• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

RIP: The last veteran of WWI

23skidoo

Admiral
Admiral
Considering the war began 98 years ago, it's surprising it took this long, but it's still a sad milestone to note that the last surviving serving veteran of the First World War, Florence Green, died on Saturday at the ripe age of 110.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/08/last-wwi-survivor-a-woman-dies-at-110

Green wasn't a soldier - in fact, she worked as a waitress and signed up only 2 months before the end of the war - but she still provided important morale boosts for the soldiers, and just the symbolism of knowing no one is left who remembers serving in the Great War for however long (and only a few people remember living through it in any event) is quite profound. I'm reminded of the old saying "those who can't remember the past are doomed to repeat it". I've met enough WWI veterans in my years as a journalist - I once interviewed one of the last survivors of Vimy Ridge here in Calgary; he was on his honeymoon at the age of 99! - to know that, while today's warfare is terrible, make no mistake, the soldiers on both sides in WWI endured a true hell on earth. No drones or real tanks, and of course there was the trenches and the gas. Just guns, grenades, bayonets, and human cannon fodder. And remember - it was triggered by a lone nut assassinating some archduke in Sarajevo. You don't need to invade Poland to spark a world war.

One of the most striking film or TV representations of what WWI meant for a lot of people comes from the closing minutes of Blackadder Goes Forth. Anyone who has seen it knows what I'm talking about. And if you don't know and happen to be watching the show for the first time haven't reached the end yet - major spoiler in the next link so don't click it unless you want to. Sitcom be damned, this was powerful stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DGa9xHGB0c

Alex

PS. A quick statistic. We make a big deal out of the fact about 4,000 Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrible loss, of course. But look at the death toll for events like the Battle of Ypres (210,000), Gallipoli (more than 500,000), Battle of Verdun (close to A MILLION dead according to one estimate). Battle of the Somme - 1.2 million dead. Both sides included, of course. But still - be thankful the individual deaths in the current wars remain low enough to each register as a news story, rather than names to fill a phone book. We really never want to go there again. Lest we forget, indeed.
 
One of the most striking film or TV representations of what WWI meant for a lot of people comes from the closing minutes of Blackadder Goes Forth. Anyone who has seen it knows what I'm talking about. And if you don't know and happen to be watching the show for the first time haven't reached the end yet - major spoiler in the next link so don't click it unless you want to. Sitcom be damned, this was powerful stuff:

One of my all time favourite series - that scene always gives me goosebumps.
 
RIP, Florence. :(

Now let's have no more world wars, please.

PS. A quick statistic. We make a big deal out of the fact about 4,000 Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrible loss, of course. But look at the death toll for events like the Battle of Ypres (210,000), Gallipoli (more than 500,000), Battle of Verdun (close to A MILLION dead according to one estimate). Battle of the Somme - 1.2 million dead. Both sides included, of course. But still - be thankful the individual deaths in the current wars remain low enough to each register as a news story, rather than names to fill a phone book. We really never want to go there again. Lest we forget, indeed.
I always think about this, too. The worst war for Americans is still the Civil War, with over 600,000 deaths (not counting civilians). I guess it's a good sign that the current generation thinks that 4000 is a lot (of course, as always, one is too many, but the world improves only slowly).
 
PS. A quick statistic. We make a big deal out of the fact about 4,000 Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrible loss, of course. But look at the death toll for events like the Battle of Ypres (210,000), Gallipoli (more than 500,000), Battle of Verdun (close to A MILLION dead according to one estimate). Battle of the Somme - 1.2 million dead. Both sides included, of course.

It's funny how you quote "both sides" for your WW1 statistics but not for Iraq. Let's add Iraqi and Afghan civilian and military casualties to your number of 4,000 American soldiers please. A bit more than 4,000.
Modern wars are better for countries that can stomp a poor country into the ground, yes. For the poor countries it still fucking sucks.

Just sayin'.

But still - be thankful the individual deaths in the current wars remain low enough to each register as a news story, rather than names to fill a phone book.

What a horrible, cynical, self-centered thing to say. A couple of Afghans and Iraqis would like to have a word with you.
 
It's funny how you quote "both sides" for your WW1 statistics but not for Iraq. Let's add Iraqi and Afghan civilian and military casualties to your number of 4,000 American soldiers please. A bit more than 4,000.
Modern wars are better for countries that can stomp a poor country into the ground, yes. For the poor countries it still fucking sucks.

Just sayin'.

