had access to war diaries,either through the War Office or direct.  Gives dates-and, more importantly, map references for where the unit was on any particular day(usually). 

    There appear to be a lot of ifs and maybes about what was generated and what IWGC has-or had. 

 

M.

 

PS- These rwo service files at Kew might be worth a look-see:

• Captain J I BOSWELL Graves Registratiion Commission.

  War Office: Officers' Services, First World War, Long Number Papers (numerical). Officers Services (including Civilian Dependants and Military Staff Appointments): Long Service Papers. Captain J I BOSWELL Graves Registratiion Commission.

  Held by:	The National Archives, Kew - War Office, Armed Forces, Judge Advocate General, and related bodies
  Date:	1914 - 1922
  Reference:	WO 339/56277
  Subjects:	Armed Forces (General Administration) | Army | Conflict | Operations, battles and campaigns

• Captain John Doran MACDONALD Graves Registration Commission.

  War Office: Officers' Services, First World War, Long Number Papers (numerical). Officers Services (including Civilian Dependants and Military Staff Appointments): Long Service Papers. Captain John Doran MACDONALD Graves Registration Commission.

  Held by:	The National Archives, Kew - War Office, Armed Forces, Judge Advocate General, and related bodies
  Date:	1914 - 1922
  Reference:	WO 339/57039
  Subjects:	Armed Forces (General Administration) | Army | Conflict | Operations, battles and campaigns

Edited 9 September , 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

 As regards other contemporary  records there is a very good run through on Chaplains and Other Burial Records at the (typically) excellent War records revealed site.

 

https://warrecordsrevealed.com/chaplains-and-divisional-corps-burial-returns/

[jay dubaya]

Justin (WRR) is certainly conducting an extensive study and quite an admirable piece of work and reference - one that I highly recommend.

From what I understand the GRU had no access to enlistment/attestation papers held by the WO - why would they need too? - their roll was to locate and register the graves - any information then passed to the GRC/DGR&E for investigation.

The initial impression I get from WRR regarding DGR&E/IWGC access to the WO records was conducted later when the matter of how to commemorate the fallen had been decided and there was a need in the IWGC for NoK details, this being conducted at the records office by the office staff - post 1921 by office staff and later payed out of the IWGC purse? - there is a hint of the WO papers being only used for NOK details in the primary searches whilst name and regimental details came from the Battalion Ledgers compiled from WO casualty lists and numerous unit lists by the DGR&E.  Was there a need for the Army to know where a soldier was buried?  - he was dead and off the paybooks - that's what mattered

 

I'm seeking a better understanding to these key moments in a commemoration process that still resonates today, I'd really appreciate some common ground where this can be discussed for those that wish too. It's a very grey learning curve that can produce special results - demonstrated many times on this forum and beyond. There is little remaining conclusive proof to much of this and in some respects - for me personally - questions the validity of numerous graves. We have a great desire and respect to continue and for me this needs the knowledge and guidance that is so often shared on this forum

[Guest]

JD- Thanks for a balanced post. I think we are at  Donald Rumsfeld  Level 2 (I know what I don't know) and heading towards Donald Rumsfeld Level 3 (I don't know what I don't know).  I would disagree with you on just one smallish point- I think that IWGC did have access to WO records- I suspect not direct "hands on the file" access but that enquiries could be made on an "inter-departmental" basis.  Yes, service number could come from the casualty lists,etc already readily available. But I think some sort of access to the contents of pre-Arnside service files must have been in place. One does not have to go far with any CWGC listings  before you hit problems of ID by rank or badge. Service files would tend to be the most up-to-date records of for promotions and  units. This could be crucial to ID tattered remains. - What to do if a body had indications, say, of the stripes of a Sergeant or the pip/sleeves of a Captain if the were acting up from Corporal or Lieutenant. And,of course, a recurrent problem- whose badge were they wearing?- A particular problem after the reorganisation/ disbandments of January/February 1918 (And a problem through the second half of 1917 when battalions might hold quite a number of men on attachment- and casualties thus not recorded in a war diary). 

