File talk:Heugh Battery memorial plaque Geograph 1608078 0295fa65-by-Andrew-Curtis.jpg

MISLEADING TITLE OF PLAQUE
The contemporary documents show that this plaque relates to a soldier or soldiers totalling four if interpreted in accordance with the war memorial on Redheugh Gardens unveiled in 1921, seven years and one day after the raid on 16 December 1914, which shows four next to a gun in a cartouche dated '1914' and the inscription FOR US THEY DIED, when taken together with text included within the minutes of the Borough Council that accepted the gift together with the plaque at that time, 1921 (which unusually contains copies of newspaper material).

It is located not within any battery but on the historical 'Lighthouse Slope' which was already in existence when the Heugh Battery was created, the Lighthouse Battery (where the particular soldiers in question were based) being itself likewise on a more historical site than the Heugh Battery, even if related to it in its later form, being several centuries old, and known previously as the 'East Battery'.

The relationship with the Heugh Battery certainly may be said to exist but in a rather complicated form which has I am afraid nothing much directly to do with the text on the plaque as such but involves certain relationships to the form of surrounding architecture, as confirmed on the plan of the Ordnance Survey. What is rather helpful, as more convenient, is that it can also be seen on photographs currently available on the Francis Frith site (a photograph dated 1896, the title 'Parade from Lighthouse' presumably derives from the original photograph in the form of a postcard); a later postcard dated 1908 and showing both the flagstaff and the guns of the Heugh Battery then in place) is entitled 'The Promenade, Hartlepool, Durham' and it is interesting to see this defined as a 'parade' given that sixteen years earlier in 1880 the French government had initiated a national holiday parade in Paris on Bastille Day which later became, in 1919, identical with the Allied Victory Parade) the immediate historical background being made clear in a document held at the Durham County Record Office. The material on the Francis Frith site appears to relate to the Hartlepool Headland Protection Act 1885 which led to the construction of both the Promenade and the Coastal Defence Unit, in particular of course the Heugh Battery later constructed on the site shown on the photograph, which site already, before construction of the battery, and significantly, shows the location of the flagstaff as seen on this photograph of the War Memorial Tablet (or 'Heugh Battery Memorial Plaque', as it is here named).

Returning to the issue, which is significant, of the contemporary (local authority) minutes of date 7 December 1921 (p.494) this 'plaque' or 'tablet' is there referred to as a 'War Memorial Tablet' without any date given.

The 'Hartlepool War Memorial' (referred to in the same Council minutes and in the enclosed copy of a newspaper article, and with one section showing names of civilians killed by German fire within historic Hartlepool in the same East Coast Raid, as well as those of the military throughout the war) is located in Redheugh Gardens and carries, as stated, the date 1914 together with the date of the unveiling (17 December 1921) and other details, this memorial being (as is clearly confirmed by a number of features including something no doubt likewise entirely unprecedented, a contemporary postcard) which it was intended should be associated with a distinct but architecturally extremely signifcant stone structure, orginally carrying the dates '1914 - 1919', within the whole historically unified promenade area as constructed a few years before the outbreak of the 'Great War' or 'European War', later the 'First World War' (which in fact it never was since at least one such war had already occurred).

I must now once again, I hope this time in an acceptable form, make clear that the title of this website is therefore arguably misleading. It is however only part of what unfortunately may be said, at least for the time being, to be a general complete misconception by all partiessome of which are in theory at least under legal requirement to do otherwise, and including English Heritage on behalf of the Governmentof the true nature of the 1914-1918 war memorials in what were formerly the two 'Hartlepools' (one being the historic 'Hartlepool' and the other the Victorian new town of 'West Hartlepool'); in view of the 'Second World War' the issues are however indeed complex, even if it is arguably the case that a number of documentary sources of information obviously intended to convey the true character of the structures continue at least in theory (which is not always alas practice) to be publicly available as also to Councillors under the relevant local government legislation ('Access to Information').

The true significance of these and other memorials throughout Europe (east and west) must forever remain fundamentally, together with the war itself, international in relation to what are described as 'world wars' (that which is again something at the time very politically controversial given the state of affairs in Eastern Europe which unfortunately has never been officially recognized in the west, even if the necessity for its ultimate understanding has arguably been a matter of the opinion of the more perceptive members of the general public); making it perhaps still more complicated it can however arguably be shown that it has always been an essential element (in both politics and the related memorials) in the east, and in particular within Russia, as from the date of the two revolutions leading to communism in 1917 down to the present time; so Russia must be conquered, and its memorials incorporated within our own? ... (the problem already arose in relation to Berlin in 1945, the joint occupation of this town with Soviet Russia being the true motive for our own cross-Channel invasion, as stated at the time by our own military leaders, if not by politicians); what the future now may hold, in particular within the UK, so far as the interpretation of war memorial ceremonies and architecture are concerned is apparently something that in my own humble opinion must be held still to be seen, whether by this or by future generations.

