ian turner Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 - Suppose that somewhere near Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery there was a small burial place, with, let's say 10 graves. - After the Armistice it was decided to take all of them to Potijze CGC. - When that small burial place was made, some time in 1917 (the year that Pullen was killed) records were made, so that the names were known of who was buried there. - But in Fourth Ypres the front lines had come closer again, German shelling etc., and some of the crosses were tossed about. Let's say three. And it was impossible to say which graves these 3 crosses belonged to. So, all the men from that small burial place were taken to Potijze CGC,and reburied there. And got a headstone. With a name on. Except ... those 3 men. They were buried as 3 Unknowns. It was known at that time that these Unknown graves A, B and C were soldiers X, Y and Z, but it was impossible to say whether grave A was X, Y or Z. (I know, the remains could have been searched, trying to find items that would allow a name ID, but let's say that for some reason this was not or could not be done.) - And so : it was absolutely sure that these 3 men were in that cemetery, but impossible to say where. - And : a Special Memorial was erected to these 3 men X, Y and Z, "Known to be buried in this cemetery". Aurel, Maybe I should email you on this, and not add to the thread, but it is too difficult at lucnhtime (without having eaten) to hold all your comments and answer separately. I did not quite agree with your suggestion. If three unidentified but nonetheless individual graves were concentrated, (despite having lost their idividual markers) I feel sure that the army would have reburied them in individual graves, and marked each separately with their own 'unknown' headstones. Not just given them a special memorial because they did not know which was which. To qualify for the special memorial, their graves must have been lost in Potijze after reburial. That would have been postwar, not subject to shellfire, but posibly subject to administritive error? That was what I meant. However it is irrelevant now, as I wonder perhaps that anything was (and still is) possible! Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Aurel, I did not quite agree with your suggestion. If three unidentified but nonetheless individual graves were concentrated, (despite having lost their idividual markers) I feel sure that the army would have reburied them in individual graves, and marked each separately with their own 'unknown' headstones. Not just given them a special memorial because they did not know which was which. To qualify for the special memorial, their graves must have been lost in Potijze after reburial. That would have been postwar, not subject to shellfire, but posibly subject to administritive error? That was what I meant. However it is irrelevant now, as I wonder perhaps that anything was (and still is) possible! Ian Ian, It really looks like this will remain a problem between us. I have already pointed out in a previous posting this morning, and may I please ask you to re-read the posting that you are quoting now. I clearly say that in my opinion these 3 men would have (or may have) an Unknown grave each of them AND a Special Memorial. Both. You seem to be saying I claim that they would only have a Special Memorial. And this is something I have never said, on the contrary. Or maybe you put emphasis on the second part of your posting ? "To qualify for a special memorial etc." ? Yes, maybe that is what you mean. What I think about that ? I don't know. So you think that Special Memorials in any cemetery are always related to a postwar error or so ? I have no answer to that I must say. Maybe Terry can give us some enlightment ? (Sorry, Terry. ) Aurel (But if the misunderstanding between us remains, indeed, maybe we can solve it by e-mail ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian turner Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Aurel, Yes I think you are misunderstanding me! I'll continue via e-mail as it does not help our efforts on the thread. Eventually we are both on the same wavelength about the original question - we still don't know for sure! Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 I am not sure what you are disagreeing about! I think there is more confusion here between the army and CWGC. The army buried the men but did not provide headstones or SMs. CWGC decided post war who was to have SMs once they were left with names for which there was no corresponding grave. The decision would not have been made during the war or during the concentration process by the army. It is true that a man with an SM will either be buried in the cemetery (Known or Believed) in an unmarked location or be in a grave marked as 'Unknown' - more likely the latter. These will have been generated by the actual grave being lost due to battle damage or to inadequate or lost records. Obviously the battle damage reason does not apply to all cemeteries or burial dates. There is more speculation than fact in this thread. Please be careful not to telescope the timescales. There could have been many years between the burials and the final outcome we see today. Many different people from DofGR&E and IWGC could have been interpreting the paperwork and matching it to what appeared on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 With regards to Andrews point in post #557, death as a result of shellfire does not necessarily imply High Explosive, shrapnel shells were also used; particularly against troops. Is this how Gardiner met his fate? If so, it is likely that his remains could have been intered. Roxy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Terry, When I typed "IWGC memo" I was implying the one sent to them, not by them but after re-reading the post I see how easily this could be misinterpreted. (my heart was in the right place...honest ) I agree this thread contains a lot of speculation but that's how we're narrowing the odds. As we all float our wild and crazy ideas, they're analysed, mulled over and then pulled to bits by the other contributors. Afterwards, we're left with only plausible and reasonable conclusions that can be more seriously investigated. And I'm sure that graves didn't just go missing through neglect. It would have to be a combined outcome of years and volumes of documentation, identification, relocation, physical layout, mapping, designing, understaffing etc etc. I'm sure the DGR&E and IWGC did their utmost to maintain the most careful records but they had no chance of getting it perfect and unavoidable errors were bound to occur through no fault of theirs. Ian and Aurel, You both seem to be on the same page but are still finding ways to disagree with what you both agree on!!! (You both need a night out at the pub - this thread's affecting your sanity) I think you're both saying that a person remembered on a SM may indeed have an 'unknown' headstone as well. As Terry's pointed out, this may very well be the case but there are going to be those whose graves were totally lost altogether and no headstone of any kind was possible - for example someone's grave at Potijze Plot I, buried during the war may have been completely lost throughout the following years of fighting. They are known to be buried there but the actual grave could no longer be found to place a headstone on. Tim L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 There are cases where a casualty is known to be buried in a cemetery but the grave cannot be marked for some reason. In these instances they get a Special Memorial marked 'Buried near this spot'. I have a relative with just such a stone. I am not suggesting this adds anything in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian turner Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 CWGC decided post war who was to have SMs once they were left with names for which there was no corresponding grave. The decision would not have been made during the war or during the concentration process by the army. Then refering back to my yesterday's postings with Aussie records showing Memorial markers in a memorial plot in Plot II at Potijze is not today's (IWGC/CWGC) special memorial row, but more likely to be 'our row' (A*)! Come on pals, what do you think! I believe this is the answer. