Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I

Douglas terry - alive or deceased?

on the edit history of this article slatersteve has put just found a report of his death about Mr terrey, is this true?--Del Boy (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That was for Harry Futcher.Mk5384 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

harry futcher was removed off the article on the 3 june but what im talking about was done on the 19 june so it must of been about douglas terrey--Del Boy (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the diffs. It was Harry Futcher.Mk5384 (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Although Mr Terrey was still living at the time that this recent exchange took place, he has sadly died since - on 26 June 2010, three days after his 107th birthday. The death notice from the 'Daily Echo', a local newspaper, may be found here:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/announcements/bmdsarch/8244725.TERREY_DOUGLAS___/

MAR 193.138.107.90 (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RIP Mr terrey :(--Del Boy (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the page

Upon the death of Douglas Terrey, there are only three full World War I veterans and one World War I-era veteran no younger than 109 that are still living. In light of that fact, I think that by now it would be time to delete this page and perhaps turn it into a new page like "Last veterans of World War I".72.144.234.89 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why there are still Veterans of the War Alive???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This page only becomes redundant when there are no more veterans. There has been lengthy discussion in the Archives as to what to do with this article when that happens. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

i agree with derbycountyinnz, the page should not be deleted until there is no more veterans left.--Del Boy (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as well. 2tuntony (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - while there is 1 surviving veteran left, this page should remain. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who understands Ukrainian?

Nick Ornstein posted an interesting case at the Worlds Oldest People yahoo group: Michael Tsyunyak in Ukraine, born January 5, 1900, News link 1 in Ukrainian News link 2 in Ukrainian. When I put the first article into google translate, i got this: "Because of poverty did not go to school and still remained illiterate. Fortunately, also involved Michael Tsyunyaka and military service. For who knows whether we are talking like a serious man, if he clothed in uniform." and further down: "Do not forget Mr Michael Polish and some German words, because he lived and by Austro-Hungarian and Polish rule, and therefore spoke different languages." No indication as to what war he may have been involved in. Now I wonder if there's any more info to be found in ukranian newspapers, or by mailing journalists? I guess it would be best if someone who knows the language checks this out. He may have been involved in the conflicts with Poland 1918-19? Hepcat65 (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Imich

[1]

Alexander Imich (born 4 February 1903 in Poland, now aged 107 and living in the USA) claims to have joined Polish forces fighting the Russians and Bolsheviks in 1918. However no documentation proves this. Should he be included as an "unverified veteran"? (Sir Stanley, 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been discussion of this several times (check the archives) and the consensus has been that there is insufficient evidence to include him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are sources that mention his veteran claim then surely he is by default an unverified veteran? SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If he was a polish person fighting the Russians, then he was more likely involved in the series of Soviet-Polish wars which lasted about 4 years after the end of the first world war, but were not part of that war, as conventionally defined (albeit from a western perspective) to have ended on 11 November 1918.Eregli bob (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He claimed to have been involved in the war with the russians at age 15 in 1918 in the book "Mystic Souls" by Lyn Halper, but when I emailed him, asking about his experiences, I also mentioned the war with the russians didn't start until 1919 after he turned 16, but the war with the ukrainian peoples republic started late in '18 - then he mainained he was just 15, so he wrote he must have misremembered the russian part. He now claims to have been driving a Packard truck for the emerging Polish army in the polish/ukrainian war during the winter months of 1918/19, but we have no source for the claim that is accepted here, yet. I saw he activated a Netlog account a few weeks ago, so he is still active on the net. Hepcat65 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well neither of those conflicts would be part of WW 1 actually.Eregli bob (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For several years this article has included ww1 era veterans from wars not really a part of ww1, but still originating from it, up until the treaty of Versailles 1919. Now that we have the Oldest military veterans article, perhaps we should drop mr Kowalski & other possible ww1 era claimants from here, since I sense there are obvious strong feelings against including those who may outlive the "real" ww1 veterans. Hepcat65 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussions on Dr Imich are here and here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Buckles

