Village War Memorials

[frances]

Can someone tell me how it was decided what names were to put on Village War Memorials.

Whilst looking for a young seaman who died in 1945 I noticed that some names on the local church War Memorial were not on the village War Memorial. Also names on the local primary school War Memorial were on neither

If it is felt that this young man should (and has a right to be on the War Memorial) who should be contacted to have his name added.

Thank You

Frances

[Currie]

Hello Frances,

In respect of both World Wars I doubt there was any overall regulation or policy covering the whole of the country.

I suppose that if the memorials were erected and paid for by local communities it was up to those communities to decide whose names went on them. The names may have been restricted to those who died but could also have included those who served in the forces without becoming a casualty.

Maybe it was the size of the community, the numbers of relevant servicemen, and the size of the memorial which determined the policy. Maybe the larger the town the greater the chance only dead servicemen would be listed.

The servicemen eligible may be those born in the particular area and living there when they enlisted, those born there but since moved away and enlisted elsewhere, those born elsewhere but raised in that area, or born elsewhere and lived elsewhere but with closest family living in the particular area. The possibilities are many.

I suppose that variations within a village depended on the particular organisations view on the matters I’ve mentioned above, but probably had more to do with the individual’s involvement with the organisation.

I’m sure there are a huge number of dead servicemen whose names appear on the various Battlefield Memorials, War Cemeteries and National War Memorials who, for whatever reason, don’t get a mention at the village or community level.

I’m not really into the idea of adding names to memorials long after the event or otherwise changing history. Maybe a small additional memorial could be added if that was practical and considered important enough.

In this day and age a better approach might be to write up his story and publish it on the internet for the world to see. The young fellow involved would probably prefer that to having his name scratched on a dusty old stone.

Just a few uninformed thoughts,
Alan

[joette]

Have to disagree Alan.In my local area we have a long campaign going which has just successfully added two mens name to the WW1 Memorial in Wealdstone.

They were "shot at dawn" despite the fact that one of them was under a Dr's care & was taken off the street by the military,returned to France & when he was unfit to fight shot as a deserter.The family had no news of his fate for several months.

The other was a veteran who was obviously suffering Post-Traumatic Shock or whatever name it's going by these days.When he too could no longer even hold a rifle to shoot he was court-marshalled & shot.

His daughter & granddaughter have fought for almost ninety years to have his name added to the local memorial & finally last year his Harry Parr & the other were added.

My hometown Clydebank has commisioned a new War Memorial which will be unveiled this November 11th.For some unknown reason neither of my Great-Uncles names will be on it despite being local boys who died in WW1-one slightly after of his wounds & has a War Grave in Kilbowie Cemetery. I have reported this omission & will be very upset if at some point their names are not added- I am happy to add my story of them also but still want their names engraved on that memorial.I want to take my nephew Thomas & show him his namesakes name on that wall.
Especially as Thomas Waddell's memorial is about to go with the demolishing of Lady Of Loretto's Church previously Dalmuir Parish.

It is a visceral thing which I can't explain.I want to have something tangible in the place they grew up in of their exsistence & their sacrifice.

Also Gilbert Thomson Greer my Granny's cousin.None of my family are on the memorial & this really tees me off.

[Alcluith]

As I understand, most local war memorials added the fallen name only if the family paid a fee to have them included.

This comes from our own family experience where my grandmother refused to pay for her son's name to be added as she felt that as he died for their freedom the family should not have to paid to remember him.

From the HMS BARHAM website:
"On 25th November 1941, 841 men lost their lives when this battleship was sunk during the 2nd world war.

They and the sacrifice they made will never be forgotten."

18 year old Andrew Davidson was one of those who lost his live and locally he will never be remembered.

Other members of our family killed in WWI are not remembered on any local war memorials not sure if that is because of the above but its strange that in such small villages that they are not included if they were added without charge.

Andrew Davidson
(alcluith)

[Currie]

Hello Joette,

I do respect your opinion and your sympathies but I’m afraid you’ve started me off.