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 There are cases where a casualty is known to be buried in a cemetery but the grave cannot be marked for some reason. In these instances they get a Special Memorial marked 'Buried near this spot'. I have a relative with just such a stone. I am not suggesting this adds anything in this case. Terry, For God's sake, don't confuse us even more.....I don't think I can take it!! Tim L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Ian, You may very well have struck gold on this. (But it still doesn't yet account for Pullen and Fischer) Tim L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 I am not sure what you are disagreeing about! Terry, I was sure. It just seemed to me that Ian and me did agree on something, but that Ian did not see that, and said that he disagreed with me. Even thought that I wrote the opposite of what I had written. But don't worry, we'll continue our Little War off Forum. (Ian I will email later today. Thanks for yours.) *** What follows probably will not add anything, but who knows ... Yesterday evening I had a look in the cemetery itself at all the Unknowns in Plot II. Thanks to Terry's list many days ago we can see on line where the Unknowns are (the grave numbers that have no names), but the headstone sometimes gives information on the nationality or unit. These are the results. An Australian Soldier of the Great War : 3 An Irish Soldier of the Great War : 1 A Scottish Soldier of the Great war : 3 A Canadian Soldier of the Great War : 1 A British Officier of the Great War : 1 A Soldier of the Great War, Leicester Regiment : 1 A Soldier of the Great War, Royal Guernsey Light Inf. : 1 A Soldier of the Great War, Manchester Regiment : 1 A Soldier of the Great War, Royal Fusiliers : 1 A Soldier of the Great War, Scots Guards : 2 A Soldier of the Great War, Royal Dublin Fusiliers : 1 A Soldier of the Great War, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers : 1 A Soldier of the Great War, Northumberland Fusiliers : 1 And as I mentioned in a previous posting (days ago), the number of multiple Unknowns (i.e. a headstone with 2 or 3 men) : 9 headstones with "Two soldiers of the Great War" 2 headstones with "Three Soldiers of the Great War". If anyone would like to know where (in what Row, what gravenumbers) these Unknown headstones are (the ones with nationality given, or the multiple ones), let me know. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_J Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Then refering back to my yesterday's postings with Aussie records showing Memorial markers in a memorial plot in Plot II at Potijze is not today's (IWGC/CWGC) special memorial row, but more likely to be 'our row' (A*)! Come on pals, what do you think! I believe this is the answer. Ian Ian, I agree this is the most likely explanation. 1. The current row of special memorials is at the back of Plot 2. There is a document about their construction in the early 1920s. The men whose names we can distinguish in Row A* are not commemorated there. 2. Row A* in the old pictures is at the front. The names that can clearly be distinguished are either on the Menin Gate or at Poelcapelle (Torrome). The current front row was clearly the second row then (based on GH Jones). 3. We have now 2 or 3 cases of documents in Australian soldier's records listing "Memorial Crosses" in "Memorial Rows" or even "Memorial Plots" for soldiers who are now commemorated on Memorials to the Missing. These are in various cemeteries in France and Belgium, so the practice was, if not widespread, at least not unusual. Each document lists several such crosses - clearly not grave markers, as other similar documents for those with known graves match up with locations today. I'm sure more examples could be found with some searching. For me, these three items are beyond mere speculation, but are the most logical explnations based on the few facts there are. We cannot be definitive, but I think the argument is very strong. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 There is more speculation than fact in this thread. Quite true. But you say that as though this is a bad thing (if I misread you, I apologise). Only through such a process can we achieve true enlightenment Grasshopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Andrew Not at all. Amongst speculation an answer may lurk. It is just that, in a long thread like this, what starts as speculation can turn into fact without too much effort after another six pages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Terry, You make a very good point. However, I think that there are enough Pals ready to shoot down in flames any plausible explanation that we have it covered. Just look at Aurel and Ian Roxy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Firing HE or shrapnel? Roxy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Andrew, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabine72 Posted 10 August , 2006 Author Share Posted 10 August , 2006 hey, all laughing I see, good,so the desagreeing issue is solved then. I took me some time to read all the post since last night. I wonder how many hours I'll been needing when I come back to belgium after my holliday in england? Yes, most of you all want to go and see the battelfieds and I can't wait to leave. still 14 day to go and then I'm off sabine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldstreamer Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 how do you manage to keep track of a thread this long ? It confuses the hell out of me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_J Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 how do you manage to keep track of a thread this long ? What - you think we do?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Of course we don't. We don't want to end up in a madhouse ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 Personally I lost the plot around about post 8! (It's been a little belter though hasn't it?) (For my Belgian friends, 'a little belter' is something really good'!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 10 August , 2006 Share Posted 10 August , 2006 The phrase 'I lost the plot' was an unintentional pun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now