Has Frank Buckles died, someone put on the page that he has although I have found no mention of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

USA Today actually has a topic page for Frank Buckles, which I ran into while checking this: http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Frank+Buckles. I'm leaving it here as a resource. To answer the question directly, though - there's no evidence that he has died, and if he does it will be mentioned at the link above. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Although all that mentions is his petition for a National WWI Memorial nothing to due with any death, they also have a page for Walter Breuning- who is currently America's (and the World's) oldest living man but has not died as well as Santa Claus (who of course is just a mythical figure), this page also list a burial date of July 30th which would be very soon for anyone who has just passed away let alone Buckles who most likely will have a state funeral and hopefully some sort of public viewing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed that the vandalism was still on the article, but I've removed it. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules

I've perused the archives (I'm finally beginning to remember to do that), and read the debate as to whether or not Choules was a "combatant" in World War I. Though the feeling seemed to be that he did not qualify as one, I would like to revisit that dialouge, if permissable. Many possibilities were discussed, but I feel that one has been overlooked, which is Choules' presence at the scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow. The scuttling was considered to be an act of war, which broke the Armistice. Several German soldiers were shot dead, and numerous others were injured, in attempts to stop the scuttling. Whether or not Choules actually gave, or took fire, I feel that his presence at this event is sufficient to qualify him as a combatant. 2tuntony (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I were to reinsert that Choules is the "last living combatant" of World War I? 2tuntony (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I never really considered Claude Choules an Active Combat Veteran (which is why I think that Harry Patch was actually the last surviving combat veteran) but you could make the argument that he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is held by others as well. Previous discussions seemed to be inconclusive as to whether or not Choules was a "combatant", while Harry Patch certainly was. I am hoping that this "new" information, concerning Choules' presence at the scuttling will sway opinion, at least to a degree. (And I will also echo that that is certainly to take nothing away from the legacy of Harry Patch.) As Choules is 109 years old, and in failing health, I am hopeful that this can be decided while he is still living. You don't seem to disagree with my proposal. I'll wait and see if others wish to comment. Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

i think of mr choules as being the last combatant veteran Del Boy (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. Just because he served at sea you lot think you have the right somehow to go on about his war service and some how "lower" his role! what would you call a navigator on a Lancaster bomber, because he didn't fire a weapon, he didn't fly the plane, and he didn't pull any lever to drop the bombs so i'm assuming you'd, make up some silly discussion to try and say he was non combat. What does it matter anyway? Webbmyster (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me if I've misunderstood you, but it was my assertion that Choules was a combat veteran. 2tuntony (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reference anywhere that states, olr even claims, that Claude Choules is the last combat veteran? If not then saying so here would be OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How would it be original research? It seems that it would be original research to claim that he is not a combatant. 2tuntony (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's original research to make up statements that cannot be sourced. While not every statement must be sourced, those that are contended against need a source, especially if the issue is controversial.Ryoung122 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules was originally listed in the article as the last combatant. It was in fact me who queried whether this was correct, in view of the fact that we did not appear to know if he had actually been part of any actual combat before the Armistice. As I recall, we had a rather esoteric discussion over whether a combatant, who could be defined as someone who takes part in, or is prepared to take part in military action, which Mr Choules most certainly was, could always be an actual combat veteran. I think the balance of opinion at the time was that he could not, but we did rather think that we had opened up a can of worms. No-one would wish to diminish anybody's role in the war, but I do think that there is an interesting distinction to be made between those who actually engaged militarily with the enemy and those who did not, for whatever reason.

However, I have now changed my view, having found Mr Choules' autobiography, The Last of the Last in my local book store. It was written whilst he was in his eighties, so the memories written down at that point would be at least twenty years fresher than they are now. I didn't buy the book, but photographed a relevant paragraph on my mobile phone. I forget the page number, but it will be easy to find for anyone with a copy. Two or three of the words are missing because I photographed it on two shots, so my apologies, but the extract below does seem to indicate that his ship was involved in actual armed combat.

