Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This was an interesting phot collection of Britain's last World War I survivors.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/11/27/giles_price_photographs_britain_s_living_wwi_veterans_in_his_series_the.html

Sadly, they are now all deceased but the portraits remain.

Couple of those blokes look far younger than you'd expect. The last portrait reminds me of the movie industry's ideal of the "british gangster" from the 60-70s.


I did find it VERY interesting that those who were able to speak about their experiences felt that it was a waste of time,etc. As I've studied the war as a whole, I definitely see where they are coming from.

A moving tribute to those men, and the men and women who were involved in that conflict. Thanks for sharing the article.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Couple of those blokes look far younger than you'd expect. The last portrait reminds me of the movie industry's ideal of the "british gangster" from the 60-70s.


I did find it VERY interesting that those who were able to speak about their experiences felt that it was a waste of time,etc. As I've studied the war as a whole, I definitely see where they are coming from.

Can't say I'd blame them for saying it was pointless. To go through that kind of horror, only to see national borders change a bit would be infuriating.

Not to mention that the "war to end all wars" triggered an even bigger one down the road.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Couple of those blokes look far younger than you'd expect. The last portrait reminds me of the movie industry's ideal of the "british gangster" from the 60-70s.


I did find it VERY interesting that those who were able to speak about their experiences felt that it was a waste of time,etc. As I've studied the war as a whole, I definitely see where they are coming from.

Can't say I'd blame them for saying it was pointless. To go through that kind of horror, only to see national borders change a bit would be infuriating.

Not to mention that the "war to end all wars" triggered an even bigger one down the road.

Yeah, i think through the lens of hindsight, most people can readily agree that WWI was one of the, if not THE, single biggest wastes of human life and potential in the history of man. At least you can kind of / sort of justify WWII from some perspectives. Every last thing about WWI's origins were ridiculous and preventable. Amazing that a chain reaction could be set off by an unpopular archduke being assassinated successfully by an unplanned left turn... which then ignited one of the most static, bloody conflicts in the scope of human history.

... it just boggles my mind that there were battlefields of WWI with daily casualty rates of 50k or more. By comparison, the US suffered somewhere in the neighborhood of 64,000 casualties in the whole of the Vietnam conflict.

I look at the casualty lists of battles like the Somme and Verdun, and i almost can't wrap my head around it.

 Haight wrote:


Yeah, i think through the lens of hindsight, most people can readily agree that WWI was one of the, if not THE, single biggest wastes of human life and potential in the history of man. At least you can kind of / sort of justify WWII from some perspectives. Every last thing about WWI's origins were ridiculous and preventable. Amazing that a chain reaction could be set off by an unpopular archduke being assassinated successfully by an unplanned left turn... which then ignited one of the most static, bloody conflicts in the scope of human history.

... it just boggles my mind that there were battlefields of WWI with daily casualty rates of 50k or more. By comparison, the US suffered somewhere in the neighborhood of 64,000 casualties in the whole of the Vietnam conflict.

I look at the casualty lists of battles like the Somme and Verdun, and i almost can't wrap my head around it.

Thing is though, basically all military/political leadership in that day were used to Napoleonic "diplomacy" whereupon, if peace talks even sputtered, they'd go to war, as if the people on the fields were literally pieces on a chess board. The reason WW1 as so horrendous was because it was the first real war since most of the world had industrialized (at least, most of the combatants), so you have nations sitting around with untested technology with something like an itchy trigger finger. I mean, huge stockpiles of guns and ammo, ships, etc. and no one really knew what many of these things were capable of!

It's this war, above all others, I think that show the genius of certain military commanders, as they had to, extremely quickly change thinking from the Napoleonic era of a "Gentleman's War" to something akin to WW2 and what we see as a modern form of warfare. The ones who were able to do this best, were the best commanders overall.