A Breath of Fresh Air

(By Ray D.)

Apparently not all German media outlets could ignore the obvious irony in the indignation expressed by politicians and union bosses at the news that thousands of US troops will be pulled out of Germany. "Die Zeit" recently published an excellent article by Richard Herzinger on the topic entitled "Ami don't go." Here is a translated excerpt:

"Ach, look, how the Americans have again suddenly become so dear and precious to the Germans when it hits them in the wallet. The announced withdrawal of large numbers of US troops stationed in Germany has unleashed consternation at the threatening loss of jobs and accusations that the Americans want to get themselves out of their “Nato responsibility.” Nanu? Since when is it a part of the responsibility of Nato and the US Army to maintain jobs in Germany? Just a year and a half ago the majority of Germans were certain the USA and its President represented a greater danger to world peace than Saddam Hussein, and the US armed forces were considered fearsome executors of the sinister US plans for world domination. Now, however, German politicians and union people, who marched at the very front of the peace demonstrations, are pouting and grimacing like children who feel they have been left in the lurch by Daddy because the number one warmonger wants to deny us the trusted presence of our uniformed American friends."

Indeed. The contradictions are inescapable. One day US troops are warmongers engaged in blood-for-oil world domination, the next they are trusted neighbors and friends providing badly needed jobs in the community. It all depends on what is politically and financially expedient for German politicians, media outlets and union bosses at any given moment...nothing more and nothing less.

NOTE: For those of you who missed them, our recent articles "But What About My Job, Mr. Warmonger, Sir?…" and "Bush Does... WHAT????" are must reads on this very topic.

Comments

[Joe]

It would seem the reaction of both the elities and the general population is once again missing both the big as well longer term picture of what is happening. As I have said once work arounds have been made for 2 key US bases in Germany have been accomplished, there will be more for the Germans to worry about than a few thousand jobs and a few billion euro's.

[Gary B.]

Yes David, you are right. It's so ironic isn't it. As an American, I'm sick to death of hearing about how dangerous President Bush is to the world. Our coming election is between nominating President Bush, a man of pricipled convictions, or John Kerry, a spineless, convictionless jackass. The world needs a strong leader at this time, not another panty waiste stooge. So we in the US are going to re-elect George Bush, because nobody wants their kids who are in the military today to be sold out the same way Kerry sold out the Vietnam vets.

Thanks for you support David. America needs and wants allies. George Bush wants all of the free nations to join with us and fight terror and tyranny. But look at what is happening in Sudan and see how the UN is handling the crises. Threatening to use sanctions isn't stopping the killing. How will the sanctions work against Sudan when they didn't work against Saddam? Sanctions won't work unless the ruler of the country gives a shit about their people. The only thing sanctions will do is possibly save the Saudan arab leaders bullets. They'll just keep what money coming in themselves and let the Sadan negro populations starve to death? What a brilliant solution? What a great idea? Are you fkin' kiddin' me? My god, what a morally bankrupt organization? I guess if we get done with Iraq before everyone is dead, then we'll have to unilaterly go into Sudan. Without France and Germany giving the OK. Maybe Germany will take advantage of the empty military bases and create their own military force? What's the problem? Is Schroder afraid that if he creates a military force that's large enough to become an active partner in the global fight on terrorism, that imperialistic hitler demons of the past will return and steer Germany on another quest for world domination? Obviously if America was a threat we'd go ahead and attack you while we have a force in place? Also while were on the way out we bombed the shit out of France? I mean really? How fkin' stupid of France, Germany and Britain to even suggest that America is the biggest threat to the world? Make's me sorry that we even bothered with the Berlin Airlift in the 40's. We could've just avoided D-Day and allowed Russia to overtake the land all the way to the English Channel? As long as Russia was blocked by the channel they would be contained in a box just like Saddam. Of course I doubt that France and the people of West Berlin would've felt happy about being stuck in the box with Stalin, no more than the people of Iraq liked being stuck in the box with Saddam? But hey, at least we wouldn't have lost any American lives in a war that most of the American public had been opposed to anyway. After all, Japan attacked us, not Germany? Tell me of another country who has waged total war on a enemy until they surrendered, and then provided security and helped rebuild the infrastructure not to oppress them, but so that they could enjoy the same freedom that we have? Of course we don't force our way of life on you, but we still believe that it's a better system than what you've got. We can't help all of the people of Iraq either, just the ones like Ali, Mohammed & Omar from Iraqthemodel.com, plus all of the other Iraqi people who want to have control over their own lives. A dream that seemed so unimaginable and impossible just a little over a year ago is now available for the taking. I wonder how many North Koreans living hopeless lives would love to be struggling for their freedom through violence like Iraq rather than never having the chance at all? Too many Iraqis have already said that the taste of freedom is so addictive, that they can not go back to living under a dictator, and accept the unrest and lack of security as the price to pay in order to become the rulers of their own lives. I agree with them completely.

