Posted on 08/04/2006 7:39:05 AM PDT by bobsunshine
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would welcome German troops participating in an international force in southern Lebanon, according to a newspaper interview published Friday.
German officials have not ruled out contributing soldiers to a security force, but Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that "we as Germans should approach this region with the greatest caution."
Some have speculated over what would happen if German troops were forced into a position of conflict with Israeli soldiers, or if the weight of the Nazi-era past clouded the Germans' ability to make crucial split-second decisions.
Olmert said he told Merkel that Israel has "absolutely no problem with German soldiers in southern Lebanon."
"Why should German soldiers shoot at Israel? They would be part of the force protecting Israel," Olmert was quoted as saying in the interview with the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung.
"There is at the moment no nation that is behaving in a more friendly way toward Israel than Germany," he added. "If Germany can contribute to the security of the Israeli people, that would be a worthwhile task for your country. I would be very happy if Germany participated."
Berlin has avoided direct criticism of the Jewish state since fighting broke out last month, repeatedly underscoring its right to self-defense, and has called for a cease-fire "as quickly as possible" rather than immediately.
Merkel insists that Germany cannot consider a contribution until a UN mandate is in place. She also has pointed to the fact the German military is already stretched, with troops deployed from the Balkans to Afghanistan.
Still, Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung - a member of her conservative Christian Democrats - has suggested that if all sides were to ask for a contribution, then Germany would have to oblige.
Germany has been calling on Syria - a key supporter of the Lebanon-based Hizbullah - to play a constructive part in defusing the crisis.
"If Germany wants to talk to Syria, no one is going to stop Germany doing that," Olmert was quoted as saying. "But I harbor doubts about Syria's intentions."
"If Syria really wanted to take on a positive role, the country would have many possibilities," he added. "It has rejected them all."
''You are correct in that you as a german and no doubt all who were born after the fact and including those germans who faught against the cancer of nazism are not responsible for what happened.''
I’m glad you made this point clear. However, there are still posters around, who would disagree here.
''…but if the world has finally turned the page and forgiven the german people for crimes that were committed on countless. The verdict is still out. ''
I don’t understand this point. What do you want to forgive the current generation , your own words - who are not responsible for what happened ? My impression - as a German, who has been working and living in some Anglo-countries – the hostility towards Germans in these countries is increasing. I still remember times in England, when you could discuss issues like this in a more balanced way (In those times it was also unthinkable, that German exchange students were beaten up in London as it happened just recently etc).
Germany has successfully established a good and friendly relationship with the French, because politicians in both countries realised after WW II that something had to be done about this French/German eternal enemy issue (''Erbfeind'' in German). And that has happened with many countries in Europe. When you take to people in theses countries – even the ones who had to suffer heavily under Nazi Germany's rule, they often remind you, that Stalin for example was not better, may be even worse. Astonishingly, there seems to be a more balanced view about this subject than in Anglo countries..
Hence I believe this verdict of the world is more an Anglo issue. Why? Because it is so wonderful to be able to claim moral higher grounds forever without even having to look at their own( minor of course!!) sins?
Or is it just an ongoing Anglo/German rivalry/competition, IMHO the real cause that triggered WW I ?
I believe we have quite a bit of hypocrisy here.
''Germans have rebuilt their society because there was half a million foreign soldiers stationed on german soil for the last 60 yrs. When was the last time germans fought for freedom and democracy anywhere''
That's true and we are thankful for that. But there were another half million German soldiers who stood their ground for democracy and freedom in - at that time - Western Europe,too.
''Anyhow Europe will be an Islamo wasteland in 50 yrs.''
I am pretty confident that won’t happen in most European countries.
Germany, bless her, came up with the wonderful dachshund, so if we're listing her many accomplishments, don't forget them!
Ouch!
take = talk
Not sure about Olmert, who seemed weak-kneed when he took over from Sharon. I worry that once the shooting stops, goaded by Liberals/Progressives, he'll go back to his land-for-peace mode of thinking, which even the dumbest would admit is nuts. I suspect events will overtake us. Once Hezbollah fires missiles at Teheran, I'd think the gloves would come off fast.
You may get a wrong impression about skraut. He's just bored and fed up. This is about having the same discussion with almost every Anglo about this topic. The worst kind ist the "we" kicked "your" ass, "you" deserved it variant, mostly comes up after some cold ones. Modern Germans can't relate to the "you" part as well as Anglos of every age can relate to the "we" part even 2 generations after the end of WW2. It tastes like a cheap insult born from circumstances neither of us had any influence on. Anyway, we're still atoning for the past, and we're quite thankful that the Allies didn't repeat the mistakes of the Versailles treaty, quite the contrary.
I believe this mission will require well-trained and well-disciplined units who are seen as "not having a dog in the fight." The German forces would be of great value as peacekeepers, and if they would accept the burden of a leadership role in this, they are to be commended. Who would blame them if they didn't, of course, for there is risk? If not Germany, who? If not now, when?