   We know that NOK were contacted through the 1920s at least and some well into the 1930s as the last CWGC big cemeteries were completed.I have seen no reference to IWGC advertising for NOK details-so I presume-strongly-that the service file details were used (Certainly seems so for MIC) -perhaps also the pension records???? (Wait for you Craiig on that one).

    The sad fact is that a very large number of men in CWGC cemeteries are unknown.For instance, if the "cemetery registers" were full and thorough, there would be thousands upon thousands of pages of "UBS"-but these are excluded from the CWGC listings, usually-a little bit crafty- one has to get the cemetery total from the cemetery description ,then subtract the total of identified graves which is also given. The illusion that ID has triumphed is one that is rather subtly hidden in plain view.

   The WRR piece on burial forms,etc is a splendid piece of work. But it does raise other thoughts. We know these records were generated and went "up the line". But what happened to them in the long term?  I am always a little wary of archive listings as  governmental bodies tend to avoid archive and TNA public records requirements by keeping records as live "office papers" rather than fessing up for public records deposits. As I have seen no record of these papers being used post-GRU concentration or final reports, then there must be a strong presumption (but not an absolute one) that these records have long since been chucked. Pity-it would have made the retrospective  trawl of records with the aid of IT and digitisation all the easier. But would CWGC want to hear from researchers  both in quantity and ad infinitum???  What final GRU reports show is that they were intended to provide closure-once the remains were in the ground, then exhumation would usually be off limits. Here. there were two types of closure- that for grieving families but also administrative closure- as well.

   T-M also raises the question of unrecovered and unburied remains as well- citing 1st July 1916, with large numbers left to rot in No Mans Land (Fromelles,ect). This itself does raise another record question- when the Germans pulled back in early 1917 there were a number of British casualties located in generally well maintained German cemeteries. We know that nowadays that CWGC and Volksbund are bosom buddies-but what was the situation post-1918?? I have several local casualties who were naval where the information (or lack of it) has been added to by stuff from the German naval archives (Was this inspection regime one of the Armistice terms??)  but I have seen no such evidence that German army records-esp. their casualty listings -were ever examined or looked at post-war-the ICRC POW cards do suggest that the Germans did keep reasonable records of deaths and burials). yet another blank area.  

   I suspect -with no evidence thus far- that there must have been arrangements at least at local level for the exchange of human remains between the Germans and the British- I could not see a system where the Brits. chucked away German remains-or ignored them (Only complicate further grid searches,for example)- and there would be outcry if the Germans had done the same (Albeit they were obstructed for quite a while by the French from access). 

   I am not anti-CWGC- Goodness only knows that if all public bodies in the UK ran to the same high standards as they do, this country would have nothing to fear for its future. However, CWGC is, like local government, the creature of delegated powers. And those that have told CWGC what to do across the past century may have had considerable raison d'etat pressures. CWGC is not quite 100% cuddly and nice- it is,after all, required to do what it is told to do-and cannot unilaterally go beyond that. Thus, GRU final reports and the concentration records are reliable- if only because adminstratively, they provide an administrative brick wall beyond which it is difficult to  go.

 

(PS- And just as an aside on the question of co-operation between German and Brition- an example from the next bust-up that surprised me- As a bookseller, I got a 3 volume printed set of an internal history of the British Red Cross during the Second World War-limited to 50 copies- Good to remember that Field Marshal Lord Chetwode was the head of it through the latter war) -Fairly dry internal admin. stuff with some gems tucked away.  All those food parcels to British POWs in Germany?  Well, the Germans wanted payment for shipping the stuff in and the British Red Cross was the intermediary for payment -the Germans wanted gold- made through neutral Lisbon. One does not have to watch or read Catch 22 to realise that some seriously strange things go on in wartime)

   

   

Edited 11 September , 2020 by Guest

[jay dubaya]

It's clear that ODGW and SDGW were compiled from these WO records and the DGR&E/IWGC favoured these 2 indexes over the Battalion Ledgers etc. When these indexes were commissioned (late 1915?) I do not know but they were published in 1919 and 1921 respectively. At present I have seen little to no suggestion that these indexes were accessed by DGR&E/IWGC prior to their publication.