[Mike H.]

Doggoneit David and Ray, you know how we like to flip-flop between world conqueror and guy's next door. Now, I don't see how you could make fun of our favorite national pasttime, we work so hard at it.

[Gabi]

Anderes Thema:

"Schon zuvor hatte es von verschiedenen Seiten heftige Kritik an zu hohen Wertungen für amerikanische Turner gegeben. "Den Amis sind die Punkte doch gerade zu in den Arsch geschoben worden", beklagte sich der deutsche Reck-Finalist Fabian Hambüchen nach der Mannschafts-Konkurrenz. "Mit den Amerikanern laufen Gesetze ab, die sind nicht nachvollziehbar", so der frühere Reck-Olympiasieger Andreas Wecker."

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,314494,00.html

So steht's im Spiegel. Unsportliche Aussagen von Turnern, ein unsportlicher Journalist, der darüber berichtet.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Gabi, Spiegel & Co ereichen ihr Ziel. Aus einer Besessenheit der deutschen "Eliten" wird Anti-Amerikanismus langsam aber sicher eine allgemeine Einstellung. Egal was er macht, liegt der Jude, entschuldigung, der Amerikaner, immer falsch.

[Ben]

This is priceless ... all those poor people agitating against the US suddenly realise what that bad bad occupying force does: Spending money and creating jobs.

All I can do is laugh my ass off and wish my american friends (I'll probably lose some here in Wiesbaden) godspeed. Maybe I'll follow in the next years to come :)

> Though I agree with the thrust of his post, Gary B needs to read his history.

But hey, at least we wouldn't have lost any American lives in a war that most of the American public had been opposed to anyway. After all, Japan attacked us, not Germany?

> Germany declared war on America three days after Pearl Harbor. America did not enter either the European or Asian wars as a standard bearer of liberty or to preserve freedom in other countries, but because she was attacked. This is unlike Britain or, yes, France, who opposed Nazi Germany before it directly attacked them.

> If Pearl Harbor and then Hitler's decalaration of war hadn't happened, it is entirely possible that the whole of Europe to the English Channel could still be under a Stalinist state.

Tell me of another country who has waged total war on a enemy until they surrendered, and then provided security and helped rebuild the infrastructure not to oppress them, but so that they could enjoy the same freedom that we have?

> Britain. Canada. Others?

Canada?
Canada's military provided security for Western Europe?
yeah two Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a moose kept watch over the Fulda Gap...
Britain? was also in bad shape after the war..
many thanks to our faithful Brit allies, but they are a junior partner.. the main brunt was carried by the amis..
They lost their world power status in World War II.

[Ben]

"This is unlike Britain or, yes, France, who opposed Nazi Germany before it directly attacked them"
But they were also pulling this apeasement policy ... its not really suprising that a country that neighbors germany is in the front line when it comes to opposing nazi germany, rather than the US 10000 Miles behind an ocean.
If france was in australia (yeah, sounds dumb) they still wouldnt have opposed nazi germany ;)

"But they were also pulling this apeasement policy ... "

Not when they declared war they weren't! They HAD purused an appeasement policy, as did almost every one of Hitler's victims to some extent, but then stopped when they realised how foolish it was, and long before they would have been attacked in Hitler's masterplan. America pursued appeasement too, resulting in Chamberlain's famous remark that "it is always best and safest to count on nothing from the Americans but words". Had Germany been confronted at Munich by a united front of America, Britain, France and Czechoslovakia, she MIGHT have been deterred from going to war. Face it, the only wise act committed by democracies in the 30's was by Britain and France to guarantee Poland. America should have guaranteed its borders too, but didn't.

"many thanks to our faithful Brit allies, but they are a junior partner.. the main brunt was carried by the amis.."

