Problems with the War Memorial at Viesly (59) France

[Hedley Malloch]

There’s an interesting piece in Wednesday’s (27 March 2013) edition of ‘La Voix du Nord’ about the war memorial at Viesly, a village between Cambrai and Maubeuge.

Last Armistice Day, the Mayor of the village, M. Jacques Ledeuille was contacted by a family who complained that the name of a relative was not included on memorial. This was followed a few weeks later by a letter from the Préfecture telling him to make sure that the list of names on the memorial was up-to-date. This demand included those lost in all conflicts.

On inspecting the memorial M. Ledeuille was surprised to discover that the face on the memorial designated to take the names of those killed in 1915 was, in fact, completely blank The memorial listed the dead of the war by the year in which they died: 1914, 1916, 1917 and 1918 were there, each on its own face – but no 1915.

Intrigued the Mayor looked at the register of the village war dead held by the local church. This listed 75 names, but there were only 44 engraved on the war memorial. The mystery did not stop there since cross-checking revealed that only 33 of the names appeared in both places.

Some of the discrepancies are accounted for by the fact the memorial was built in 1921, but the definitive official list of French war dead was not declared until 1922. But that was not the whole story. The Mayor checked the lists on the French website Memoire des Hommes to find those war dead who had either lived in Viesly or been born there. This was a big job since there appeared to be numerous spelling errors, and people were often listed under pet names and nick-names in different sources.

After a great deal of work M.Ledeuille has come up with a revised official list of 75 names. There are either three or five cases outstanding (the report is not clear to me). Two of these involve names which should not have been included on the war memorial; one dying from heart problems, the second having been discharged from the army. Neither can be considered as ‘mort pour la France’, so the question now is – should their names be removed from the memorial. M. Ledeuille thinks not. Their names should be left on the memorial.

His attention then turned to the soldiers listed as being lost in the Second World War, who do not appear to be included on the monument. Checking their names most are listed as ‘mort pout la France’, but he has one who is specifically listed as ‘non-mort pour la France’. Should he be included? And where are the names to be engraved? Along with those lost in the First World War, or somewhere else?

‘A good question’, says M. Ledeuille, before adding, ‘The more I go into this problem, the more mysteries I uncover’.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Hedley - Interesting story, which begs two questions.

Why was the 1915 panel erected but left blank in the first place ?

Why is somebody listed as ‘non-mort pour la France’ actually on the memorial, and more especially, what was the cause of the "mort" ?

Tom

[Hedley Malloch]

Tom - there is no explanation given for why the 1915 names were left off. The report says 'it appeared that one of the four faces was not engraved. Soldiers killed in 1914 were listed, those in in 1916, as well as those in 1917 and 1918. But those of 1915 - no.'

It is baffling to me as to how villagers could turn up for each Armistice Day between 1922 and 2011 and fail to notice that there were no names for 1915. It is even more mysterious when one considers that Armistice Day commemorations in France include 'L'Appel des Morts', when all of the names on the memorial are read out and each is followed by the response 'mort pour la France' after every name. Some villagers must have noticed that the names of their nearest and dearest were not being called out.

The names of the WW2 victims are not on the memorial. Following the complaint to the Préfecture, the Mayor was told to make sure that the names on the memorial were up-to-date, that it included all 'tombés lors des différents conflits auxquels la France a participé'. It was at this point that it was noticed that there were no names for WW2. The Mayor has a list from somewhere (the report does not say where) which contains seven names, six of whom are noted as 'mort pour la France', and the seventh as 'non-mort pour la France'. No reason is given for either the inclusion of the seventh name or the cause of death.

There is a link to the report at:

http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/region/viesly-le-grand-schmilblick-du-monument-aux-morts-et-ses-jna14b0n1126728

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Hedley - my command of French is famously, well, famous but I wonder whether I may be misunderstanding "non-mort pour la France" ? Could non-mort be being used instead of "blesse" ?

