D-Day
 

I have to say I was a little disappointed to check in this morning and find that there were no comments even taking note of the D-Day anniversary. Those men fought and many died for a noble cause and achieved something great. WWII vets are dieing by an average of 1100 per day. They won't be around much longer and thhey deserve to be honored by all.

Too true. Brave bunch all round, we owe them and around 20m ruskies a heck of a lot.

I think this generation has disengaged with the war and our fragile history. It is imperative we remember. Once we forget, we may as well press replay and dance on their graves.

I don't want to start a flame war... but I am really curious to see-what people think about the French bringing the Germans to the D-Day hoopla?

must've been a bit wierd but a lot of germans died too. In some ways it serves to highlight the stupidity of large groups of men who usually would have no fight with each other, most of whom don't want to be there, killing each other.

Too many intervening wars fought on political ground. Its been a while since we fought a war with a genuine "bad guy" as opposed to a (so-called) "bad idea."

I think this unfortunate revision of "war" has led to the devaluation of the WWII soldier's true sacrifice by those who rely on the present definition of War to understand it.

Germans? Why not, they certainly played a significant role in the event being commemorated.:)

Maybe I am just too cynical. I am stuck wondering whether the Germans were invited because of a genuine desire to include them in the memorial; or was Chirac (sp) just making an attempt to slap the Americans in the face. That would be typical of him, but I might just be a little to cynical in this case.

The emperor of Japan played a significant role too, but we didn't invite him to any of the parades when the men came home from NY. Maybe the vanquished aggressors don't really belong at memorial events.

Tha Americans shouldn't have a problem. If they feel animosity toward the Germans, then this is a chance to gloat in their faces.
The Germans unlike the French were a combatant on D-Day.
If your thinking of more recent war, nah, they can't gang up on us.;)

Er Bruce, Free French played a major role in disabling German defences and delaying and stopping reinforcements, I believe ike said they were worth a whole regiment or something to that effect.

You probably could have left off the "on D-Day" part. That isn't really fair on my part though, the French underground was crucial to the war effort. The rest of the country, however...

Well the french women kept the German officers busy while we got ready.:)

What happened to the females who had kids with the germans once the germans were gone though?

The Dutch took those ladies, shaved their heads and through them out of their towns.

True, they were ostracized after the fact, but they still helped us more than most, by keeping the Nazi officers distracted. :)

I don't know if they were ostracized by French society or not. Is it possible that they were just fast tracked into the French diplomatic service?

I've seen pictures of the ones in Paris being shaved and run out of town.:)

Worth, but not comprising ...

After the war, no one was a collaborator ... everyone was "secretly working for the resistance."

Yeah.

I believe the usual treatment was shaved head and made to run naked through the town, some beatings, some deaths.

Speaking as one who would know, dude, you should start bottling all that acid and consider going into business, you make verjuice look sweet.

Ok, gotta ask. What is verjuice?

Juice of unripened grapes. Very sour. Similar in strength to vinegar.

Not at the time but the Japs have been invited to many subsequent commemorative ceremonies.:)

Yeah. but that was the politician not the General. I'm kidding, yes the resistance was invaluable in preparing for D-Day. It's a shame there weren't more of them.;)

I've always known it as crab apple juce, used for cooking.

Iraq pt. 1? Ruthless dictator makes a territorial grab against a defenseless neighbor, an international force pushes him back, breaks apart his military?

Sounds like a fair comparison to what WWII would have been like if the world had joined the fight at Austria instead of Poland.

-sm

I first saw it in a NYTimes article entitled "Mustard Isn't So Yellow Anymore" about purple mustard made with verjuice instead of vinegar.

Definition:
ver·juice Pronunciation (vûr' joos)
n.
1. The acidic juice of crab apples or other sour fruit, such as unripe grapes.
2. Sourness, as of disposition.

First ask yourself who the enemy was? Was it every German? Yes to the cannon fodder who was sent forward in blind anger to fight the enemy. But in reality - and this is the tragedy of war - the enemy only was top German leadership and their close supporters.

Was the Army blindly battling in Iraq because all Iraqis were evil? Of course not. (Most top generals, as we now know, were even angry that they were stopped from going after a real enemy - bin Laden.) But like in Iraq, most of the German nation was really more a victim of a leader they mistakenly supported in the beginning. In the case of Germany, mistaken support because the supporters were too much inspired by their emotions rather than first comprehend facts and principles. Do you blame all Germans for having created a bad leader based upon their emotional convictions?