 

The IWGC 1919-1920 Annual report indicates that upto 22nd March 1920 a total of 128,577 re-interments had taken place, of these 55,508 were already known (details I believe, came from any cross inscription cross checked with Battalion Ledgers and unit burial reports), 6,723 were identified for the first time (I assume through effects found and immediately identifiable through Battalion Ledgers etc) and a staggering 66,796 were buried again as unknowns (there must have been a multitude of effects that needed considerable scrutiny to give a possible name).  

 

You make a very valid point in the process of individual identification in regards to rank promotions, unit changes etc and the need to scrutinise information the WO held, again, I believe ODGW/SDGW to a high degree fitted with this criteria, this must have been one reason for these 2 indexes in the first place - in essence the only thing they omitted was NoK details.  I feel the emphasis of DGR&E/IWGC work lay with the locating and registering the graves during the war and not identifying the unknowns - by which time the WO card index was comprehensive and possibly being shared with the IWGC - The WO found the work of searching through the service papers and the diversion of staff difficult, in fact it became an intolerable burden.

 

Tom believes the 'IWGC paid little attention to any WO generated service records'. I'm very much in agreement with this statement particularly service records, but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise when and if there is a strong enough suggestion that they were. I base some of my belief on three cases that I have - all relate to information in their service records, although I confess to one of these been a dominion soldier. All three sets of records, had they been scrutinised would, I believe, have given these three soldiers a known grave.

 

Case 1 - RFA Stafford UBS, 30th October 1917,  now unknown RFA 30th October 1917 - buried during the war in an existing cemetery - GRRF strongly suggests 

information taken from registered grave marker. Information that I have collated from WO generated records holds almost all clues to his identity. This case is one of many that suggest there was no post Armistice exhumation of Unknowns buried within cemeteries to seek any further identification.

 

Case 2  - Unknown 2nd Life Guards - concentrated post war and identified by rank and regiment - the GRU who exhumed the body wrongly identified the rank, I suspect a temporary commissioned officer with no knowledge of Household Cavalry ranks - this soldiers service papers confirm where he was buried and by whom, almost identical map references from a war diary, service papers and COGBR. Whilst this case is extremely strong it has massive implications if it were to be accepted today

 

Case 3 - Body recovered post Armistice with effects (piece WP sheet stamped with name - 2 dentures, etc) - the following was extracted from anothers service record and the findings from the recovered effects.

Regarding 24316, and the supposed identification as belonging to -------, I am credibly informed that no man, with one possible exception, could have been accepted for service if he wore false teeth. It is, of course, possible that the plates were supplied after arrival in the UK, but as no record appears in our archives, it is impossible to say that such is actually the case. I have spoken of these effects and asked information from several of the officers of the ------- Regiment, but they were unable, owing to the long lapse of time, to throw any light on the matter. 

This soldier was a 1st July casualty and was buried on or shortly after this date by his own battalion or a unit from the same brigade - a dated inventory of effects sheet in his service record includes 2 sets false teeth (broken) taken from the body prior to burial, there is also indication that he received dental treatment in 1915. The grave is now only identifiable by regiment whilst his name appears on a memorial.

It becomes questionable as to what were kept in certain archives or what archives were accessible or how updated those archives were, my conclusion so far is that service records appear to have not been searched at all, both UK and it's dominions.

 

J

[thetrenchrat22]

I do believe that the IWGC, did not look at, if they did have access to service records during the Great War.  
 

whilst looking at the Gordon Highlanders in Fosse 7 Cemetery, France.  The CWGC records shows 1 of them died with the 10th Battalion, where in fact he served and died with the 9th Battalion as his service records have survived.  The medals rolls also show the 9th.

 

 

[Guest]

Jaydubya- I will happily concede that point to you on the basis of the 3 cases you have recorded. Whether there was or was not access to the sevice files/provision to get information from the service files, I think there are still some problems with all of this.

1) The trend of evidence is that GRU "funals" were exactly that- and probably why we have them digitised online. They provide closure-Full stop. As you say, the implications of mis-identification are horrendous.

