WWI Veterans are Still With Us
Believe it or not, there are still between 23-34 living veterans of WWI in the entire world. The numbers differ depending on how you count them; 23 living persons have verified claims of actually serving during the war. Another 7 men served shortly after the Armistice or in other concurrent conflicts such as the Russian revolution, while 4 more cannot fully verify their claims. There's even a detailed wiki page on the subject, and many of their photos here.
If you are curious, the total breakdown worldwide is Australia-3, Canada-1, France-4, Germany-2, Italy-4, Poland-1, Turkey-1, UK-3, USA-4.
If you are further curious, there is exactly one woman on the list. Canadian Gladys Powers, is the oldest female veteran anywhere.
There were some claims that Charlotte L. Winters, who died earlier this year at the age of 109, was the last female veteran of the war, but that appears to be incorrect. She was the last surviving female American WWI vet, however.
This article about 106 year-old Frank Woodruff Buckles, one of the few US WWI vets, is inspiring. Although he was only 16, he was persistent in joining the war effort, and so he lied about his age. He was turned away from several recruiters before finally managing to join the Army in 1917. He never saw combat, but in one of those strange twists of fate, at the outbreak of WWII he worked in a shipping business, was captured by the Japanese, and held prisoner for over three years. He credits one Filipino man with saving his life by bringing him food, and kept in touch with him over the years, eventually even paying for his children's tuition to college.
One of the other surviving Americans, Harry Landis, 108, joined too near the end of the war to see combat. He tried to sign up again in 1941, but was rejected as too old.
Contrast the actions of these patriots to that of many veterans today, such as Lt Ehren Watada, or Joshua Key, men who voluntarily joined the US Army but when faced with having to actually go to war, they decided to fight the Army in court or flee to Canada (incidentally, I see many inconsistencies with Joshua Key's story of his service in Iraq, but that's another subject entirely).
Here is also an interesting article about Harry Patch, 109, who saw combat with the British army and was wounded by an artillery shell at the Battle of Passchendaele (Ypres). Today he is 109 and recently toured the old Battlefield with a historian. The fighting he witnessed was probably far worse than anything today. He said: "Too many died. War isn't worth one life".
France has also become increasingly aware of their survivors. Last year, one man just received his vetaran's card, 88 years after the fact.
Normally, I would have saved this article for Armistice Day, Memorial Day, or some similar occasion. But time is literally running out on these guys. To many people, even WWII is ancient history, but these survivors lived through not just one, but the two greatest conflicts the world has ever seen. It's also almost mind-boggling how much the world has changed since the 19th century, when many of these people were born.
If you are lucky enough to meet one of these people, cherish the moment. Someday, tell your grandkids about it. They will hardly believe their ears.
Like what you see? Click on any of the labels below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed
40 comments:
Contrast the actions of these patriots to that of many veterans today, such as Lt Ehren Watada, or Joshua Key, men who voluntarily joined the US Army but when faced with having to actually go to war, they decided to fight the Army in court or flee to Canada (incidentally, I see many inconsistencies with Joshua Key's story of his service in Iraq, but that's another subject entirely).
I was enjoying your post until I read this. Pretty cheap shot and completely indefensible. These are two greatly different wars, the recent one completely unconventional and being waged on a people, not an organized army. Pathetic attempt at attacking soldiers who are brave enough to refuse to go fight a "war" that is more or less the slaughter of civilian men, women, and children.
Haha, comparing Iraq and WWI likw that?! It sounded as stupid as something Bush would say. Too bad, your post was decent until you shat all over it there.
Interesting article on war veterans, it's a shame you ruined it by mentioning current day objectors in a way which implies to me that you have a political agenda. My own grandfather (I never knew him) fought in WW1, my father in WW2. My father's advice? "If they call you to war, run as far and as fast as you can, don't fight their wars for them."
I have the greatest respect for the veterans, and victims, of all wars, as have you I am sure. But I think there are a lot more good lives lost in 'political' actions and wars, than are lost in justified and unavoidable conflict. We respect those who fought, we should also respect those who make a stand against the needless waste of life in conflict.