Main brunt of what exactly? Main brunt of having their cities destroyed by the Luftwaffe? A fragment of their homeland (the Channel Islands) occupied by the Nazis? Main brunt of defeating the Germany army? In those cases I think you'll find the British and Russians contributed the most.

Europeans always contributed the most ground troops to the defence of Western Europe. About a quarter were American. Quite rightly, as it was of course Europe that was being defeneded, and Western Europe had of course a bigger population.

My points are two. Firstly, America didn't enter World War Two as a disinterested champion of freedom. It tried to avoid full involvement, and then was attacked. Even the help that America gave Britain before December 1941 was given in the hope that Britons, not Americans, would do the dying. America's conduct before its entry into the war was no more selfish than France's, but it was no less so either. I'm not diminishing America's enormous contribution to victory, but exaggerating it is obnoxious.

Secondly, other countries besides America kept western Europe free, without preening themselves quite as much. Britain, for instance, prevented northern Germany from starving in 1946-7 though it was desperately short of food and coal, spending most of its American loan in the process.

Preening? Give me a break...
If the Axis had won, there would have been 'preening' going on the likes of which the Amis could not even come close to.
That is rich.. I always love it when Germans say..
'the amis are so patriotic'. How patriotic would Germans be if they were on the winning side in World War II and now were the sole superpower of the world? (HYPERPOWER to quote the former French foreign minister).
The question answers itself and once again, there
is no comparison. There would be swastikas on every street corner.

Yes America was not alone in helping keep western Europe free.. doesn't diminish its contributions though..

[drive-by]

'Chamberlain's famous remark that "it is always best and safest to count on nothing from the Americans but words"'

Proved as prescient as the rest of Chamberlain's thoughts. Usually, when quoting a past historical figure, one chooses a figure and a quote that has been borne out by time. In this case, either the poster has an overdeveloped sense of irony, or none at all. This is however the America Europe dreams of, an America which will restrict itself to words, which is why you weenies so dearly want Kerry elected.

[amiexpat]

drive by..
spot on..
I would say most Europeans are not accusing the US of 'just talking' nowadays.. the US is acting, not just talking..
so if the US 'just talks', it isn't right..
if it actually DOES something, that isn't right either..
typical European mindset.

[Travis]

The Russians didn't free anybody. Remember the iron curtain?

[WhatDoIKnow]

Looks like jo is back :-((

[Mike]

“They HAD pursued an appeasement policy, as did almost every one of Hitler's victims to some extent”

Wrong. Being neutral is very different from appeasement. Did the USA give up any countries (like today’s Czech Republic).? Is appeasement sending desperately needed supplies to Britain at great risk to its civilian sailors and greater risk (not to mention the very real possibility that Germany would declare war for this reason)? Please cite some examples of USA appeasement prior to entering the war?

“Chamberlain's famous remark that "it is always best and safest to count on nothing from the Americans but words”

And history has shown the worth of Chamberlain’s words and deeds. Remember his infamous sentence?

“by a united front of America, Britain, France and Czechoslovakia”

The above and similar lines are so much …. Is someone implying that the USA was the indispensable country even before World War II? France had the largest standing army (100 divisions) in Europe. If she (and I stress the feminine here) had the backbone, she should have easily been able to crush Hitler when he moved into the Rhineland.

I don’t really see the “wisdom” in guaranteeing Poland when Britain refused to arm herself and France couldn’t be moved to employ her military. Words or documents, etc without the intent and will to back them up are meaningless. Sounds a lot like not only the UN, but “Old Europe”. Yea, same old Europe.

” Main brunt of what exactly”

American apologies that Britain and Russia were on the front lines, so it was her cities and not ours being bombed. If “brunt” is casualties then Russia wins. OK, Britain and Russia (they also got desperately needed supplies from the USA) won the European theatre of War II. Come to think of it, I’ll bet the USA was only involved in a few engagements in the Pacific and the other allies carried the brunt (rather than the other way around as I’d always thought).

“other countries besides America kept western Europe free”

Yes, we all have vivid memories of the enthusiastic support Reagan got as he tried to roll back the Soviet Union rather than accepting the status quo and in some cases outright European appeasement (France’s triangulation stands out most here).

[drive-by]

"other countries besides America kept western Europe free"

I propose a thought experiment. What would the Louvre look like now if Soviet troops had 'liberated' Paris?

[Ymarsakar]

"They HAD purused an appeasement policy, as did almost every one of Hitler's victims to some extent, but then stopped when they realised how foolish it was, and long before they would have been attacked in Hitler's masterplan."

