J Banning Posted 1 January , 2009 Share Posted 1 January , 2009 Can anyone confirm the wording that would have been written on a telegram informing a relative that a soldier was missing in action? Would the phrase ‘missing in action’ have actually been used or was there an alternative phrase employed? I think it is just 'missing in action' but would like confirmation. Many thanks Jeremy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 1 January , 2009 Share Posted 1 January , 2009 No, it wouldnt have said "in action". My understanding is that the phrase "missing in action" is WW2 vintage. Depending on your reasons for asking, bear in mind that I believe it was only officers families who would have received a telegram - letters for "other ranks". John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 3 January , 2009 Share Posted 3 January , 2009 My grandmother received a letter to say that her husband was missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Lund Posted 3 January , 2009 Share Posted 3 January , 2009 The Holmfirth Express often used the words: “Reported missing after action”. But the only verbatim quote they give is from a New Zealand army telegram. It refers to John Moreland, a Private (12/1721), Auckland Battalion, New Zealand Brigade, New Zealand and Australian Division. The twenty-seven year old son of Thomas and Eleanor Moreland of Holt, Holmfirth, he was killed in action on Sunday August 8th 1915. In August 1915 his father received a telegram from the New Zealand Army Records Officer saying: “Much regret to inform you your son Driver John Moreland is reported missing after action in Gallipoli on the 8th inst”. It was to be October before they received the news that he had been killed on that date; the family were hoping he had been taken as a prisoner of war until they received this message: “Very much regret to inform you that your son, Private John Moreland, New Zealand Field Artillery, previously reported missing, is now reported by Court of Inquiry believed dead”. Tony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Banning Posted 19 January , 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2009 Many thanks for all your responses. Most remiss of me to take so long in thanking you. Cheers Jeremy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 19 January , 2009 Share Posted 19 January , 2009 Similar time scale on a relative of my cousin. All correspondence by letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 21 January , 2009 Share Posted 21 January , 2009 Letters could be an extreamly fast way of communicating, with more than one delivery a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 23 January , 2009 Share Posted 23 January , 2009 I suspect that a letter to Australia would have taken 6 to 8 weeks though. I suspect the mil authorities must have used cable e.g. my step father was wounded on 12 May 1916 and his father informed by letter dated 31 May in Melbourne. David 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