2) My main experience is with officer files at Kew. Like everyone else, OR files are off Ancestry.  It does raise one query which WRR may have the answer to, It seems to be understated that the officer files at Kew are constructs done post-Arnside- which is probably why they have a high proportion of financial papers (Accountants are genetically anal retentive) and medical board reports. It would be good to know  exactly what was in the average officer file pre-Arnside and what has actually been lost. (Obviously, fitness reports are probably the most significant). 

   There are 2 rather ugly thoughts coming out of this:

1) That the War Office casualties branch roneo reports with details of information on what had come in regarding the missing-esp. interview reports with ex-POWs and wounded men of the same unit suggests some sort of administrative failing. Could it really be that a lot of this stuff was not available to IWGC???

2) There seems to have no attempt at all by IWGC to go back over old GRU finals and concentration reports I have seen no evidence thus far that anything other than the ID of the body immediately in front of the exhumation team was considered. But I suugest that there must-even if just "statistically" in theory that new exhumations must have shown up mistakes with previous IDs and burials. Yet I cannot recall any GRU form that has the ID corrected from one name to another. Have you done so??  

[tharkin56]

I found a letter from 1994 in an officers file. A copy of a letter from one of the officer files after an enquiry from a relative in 1994 reveals an explanation as to why some files are very sparse in content; ‘I regret that the file is very meagre of content as it was custom during the inter-war period and particularly during the 1930’s to ‘weed’ officers personal files and extract from them documents not considered necessary for retention. This was instigated mainly to save storage space due to the large number of files and documents held. Over the passage of time and because of numerous weeds, many files were destroyed’.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

... I cannot recall any GRU form that has the ID corrected from one name to another. Have you done so??  ...

 

Many years ago, well before the IWGC burial and exhumation and reburial paperwork was digitalised, I was shown a selection of papers in CWGC's offices in Maidenhead relating to discrepancies and "oddities". The reason why I was shown these relate to an entirely different topic are not relevant here, but one of the cases related to the notorious Hooge Crater Cemetery situation post-war. The burial in question had been exhumed elsewhere as a named Australian soldier. He was reburied at Hooge as an unknown Australian soldier, and the final headstone shows "A Soldier Of The Great War".

Tom

[jay dubaya]

Finding the common ground where we can agree on points is surely a good way forward. The whole structure was problematic from the start, it was wobbly back then and they created it, we are left to our own interpretations with what remains after weeding, fire and water. There are many cases that stand out and warrant further attention -whilst we deal with dozens perhaps a few hundred by now - back then they dealt with hundreds of thousands - it was unprecedented chaos in uncharted waters on a vast scale. 

How did the Army react to the GRC achieving military status? - Did it ruffle feathers, raise hackles and build walls between departments? - they're our records and we'll search them. 

Not all of the GRRF and CoGBR archive we see are final reports, these earlier reports, as demonstrated by WRR give some suggestion where these annotations trail too and an earlier index code. Sadly most of the CWGC archive isn't digitised and just how much more if any the CWGC hold of these original reports is unknown to me. I'm sure I read somewhere about bulk paper being given up for war efforts (post 1939) - don't remember if it was WO or IWGC.

A recent casualty fits with your last point GUEST - from a larger study of 1st July casualties and a specific regiment - 

 

Pte WINTER (C Coy) – reported missing 1^st July by OC unit (B213 dated 1/7/16).  A memorandum dated 14^th August 1916 states ‘ Winter reported missing 31^st July Lieutenant Edens in private letter writes dead body of Winter identified please verify’ the reply ‘regret unable to verify’ A burial is reported by 6^th Corps Burial Officer on 12^th December 1917. The DGR&E confirms gravesite as ‘just South West of -------’. The CoGBR shows some confusion relating to the grave of this soldier - firstly 16.B.8 now an Unknown British Soldier buried in 2.B.28 was identified from the registered cross GRU LA36 recovered from Q.16.d, later still identified as Pte WINTER ------- REGT with reference SN3525 - furthermore this is all struck-through and replaced with UBS and DGR&E reference XY/1733. We then have 18.B.9 where the remains recovered from Q.16.b.6.2 are identified by the registered cross as --- Pte WINTER LA32, this is firstly struck-through with UBS and then replaced with --- Pt --- WINTER ------- with DGR&E reference XY/1733 1/7/16, this grave is now --- 

 

Things are made more difficult when the layout of a wartime battlefield clearance cemetery is changed between the CoGBR and the GRRF finals - the layout being renumbered and some evidence of bodies being removed from one grave to another. The regiment in question has over 50 graves in the cemetery 18 unknown but 10 Special Memorials to those know or believed to be buried there.