It is more like they still have am appeasement policy. It's funny, whenever the socialists get in power, Europe becomes appeasement capital of the world. When Churchill won the war for his country, his country sacked him like an old sack of bones as quick as you can see. Europe's always been appeasement capital of the world, it is only when they want to use up good leaders like Blair and Churchill that they speak of their appeasement in the past tense of HAD.

"America pursued appeasement too, resulting in Chamberlain's famous remark that "it is always best and safest to count on nothing from the Americans but words"."
Obviously no one wonders why it was Chamberlain that said that, instead of Churchill saying that the war would be won once America entered.

Hard noogies for Chamberlain to talk about "words". Since he counted on nothing except Germany's words. He was wrong in both aspects.

Trying to morally equivocate an isolationist but still honorable American policy with French and British 5th columnish is very very flawed. America has no responsibility to save Europe from their own stupidity.
"Had Germany been confronted at Munich by a united front of America, Britain, France and Czechoslovakia, she MIGHT have been deterred from going to war."
Had France and Russia not been in the pocket of Saddam, maybe Saddam wouldn't have tried to face down the US military.

In both instances, America has to clean up Europe's myopia. America has been talking care of the world's children for awhile now. If Europeans were competent, they would have dealt with Germany as Churchill suggested. Stop him from going into the Rhineland, *Whineland aka*, and Hitler himself said he wouldn't have invaded as early as he did. Or perhaps not at all.

The fact that even today, people talk about "united" fronts with help from America,shows the deep utter lack of courage, integrity, and moral fiber to stand up against pure depravity and evil. When people talk about a united front at Munich, the appeasement capital of history, shows a deep lack of understanding of the need for military power, and not diplomatic overtures.

" In those cases I think you'll find the British and Russians contributed the most." More like they paid more for their foolishness. Russia for signing a non-aggression pact with Germany in the hopes of dividing up the spoils. And Britain for being dumb enough to believe in Chamberlain and not Churchill.

Americans at least don't have the problem of having an isolationist President in office and then booting him out for someone else after pearl Harbor. We're consistent, and dependable because of that aspect. Roosevelt didn't have the same problem as Churchill, but close. Roosevelt knew the right thing to do, so did Churchill, but Roosevelt being in power was able to prepare better even if Congress was against him. Have a care in the future, to realize the difference between American popular sentiment and the honor of our leaders. This lack of understanding about American historical impetus is one reason Europeans keep talking down to us in a mistaken idea that they are more sophisticated and therefore, more wise in the ways of warfare and peace.

"Europeans always contributed the most ground troops to the defence of Western Europe. About a quarter were American. Quite rightly, as it was of course Europe that was being defeneded, and Western Europe had of course a bigger population."How many French troops are occupying Germany or NATO bases?

" America didn't enter World War Two as a disinterested champion of freedom. It tried to avoid full involvement, and then was attacked. Even the help that America gave Britain before December 1941 was given in the hope that Britons, not Americans, would do the dying. America's conduct before its entry into the war was no more selfish than France's, but it was no less so either. I'm not diminishing America's enormous contribution to victory, but exaggerating it is obnoxious." It isn ot about exaggeration. It is about Honor.

It is something Europe has lost all respect for and knowledge of. It is the difference between honorable conduct as a nation and dishonorable conduct as a nation. Americans, once making a promise, will fullfill that promise. Our leaders are elected precisely because this quality is important to Americans to have in leading the nation.

I do not seek to insult Europeans, but their sheer misunderstanding about American pride is very ignorant of Europeans in general. Of world in general. Because what is seen as exaggerations, sheer ignorant arrogance, or just obnoxiousness, is simply a misunderstood byproduct of AMerican honor.

It is the old fashioned sense of the word. To keep your word. To do what you said you would do. TO fight an enemy until one alone stands, but to never committ further violence against an enemy that has surrendered. Honor demands that once an enemy surrenders, he will be treated as if he is a friend, helped in all manner. That is why America did not obliterate Japan, because her Emperor Hirohito surrendered against all odds. This is also why Russians raped and pillaged East Germany requiring that the soldiers in East Germany committ an Alamo last stand against the RUssians in order to get as many civilians as possible to the West. TO Americans. They knew, whether they would admit it or not, that if they surrender, Americans will protect them, even if the French communists and English socialists would want their heads.

