Soldiers added to and new memorials

[roughdiamond]

This one seems to have caused a bit of controversy and deserves it's own thread IMHO, I know this is the "Soldiers" thread, but as we're talking about in some cases individuals or groups of Soldiers I'd say it justifies it's place here, so here goes.

Seadog's post stated: -

"No retrospective awards, No additions to war memorials, No "new" memorials

The past is the past, leave well alone!.

Norman"

While I agree with his 1st point wholeheartedly, I would have upto a few years ago disagreed with him on the 2nd, that was until what I can only describe as "vandalism" on the Airdrie Cenotaph, One member of the public had noticed that the eulogy that spanned the 4 sides of the memorial "In memory of the men of Airdrie who gave up their lives in the Great War 1914 - 1918" on one side finished with "Who gave up", this person then successfully petitioned the Local Council to have the word "UP" filled in with cement, this was done with zero correspondance with any person's relatives listed there or with bodies like the British Legion. So in this case I agree there should be no additions or alterations.

On the 3rd point I'd have to strongly disagree, my home Village, Chapelhall is classed as part of the greater town of Airdrie, Lanarkshire which it borders, but this was not the case when Cenotaphs were being raised, in Chapelhall's case it meant those killed were not included on the Airdrie Cenotaph, this oversight was put right recently when the community council raised the money for the small memorial in the photo in the link below, how can anyone say this is wrong?

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/128140

In addition recently a memorial arch was constructed in Hamilton to commemorate the VC's won by Lanarkshire men between 1857 and 1944, again how can this be wrong?

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%26tbs%3Disch:1

Sam

[NeilEvans]

No retrospective awards

I Agree

No additions to war memorials

On the whole i agree. However i've a case of a man who died of wounds in 1923. Death Cert backs this up. The local memorial was erected in 1919. Surely he has the right to be remembered on the memorial?

In most cases i'm against inclusions. In Telford a memorial was re-erected in 1989. New names were added and quite a few of the men had very faint links with the parish of St. Georges. Not keen on that at all.

No "new" memorials

Not sure on this.

Lets say Shrewsbury decided to create a memorial in the town, dedicated to all the men of the KSLI who fell in both wars, names inscribed. Where is the harm in that?

This would not be changing history at all.

Neil

[CT-Guards]

No retrospective awards -I again agree.

Additions to War Memorials - Each case should be judged on its own individual merit, I consider alterations may be required to leave no man unaccounted for. (gonna get some backlash for that one)!

New Memorials - Jury's still out on that one as I consider alternatives are a possible solution.

Head well below the parapet now!

[Beau Geste]

No retrospective awards, No additions to war memorials, No "new" memorials

The past is the past, leave well alone!.

I really don't mean to be offensive but I sometimes wonder whether people really do think things through before they articulate what can only be described either as a "purist" approach to their interest in The Great War or what appears to be a belief that those who made decisions in the first half of the twentieth century always got it right.

Of course, a very strong case indeed can be made for "no retrospective awards". The requirements were carefully worked out and (hopefully) they were adhered to before a soldier was considered for one of the various gallantry awards. To argue that these qualifying needs could be met, that a a genuine level of objectivity could be applied today, almost a century after the war ended, would be extremely difficult if not impossible to sustain and for this reason I agree wholeheartedly with Sam when he argues for "no retrospective awards".

However, the whole issue of "additions to" and/or "new memorials" is quite different. These were erected after the war ended using information that was, in many cases, found subsequently to be either incomplete or wrong. Are we saying that these memorials should be left as they are even though many are prone to error or even ignore the existence and sacrifice of local soldiers who gave their all during those long dark days ? I don't think so Sam.

I'll go further. I think it's the responsibility of people like us, members of this forum, people who have shown that they care, to put right the errors of the past and if a community wishes to rectify these errors and omissions or to honour those who served by erecting a new memorial, then I support them 100%.

Kind regards,

Harry

[Canadawwi]

I agree with the above comments that war memorials - there should be the potential to add names that were missed. The objective of any such local war memorial is to honour the names of those who died as a result of their military service and who were from that community. It was very difficult at that time to gather the names due to a variety of reasons.

I have recently gone through the entire war years issues of a local newspaper published in Banff, Alberta, Canada. My study of the attestations involved plus articles published on the men found that this was an area where many fairly new English, Irish and Scottish immigrants would come to work for a time, and often move on to another city. Some didn't build enough connections in the city to be remembered a few years after the war, while others did. Some did not have family members or friends to forward their name to the list after their death.

I've pulled out every article on a soldier in the war while at the same time comparing this to the current war memorial. It was clear from the reports in this paper that the entire process for getting the names for the memorial was through the I.O.D.E. first building a draft list then getting this list published in the local paper. They made it clear they would probably miss somebody or make an error without the community providing input. The first list was full of some major errors and missing the names of twelve soldiers. There are still another 10 that I have found beyond the final list.