"Not long after I joined the Revenge , I had my first taste of action. On 16 November 1917, the First Battle Squadron, led by the Revenge, went to sea, accompanied by our (missing word) cruisers and two squadrons of light cruisers with their attendant destroyers. That night we went to action stations on receiving reports of enemy ships from our light cruisers. The next morning, we (missing word..heard?) gunfire and received reports that our scouting forces were in (missing word..action?). Soon after this, Revenge’s foremost turrets, A & B opened fire (missing word) and later claimed that they had shot down a German Zeppelin."

It would seem, therefore that Mr Choules himself, albeit over twenty years ago, has made more than a passable claim to be the last combat veteran! Moldovanmickey (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment, as well as your effort in investigating this. I had seen promotional material for the book that stated Choules was the "last living combatant of World War I". I was, however, completely unaware that Choules gave a detailed acount in the book. I didn't mention the former, as it likely would not stand up to WP:RS. The book, on the other hand, most certainly will. (Someone may wish to challenge it, based on the fact that Choules wrote it himself, but as it is not a self-published work, I don't think that there will be any real issue.) I think that the page number is of some importance, so that it can be cited properly. I will attempt to find a copy of the book, or perhaps the text is available online. If anyone is able to provide the page number before I get to it, that would be great. Best of luck, and my thanks to everyone who has commented or done reasearch on this issue. 2tuntony (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have e-mailed someone who I know has a copy of the book to see if he can provide me with the page number and the missing words. I went back to the book store I saw it in but alas, it had been sold.Moldovanmickey (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it always seem to work that way? Again, your help is most appreciated. 2tuntony (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

after reading that bit in mr choules autobiography it sounds like he is definatly a combatant veteran of WWI.Tony W (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I now have the full text of the relevant paragraphs, from page 61 of the hardback edition of The Last of the Last, by Claude Choules.

"Not long after I joined the Revenge , I had my first taste of action. On 16 November 1917, the First Battle Squadron, led by the Revenge, went to sea, accompanied by our battlecruisers and two squadrons of light cruisers with their attendant destroyers. That night we went to action stations on receiving reports of enemy ships from our light cruisers. The next morning, we heard gunfire and received reports that our scouting forces were in action. Soon after this, Revenge’s foremost turrets, A & B opened fire and later claimed that they had shot down a German Zeppelin.

"As usual the Germans scuttled back into the safety of their minefields, so this action resulted in little appreciable damage, except to HMS Caledon, flagship of the Admiral Cowan. She got such a punch in the ribs from a 15-inch shell tha I thought she would drop in two halves. The Königsberg stopped two 15-inch hits that reduced her speed to 17 knots but too late in the battle for the British ships to catch her and complete her destruction. The German forces had been sent out to protect their minesweepers, which on sighting the British forces had slipped their gear but not before several of them had been sunk. In this case the enemy used a smokescreen to aid their escape, a tactical method of defence used by both sides in the First World War."

Choules appears to be referring to the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight- see http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/452/599/1/2/ The article does not mention Revenge's part in the engagement, but the dates match. From Choules' account, it would therefore appear that Revenge was in the vicinity of the battle as presumably Caledon was amongst the scouting forces referred to.