It's interesting that several people are defensively taking issue with my mentioning Iraq war objectors.
To Sodium-Potassium: I'm not sure what the "cheap shot" is here; all I did was contrast men who persistently tried to sign up for war against men who are currently doing whatever they can to get out of it. During the First World War, there was a robust anti-war effort, but the overall attitude at that time about serving your country seems to be very different than today.
And exactly where did I "attack" the war objectors? Ehren Watada is fighting the US Army in court, and Joshua Key did flee to Canada. These are not attacks, but the actual facts on record.
Now, having said that, I fully disclose that I do have a certain bias here; like 99% of other soldiers I know, I have a low opinion of people who voluntarily sign up in the service and change their minds later when they are faced with going to war.
And to the anonymous poster, I don't know what the full context of your WWII vet father's statement was, but if he literally meant "don't fight their wars for them", then I guess he means that he doesn't consider himself a US citizen, since the US was attacked in WWII.
You just don't seem to get it, SPP.
The problem is precisely that you draw this comparison as if the situations are comparable. Being called to fight an illegal, unjust war is very different from WWI, where the fate of the western world hung in the balance. If you can't see the difference, you are a hopeless ideologue.
Not a single one of my friends in the Marines has any contempt for Iraq War protesters. Many view these individuals as fighting to protect the lives of fellow soldiers, which they see as admirable. It's also disingenuous to categorise them as essentially wussing out of war; in both mens' cases, their objections were about the specific details of the Iraq War, not simply being called into active service. I don't know either personally, but it is quite unfair to hold their actions up as a contrast to the bravery of WWI vets.
And by SPP I meant LR, sorry... This Blogger comment style is weird.
JR... sigh... you get the idea.
Too bad you had to ruin it. I can understand the psychological need to see the conflict you've fought in as akin to the two great wars - it's not though. In the conflict in Iraq the US is more like the Kaiser's Germany.
I was enjoying your post until I read this. Pretty cheap shot and completely indefensible. These are two greatly different wars, the recent one completely unconventional and being waged on a people, not an organized army. Pathetic attempt at attacking soldiers who are brave enough to refuse to go fight a "war" that is more or less the slaughter of civilian men, women, and children.
one word.....Dresden. Look it up.
"unjust war is very different from WWI, where the fate of the western world hung in the balance."
I guess you failed World History class. I don't agree with this current war either, but WWI was not what you make it out to be. The western world hung in the balance? Hardly. It was no where near US soil. And as for the cause, Archduke Francis Ferdinand getting assassinated in Sarajevo. One royal getting killed started that war. I pity your ignorance.
Sadly, I have to agree with the other comments posted. Excellent article, great honor to those who served with valor in the past. But your backhanded slap at those who disagree with this war demonstrates your unwillingness to face up to the inconsistencies of the Iraq situation. This isn't a war that parallels well with WWI or WWII. My WWII veteran dad is as angry about Iraq as any of the Joshua Key's in the world. I may not be on the same side politically as some of the typical anti-war protestors, but I know a disaster when I see it. You really need to lighten up on these guys...either that or go to Iraq and serve yourself. Get some perspective.
Harry Patch, 109, who saw combat with the British army and was wounded by an artillery shell at the Battle of Passchendaele (Ypres). Today he is 109 and recently toured the old Battlefield with a historian. The fighting he witnessed was probably far worse than anything today. He said: "Too many died. War isn't worth one life".
This proves how idiotic you are. In your own blog you have a rather valid reason to not fight in a war but you choose to ignore it. Then again you werent in the marine corps like some of us and im sure you havent seen anything of the such.
A sign that I, too, am getting old. Even though I'm only 40, when I was a kid WWI vets were still everywhere. Both of my grandfathers were born in the 19th century, and were old enough to have fought in it.
CRC, you're ignorant, and it shows. You should really refrain on commenting things you know nothing about.