During WW1, despite heavy pressure from the British General Haig (a Scot), the Australian Government refused to allow any of its soldiers to be executed for whatever reason. The New Zealand and Canadian Governments were quite happy at the time to allow it to happen to their soldiers. The practice was quite common in the British Army, conducted at an average rate of around three a fortnight.

If history is to be rewritten to the extent that the then crimes of these men are to be exonerated, and memorials made to them, would it not be reasonable to remove the memorials of those who initiated and upheld the policy that resulted in their ‘murder’? Would it not be reasonable for those who comprised the firing squad to be dealt with similarly? After all, “just obeying orders” is usually not a defence when it comes to War Crimes.

I don’t like rewriting history. I didn’t like it when the French Government, in a political gesture, decided to issue medals to a small remnant of the millions who served in France in WW1, whose only other qualification was that they had been fortunate enough to have lived a very long life. There was little regard then for those who had won similar medals on their own merits.

I’m sure that in 100 years time there will be moves by some to reach back to our time to rewrite history and exonerate people of crimes or behaviour which we find, in this day and age, to be totally unacceptable and worthy of severe punishment. Would we be happy about that?

It’s probably part of human nature, that a society, wherever it is, or whenever it was or will be, sees itself as perfect and sees any other society, wherever and whenever as inferior.

Anyhow, sorry to rave on, just trying to make my point, and I promise to say no more on the subject.

Except: For an interesting read go to
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_ ... cuted.html

All the best,
Alan

[frances]

Didn't realise when I asked this question that I was going to open up such a can of worms.

Frances

[joette]

Andrew I had no idea that family were asked to pay for their names to be added to a memorial & good on your Granny for refusing to pay it.

I do know that the War Memorial in Penicuik in the park was paid for by public subscription & they asked my Great-Uncle's widow if she would like to subscribe she replied that not having a husband & no Father for her four children was enough of a payment.His name is on the memorial & nobody else paid for it as far as we are aware..I think my 2nd Cousin said they were looking for some ridiculous amount like £2 which to a War Widow would be well out of reach.

I don't think that the "Shot At Dawn" campaign is trying to rewrite history.
I think it is a way to acknowledge the contribution of men who fought until they couldn't anymore.Seen as cowards by some but still they did what was their best & surely allowed to be shown as a War casualty as much as those shot by the enemy.Just a way to say you did your bit & we acknowledge it. If you could see the joy of this lady to see her Father's service given a public place instead of a shameful family secret then your heart would be touched too Allan & me I'm just an old softie.

[emanday]

Sorry Allan,

I agree with Joette.

The "Shot At Dawn" campaign is not trying to rewrite history. It is, quite rightly, trying to correct a terrible injustice!

A young man, not much more than a boy really, having been wounded twice himself and sent back to the trenches each time, then seen his boyhood pal cut down, finally could take no more. He was sentenced to be shot at dawn for cowardice when found curled up in a corner crying for his mother. He only escaped the sentence being carried out because his own commanding officer, who'd tried to have the charge dropped and the boy sent home, appealed on his behalf.

Not one of my rellies, but my Grandmother's friend's older brother. And the pal who was killed in action right next to him? Another friend's brother.

[emanday]

Didn't realise when I asked this question that I was going to open up such a can of worms.

Frances

Not a can of worms, Frances, just an open and frank discussion about the "Shot at Dawn" boys finally being properly recorded as casualties of war.

[Thrall]

I feel, for what it´s worth, that those executed after enduring unbearable trauma should be recorded as casualties. We have much more knowledge of such things now than then. I can´t express my own relief at not having had to undergo such circumstances; I hate to think how I might have performed.

My father experienced service for three years in WW2, then two and a half years as a POW. Later, after his death, my mother talked about the effect it had on him, and the character changes he exhibited for the rest of his life.

War leaves very few untouched.

I am so grateful now to be fortunate to live in a country with no army, and now as of last year, no foreign defence force.

Having to pay for a name on a memorial seems to express unbelievable ingratitude.

Thrall