Last known surviving Great War veteran dies

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Last known WWI veteran Florence Green dies at 110

This is not only the end of an era...it is, to me, a reminder of just how short-sided people tend to be these days (perhaps we Americans especially). The Great War (World War I, the First World War, the War to End All Wars, or what have you), which began ninety-eight years ago, is now as remote in time to us as the Napoleonic Wars were to the people of 1914, although the events of the Great War still largely shape the modern world to this very day. To a large extent, the people and nations of 1914 had forgotten how truly evil and destructive full-scale war was, as recruits enthusiastically shipped out to the front that summer, wildly cheered by adoring crowds suffused with a sense of glory and adventure. And who, these days, outside of university history departments and the ranks of military buffs, even knows the basic history of the war, why it happened, and how it changed the world?

And now, we can see the very same thing happening to our people as happened to those of 1914, as our Second World War veterans age into their eighties and nineties. As we approach the 75th anniversary of that war's beginning, is it even arguable that the West, by and large, has forgotten just how horrible and desperate full-scale war is? Especially here in the United States, where our armed forces has been all-volunteer for more than a generation, for many people the military has become an unfamiliar, mysterious, and even sinister entity; in my own family, dating back three generations, there has been only a single person who served in the military. I was seriously thinking about enlisting, but by the time I was in high school it was obvious that my health would preclude it; I was later privileged to have a semester internship with the Naval Historical Center (now the Naval History and Heritage Command) in Washington, DC. It was my first time working and socializing with active-duty personnel, and I am thankful for the experience.

Our Congress sees fewer veterans in its ranks every session, the last veteran on the Supreme Court retired in 2010, and we haven't had a president who served on active duty since 1992. I am certainly not saying that military service should be required to hold public office, but I am saying that, as the military becomes further and further removed from the daily lives of our citizens, we continue to lose a personal connection with the men and women who serve and protect our freedom. For all of our flag-waving patriotism, most of us don't know, and will never know, what it is like to have a close friend or family member in harm's way.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank every member of talk_politics who has served in the military of any nation. You are the protectors and guarantors of the freedom and liberty we take so very much for granted.

Comments

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Then why even bring up the lowering number of veterans elected or appointed?

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Because I think it's indicative of how remote the military, and the sacrifices that go along with military service, have become for most Americans. I'm not saying we should do anything about this, it's merely an observation.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

In part because people that have seen war tend to be less eager to go into one than people that have no idea what it really means and involves.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Whereas we now have loads of armchair generals who, like those of 1914, are perfectly willing to send people into harm's way for glory and adventure, and who do so easily because they have no personal connection to the people who very well may be killed or wounded in such service.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's not entirely fair. Ironically Winston Churchill, of all people, was one of the few MPs to have actually seen the small wars of the time and gave a speech some years before WWI with a general gist of "You people are crazy and have no idea what you're talking about. Winning modern wars is about as bad as losing them. Stop it before you break yourselves."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The speech in question's here:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/108-army-reform

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

So using Churchill as an example, sometimes people who have seen war just get bloodlust and want to start wars everywhere.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the problem with this analysis is that the guys most directly responsible for WWI (again sticking with Churchill) were Berchtold and Conrad von Hotzendorf (I have no idea how to do an umlaut in LJ code). Neither of them saw any actual fighting. Emperor Franz-Josef, who did, wanted to die an old man who never started a war in his life.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I agree that in general people who experience war want to prevent it, but then you have people like Churchill and McCain... It's not a catch-all analysis.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Eh, Churchill was an outright imperialist, which generally doesn't count because the winners wrote the history. The one war he really did want was with Hitler and given what Hitler did do his instincts proved to be right (and of course he wrote the history of that war to favor himself as it was). Ironically had the will to war existed earlier Nazi Germany would have been destroyed in about six months, Chamberlain waited a year and we all know how that wound up.

McCain's just an unscrupulous old man wanting to be in office until he dies.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Churchill wanted to invade Russia. His blood-thirst got him thrown out of office by the people who were sick of war.

I'm just saying that while I agree with the general sentiment that war breeds pacifists, it's not always applicable.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Well, that's a further argument for requiring federal service for federal franchise.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, it's not an argument for that at all.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Perhaps veterans would be more reluctant to sign up the country for costly and pointless military adventures. Still, those who lack the courage and patriotism to offer their service, possibly their lives, in defense of their country, its people and its values, are quite possibly the same sort of people who lack the conviction to stand up to foreign aggression, who prefer appeasement and retreat in the face of a determined enemy.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

are there any other ways to serve one's country, or is anyone who never picked up a gun in the military a coward in your book?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Some requirements I could think of would be:
- hard work, especially physical work
- challenging working conditions, including stress, isolation, risk
- work that isn't done for market wages, but as a service to the community
- work that promotes people's security, safety or certain other common needs
- work that involves people skills, teamwork and leadership
To me, a lot of military work fits the bill, but there might be other suitable ways to serve one's country. I don't see why people couldn't have non-combat alternatives when called for national service.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't see it. The people who backed appeasement in the case of Hitler were the ones that went to war against him. Saddam's deposers in 2003 were his allies of the 1980s.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The people who backed appeasement in the case of Hitler were the ones that went to war against him.
That's because appeasement didn't pan out. It was their second choice.

Saddam's deposers in 2003 were his allies of the 1980s.
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait changed this dynamic.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) At the same time they were appeasing they were re-arming, while Churchill was given the boot for refusing to even remotely consider the British fulfilling their promises to Indian nationalists to make India independent. The reason of course is that Churchill was a racist bastard.

2) But the USA didn't give a damn about him using poison gas on his own civilians during the last days of the Iran-Iraq War, now did it?

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

WW2 happened only a few decades after WW1.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not to mention Chamberlain was the one that took the UK into WWII, began its re-armament, and remained in the war cabinet until he died. While a Munich War would have been much quicker and less bloody in the long term, it would simply have pushed up the Warsaw Pact by a decade.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The psychology is not so neatly cut and dry. Some veterans are less cautious then others.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

To second underlankers input, people in Congress, the Presidency, and the bureaucracy outside of the Pentagon are the ones who put things into motion and make decisions about going to war. If none of them have experienced it personally, they don't know what it's really like.

I'm not a vet. I'm married to a military historian (and have an interest) and was very close to my grandfather who served in The Great War. My aunt served as a nurse in WW2, my uncle was in the Pacific. My mother's generation lost lives, friends, and schoolmates. I live in a state with the highest percentage of currently serving active National Guard members, and a town small enough to know every one of those who don't come back to our state. And those who do.

And even I have no idea what it's like.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

May I second this. I am the first generation since Waterloo not to serve in the army, and I have no idea what it is like either.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I in turn second your own post.