 

Since you mention accountants being anally retentive and I've just finished my bedtime vice ....

 

there's two men drifting in a hot air balloon, they've lost all bearing - when they spot land - the wind and changing tide gently cradles them in that direction where they spot a drab dressed gentleman.

Where are we? one shout's.

Well, came the reply, your in a basket suspended from a giant inflatable balloon about 30 yards above sea level. whilst drifting in a prevailing wind. 

You're an accountant aren't you? the man shouted back.

I am, how did you know?   

You're dressed in your grandfather's suit and whilst the information you give may be factually correct, it's feckin' useless!                     

[Guest]

 Thanks Jaydubya.  All of this is helping to clarify what went on- although only to the point that it identifies what a large bucket of administrative mud is left at the end of it.  I still believe that a man's service file was the fundamental document in all of this  and will willingly offer up that IWGC may not have had direct access to one set of the basic data somewhere-but with the proviso that it did have access to the info. from some body that did have regular,routine and fairly rapid access to them. Here, the War Office casualties branch is the likely suspect. 

    Lets have a look at what we have with regard to the service files for ORs particularly- the surviving "burnt documents". They usually have 3 copies of the attestation papers, 3 sets of service records (dates of promotion,etc), 3 (up to) of NOK details from the end of the war-sometimes duplicates of the services record in more detail as casualty/medical forms. At some point one must presume (reasonably I hope) that triplicate records were in 3 location-and,again, at sometime pre-Arnside they were reunited (I say this because personally all the attestation forms I have seen in OR files have identical levels of burning round the edges, suggesting they were there by Arnside rather than a copy/copies came in from elsewhere-the lack of any "fresh" copies suggests that the burnt documents" were already a concentrated (and weeded?)  record before Arnside.

  That said, it begs the question as to where these 3 different sets were held. A reading of the SE registers suggests that for the first half of the war, a set of docs. was kept at area adminstrative command level in the UK. The registers tend to contain men at seemingly random but all from regiments within that command area-eg Many of my local casualties are in SE and their surviving papers suggest they all went through Warley,near Brentwood, which seems to have done the admin. for Eastern Command. SE registers from later in the war are not so easy to spot- they do appear random-or,at least, that the service files were available to SE clerks quite readily.  But where would the others have been?  A set with the battalion-yes, Lord Copper- but there would be big gaps for some battalions if they were overrun- eg if war diaries are missing,say from March 1918, what other service records went as well??

2)  One set of docs. I have never seen duplicated- and that is the roneo typed "missing" sheets. I have sometimes seen,in officer files, letters from NOK that give more details, being copied-suggesting there was a set of records and,almost certainly, a specific copy of service file they went into. And again, I suspect this is likely to be at the centre.

   What this exercise in guessing what the official trail was-and whether it went over to IWGC does tell me is that there must have been some sort of co-operation between IWGC (and its semi-official forebears) and WO casualty branch. But I have no idea how this worked in practice. It does suggest that the now CWGC may have more materials- but that they are not as cuddly and efficient as to what they say. eg-misidentifications never happened???  I have yet to see a digitised GRU final where a name has been changed. the statistical chances that there were not mistakes  is unlikely-The same problem with the IFTC stuff must have =been the same in 1918 or so as now-Can you be certain as to the identity of that casualty?? The way the CWGC has listed archives is not that helpful-and,I repeat we still do not know what has been retained and off limits as being "office papers". Just because an archive contains old stuff is no guarantee at all that all the old stuff is there.