What was interesting was that some of the missing names were men who had extensive coverage of their death in the local paper. There was only one weekly paper for the area and only eight pages long. This was really the main source of news for the community, yet it appears that it was never fully consulted to get the casualties. I quickly found many more names missing through my study of this paper that ultimately did not end up on this 1920s memorial. I found more names using today's search engines and other methods only possible with computerization. I also found very significant errors in the spelling - in some cases with the first initial entirely different. I dealt with one alias. His name appeared in the paper many times as one of the highest ranking war dead, plus the first known local man to have died in the war, yet they never once published his real name.

It was hit and miss at that time, and those who were organizing the memorial made it very clear that they knew their list was imperfect.

I'm not basing my comments on just looking at one memorial - I've gone through much the same process with well over one hundred memorials and they are all missing some names or have minor and/or serious errors.

By adding the names to the memorial you can frequently find some space to add it that doesn't affect the design of the memorial, or affix a plaque in a way that maintains the original memorial. I have found memorials where names were added a long time ago - sometimes as many as 15 names. I do not want to rewrite history - I think the best compromise is to leave the memorial as it was and add the missed names in a way that is clear that they were later additions.

The I.O.D.E. began their process to get the names for the Banff memorial by publishing a draft list in the local paper on 28 July 1923. They wrote: "As the committee is very anxious that this list should be correct, citizens are asked to check it over carefully and report omissions or errors if any. Corrections may be forwarded to this office or to any officer of the I.O.D.E."

For example, a "Corrections List" appeared in this paper on August 4, 1923. They wrote: "If there are any other corrections or additions the committee in charge of the erection of the memorial would like to know at once."

Six names were listed - nearly all men who had articles about their death in this same paper, but no one came forward with their names in the original draft list. There was a man named Cox listed - with the article noting: "We have been unable to get the initials of Mr. Cox. Who will supply them? Everybody do their bit so that no name will be left off."

One of their missing names that was found for the updated list was Pte. Lorne Wilbur Layng, 54th Batt. CEF, who died 30 September 1918. I counted ten newspaper articles about Layng including a large death notice with a poem in his honour on the front page of this very paper, yet he still was missed in the draft. As I said the paper was only eight pages and the only paper in town. Even a look through a library copy by the memorial committee would have located his name, but this was never done. There could be an explanation - no library copy, no one available to take on this volunteer work. The list of possibilities is lengthy.

Just because the name was missed back then due to human error should not mean that the man will be forgotten of the memorial. People do visit it today. After all the entire point of the memorial is to remember these men.

Yet another "Corrections" list appeared in the paper 11 August 1923. Six more names had been found, and four spelling corrections were made to the original list.

I am in the process of working on this in terms of sending all the articles I found in to the soldier's entry on the Canadian Virtual Memorial, plus images of the memorial, as well as an image of the memorial to the CVM for the missing men with an appropriate description added noting that they were missed and how I know they were from Banff. I would ensure that it is not a weak link to this town, but a strong and clearly documented connection.

[grantowi]

No additions to war memorials, No "new" memorials

The past is the past, leave well alone!.

Best tell this to the IFTC Team - all their hard work was in vain, they might as well pack up and go home - I'm sure they will endorse it 100%

Grant

[Murrough]

Seadog's post stated: -

"No retrospective awards, No additions to war memorials, No "new" memorials

The past is the past, leave well alone!.

Norman"

Just to clarify that it was Seadogs post and not Roughdiamond.

[roughdiamond]

Just to clarify that it was Seadogs post and not Roughdiamond.

Cheers Murrough, I was just about to point that out myself.

sam

[CT-Guards]

"No retrospective awards, No additions to war memorials, No "new" memorials.

I can see it now;

Dear In From The Cold,

Give it all up.

Yours....

I think not.

Each man who died earned his right to be remembered. I'm not that self righteous to decline them that small piece of honour.

From my great uncles WWI scroll;

Let those who come after see to it

that his name be not forgotten.

[Chris Noble]

Hi.

Just a question for Neil really. Quote.

In most cases i'm against inclusions. In Telford a memorial was re-erected in 1989. New names were added and quite a few of the men had very faint links with the parish of St. Georges. Not keen on that at all.

I don't know much about Telford, or it's environs Neil but i presume Telford 'expanded' after numerous rail links and the employment that it generated.

The added commemorations Neil, are they of the Great War and i presume they are.

Kindest regards.

Chris.

[Beau Geste]

Cheers Murrough, I was just about to point that out myself.

sam

[/quote)

Apologies Sam. My mistake. I should have said 'Norman'.

Harry

[cypresslodge]

Each man who died earned his right to be remembered. I'm not that self righteous to decline them that small piece of honour.

From my great uncles WWI scroll;

Let those who come after see to it

that his name be not forgotten.

I think it's the responsibility of people like us, members of this forum, people who have shown that they care, to put right the errors of the past and if a community wishes to rectify these errors and omissions or to honour those who served by erecting a new memorial, then I support them 100%.

