Posted on 06/06/2004 1:41:10 PM PDT by lizol
It's understandable that bitter memories exist. At some point, people must put the past behind them in order to move forward.
You think 10 years have changed anything?
In 1994 there was no way, that Mitterand invited Kohl - no matter, that Kohl wanted it so badly. I think it's just current policy, that's over memory.
Right, the message conveyed is that the German troops somehow weren't responsible for their leaders' actions. They were "victims, too," in other words.
If Germany and France had sided with America during the buildup to the American invasion of Iraq, I would view this whole thing very differently. However, it seems that Germany's current leadership in particular hasn't learned how to stand tall for the world order established after its defeat. That is what America is doing in Iraq.
Even Japan has learned more than Chirac has about defending the freedoms its people gained after America defeated Hirohito's forces. This D-day we can celebrate the joint deployment of Japanese and American forces for the first time. That is a true measure of victory, not some hollow German apology. Let's hope that the German people demand better of their leaders in the future. The war on terror is only going to get more difficult in the years to come. It'll be even harder for the faint of heart to accept. When Germany and France both join us in crushing terrorism and opposing Chinese military ambitions, then we will welcome their efforts to let bygones be bygones in future D-day rememberances.
But all the ensuing dialog over this "gesture" is sure to have a positive impact.
The only thing 10 years has done is that most of those who were of fighting age have passed.
The situation in East Europe was much different from West Europe. Those from Eastern nations suffered far more than Western Europeans. For that reason, I expect more time will be needed for Eastern Europeans to put the past behind them.
You see, it's not a problem for me actually. I'm 32 years old, so it doesn't touch me personally. But I just wonder, if the ally veterans really wished to have such a guest.
Yesterday I read an article about a German sodier called at that time "The Beast of Omaha Beach". With his machine gun he killed on the D-Day about 3000-5000 GI's (biggest number during WW2 - as far as individual soldier is concerned).
He was also invited to the ceremnoy and I just can't imagine how it's going to look like, when he meets friends of those people, wo he had killed.
By 1959, his story had become well known in the United States. The Americans called him the Beast of Omaha Beach. Mr Severloh was too ashamed to tell his four children about his experiences, yet he was desperate to meet Americans who had survived. Eventually, he found David Silva, a GI wounded three times on Omaha Beach. When the men met in Germany in the 1960s they hugged each other for five minutes.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=528420
Most soldiers respect their opponent as long as their opponent behaves as a soldier and not a criminal.
Mr Severloh did his job and did it just as an allied soldier would have done if the roles were reversed. Soldiers will respect that.
It was very, very out of place.
LOL! Who would have ever thought of the day Germany and france would be buddy-buddy?
"Most soldiers respect their opponent as long as their opponent behaves as a soldier and not a criminal.
Mr Severloh did his job and did it just as an allied soldier would have done if the roles were reversed. Soldiers will respect that."
Exactly right.
I read an article about a GI and a German troop who saved each other's lives on Omaha beach on D-Day. The GI routed a machine gun nest that was firing on his squad. He captured a German, and was aiming to shoot, when the German said, Nein, Nein, and mentioned his kids. The GI didn't shoot. Then a German force came by, and the GI was in danger of being shot. His new German friend defended him. He was taken prisoner and survived the war. They both considered the other a friend. One of those wierd occurrences of wartime. They both acted appropriately, IMHO.
Another interesting thought to ponder would be the lack of ambivalence expressed toward the fate of who emerged from Operation Iraqi Freedom the ultimate victor.
The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, made it quite clear which horse France was backing during the battle between Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party and the United States military.
I see the war on terror as only having human souls for borders and battle fronts. Traditional boundaries are less and less important. France, sure it's politically a danger to us now. But there are good French people -- plenty of good French people. I'm interesting in bringing the undecided ones to our side and keeping the committed ones with us. As I've said before, I am more worried about the Vishy Americans than the undecided French.
Seriously, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement.
That's why I think it's lunacy not to start forging alliances with like-minded people (or at the very least, people who have overlapping interests at stake), who can help our cause.
I think we need to start arming every potential ally with every single tool in our vast arsenal of democracy-building weaponry.
That includes the restive Shiites in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the brave student dissidents in Iran, the long-oppressed Kurds of Syria and Iraq, and the masses of disenfranchised Catholics/Eastern Rite Christians living under occupation in Egypt, Chad, Sudan, Lebanon and Egypt.
Of course the German troops were not responsible for their leaders crimes. Nobody would call Rommel a war criminal, because he wasn´t. But he too was so controlled by the Nazis, that he had nothing to decide. Soldiers in Germany were not even allowed to vote in the Weimar Republic, they were merely receiving orders. It was not the duty to refuse orders if they mean a crime, unlike today. And what would you say about the men who drafted men with the age of 17,18,19, 20 who died then - and have never had the chance to express their opposition against the regime? I say these boys were victims of Hitler, mislead in a war "to defend the fatherland", but actually it was vice versa. I´m sure noone had picked up the gun against the Brits, Americans, French, Canadians if 1. they had known what Hitler did in the East, 2. not a Nazi official had threatened to shoot them if they did not and 3. had known that after Hitlers defeat both sides realized that the enemy is in the East.
You're right, I've just realized it comparing the numbers. Unfortunately - the only link I can provide is in Polish, so - I don't think it would be useful for You.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.