Just that incident in isolation, fighting a last stand against the Russians in order to get their civilians to safety (This isn't Hitler by the way, Hitler didnt' care), inspires respect among Americans. I daresay, it engenders no feelings whatsoever among West Europeans. It is something to be forgotten, I guess.
"though it was desperately short of food and coal, spending most of its American loan in the process." I wonder why they haven't paid us back.... Oh, I remember. We forgave those loans.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Guys, this is the new doctrine of the European idiots. The US joined WWII out of interest and the American contribution is exagerrated. The Marshall Plan was a diabolic and selfish capitalist investments. Oh, I almost forgot an important issue. The Cold War was ended mainly by the enlightened Gorbachev and his Glasnost/Perestroika policy.

Unfortunately we have on this forum a few losers who make claims like this. Tthey feel they have to share their wisdom with us. Best thing is to ignore them. No substance, only empty ideology.

[lex]

Now, now, the outrage over troop withdrawals and the anti-US position re Iraq are perfectly consistent. It's all about danegeld.

[lex]

America's conduct before its entry into the war was no more selfish than France's, but it was no less so either.

The issue here isn't whether America or any country in the late 1930s-1941 promoted its self-interest but the degree to which these nations were willing to betray their own citizens and their allies. France's unwillingness to fight as a loyal ally should made her British ally far more vulnerable. Millions of Frenchmen collaborated with the enemy and thousands willingly handed over French jews to fascist executioners.

I don't care for American boasting or exaggeration but the attempt to equate French collaboration with US prewar isolationism is repulsive.

[Joe]

hmmm

and the french are now allies of the Germans.

This is almost as good as the loser in the next war has to keep france...

Better the Germans than the Americans...

Thank you Germany!

[Ben]

"the loser in the next war has to keep france..."

the loser of the last war already does :D

[Downer]

Auch noch ein guter Artikel von gestern zum Thema:

Proposed U.S. Base Closings Send a Shiver Through a German Town
By MARK LANDLER

SCHWEINFURT, Germany, Aug. 20 - At the stroke of 5 on a sun-dappled Friday evening, the Stars and Stripes was lowered by five American soldiers in front of the Ledward Barracks here.

As always, a bugle called out "Retreat," signaling the end of the military day. For Schweinfurt, one of the largest American bases in Germany, the plaintive notes carry extra meaning these days.

People here were badly shaken by President Bush's announcement this month that the United States would withdraw up to 70,000 troops from Europe and Asia during the next decade. The First Infantry Division, much of which is based in this tranquil northern Bavaria town, is among the units certain to go. While the Pentagon has not yet announced which bases it will close in the redeployment, locals know that Schweinfurt is on the most endangered list.

"The Germans like to keep up hope," said George Ohl, the civilian public affairs officer at Ledward Barracks. "But they've been taking stock this week. They understand that economically, it will be a big loss."

(...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/international/europe/22german.html?pagewanted=print&position=

[Don]

From the NY Times piece linked in the previous post: He also noted that the Democratic candidate for president, Senator John Kerry, sharply criticized Mr. Bush's plan to withdraw troops, saying it would erode American security. "Our future partly depends on your election," he said.

A German politician taking sides in the US Presidential race. Imagine that.....

I think Senator Kerry might disappoint him. What functional purpose does a US army post in the middle of unified Germany serve right now? Defending from the gypsies? ;)

[Elektron]

Let me get this straight.

Kerry wants to pull American troops from Iraq one year after the Iraq war and replace them with Germans.

But 60 years after WWII, Kerry wants to leave American troops in Germany...

[mojo]

"I wont be wronged, I wont be insulted and I wont be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
-- John Wayne, "The Shootist"
http://www.geocities.com/dukejohnwayne/Iwont.wav

[Mike]

When will the USA withdraw all its troops from Old Europe - we'll stand by our current allies like Poland. The USA should withdraw all support from NATO - let the "better brought up" French and Germans have it. When Georgia erupts into war which quickly spreads throughout the region, the USA should sit back and let the "better" Old Europeans handle it through diplomacy and invective. No more Bosnias for Europe's problems.

[asdf]

Proved as prescient as the rest of Chamberlain's thoughts. Usually, when quoting a past historical figure, one chooses a figure and a quote that has been borne out by time

- in the 30's he was entirely accurate. He didn't foresee the champion of freedom that America became once it was attacked, for the very good reason that he died in 1940.