Comparing WWI to Iraq is exactly right. The British Secretary War called control of Iraqi oil the single most important strategic objective of the war, because it had at the time the world's largest known reserves. Remember that BP was once the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and they were transitioning from a coal to oil economy. The British alone lost 95,000 troops on Iraqi soil. Similarly, the Germans, with no oil reserves of their own saw it as their critical objective as well. The Germans and French combined for another 250,000 troops lost. At the conclusion of the war, the British then embarked on a campaign of nation building, building up its oil infrastructure and controlling it as a British protectorate until 1932. The UK continued to administer Iraq until 1946.
Did you think Franz Ferdinand was that important? No one is that loved. WWI can primarily be framed as a war over control of Middle Eastern resources, the outcome of which determined the destiny of nations for the remainder of the 20th century.
Its not "those who disagree with this war" its those who sighned up for the army, had time and money spent training them, were paid for that time, and then failed to obide by their obligations.
I, too, lost all interest in the article when the author demonstrated that he is just another Bush-bot chicken-hawk. Obviously he's not too bright, so nothing he says can be trusted.
Say, Shield of Achilles -- how did the Illiad end? Oh, that's right -- both sides openly weeping over the senseless deaths of both sides.
This is the universal lesson expounded by the veterans of the Great War, the War to End All Wars. The lesson is "Stop Fighting Wars". Wars are ugly, and the only reason that I can thinking of for fighting them is to stop genocide, as was the case for part of World War II and was the case for opportunities missed because of political reasons or resource considerations.
The surviving veterans of WWI have something else in common. They lost their naivety in those years. Few saw war as a glorious enterprise thereafter. That's another lesson we could stand to learn.
Well I am a veteran myself (2 combat tours) and still serving. I really enjoyed your article until you started taking cheap shots at something totally unrelated. I don't care if they ran or sued the Army. I really don't. We all make our own destiny. If they didn't want to fight, oh well.
Political bias maybe? You should have kept it out of the article. It was a decent one.
On another note, it's great to see faces of WWI veterans. My own great-grandfather was an officer for Austria in those days captured by 3rd Infantry Division at the Battle of the Marne. Fast forward about 80+ years later, here I am serving in 3rd Infantry Division. Ironic? Sure.
The Indian Army (then British Indian Army) literally volunteered millions of troops (2 million for WWII) for the World Wars. I wonder if anyone knows about any surviving WWI veterans in India.
German army during WWII allowed Bosnian WWI veterans to serve as NCOs of their SS Divisions. Amazing considering Bosnians were Muslims but considered Aryan.
I think it is obviously you know full well what I was talking about. In the midst of what would have been a great blog entry you had to start comparing conscientious objectors to WWI vets as if they are somehow less patriotic. I would say they are more patriotic by having the courage to do the moral imperative. Unlike the current administration which has literally shat all over the Constitution and waged an illegal war. Don't you forget the very Patriots that founded this country were at a time considered unpatriotic.
I guess you failed World History class. I don't agree with this current war either, but WWI was not what you make it out to be. The western world hung in the balance? Hardly. It was no where near US soil. And as for the cause, Archduke Francis Ferdinand getting assassinated in Sarajevo. One royal getting killed started that war. I pity your ignorance.
And I pity your ignorance. World War I was the result of a number of unconventional and complex nationalist treaties that were held between the involved European nations--the assassination of Ferdinand was merely a catalyst for the outbreak of war.
And on another note, the Western world began in--and still includes--Europe. You might want to think about retaking high school World History.
came here to post the same thing as sodium-potassium pump...
It was a fine article until you made that crack about today's objectors.
If you stuck in Iraq, you have my respect and condolences.
If you think this has something to do with protecting the American people, rather then grabbing oil and satisfying the grandiose dreams of a mentally substandard Commander in Chief, you have my pity.
You are being used. Declining to be used is not cowardice; it is common sense.
"one word.....Dresden. Look it up."
Or Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...
I am curious about people's romantic views of history. Germany didn't declare war on the United States in WWI, and they were just as much of a dictatorship as many of our allies in that war. So if the Iraq war is illegal, wouldn't WWI be as well? Just thought I would ask...