Well, is this autobiography a sufficient source for adding "last combat veteran" to the entry? I'm not sure of the rules, so I'll leave it up to other more experienced Wikipedians to take a balanced, consensual view. For what it's worth, in my view there's no reason to doubt him, and we could certainly add "last claimed combat veteran" to the entry. Moldovan Mickey Moldovanmickey (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, after perusing the archives, I asked if we could reopen this discussion. As Moldovanmickey says, the question seemed to be whether or not Choules fought in any actual combat prior to the Armistice. Numerous editors made numerous points, all of them good ones. The discussion seemed to have ended with no clear consensus, as in addition to the question of Choules' combat experience, there also seemed to be the question of what exactly constitutes a "combatant". It does not seem like any of the editors had a real problem with either version. One of the many topics covered in the previous discussions was Choules' presence at the scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow. It appears that general opinion was that this would not qualify Choules as a "combatant", as it took place after the Armistice. Here is where I attempted to revisit this discussion, as I felt that something important had been overlooked. As I stated earlier on this page, I felt that this did qualify Choules as a combatant, as the scuttling itself broke the Armistice. That the Germans decided to scuttle, rather than surrender, as had been previously agreed upon, was considered to be an act of war. Several Germans were killed, and others wounded by British fire. The Germans were considered to be prisoners of war. And I made the case that Choules' taking part in this event would, indeed, qualify him as a combatant. If that was not sufficient, which I think it is, the information that Moldovanmickey has kindly brought to light should eliminate any doubt. We have a reliable source, that states that Choules did see combat action in World War I. I have inserted the reference next to the claim. Someone appears to have made the argument that we have no source which specifically identifies him as the last combatant. This is true. However, it is undisputed that neither Frank Buckles, nor Florence Green saw combat. Jozef Kowalski's participation in the Polish-Soviet War is not questioned. The Polish-Soviet War has been discussed on numerous pages in this encyclopedia, and numerous editors have asserted that it can be considered, loosely, to be a part of the First World War. While this may be true, I have not seen, in any of these discussions, a reliable source that makes this claim. Finally, there are several other living people who claim to be World War I veterans. Some of them are absurd, while others may very well be true. None have been documented in reliable sources. The fact is that there are three living people, who according to reliable sources, are World War I veterans. One of them, according to reliable sources, is a combat veteran of the war. This will hopefully suffice to finally clarify this issue. Please pardon me if I've overlooked something. 2tuntony (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be sufficient evidence from the sources quoted above to list Choules as a combatant. There's no point in dragging this discusssion out further here or including irrelevant discussion. This is not a forum.DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the discussion, may I ask, was "irrelevant"? And, as far as "there's no point in dragging this discussion out further", while I'm happy that you agree with me, others may certainly feel otherwise, and are always welcome to comment. 2tuntony (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Harry Patch is certainly the last "trench" veteran. To me, Choules was an "active" veteran, but if his unit was not engaged in combat then he was not a "combat veteran."Ryoung122 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules is also of course the last overall Veteran to serve in both World War I and World War II does anoyone know who the last American Veteran to serve in both World Wars was- a quick check made by me to the pages of Veterans who died by year suggests it was Frank Steer (who died in March 2006) although I saw no direct mention of it on any page, was he indeed the last American Veteran to serve in both World Wars or was there someone else who died ater him who did as well.

Frank Buckles army unit

In the table in this article,frank Buckles army unit is given as the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment. In the article on Frank Buckles, the army unit is given as the 1st Fort Riley Casualty detachment. I don't know how to check it but Casualty seems to make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WallyW (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It does, and I have changed it to "Casualty". Good eye! 2tuntony (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A google search gives 1570 results for "Fort Riley Casual Detachment" and 69 results for "Fort Riley Casualty Detachment". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, from the horse's mouth himself, Mr Buckles is quoted in an interview on the Library Of Congress Website as saying:

"Now the unit I belonged to - 102 men - were called the First Ft. Riley Casual Detachment, and "casual" means unassigned, and were expecting to go direct to France, but I went overseas on the Carpathia in December 1917. Many of the officers - some of the officers - and some of the men had been aboard when they made the rescue of the Titanic of the survivors."

The interview can be found here]- it's Mr Buckles' fifth answer. I don't believe anyone will seriously want to contest this, so I have changed it back. Moldovanmickey Moldovanmickey (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)