[sil]

UK and France declared a phoney war on Germany after the Nazi entered Poland. If you read pure history you'll find out that UK and France did nothing to help the Polish. They just dugged in and waited for the Germans to attack them.
Theres some famous quotes that was thrown around back then. e.g don't shoot at the germans or they'll shoot back (not exact quotes)

[rosignol]

As always, a bugle called out "Retreat," signaling the end of the military day. For Schweinfurt, one of the largest American bases in Germany, the plaintive notes carry extra meaning these days.

"Taps" is NOT "Retreat", you ignorant git of a journalist.

[Doug]

For those interested in history. After the take over of Austria by Germany, Great Britain and France signed a defense agreement with Czechoslovakia (a similar deal was arranged with Poland). The U.S. did not. Since it was never a party to the agreement, the U.S. does not bear an equal burden to those who made promises not kept. There was no mutual defense treaty in place between the U.S. and any European country prior to WW II, therefore there was no legal or moral requirement to get involved.

Once the U.S. declared war on Japan it became convienent for Germany to declare war on the U.S. Germany wanted to turn its U-boats loose on the transports carrying U.S. aid to England.

[Joe]

Just so everyone, both Americans and Europeans can get a clear picture of where Kerry stands on the issue of troops based in Europe, here are some of his commments.

Now some of you might consider this to be flip flopping. This is nothing more than playing to the crowd. The wrong crowd it might be, but hey this is the guy all of our "so called" allies support

Mr. Kerry hasn't always been so worried that troop reductions send the wrong signal. In 1990, he criticized the United States for keeping 300,000 troops in Germany to protect that country from the Soviets. The following year, he voted to slash the number of U.S. personnel in Europe by 30,000.

In January of this year, Mr. Kerry promised to be a president who "reduces the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe — and I mean North Korea, Germany and the rest of the world." On April 14, Mr. Kerry said that the president should be "trying to find ways to reduce the overexposure, in a sense, of America's commitments." U.S. foreign policy, he added, should be trying to achieve "the reduction of the American presence" on the Korean Peninsula.

During an Aug. 1 appearance on ABC-TV's "This Week," moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Mr. Kerry if some troops would be home by the end of his first term. In response, Mr. Kerry — specifically mentioning Europe and the Korean Peninsula —said he would "have a significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops" abroad. He added that, so far as moving troops from these areas of the world was concerned, "there are great possibilities open to us."

So, why has Mr. Kerry moved from speaking favorably about reducing the number of American troop cuts less than three weeks ago to denouncing the president for actually trying to implement them? What tectonic geopolitical change has caused the senator to change his deeply held beliefs about troop withdrawals?

We suspect that the complaints result less from some extraordinary re-evaluation of the merits of the issue than the fact that Mr. Kerry, faced with the daunting challenge of trying to unseat an incumbent president, will search for any pretext to disagree with Mr. Bush. Perhaps he is an aficionado of that old Groucho Marx song: "Whatever it is, I'm against it.

Link
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040820-090447-3744r.htm

[sil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
UK and France betrayed Poland

Funny how people are now blaming US for betrayal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phony_war

[Joe]

Point of clearification.

Retreat 1800 hrs

End of the duty day. Flag is lowered.

Taps 2115 hrs

By the final note of "Taps" all lights were to be extinguished, all men bedded down in their bunks, and all loud talking was to cease

[PJ]

"For those interested in history. After the take over of Austria by Germany, Great Britain and France signed a defense agreement with Czechoslovakia (a similar deal was arranged with Poland). The U.S. did not. Since it was never a party to the agreement, the U.S. does not bear an equal burden to those who made promises not kept. There was no mutual defense treaty in place between the U.S. and any European country prior to WW II, therefore there was no legal or moral requirement to get involved."

That's a lawyer's argument if ever I heard one. Confronting a maniac like Hitler was everybody's moral responsibility, regardless of whatever piece of paper your signature was on. And it's always best to confront similar maniacs earlier rather than later.

Contrary to what everybody on this site seems to think, I'm not German, anti-American or (worst of all) pro-Kerry. I hugely admire America's record once it got into WWII and in helping to rebuild Europe post-1945. I just like to point out that America's record in Europe is neither perfect nor without self-interest, and that many other countries (OK, not France) gave their all to rebuilding freedom and security in Europe post-1945. I don't think that being patriotic necessarily involves whitewashing America's actions or running down other countries'. We made mistakes, as did the Brits and the French, and we made rather fewer than the Italians, Hitler or Stalin.