Tom

[margaretdufay]

Hi Tom

found this info, thought it would be of interest to you

Non morts pour la France (1914-1918)

Près de 100 000 décédés ne bénéficièrent pas de la mention « Mort pour la France » pendant la Grande Guerre. Soldats sans famille, orphelins ou combattants indigènes (Afrique, Algérie, Indochine), personne ne put apporter la preuve que la cause du décès était la conséquence directe d’un fait de guerre. Toutefois pour certains, la mention a pu être établie ultérieurement.

Chaque fiche est composée du nom, du prénom, de la date et lieu de naissance, ainsi que de la date de décès.

[centurion]

Odd so many problems with one memorial. You might expect the odd omission and/or inappropriate inclusion (certainly to be found on a number of British ones) but this certainly seems to merit the use of that recently coined description an omnishambles and one that must include a number of different cock ups over many years. It would seem to indicate a degree of indifference to the memorial by the local inhabitants in the past. Is it the only one in France with this degree of problems or are there others?

[Hedley Malloch]

Hi Tom

found this info, thought it would be of interest to you

Non morts pour la France (1914-1918)

Près de 100 000 décédés ne bénéficièrent pas de la mention « Mort pour la France » pendant la Grande Guerre. Soldats sans famille, orphelins ou combattants indigènes (Afrique, Algérie, Indochine), personne ne put apporter la preuve que la cause du décès était la conséquence directe d’un fait de guerre. Toutefois pour certains, la mention a pu être établie ultérieurement.

Chaque fiche est composée du nom, du prénom, de la date et lieu de naissance, ainsi que de la date de décès.

So what appears to be said here is that in France, proof of the cause of death had to be offered to qualify for the title 'mort pour la France'. Further, the proof had to be offered by the family. Some dead soldiers did not have any family who, for whatever reason, would or could do this for them. Eligibility for label 'mort pour la France' could be established later on, but until such proof was accepted the names of the non-morts poir la France, the date and place of their birth and the date of their death were kept on record.

Perhaps this is an indication that remembrance in France is highly centralised, with its own government department, and with written rules about who can and who cannot go on war memorials.

Odd so many problems with one memorial. You might expect the odd omission and/or inappropriate inclusion (certainly to be found on a number of British ones) but this certainly seems to merit the use of that recently coined description an omnishambles and one that must include a number of different cock ups over many years. It would seem to indicate a degree of indifference to the memorial by the local inhabitants in the past. Is it the only one in France with this degree of problems or are there others?

I think that the search for irregularities in commemorations is a bit like looking for odd socks in the bottom of wardrobes or the search for extra-terrestrial life-forms - the more you look, the more you find. I don't know if this is a one-off, but I would be surprised if it was. It is my impression that French memorials were erected much more quickly than their UK counterparts; many of them were put up in 1921-24; UK memorials seem to have gone up later. Perhaps the haste led to errors - I don't know.

Is it indifference? I have attended Armistice Day commemorations in France and Remembrance Sunday ceremonies in the UK. I would not say that one was less sincere than the other. But both are heavily ritualised and perhaps, as with any ritual, the form and the ceremony drive out any critical and reflective thinking. Participants go through the predetermined motions and don't ask any questions about it. As with any ritual, questions are actively discouraged. You can test this for yourself by suggesting that your local Remembrance Day commemoration includes an address from a speaker from the British Humanist Association, or that at least one of the wreaths should be made from white poppies. And the very best of British luck.

[centurion]

But experience today does not = attitudes say 60 years or more ago when most of the mistakes should have been far more obvious. Gertrude Stein talks about an attitude of stunned indifference amongst French survivors - it is this she refers to as "the lost generation" (she originated the term) not to the fallen.

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

My (probably garbled) reading of post # 5, in terms of British Memorials, would be that men kia or dow would be put on memorials as - could we say "Class A" casualties, and anybody else who in SDITGW terms would be classed as "died", "accidentally killed", etc, would somehow become "Class B"; casualties, - incidental deaths which just happened to occur during the war years.

Like I said though, I don't pretend to have more than a passing grasp of the language.

Does seem to be a very odd situation.

Tom