For the past couple of years, politicians trying to push the WWII Memorial through Congress have been saying, “We are losing 1,500 WWII veterans every day!”
Now I’m no math whiz, but that’s 547,500 veterans a year for at least the past five years. Doesn’t that sound a bit excessive? Is 1,500 a day just some number they picked out of the air to push the Memorial through?
The ‘rate’ is a recent one, as explained here
I asked this question of a history buff and he said the number of those who served in WWII was “vast” and the 1,500 per day could well be correct. Putting it in another frame of reference, one of my great uncles served in the Navy and spent the whole time in Boston MA in some kind of post office job. Another was in the army and spent the whole time in Panama. Not all service time spent was in the “trenches” so to speak but doing support or other kinds of jobs. Another spent his WWII time in Germany and another in Italy. I think some of the differences just might reflect what was going on when they were old enough to join or get drafted.
Jois
Thanks, Wring—according to that site, 564,000 vets did indeed die last year, and a total of 16.5 million Americans served in World War II. Surprising!
Still not an excuse to ruin the Mall by putting that Monument there, rather than finding somewhere else for it . . .
Darn it, two other people answered while I was poking around looking for statistics. I dug up some stats that said 8 million WWII vets were alive in 1993.
BTW, the 564000 vets last year was ALL vets, not just WWII era:
So figure a bit under 400,000 / yr currently for WWII era vets. Extrapolating from the 8,000,000 in 1993, for a population largely in their late 70’s, that doesn’t sound like an unexpected mortality rate, but IANAA (actuary).
I had somewhat mixed emotions when I heard about this controversy.
Do I think WW II veterans deserve a memorial?
I think they deserve a government worthy of their sacrifice. A government whose primary purpose above all is to ensure Justice to All. Unfortunately, the most they’re likely to get from politicians is a bunch or empty speeches and meaningless statues. But at least the statues might help honest people to remember. So yes, build them a memorial. And put it somewhere where people will see it.
Personally, I think it would be fitting for it to go over by the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial.
I do not think it would “ruin” the Mall.
A veteran and son of a veteran.
Jeez, hundreds of thousands of soldiers died to save our butts in World War II, and you’re upset that a memorial to them will spoil your precious view? Try humping a pack across Bataan.
Our current society is just way too soft and spoiled. The way I see it, if WWII veterans want to paint Washington pink, I’ll show up with a brush and a pail.
Sam the way I’ve heard it, not all WWII vets themselves are in favor of this plan. Don’t assume that Eve objects to a monument in their honor, just because she objects to some aspect of a particular plan.
Probably the Nuremburg-esque design.
Which doesn’t bother me all that much, because I kinda like Brutalist architecture, and I figure most of the big Washington buildings have a scary kind of Hitler/Stalin feel to 'em anyway.
Thank you for coming to my defense, but it obviously will do no good, as neither Bumbazine nor Sam Stone know how to read. If they did, they would have been able to make out the line “rather than finding somewhere else for it . . .” in my post.
—Eve, the daughter of TWO WWII veterans, you self-righteous putzes.
I’m no demographer, so I can’t say with any certainty whether or not the “1500 a day” figure is accurate. But it ought to be obvious to anyone with basic history and math skills that:
The YOUNGEST WW2 vets alive (17 year olds who managed to join the Army in 1945) are at least 72 years old. Most WW2 vets are considerably older than that. So, most of the men and women who served in WW2 are nearing the end of their lives. Whether or not 1500 of them die each day, it’s clear that most are at an age when “mortal thoughts” arise.
And IF the U.S. is going to build a WW2 vets memorial, it ought to be soon, while there are still some WW2 vets alive to appreciate the honor.
A friend of mine’s pet idea for the WWII monument is to put it on the park space across from the Holocaust Museum.
The Holocaust Museum and the WWII memorial are complementary: the Holocaust Museum is a reminder of (one reason) why WWII was fought, and having the WWII memorial across from the Holocaust Museum would be an answer to those who ask why there’s a Holocaust museum in the U.S. when we had nothing to do with the Holocaust.
It would place the memorial near but not on the Mall, close to other popular destinations (the Holocaust Museum and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) and within a relatively brief walk of a Metro station (the Smithsonian accessible exit by the Agriculture Department).
I’ve been to DC a number of times, but I can’t remember off the top of my head how big that park is. DC Dopers: is the park across from the Holocaust Museum big enough for the planned WWII monument?
Interestingly, a critic in the National Review Online savaged both the location and the design, deeming it insufficiently grand.
Of course, he joins a long line of critics unhappy with various of Washington’s memorials. The Jefferson Memorial was memorably (and accurately, IMHO) dismissed as “Jefferson’s Muffin.” The Vietnam Memorial became “The Black Gash of Shame.” Etc. Maybe we’ll learn to like the damn thing, although I’m afraid that even before the first spade has been lifted, it suffers exceedingly from design-by-committee-dom.
Eve, you may well call me a “self-righteous putz” as I am occasionally self-righteous, and often a putz, but you don’t get to call me illiterate. I read quite well, thank you, and although I may have misunderstood your motives, I did NOT misread your words.
And what I took you to say was that you were all for building a monument, so long as they put it somewhere where you wouldn’t have to see it. If that was not your intent, it would have been sufficient for you to say “You misunderstood me” and I would be more than happy to apologize. If you would care to re-read my post, you might notice that although I took rather strong exception to your opinion, I did not call you any names.
Let this be an end to that.
Incidentally, if anybody is curious as to the design of the proposed monument, here’s a link with pictures.
I checked out Bumbazine’s link, and I’m appalled that I actually sort of agree with a National Review position, as per OxyMoron’s link: The design and location both suck.
John Bredin I grew up in Wash.DC area and my parents still live there. If my memory is wrong, someone will correct me.
The only park space across from the Holocaust Museum is, essentially, on the Mall. Here’s what is on the corners across from the Holocaust Museum: On the East side, the Agriculture Dept; On the South side, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing; On the West side, the Tidal Basin, and one the North, the Mall, including the Washington Monument only 1-2 blocks away.
I’ll wager that there are small monuments around DC to the WWII vets. Maybe not something as grand and specific as the Viet Nam Memorial, but I’ll bet they’re there. I used to discover “undiscovered” monuments all the time back in the 60’s.
Son of a WWII vet.
You are all ignoring the most obvious part. The most important thing is to get that damned thing built before all the WWII Vets quit voting! How else will incumbent politicians reap any benefit from it? Let’s keep our priorities straight.
Tris
There make be a parking lot next to the Agriculture Building that is in private hands, it would be an awfully ugly spot to place a monument.
**
IIRC the road into Arlington National Cemetery has small monuments dedicated to the various branches of the services for WWII. But that may not be a road that is now a common or usual way to enter Arlington? I remember walking by them years ago.
The mall itself is like a national fair ground, town hall, meeting center, main street. Having the monument there is okay, but just okay. Seems like another spot would have a bit more dignity or be more fitting to the feelings the monument should inspire.
Jois
Not that it means anything, especially, but Roger Ebert hates it too.