  To me, the biggest problem is not how IWGC got its information and what it did- its how the WO casualties branch worked and what records it generated.  We seem to have been lulled  a little bit-plenty of stuff on the good work of IWGC and thereafter, a modest amount of stuff on the physical retrieval of human remains (where one wouuld expect a degree of administrative reticence)  BUT how remains were tied in to a particular ID by the War Office is still a big gap. The biggest advance in knowledge for both IWGC and WO wwould be to try and ascertain what IWGC got in the way of records from WO. If there was a loss of materials that might have proved useful in our times with our technologies,then I suspect that would have been c.1921 with the formal ending of the war.

    I am not expecting any golden treasure trove to emerge in the way of undisclosed archive(although one must presume materials continue to exist until we have definite proof of destruction) but it would colour the whole history of commemoration and the work of identifying casualties if we have some  firmer knowledge of what there was in terms of records and what has happened to them. 

(Accountants are not the worst-I went to the LSE-economic forecasters get short shrift-someone who can look out of the back window of a moving car and tell you where you are going)-don't even start me on lawyers!)

 

[ss002d6252]

  Lets have a look at what we have with regard to the service files for ORs particularly- the surviving "burnt documents". They usually have 3 copies of the attestation papers, 3 sets of service records (dates of promotion,etc), 3 (up to) of NOK details from the end of the war-sometimes duplicates of the services record in more detail as casualty/medical forms. At some point one must presume (reasonably I hope) that triplicate records were in 3 location-and,again, at sometime pre-Arnside they were reunited (I say this because personally all the attestation forms I have seen in OR files have identical levels of burning round the edges, suggesting they were there by Arnside rather than a copy/copies came in from elsewhere-the lack of any "fresh" copies suggests that the burnt documents" were already a concentrated (and weeded?)  record before Arnside.

 

Worthy of a separate thread but the mobilization regulations & FS regulations give a clue regarding the structure of the service records.
 

The unit held the initial record, including B103 forms.
 

On proceeding overseas the B103 would be extracted and a nominal roll and B103 was also to be sent to the AG at the base. The AG would keep the records updated and '.. and in the case of a soldier will subsequently be filed with his original attestation'.
 

For each man proceeding overseas a duplicate attestation form,B103 etc was to be sent to the officer i/c records (for regular soldiers it appears this was already held from the original attestation point as every 3 years the duplicate was to be sent to the records office to be consolidated).

 

So, we eventually had 3 sets of duplicitous paperwork - the original, the AG records and the records office. This likely explains why we see different copies amongst some of the merged records.

At some point these records were merged back - presumably bit by bit and the combined in to one set at the point they were sent for storage.

 

Craig

[Guest]

Thanks Craig-There had to be some sort of army order about not taking service files overseas. I suspect the AG (=Adjutant General-just to make sure) set is the one kept nearest the War Office. And I am guessing again that home deaths meant also that a set must have gone up somewhere to the War Office to get the casualty lists done. Everything seems to point to some sort of further work on how the casualties branch actually functioned-the more so, in the context of this thread, whether and how it was involved inidentification from its records. Its the sort of thing that should have an internally printed report or,at least,some sort of explanatory memorandum tucked away at TNA.  Lets see if we can spot it.

[ss002d6252]

Thanks Craig-There had to be some sort of army order about not taking service files overseas. I suspect the AG (=Adjutant General-just to make sure) set is the one kept nearest the War Office. And I am guessing again that home deaths meant also that a set must have gone up somewhere to the War Office to get the casualty lists done. Everything seems to point to some sort of further work on how the casualties branch actually functioned-the more so, in the context of this thread, whether and how it was involved inidentification from its records. Its the sort of thing that should have an internally printed report or,at least,some sort of explanatory memorandum tucked away at TNA.  Lets see if we can spot it.

 

The AG file was the one sent to the AG at the Base (3rd Echelon) so was the copy kept (in most cases) in France.

 

Quote

And I am guessing again that home deaths meant also that a set must have gone up somewhere to the War Office to get the casualty lists done

The service records were never held (in the war) at the War Office. The Casualty branch, as I understand it, had a card index of records but the Base records officer sent copies of reports to them and to the records office back in the UK.

This is where the errors (or differences) creep in between the Soldiers Effects and the SDGW/CWGC records - the AG at the Base sent one copy to the War Office (which passed it to the Effects) and one copy to the record office. This explains in part why the Effects will say one thing whilst SDGW & CWGC will typically agree with each other but not the effects.