[lucklucky]

Just one more historical note: Soviets probably didnt had won their part of war without help from USA Britain and Canadians... those sailors that died in way to Murmansk supplying maybe 50% of logistics for Soviet Army like railways, radios, trucks, bakeries, to raw materials like rubber in crucial years of 42-43.

Marechal Zukhov in 1966
It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

For a resumed informationin this subject http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/intro.html

[Doug]

That's a lawyer's argument if ever I heard one. Confronting a maniac like Hitler was everybody's moral responsibility, regardless of whatever piece of paper your signature was on. And it's always best to confront similar maniacs earlier rather than later.

Where to start. My comment was intended to correct those that wanted to equate U.S. isolationism and U.K./French abandonment. In 1939, Austria and Poland aside, Hitler was not considered to be a "maniac". At the time, he was considered to be just another in a long line of greedy european leaders that could be negotiated with. The "final solution" had not begun and information of atrocities were not widespread.

Thanks for the lawyer comment though. I'll have to work that into my next Fitrep.

[Mike]

"Confronting a maniac like Hitler was everybody's moral responsibility?

500,000 bodies in mass graves, invaded two neighboring countries, known to have links to terrorism, etc - but Saddam didn't count.

[Don]

500,000? Well, that's debatable, Mike. There may have been only 300,000. Or there might have been 2 million. Until we get the final auditors report we mustn't judge...... :)

[Gabi]

Blutiges Patt in Nadschaf
Schwarzer Rauch steigt über der Moschee der Schiitenstadt Nadschaf auf. US-Panzer rücken vor, Al Sadrs Milizen schießen mit Mörsern zurück. Das Heiligtum der Schiiten nimmt Schaden

http://www.welt.de/data/2004/08/23/323098.html
----------------------------------------------

Die bösen Amis greifen an,und die lieben Terroristen schießen zurück. So ist die Welt in Ordnung. Kennen wir das nicht aus Israel?

Daß sich Sadrs Feiglinge mit Alten, Frauen und Kindern in einem Heiligtum versteckt und so diese Menschen und die Moschee gefährdet, läßt man unerwähnt. Wer Terroristen angreift wie Sharon und Bush, ist böse. Ganz einfach.

[Ralf Goergens]

Keep your shirts on, people. Besides the directly affected towns nobody is giving a damn.

[Joe]

Ralf Goergens,

Yes you and those who think like you keep viewing this only from an economic perspective.

It goes much deeper than that. At this point, you are probably correct few in Germany give a damn. At a point in the future, a point which will likely come before you want it too, Germans may give a damn. What is going to surprise you is Americans will not. We truly are becoming indifferent to "old Europe".

[amiexpat]

Ralf
oh, when the unions make concessions that save 2000 jobs, that is a big deal.. but when the Amis leave and take many more jobs with them, that isn't a big deal? I am sure there is a lot more going on behind the scenes in Berlin than we see in the press..
Schroeder - the media Kanzler- knows it would be hypocrisy of the highest order to now act concerned about 'the Amis'...

[PJ]

"At the time, he was considered to be just another in a long line of greedy european leaders that could be negotiated with."

Not by everybody. A $10 copy of Mein Kampf (published in the 1920's and translated into major European languages in the 1930's) would have told people all they needed to know about his sanity, or lack of it. Face it, almost all Americans regarded Hitler as a European problem, but freedom isn't divisible by continents. Any more than Saddam was a problem to be dealt with solely by Arabs.

[Ralf Goergens]

Joe,

we can beat anyone trying to attack us in Europe, even if we currently lack the capability to project power. Besides, any deficits in military capabilities awe currently have are mostly due to the prolonged American presence here. It was always more convenient to rely on that rather than do anything ourselves. That is going to change now.

Also, in the very worst case we'll be able, just like any other European country, to build a nuclear arsenal in short order.

[Ralf Goergens]

amiexpat,

the concessions by the trade unions are a very big deal because they are the beginning of the end for collective bargaining, one of the most important causes of our unemployment. This is much more significant than the withdrawal.

[lex]

Ralf,

we can beat anyone trying to attack us in Europe, even if we currently lack the capability to project power

The issue's less a threat from without than the threat from within, a threat that will only increase in coming years.

