David Seymour Posted 29 September , 2004 Share Posted 29 September , 2004 Whilst at Thiepval on Sunday I noticed the Addenda on one of the lower walls of the memorial. Please could someone explain how more of the "Missing" come to be discovered and put on this panel? Surely the roll call after the battle would determine who was not there. The wounded would eventually turn up or be POW, and thus not missing. The dead would be buried named, or unknown (and therefore "missing"). Those bodies discovered since 1916 clearly did not answer roll call in 1916 and must thus have been known to have been missing then. So, where did the new names come from? Was this simply an admin error put right soon after the memorial was opened in 1932? I would be most grateful if someone could clear the fog from my reasoning over this one! Many thanks, David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Pattenden Posted 29 September , 2004 Share Posted 29 September , 2004 David, One has to remember the sheer number of men who's names had to be added to these memorials: 72,000 for Thiepval and 56,000 for the Menin Gate for instance. In the days before computers etc it was an extremely difficult task to work out who should be commemorated where, and easy to miss off names. The Addenda panels are there to make sure that names missed off 'first time round' can be added as they come to light. There is some interesting info. on this at www.cwgc.co.uk (not .org) Hope this is of help, Hugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 29 September , 2004 Share Posted 29 September , 2004 Addenda panels exist on all memorials as there never was any complete list of casualties - believe it or not - certainly at the time most of them were built. The military supplied CWGC with details of those killed but the lists were not complete. New names are still discovered today. Any new names accepted for war grave status are placed on the appropriate memorial if their burial location is not known. Paperwork then, as now, was not an exact science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Seymour Posted 29 September , 2004 Author Share Posted 29 September , 2004 Hugh, Terry, Many thanks for clearing up that mystery! Best wishes, 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