CWGC cemeteries

[munce]

I've just started reading Paul Fussell's 'The Great War and Modern Memory', and in it he says that: 'the sophisticated observer of the rows of headstones [in CWGC cemeteries] will do well to suspect that very often the bodies below are buried in mass graves, with the headstones disposed in rows to convey the illusion that each soldier has his individual place'. A bibliographic reference is given to Philip Longworth's 'The Unending Vigil'.

Is there any truth in this claim?

[Terry Denham]

The answer has to be - "Yes and No". It also depends on what is meant by a 'mass grave'.

A very large number of the cemeteries were created after the war by concentrating scattered bodies and those from small sites into one more-manageable place. These bodies were generally laid out in neat rows as you see today each with its own headstone.

However, cemeteries that were built during the fighting at the front or nearby and which still survive often consisted of convenient shell holes or trenches. These were utilised to save digging in dangerous or difficult conditions. The headstones are usually in an irregular pattern in these instances. Also, at hospitals, new trenches were dug in anticipation of the inevitable burials and casualties were laid out in neat rows.

On occasions the number of dead was too great for the space available and several casualties were placed in the same grave. In many instances each man has his own headstone and therefore the actual body cannot be under the individual headstone in all cases.

There are some instances of 'mass grave' burials but these are well documented (ie V.C. Corner at Fromelles) and headstones are not laid out in rows in these.

No doubt some instances occurred of soldiers burying several men in a hole and then setting up their wooden grave markers in a row to be copied later by IWGC when the headstones arrived. However, I suspect that in the majority of cases this was not so.

Where the layout of the graves differs from the normal 'one man - one headstone' concept, this is usually explained in the old cemetery registers.

I think it would be a gross exaggeration to say that mass grave cemeteries are the norm or even in the majority. The statement would appear to be the author's personal view and erroneous in my thinking.

[Paul Reed]

In most cases a single headstone indicates an individual grave - mass or collective graves do exist, but they are usually easy to spot as the headstones are very close together or touching.

Some battlefield cemeteries are mass graves, because of the circumstances under which they were buried, but there are headstones in them, which usually carry more than one name; normally somewhere in the middle is a 'blank' stone with just a cross on it. This is a good indication you are looking at a mass grave of some sort.

[Tom Morgan]

I've just started reading Paul Fussell's 'The Great War and Modern Memory', and in it he says that: 'the sophisticated observer of the rows of headstones [in CWGC cemeteries] will do well to suspect that very often the bodies below are buried in mass graves, with the headstones disposed in rows to convey the illusion that each soldier has his individual place'. A bibliographic reference is given to Philip Longworth's 'The Unending Vigil'.

Is there any truth in this claim?

Ir isn't really a claim, Munce, just a statement that there may be grounds for suspicion.

I suppose it seems a reasonable suspicion. After all, there are some known British mass-graves which are acknowledged as such. And when a burial-party was clearing the battlefield and making a cemetery in, say, 1916, they couldn't possibly have known that in a few years time the IWGC would come along and try to formalise "their" cemetery, so that it had a visual similarity with hundreds of others. They couldn't have borne this future requirement in mind.

There are also quite a few cemeteries - well, quite a few rows in cemeteries, where there isn't enough room for every soldier buried in the row to have an individual headstone, so you get two or three names on each stone towards the end of the row, such as you see in the Devonshire Cemetery at Mansell Copse.

Tom

[munce]

Thanks for all your replies.

I took it to be on the verge of a claim, Tom, as he says that an observer 'will do well to suspect ...'. I can certainly understand the suspicion, but it does seem a little cynical, especially (as I've now learned) as mass graves are generally identifiable as such. I'm glad that there wasn't any intention by the CWGC to deceive a gullible public, which is what Fussell appears to be suggesting.

[Quinnes Post]

I was interested in a comment that Terry Denham made aboutconcentrating scatterred graves into a more manageable site. I am researching my grandfather killed in ww1 and buried in Westouter Heuvelland ( I have a picture of part of cemetery if anybody interested) I visited the grave which is in a small part of the local cemetary. My curiousity was aroused when I noted that dates of death varied from at least 1915 to 1917 and i wondered why as i thought that as the site was small they had been killed locally but know I am not sure. Does anybody know that if he was moved would CWGC knew where from?

[Bob Coulson]

Titch,

Terry will know more but Westoutre was used intermittently by the British for burials from late 1914 right through to 1918.

Bob.

[Terry Denham]

As he is buried in Westouter Churchyard & Extension (I assume from what you say), it is unlikely that he would have been moved.

The churchyard & extn were used from Nov 14 to Sept 18 by field ambulance units and for front line burials. There were no later concentrations.

There are 98 Commonwealth burials here.

[Guest Bert Hoornaert]

Titch,

What's your grandfathers name? I ask this because I live in Westouter and I am very interested in de soldiers buried here.

Bert