Craig

[Guest]

Excellent Craig- A gig question is whether the IWGC card index and the War Office card index are one and the same-perhaps turned over c.1921??

 

     A search of Discovery shows  one publication and one series that are worth a "look see" 

9And a further complicaation- MS3 for officers?  I have always assumed that "MS" was for Military Secretary (?)

 

 

This file was originally catalogued under more than one subject heading. These headings, and details...

War Office and successors: Registered Files (General Series). (Officers) Branch, 1914-1919. PUBLICATIONS (WAR BOOK) Code 24C: History of MS 3 Casualties (Officers) Branch, 1914-1919.

 

Held by:	The National Archives, Kew - War Office, Armed Forces, Judge Advocate General, and related bodies
Date:	1920 - 1921
Reference:	WO 32/9317

 

 

 

 

War Office and Ministry of Defence: Central Department C2 Branch, later C2 (AD) Army Department:...

War Office and Ministry of Defence: Central Department C2 Branch, later C2 (AD) Army Department: Policy and Precedents Notes. This series consists of records of the Central Department C2 Branch (later C2 (AD) Army Department) relating to the department's responsibilities for a range of...

 

Held by:	The National Archives, Kew - War Office, Armed Forces, Judge Advocate General, and related bodies
Date:	1904 - 1978
Reference:	WO 296
Subjects:	Armed Forces (General Administration) | Army | Communications | Ireland | Pay and pensions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ss002d6252]

Excellent Craig- A gig question is whether the IWGC card index and the War Office card index are one and the same-perhaps turned over c.1921??

 

     A search of Discovery shows  one publication and one series that are worth a "look see" 

9And a further complicaation- MS3 for officers?  I have always assumed that "MS" was for Military Secretary (?)

 

 

This file was originally catalogued under more than one subject heading. These headings, and details...

War Office and successors: Registered Files (General Series). (Officers) Branch, 1914-1919. PUBLICATIONS (WAR BOOK) Code 24C: History of MS 3 Casualties (Officers) Branch, 1914-1919.

 

Held by:	The National Archives, Kew - War Office, Armed Forces, Judge Advocate General, and related bodies
Date:	1920 - 1921
Reference:	WO 32/9317

 

A caveat is that the NA blub says "He, in turn, required his Military Secretary to maintain the register, a task which, certainly during and since the First World War, has been carried out by the Military Secretary's Honours and Awards Branch - MS3 (later MS1b)."
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14594

Craig

[ss002d6252]

30 August 1919  https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna/viewarticle?id=bl%2f0000221%2f19190830%2f089&stringtohighlight="casualty branch"

Craig

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

19 hours ago, jay dubaya said:

... The whole structure was problematic from the start, it was wobbly back then and they created it, we are left to our own interpretations with what remains after weeding, fire and water. There are many cases that stand out and warrant further attention -whilst we deal with dozens perhaps a few hundred by now - back then they dealt with hundreds of thousands - it was unprecedented chaos in uncharted waters on a vast scale. 

 

... Not all of the GRRF and CoGBR archive we see are final reports, these earlier reports, as demonstrated by WRR give some suggestion where these annotations trail too and an earlier index code. Sadly most of the CWGC archive isn't digitised and just how much more if any the CWGC hold of these original reports is unknown to me. I'm sure I read somewhere about bulk paper being given up for war efforts (post 1939) - don't remember if it was WO or IWGC.

 

First point above, - no it cannot have been anything like a present day "Crime Scene Investigation. Why do people, from the CWGC down, keep inferring that it was ? "... we are left to our own interpretations ..." Again, interpretations and speculation are not facts.

 

With regards to paperwork for the war effort, yes there are references in the CWGC archives. One surprising item which was substantially sacrificed (apparently signed-off by Fabian Ware himself) were the WW1 "Final Verification Forms".

 

Can I also mention that obscure acronyms are probably confusing many readers - GRRF, CoGBR, WRR etc. It would be better to follow convention - The Royal Air Force (RAF) .... and then in the same post "RAF" could be used.

Tom