Once again, I have been accused of making a "cheap shot" by mentioning Iraq war objectors. Exactly which words were a cheap shot? I didn't even call them unpatriotic; I simply pointed out the facts of their case. If the mere comparison with those that served in wartime is what makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you need to take an honest hard look at how you really feel about these war resistors.
To the anonymous poster who calls me a "chickenhawk". I suggest first you look up the definition of that word, and then compare it to my profile. If you don't feel like reading, you can look over some of my Iraq photos on my Flickr page, or others I posted on this web site, such as here or here for example. I have deployed, I have seen combat, and probably will deploy again.
And to Shawn: you sound as if you were trying to argue with me, but in fact, I largely agree with you.
There are also many misconceptions over the Iraq war in this comment thread, and unfortunately I don't have the time or space to discuss them all here. But for some people, I strongly suggest this article as a good primer.
I guess you failed World History class. I don't agree with this current war either, but WWI was not what you make it out to be. The western world hung in the balance? Hardly. It was no where near US soil. And as for the cause, Archduke Francis Ferdinand getting assassinated in Sarajevo. One royal getting killed started that war. I pity your ignorance.
OH YOU ARE SO IGNORANT. ARE YOU SAYING THE US IS THE ONLY WESTERN WORLD? PLEASE DO NOT POST IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONTRADICT YOURSELF. THANKYOU. GREAT ARTICLE.
"one word.....Dresden. Look it up."
Or Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki...
THE JAPANESE WERE RUTHLESS
BATAAN MARCH OF DEATH, MERCILESS KILLINGS OF CHINESE, ENSLAVEMENT OF KOREANS, RUTHLESS SLAUGHTER OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS, ALL THANKS TO AN EMPEROR's 'vision'.
At least lives haven't been lost on the same scale as those of previous wars. However we have to face that money and pride can be attributed to the cause of many wars that's why the Middle East will continue to be the site of many wars as it always has.
"one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"-Stalin
I agree with many other posters: your post was interesting and even touching till you started spewing mindless stupidities about Ehren Watada and Joshua Key.
Try using your brain, dude.
WWI was a senseless war just as Iraq is but I too was disappointed when the subject turned to today. I thought this was going to be a post honoring the soldiers of WWI yet what are we all talking about? We should be commenting on how brave these people are but instead, we're talking about modern day politics.
Obviously readers of this blog did not study history, go read a book or Google and learn.
In recent times, many people signed on to the US military for the free education benefits or whatever they could get out of it. They chose to overlook the potential for war, that's a consequence of the "I deserve a free hand" mentality of many US citizen's today.
I do not agree with this war or any war (this war is not so different from any other war) but I have no patience for these cowards who sign up, then change their mind when they find that unfortunately war has come.
There are many others who signed on to the military for the same free education reason but stepped up to the plate and followed through with their commitment.
The author made a comparisson w/the two war-dodgers and the WW1 vets he was writing about - and boy did the hissy fits start. Really, where's the civility here?
At least we have the right to disagree, however disrespectfully some of you may choose to do so. In WW1 they didn't. Google Eugene V. Debs. You may be surprised to see that Woodrow Wilson was far closer to being a dictator than GWB.
The point many people are missing ( including JR) regarding WWI is that was was a completely political and unnecessary war. The entire western world wasn't at stake as it was during the Second World War.
World War I was fought between European powers looking to expand...because the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was assassinated giving Austria-Hungary an excuse to attack serbia. Germany was looking to expand it's influence and empire. France wanted Revenge on Germany for it's humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War . Russia felt obligated to protect fellow slavs in Serbia. Britain entered to protect Belgian Sovereignty. The whole damn war was about European imperialism. Everyone thought it was going to be over in by Christmas. And the best strategy that the Generals of that day could come up with were massed frontal charges into devastating machine gun fire ( see battle of the Somme and Britains 56,000 casualties in ONE DAY).
There are similarities between WWI and Iraq -- complete lack of planning and underestimation of the enemy cost thousands of lives, achieving next to nothing and destroying Europe for a generation.
As far as the soldiers...few can imagine the horror they must have seen. Near constant shelling, battles in which there were 2000 KIA per day, Chemical weapons, living trenches for months on end....They do deserve our gratitude.
