The Wrong Memorial to the Missing

[8055Bell]

A large group of men were attached to 90th Brigade in mid-July 1916 and many were presumed dead in the assault of Guillemont on 30th July.  CWGC records didn't have the attachments noted, so the commemorations were posted to the the sector memorial where their posted batttalion was serving, often the Menin Gate or Arras Memorial etc.  Attachments have been added to the records and the commemorations were 'moved' to Theipvel with a note that the panels woudn't be updated.  This was fine because the final service of the casualty could be tracked back to the Battle of the Somme and if remains were found in Picardy, the individual concerned would be included in the relevant candidates for the missing soldier.

The moves to Thiepval have been reversed back to Arras and Belgium.  Does it matter that a sodier is commemorated in the wrong country?  Should we see CWGC records as historically unrelaible?  Any other thoughts?

Tim

[rolt968]

5 minutes ago, 8055Bell said:

A large group of men were attached to 90th Brigade in mid-July 1916 and many were presumed dead in the assault of Guillemont on 30th July.  CWGC records didn't have the attachments noted, so the commemorations were posted to the the sector memorial where their posted batttalion was serving, often the Menin Gate or Arras Memorial etc.  Attachments have been added to the records and the commemorations were 'moved' to Theipvel with a note that the panels woudn't be updated.  This was fine because the final service of the casualty could be tracked back to the Battle of the Somme and if remains were found in Picardy, the individual concerned would be included in the relevant candidates for the missing soldier.

The moves to Thiepval have been reversed back to Arras and Belgium.  Does it matter that a sodier is commemorated in the wrong country?  Should we see CWGC records as historically unrelaible?  Any other thoughts?

Tim

If you haven't already you might like to look at this thread:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/304760-perth-academy-former-pupil-second-lt-david-archibald-martin-ox-and-bucks-light-infantry/page/4/#comment-3339848

Two or three thoughts:

• Even if commemorated in the wrong place at least they are commemorated, A number of people will know of men who should be commemorated but aren't.
• This probably isn;t the only situation where men who were attached to a unit were assumed to be with the wrong unit. I have problems with some 5 Black Watch men who did not serve with 4/5 Black Watch after the merging of 4 and 5 Black Watch and no record survives of the unit with which they were serving.
• I have noticed that the registers for men commemorated on memorials to the missing contain more errors in details which would appear on a gravestone but do not on the memorial - perhaps most notably the serial number. (There are a number of confusions of prefixes particularly).

RM

[8055Bell]

Thanks RM,

I can see the problem with DAM.  Without an official military source, it's difficult to prove he died in France and not near Basra.  It's different with the attachments I mentioned.  IWGC clearly received incomplete returns from the War Office and it is only now, with the access to a plethora of records, that we can prove that a man was attached to another unit and the War Diary for that unit clearly identifies where they were missing / killed.

As for non-commemorations, it's all about the records and the changing criteria in which JCCC, and more likley, CWGC review the evidential requirements.  The cases I've put forward for men killed in the field have all been accepted now - five or six on the Menin Gate or Le Touret Memorial.  Just placing these men in context, it would seem very unjust for their inscriptions to be made on the wrong memorial.  I then reflect that all records should reflect the correct sector but maybe i'm too much of stickler.

Tim

[glassblower]

I look upon the 'wrong memorial' issue as if I were a relative and I would want it made right.. You're not being too much of a stickler, Tim.

Take this one for example. D-9152 Pte. G. Thorogood. 5/Dragoon Guards. KIA 10th April 1917 near Arras. No attachments just 5/Dragoon Guards but incorrectly remembered on the Menin Gate rather than the Arras Memorial. I posted this example on my Twitter feed earlier this year and a former Director General of the CWGC made the inane comment "The Menin Gate is not a shabby memorial so why do you complain?" followed by "The Commission will not spend thousands on replacing the stone on the Menin Gate just to remove one name." Absolutely clueless came to mind. If his remains are ever recovered in the Arras area will the link be made given his name's where it is?

It's just taken 15 months for a non-com of mine to be accepted. His service papers are extant giving all details of death but they still insisted on a death certificate. When the service papers or newspaper report state a place of burial it simply adds the name to the UK Book of Remembrance and asks the researcher to provide documentary evidence from local authority cemetery burial records.

Over 20 years ago I was told by the Commission that any non-coms were the responsibility of the relevant service authority. It said that it was not the responsibility of the Commission to go round hunting for missing names and that it was given the names of people who it should commemorate by the Army, Navy or Air Force. Why then in recent years has the Commission embarked on a mission to find non-coms in rural backwaters across the globe? No requirement for a death certificate in such cases. A simple name on a village list of dead with no corroborative evidence gets a name added to the debt of honour. It's laughable but it panders to wokeism so it's ok. I wonder how much the exercise has cost in monetary terms and the impact it has had on its core duties. Does its charter say it should go looking for names?

I am of the opinion that the Commission actively blackballs certain researchers with the aim of discouraging them from attempting changes to its database. Sadly it has morphed into an extremely expensive gardener.

[Fedelmar]

I have three waiting to be confirmed that are almost three years old and this is despite all the evidence being submitted to CWGC and a complaint about two of them.

[John(txic)]

Is there to be found anywhere a simple explanation of who should be recorded on what Memorial to the Missing?

[Michelle Young]

On the CWGC site for each memorial it says the geographical area and dates it commemorates.

[John(txic)]

Ta!