Another thread on this topic mentions the proposal of a German newspaper editor, that the German military should take a role in the UN force but rather secure the border betweenSyria and Lebanon. I think that's the best idea I heard yet.
rubbish ... killer beasts without manners they are ;-) wounder what they have ears for. It's not for listening on commands certainly.
I am vegetarian.
It is important to note that What Rommel's heroics were all about was preparing the way for murder by concentration camp, murder of children, murder by gas, and hiding the remnants by way of gas ovens.
As commander of Hitler's headquarters during the polish invasion, Rommel deserves a full share of what ever guilt there is in starting wars of agression to prepare the conditions for mass murder.
Rommel accepted every promotion from Hitler, and supported his agression. Even when it became clear that all was to set the conditions for murder, he still fought for the murderous regime against the democracies.
Yeah, whatever blah blah blah. It is important say that General Sanchez accepted every promotion from President Bush and that he was a leading figure in the war against Iraq. So his heroics were all about preparing the way for murder by insurgents who could only kill because the US forces cleared the way - or even better: by US soldiers! Such a comparison is idiocy at best! Neither General Sanchez nor President Bush can be blamed for what the terrorists do in Iraq or what single criminal GI´s have done.
And since we have accepted the principle of individual guilt, we judge everybody on his own behaviour. My Grandfathers, although they were fighting for their home countries, are in no way responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. They were not involved in crimes against humanity, but they fought in a war, which meant to kill the enemy. The same did General Field Marshall Rommel. It´s not a coincidence that the Wehrmacht army was not declared a criminal Nazi organisation after the war by the allies, although several units were involved in killings of civilians. The regular soldiers did their job: fighting the enemy. And in Rommels case, he did it with courage, honesty and morale. He refused orders from Hitler which meant to kill captured POW. Imagine that! In a time where such a behaviour usually meant the death penalty, he saved the lives of his enemies, because they were human beings.
You may also argue, that each German who didn´t spoke up against Hitler helped him and his followers to kill 6 million Jews and many more million Soviets and Poles, but that´s a false claim. Today, we honor those who fought the Nazis in the resistance as heroes. But a hero is someone who did EXTRAORDINARY GOOD. So we can hardly blame the ordinary people for being silent in order to save their lives. Oppositionals were sent to the KZ´s or hanged, you know?
Show me sources that Rommel accepted Hitler´s aggression! Tell me when he said the war´s great! Rommel was a soldier. He followed orders - up to a point where his consciousness said "no". And that´s extraordinary good. Most soldiers did not dare to do that (and most would have been hanged for that too). The idea, that soldiers have an obligation to refuse orders which mean a crime came up after WW2, because of its horrors.
Don´t use the measures and standards of today for the past. They don´t match!
Rest in peace, GFM Erwin Rommel. You were one of the good, on the wrong side.
I recommend you review the Movie: Decision at Daybreak.
Old story about a young German who got it, and fought as an agent of the Democracies against the criminal Nazi Regime.
He had to justify himself, morally, to a Combat Command staff, because communications were cut off between the Combat Command and Division. His moral justification was a success, he averted a Wehrmacht ambush. Division sent a tank company as his escort back, so highly was he valued.
Now there was a hero.
As for the Nazi government of Germany, aside from the murder of disfavored people, and random looting of the treasury, what other policy did they have?
It is important to note that Japan invaded the Phillipines after the US had announced, in 1936, that the Phillipines would be independent by 1946.
You mean "Decision before dawn". And I think that his actions were wrong, he killed the same poor sons he was shortly before. Now if he had participated in missions to kill Nazi leaders, that would have been a difference. I don´t despise him either, but he wasn´t a hero in my eyes.
WW2 is a tragedy, from the very first start. A tragedy for all involved. There were only losers afterwards, the victory tasted bitter, although the right side won. If Chamberlain hadn´t agreed to Munich 1938, Hitler would have been stopped by the military resistance before he had been in Prague. But after Munich, he was too strong. The early defeats of Poland and France contributed to his image of the unbeatable, so it only increased the terror.
......Germany has been calling on Syria.....
She made an offer Assad would be prudent to not refuse.
I'll bet life sucks if you're assad.
I guess that must be it. I have never seen the movie. I read an account of the young German soldier and his attempt to prevent an ambush of the US forces, as told by the CCB Surgeon in his book. He often got pressed into this kind of work because of his German and French language skills. It was an interesting account, and clearly laid out a conflict between an officer from Texas, and the young man who tried to explain that his loyalty was to freedom, culture, and civilization, not to the name on the map. I wonder where that young man is today.
The doctor was a Roosevelt Democrat, and retired after a full career in Chicago. His account of a party after liberation put on by the Resistance was very moving.
The frequent and expected atrocities of the SS, and the extremely measured US response: Because of the loss of ambulances to German fire, to not send wounded soldiers back for treatment after operations began in Germany.
The horror of the concentration camps, to a doctor, who tried to treat the inmates with the one thing they really needed: food.
I regret to say, I sent the book to my son for his 18th birthday, and can't seem to recall the name. Its hell getting old.
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.