These posts really sum up my feelings on the whole "No retrospective awards, No additions to war memorials, No "new" memorials issue. Thank you both for being so succinct

Cheers

Sharon

[CarylW]

I've very mixed feelings on this issue. While researching the men who are listed on the Birkenhead Memorial and when I have time and using Geoff's search I've found a large amount of men not listed on the Birkenhead Memorial and I've put them on their own page here:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancest...kenheadMen.html

So many of them and this is just up to the B's so far, and others have been submitted to me by family members or other researchers for inclusion on that page. I'll add more bit by bit and I'm sure there are more whose NOK details were not added to CWGC (I'm planning to go through SDGW) Granted some of them are already on other memorials, Wallasey for example, but then again there are Wallasey men who are listed on the memorial. I'll look into this when the list is finished and possibly take some off that page and especially if Im approached by a family member who says "oi he is already on the ............ memorial and that is fine by me/us".

There will still be a substantial number of men from central Birkenhead who should be listed

One man who submitted details to me is going to write to Wirral council to ask for his relative's name to be added to the Birkenhead memorial and good luck to him, I will back him all the way or anyone else who goes down that route

It's also possible, that many whose relatives names were omitted, are not aware they have been omitted. Until I started to research the memorial and had already found two relatives listed, I naively thought that was a complete listing of all the Birkenhead men who died and I really should have known better because I was already a researcher who was fully aware that nothing is written in stone and anything written in stone isn't neccesarily the true picture or record of events!

As for the rest, on the one hand I'm inclined to leave well alone. There will be so many of them that the names would not fit on the currently erected memorial, they would have to build a new one and although I may be wrong, I don't think Wirral Council have the funds for this even if they had the inclination. Then again I don't know until I try and is it really up to me to decide? Maybe the town as a whole should make the decision.

It seems such a shame that so many Birkenhead men are not remembered publicly, except on my site. Wouldn't it be good for future generations and for young people currently researching WW1 and ancestors who served to see a full listing of those from the town who died. Why differentiate between the two? Listed and not listed for whatever reasons existed at the time and I do understand the reasons but it was a long time ago and many, or probably all of those who decided not to or could not afford to have the name of their relatives inscribed, have passed away

I personally don't like hoo ha, fuss and attention and if there was a campaign to have more names added or a new memorial built with all the names, I maybe would not be at the forefront of it but would certainly back anyone who was

Caryl

[Beau Geste]

I've very mixed feelings on this issue. While researching the men who are listed on the Birkenhead Memorial and when I have time and using Geoff's search I've found a large amount of men not listed on the Birkenhead Memorial and I've put them on their own page here:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancest...kenheadMen.html

So many of them and this is just up to the B's so far, and others have been submitted to me by family members or other researchers for inclusion on that page. I'll add more bit by bit and I'm sure there are more whose NOK details were not added to CWGC (I'm planning to go through SDGW) Granted some of them are already on other memorials, Wallasey for example, but then again there are Wallasey men who are listed on the memorial. I'll look into this when the list is finished and possibly take some off that page and especially if Im approached by a family member who says "oi he is already on the ............ memorial and that is fine by me/us".

There will still be a substantial number of men from central Birkenhead who should be listed

One man who submitted details to me is going to write to Wirral council to ask for his relative's name to be added to the Birkenhead memorial and good luck to him, I will back him all the way or anyone else who goes down that route

It's also possible, that many whose relatives names were omitted, are not aware they have been omitted. Until I started to research the memorial and had already found two relatives listed, I naively thought that was a complete listing of all the Birkenhead men who died and I really should have known better because I was already a researcher who was fully aware that nothing is written in stone and anything written in stone isn't neccesarily the true picture or record of events!

As for the rest, on the one hand I'm inclined to leave well alone. There will be so many of them that the names would not fit on the currently erected memorial, they would have to build a new one and although I may be wrong, I don't think Wirral Council have the funds for this even if they had the inclination. Then again I don't know until I try and is it really up to me to decide? Maybe the town as a whole should make the decision.

It seems such a shame that so many Birkenhead men are not remembered publicly, except on my site. Wouldn't it be good for future generations and for young people currently researching WW1 and ancestors who served to see a full listing of those from the town who died. Why differentiate between the two? Listed and not listed for whatever reasons existed at the time and I do understand the reasons but it was a long time ago and many, or probably all of those who decided not to or could not afford to have the name of their relatives inscribed, have passed away

I personally don't like hoo ha, fuss and attention and if there was a campaign to have more names added or a new memorial built with all the names, I maybe would not be at the forefront of it but would certainly back anyone who was

Caryl

Hello Caryl from someone who was born on the poor side of the Mersey!

What you say confirms, I think, the anomalies I referred to in paragraph 3 of post #4. What we have, on memorials, is an incomplete and sometimes inaccurate record of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. People can argue until they're blue in the face that the past is the past and it would be wrong to meddle with things today simply because of the passage of time. Well, I for one cannot and will not accept that view. As I've said before, there is no justification to sit idly by and accept the errors and omissions on war memorials without at least trying to do something about it. I really do believe that it's the responsibility of people like us, members of this forum to rectify the errors of the past when and where we find them.

Kind regards,

Harry

[1690philip]

Seadog's post stated: -

"No retrospective awards, No additions to war memorials, No "new" memorials

The past is the past, leave well alone!.

Norman"

Well I would say Yes to all and I will keep my head above the parapet.

Phil