No argument, but he presented it that way because it's a staggering number for a SINGLE battle. As in 'half a million people died in a couple mile radius in a single battle' sort of thing. taking the average of a bunch of reports (no one really knows for sure), say there were 100k-150k casualties in Iraq, military and civilian, over the course of the last 5-6 years.

Not saying any of that is GOOD, but just trying to highlight the HORRIFIC nature of those WWI battles. Every American lost in battle since 1950 probably doesn't add up to an average battle in either of the World Wars. Staggering loss of life doesn't begin to cover it...

Rough estimates for that war are:

10 million military personnel killed
7 million civilians killed
roughly 20 million wounded.

In that context, 4k troops and 150k civilians is pretty light. Again, not good, it's tragic, and still personal to each of them, but Iraq isn't quite up to the barbaric levels the world is capable of.
 
It's funny how you quote "both sides" for your WW1 statistics but not for Iraq. Let's add Iraqi and Afghan civilian and military casualties to your number of 4,000 American soldiers please. A bit more than 4,000.
Modern wars are better for countries that can stomp a poor country into the ground, yes. For the poor countries it still fucking sucks.

Just sayin'.

No argument, but he presented it that way because it's a staggering number for a SINGLE battle. As in 'half a million people died in a couple mile radius in a single battle' sort of thing. taking the average of a bunch of reports (no one really knows for sure), say there were 100k-150k casualties in Iraq, military and civilian, over the course of the last 5-6 years.

Not saying any of that is GOOD, but just trying to highlight the HORRIFIC nature of those WWI battles. Every American lost in battle since 1950 probably doesn't add up to an average battle in either of the World Wars. Staggering loss of life doesn't begin to cover it...

Rough estimates for that war are:

10 million military personnel killed
7 million civilians killed
roughly 20 million wounded.

In that context, 4k troops and 150k civilians is pretty light. Again, not good, it's tragic, and still personal to each of them, but Iraq isn't quite up to the barbaric levels the world is capable of.

Did you just relativize deaths in a war?
 
It's funny how you quote "both sides" for your WW1 statistics but not for Iraq. Let's add Iraqi and Afghan civilian and military casualties to your number of 4,000 American soldiers please. A bit more than 4,000.
Modern wars are better for countries that can stomp a poor country into the ground, yes. For the poor countries it still fucking sucks.

Just sayin'.

No argument, but he presented it that way because it's a staggering number for a SINGLE battle. As in 'half a million people died in a couple mile radius in a single battle' sort of thing. taking the average of a bunch of reports (no one really knows for sure), say there were 100k-150k casualties in Iraq, military and civilian, over the course of the last 5-6 years.

Not saying any of that is GOOD, but just trying to highlight the HORRIFIC nature of those WWI battles. Every American lost in battle since 1950 probably doesn't add up to an average battle in either of the World Wars. Staggering loss of life doesn't begin to cover it...

Rough estimates for that war are:

10 million military personnel killed
7 million civilians killed
roughly 20 million wounded.

In that context, 4k troops and 150k civilians is pretty light. Again, not good, it's tragic, and still personal to each of them, but Iraq isn't quite up to the barbaric levels the world is capable of.

Did you just relativize deaths in a war?

Him, the US/UK Governments all...
 
Kinda hard to compare ANY two things without, you know, discussing one relative to the other, isn't it? How would you propose doing it? Still said it's all a tragic waste and whatnot, but only argument is that when you compare Iraq to other wars (i didn't bring it up), the entire Iraq war wouldn't even hold up to a LIGHT battle from WWI.

When trying to show how horrific something like WWI was, don't you HAVE to show other examples of things that are considered bad, and then point out that this was EXPONENTIALLY worse?

We can go back into the hand-wringing discussion about the word Tragedy, how every loss of life is tragic and all that, but in this example, if Iraq is a tragedy, there isn't a word to describe WWI. Attrocity, maybe? If every Iraq war casualty happened in a 24 hour span, and you called it the Battle of Iraq, it probably wouldn't scratch the top ten worst WWI battles.

It's not saying Iraq isn't bad, it's trying to put it in CONTEXT.

If the very next news report came out that there was a new Battle of Baghdad this morning, and that 500k people were presumed dead, try to compare that to the news reports we get now. What's the reaction? We either completely turtle as a culture, or we're pulling out and nuking the country by lunchtime...
 
The last member of the "Not Quite as Great as the Generation that Followed Them" Generation.

As a member of the "I Don't Care About Anything But Myself Generation" I shrug at her passing. ;)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top