The contribution of the Internet to the resolution of these problems will be part of the story to come, and if it is effective it will be welcome.

I note in conclusion that (astonishingly enough, perhaps, in the circumstances) another relevant address supposed to be on the subject of 'geography' is part of a website sponsored by the Ordance Survey. This is it seems a semi-official site which confirms in principle the correct character and the relevance of the (which is itself ambiguous if not strictly incorrect, given that it seems to relate to the Battery rather than to the raid and the war and contains no references whatsoever to other related architecture) title which is slightly distinct from the one on this website together with OS plan location ; so do we not return to the classic issues of journalism and incidentally classically also those of the law (WHO, WHAT. WHERE, WHY, WHEN and HOW)?

Who now knows the answer, and who is going to know (it is after all the Lord God alone who might know whether-as currently maintained by Hartlepool Borough Council in its present public documents in relation to a particularly designed statue on the Hartlepool War Memorial which admittedly in some respects mirrors, for a particular reason, both-a Greek goddess is identical with a male 'Triumphant Youth', as it is legally and evidently correctly named in earlier Council minutes ...)? Was it a simple unintentioned error within the 'wiki' system here in question by some entirely innocent character? If that, ladies and gentlemen, is the case, is the almost inconceivable error now going to be corrected in accordance with what arguably would be the only socially useful exercise of the right of freedom of speech on a potentially nationally and internationally significant issue (amongst, as will be gathered, certain others no less significant)? Issues of an historical and political character which it seems are for whatever reason unlikely to be resolved herein (besides which not even an anonymous reply is likely to be given, unfortunately, on this as on other matters of national and international significance from an historical point of view); the note that this talk page is not for 'requesting correction to the image' is besides not understood, this being undoubtedly the source of origin of errors, if any, which appear elsewhere.

Frankly both these things (clarification of the origin of the error, if it is one, and the likelihood of it being corrected) seem rather doubtful, at least to myself in what will now be seen are rather complicated and incidentally long-running circumstances having connections with both politics and history as I happen for better or worse to be aware of them, within Hartlepool and elsewhere. I do not pretend to know the answer, but it must to some extent affect the historical prestige (if there is any) of both the Government and of the 'wiki' Internet as sources of information in the long run if the information that they provide (directly or indirectly by sponsorship or their implied approval) on nationally (and internationally) significant matters is in any way or form clearly contradicted in what (who knows, indeed?) may yet at some time in the future turn out to be other more conventionally published if less widely circulated material as well as in the contemporary literature, photographs and Council minutes (which will of course in that case be relied upon, with the necessary details given in confirmation).

You Sir (or Madam, whoever is responsible for this title and the text) together with the official bodies mentioned, must be aware of this possibility if no corrections are now made; given the evidence available in a British public document, which can be confirmed and if necessary made more clear as to its significance, the correction of the title so that it is at least no more misleading than the original upon which it happens to be based, in relation to a site of completely unique historical character within the UK, seems to myself to be something that is perfectly elementary, with regard to how to do it and what needs to be done; you (and the Ordance Survey to whom this text will as soon as possible be copied) have been warned and either of you can have more information here if you want it.

PS

May I thank all those who take an interest in what, I repeat, are, for myself at least, complicated matters for so far (26 February 2011) having left intact the 'Description' edit by myself (which relates to the correct title in accordance with a public document in the form of Council minutes)? For better or for worse these matters are now being even more fully discussed (in the sense of discussion in relation to further evidential documents of one sort and another, including a postcard) on http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-432718-war-memorial-in-redheugh-gardens-hartlep/comments; all of these historical matters will be, or at least should be, eventually brought into some sort of concordence here on the Internet, surely? We shall see. Whoever happens to be the person responsible for this particular rather misleading title in terms of public documents and therefore the ultimate responsibility of the relevant local authoritty (which goes together with other misleading titles relating to architecture described as 'listed' under the legislation, with the resulting consequences so far as British history, and in fact European history relating to the First World War, is concerned) will hopefully now, after several months from the time when this issue was first raised, carry out the evidently necessary correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.152.2 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Judge 28 January 2011