One of three things will have to give: either

1) the European leisure ethic and extremely generous welfare benefits

2) European economic growth

3) Europe's current conception of nation and civilization that owes largely to race-- see France's hostility to Turkish accession to the EU, Germany's (just ended) decades-long hostility to citizenship for 2nd and 3rd generation Turkish Germans, etc.

Given Europe's demographic catastrophe in the making, if Europe wishes to preserve # 1 and # 2, then it has no choice but to bring into Europe, and assimilate fully, as many as 100 million young hardworking immigrants. These would almost certainly come not from Russia, whose economy is growing and offers plenty of opportunities, but from the basket-case societies located across the mediterranean and the other side of Anatolia. That is, Europe's political and social structures will have to accomodate an extraordinary flow of immigrants who are, overwhelmingly, non-white, non-Christian, and non-progressive (in European terms).

Not a big problem for multi-cultural, economically wide open, pro-capitalist and individualistic America. But an extraordinarily big challenge for aging white Europeans.

"Eurabia" - better get used to the term. It's coming, much sooner than you think. And it will inevitably draw Europe in the direction that Chirac is now tentatively exploring, ie trying to make common cause with the muslims against the US.

But is Eurabia really the future that Germans wish for Europe? If not, then how can Germans and Italians and the other wealthy, postmodern, anti-family, anti-child Euros be persuaded to start sacrificing some individual freedom and leisure for the challenges and satisfactions of bearing and raising children once again?

Any thoughts, Ralf?

regards,
lex

. Besides, any deficits in military capabilities awe currently have are mostly due to the prolonged American presence here. It was always more convenient to rely on that rather than do anything ourselves. That is going to change now.

Also, in the very worst case we'll be able, just like any other European country, to build a nuclear arsenal in short order.

[Joe]

Ralf Goergens

While I might disagree with your points, I am prepared to hope they are correct.

Old Europe today does not have the capablity and I question the will to protect itself from anyone who might attack it. This could change but it is going to require difficult allocations of funds to defence and a reduction in the welfare state. This has to be done before a threat is in fact identified. Once a threat is identified it is too late. The US is now experiencing this to some degree with force levels. Durning Bush1, the force structure for the US Army was reduced from 18 divisions to a 12. Clinton took it to 10. The 2 divisions the US now needs and has funded in the current DOD Budget will take more than 2 years to bring on line. One does not buy army divisions at wal-mart.

Germany will face the same situation. You might be correct in the mood of the German people is changing and they want a strong modern well equiped and trained military. I quite frankly do not see that.

As for force projection, here we agree. Of course, where we might disagree is that without the ability of projection at best old Europe will remain nothing more than a regioinal player. This seems to run counter to the goals and objective of both Paris and Berlin. I am not sure how you square this circle in the real world.

As for nuclear capabilites, what you say might be true. Of course again you still have to get these weapons to the target. Here again do you actually think that the peace loving German people are going to support this position.

[Robert Stanfield]

Joe,

I was all for adding a pro-american comment here until I read your wild and ill-informed swipes.

"But hey, at least we wouldn't have lost any American lives in a war that most of the American public had been opposed to anyway. After all, Japan attacked us, not Germany?"

Wrong. Germany declared war on you and you had no option but to fight them. Without co-operation with the British re the U-boat menace, you would have been bottled up. (And the U-boat menace was sorted by Brits, not Hollywood Americans, whatever your contemporary history classes may say). America didn't join the war simply out of the kindness of your own heart, though I'm damn grateful you did.

"Tell me of another country who has waged total war on a enemy until they surrendered, and then provided security and helped rebuild the infrastructure not to oppress them, but so that they could enjoy the same freedom that we have?"

Great Britain, 1939-1945 against Nazi Germany. NB, commencing 1939, not 1941.

Thought I'd just point that out because of your bizarre and inaccurate claim that the British have depicted the US as the main threat to world peace ["How fkin' stupid of France, Germany and Britain to even suggest that America is the biggest threat to the world"].

On the contrary, we have supported you unfailingly and made ourselves a target for terrorist bombs at a time when others backed off. We've stayed resolutely alongside the USA at a time when it is hated throughout the world and depicted as arrogant. I'm glad we've shown our loyalty to the USA and hope we will continue to do so. Not even your outpouring here could change that view, but it might be worth bearing in mind that you alienate the few friends you currently have at your peril. Really. Think about it.

Regards, Robert