I see in these posts the death of Western Civilization. In WWI we mobilized 16 million men and lost over 400,000. Today we have 168,000 soldiers in Iraq (and the nation has more than twice the population) and less than 5,000 deaths and everyone is throwing a hissy fit. In the day of WWI, deserters like Joshua Key would have been shot. No, people like Harry Patch, 109, didn't really want to serve. But they still had honor and dignity and put their nation ahead of their own self-interest. Today's generation is not only selfish but hugely uneducated. Today, no one wants to defend America or Western values. Think for a moment about the alternative. Suppose the USA became the United Arab States and Taliban-style rule was imposed. Women would have to wear the veil. Men must have beards. Religious 'freedom' consists of mandatory daily prayers. Porn and X-rated material is abolished, and things like adultery are punishable by the death penalty. Heck, wear shorts is punishable bv the death penalty (ask the Iraqi soccer teams).The very freedom to be anti-war wouldn't exist. People should support the Iraq mission because it is made up of VOLUNTEERS and espouses Western values such as democracy and freedom.
I note that Liberals love to claim that the Iraw war is just about oil. Yet all the anti-war protesters are still driving SUV's (using OIL). Liberals love to proclaim such ideas as 'freedom of speech' but fail to understand that such values will be lost if America loses the 'war on terror.' "ISLAM" means 'submission." Is that the future you envision for your children?
John,
Way to go! Two thumbs up for...
KNOWING YOUR HISTORY
Today's Iraq war is directly connected to WWI. Iraq was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire (which we fought against). (Also note that in 1917, during the war, the Balfour Declaration by the British supported the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East...'Palestine' at the time was a part of the Ottoman Empire). After the war, the British took Iraq and tried to make it a Western 'client' (or puppet) state. After a four-year insurrection, in 1922 a monarchy was instituted. In 1958 the West lost control in a coup and Iraq moved steadily towards the Soviet camp (Baathists...). Saddam the dictator gradually built power 1968-1979 before consolidating power by executing his 24 closest advisors (with 'friends' like these...). We supported Saddam to get revenge against the Ayatollah, but the 1987 USS Stark incident and then the 1990 invasion of Kuwait changed Saddam to the 'enemy.' After the 1991 war, sanctions failed to topple Saddam, so we finished the job in 2003.
What two threads are common from 1917 to 2007? The big two, of course...OIL (or money); Religion (Islam vs. Judeo-Christian). We went into Iraq in 2003 because of oil and religion. Given that the Jewish and Iraqi states were carved out of the Ottoman Empire (defeated in WWI) and that the issues facing us today (oil and religion) in the area are the same as in WWI, comments that the two are unrelated are clearly uninformed.
What the author was really trying to say is that ALL American MEN born after 1945 are pussies and are deserving of only contempt.
When Vietnam veterans returned from their war, their greatest critics were the World War II veterans who called them "candy-assed losers!, cowards!, and traitrors!. It still continues.
The passage of time has healed no wounds, nor cooled any hate. The other day I heard an old World War II veteran saying "I hope all those Vietnam veterans burn in hell!".
Hate is fast becoming the American national sport and the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are the new targets. Some of your posters are only happy to oblige, commenting that today's military only join for the money, "free" college, and other giveaways. Others echo the already tired old refrain: "They volunteered, they knew what they were getting into, they deserve to be screwed, too bad they didn't get it worse, they deserve to get it worse!"
That is amazing! I really can't beleive that. My grandfather fought in tthe Vitenam War. But you know what, the people that fought in WWII can actually be related to me and you because, your mom had a mom who had a mom and it continues going and going or your dad had a dad who had a dad and so on. And that goes for grandfathers and grandmothers and so on. But it is very possible!
This is a fascinating find, I am so glad I stumbled upon this blog. Best of luck. I will continue to read.
I feel some of you would be interested in my blog, highheeledhistorian, which can be found at:
http://highheeledhistorian.com/
Best wishes,
highheeledhistorian
Post a Comment