The German people such as those coastal security regiments were really a victim of a misguided and corrupted leadership. Soldiers who then had to sit in pill boxes and mow down invaders on the beach until most of the German defenders were killed (sometimes outright butchered in violation of Geneva principles).

Where in all this is there anything righteous or good? That is the evil of war. Many if not most on both sides are really only victims of top management. They were doing their job as is even condoned today by the Geneva Conventions. For that you would condemn them to not honor their peers, killed by a misguided national leadership? I don't think so.

Those German soldiers were on the battlefield for the same reasons that most of those Americans, Brits, Canadians, and Iraqis were on the battlefield. When it comes to honoring the war dead, there is no enemy except the evil leadership who created the whole mess. Those Germans have just as much right to the D-Day ceremonies as their Allied peers.

So what are those ceremonies about? We honor those who most suffered - on both sides - because top management failed to serve the people. We honor those who were most victims of bad political leaders - and who did their job anyway despite the cost.

What do you do when you cut yourself. Do you attempt to rescue every corpusle? Of course not. You sacrifice some to benefit of the many. We just don't honor those corpusles - the one who sacrificed himself to protect the body. And yet we do that in D-Day. The many give tribute to the few who gave so much, on both sides, only because they were doing their duty.

Again, that is the tragedy of war and why we go to war only after a smoking gun exists. Anything less would make D-Day just another killing field. D-Day represents the rare time when leadership caused the worst to happen. Those people on both side had to die just so that the disagreement could be brought back to a conference table. So much lost just because a few leaders were so self serving. It is the tragedy of war and why we really honor those veterans - victims of management (leadership) failure.

*Nods* I agree, I think the German veterans had a place at the commemorations. Interestingly many of the British veterans were pleased they had been included. I dont know what the other nations' veterans thought about it.

although i empathize with the many conscripted, non-german soldiers who died with a german uniform on, i do hold the german nation responsible for the war. did they protest, or do anything appropriate to bring about the end of the nazi reign from within? were their cries for assistance merely drowned out by the furnace's lullaby? i don't think so. germans in the nearby towns claimed they weren't even aware of the death camps, lame excuses about thinking the ash was from burned logs were the order of the day. the average german citizen may not have raised a hand to assist in atrocities, but they didn't do anything to stop them either.

the german people do hold some responsibility for the atrocities. so does the rest of the world that believed appeasement was a viable long term option. "peace in our time" ring a bell?

in any tragedy there is blame to pass around but the german public allowed Hitler and his ilk to come to power, and once there, remain in power.

IMO the german presence at the ceremonies this year wasn't a coming together of all participants, but a statement of current alignment of nations. chirac with his actions indicated that the french have a closer connection with the germans than they do with americans at this point in time.

We have a D-Day Memorial Museum in New Orleans. From what I hear, it's pretty big, and just amazing to walk through. I haven't been yet, but I want to go.


Sidhe

I'm not sure, but I think tw just implied "they were only following orders."

a large proprotion of the german coastal units were conscripted troops from occupied countries. there were polish, russian, and korean conscriptees forced to fight with german nco's behind them prepared to shoot anyone who left their position.

are the Geneva principles you are referring to the ones that were agreed upon in 1949?
and could you please define "butchered"?

that started as a project and has grown into a full blown museum. Stephen Ambrose was the director up until his death. they have the largest collection of WWII vet's individual oral histories in existence. anyone who was involved in WWII can hae their history included. Ambrose relied heavily upon the interviews he did for the museum in writing his books. (Citizen Soldiers, D-Day, Band of Brothers, etc.)

The wording "Geneva principles" was a reference to laws that would exist in the future. But the point is both sides were fighting and killing per the principles we were later to define in Geneva.

As for butchered: there is a scene in Saving Private Ryan were German coastal defenders are butchered. Killed after they had surrendered. Americans do not have a monopoly on only being the good guys. That scene is based on many reported events that did occur on D-Day and after. Band of Brothers also makes reference to butchering.

It happens. It was done on both sides. But that should not detract from a larger and more important perspective. Those soldiers on both sides were victims of the time. They did as they were expected to due. And for the most part they did just what the Geneva Conventions would define as legal. Those soldiers on both sides deserve the respect due on D-Day. They more than us suffered the greatests losses by only doing their duty.

Allow me to be more specific. They were only following orders. Orders that were as legal then as they are today under the Geneva Convention. It is what war is about and why war should be fought for nothing less than a smoking gun.

Leadership screws up. Little people suffer the consequences. How many innocent Vietnamese were killed because America decided to fight an illegal and unjustified war in Vietnam - based upon outright lies from Richard Nixon. Because Richard Nixon so blantantly lied, then well over 1/2 million American soldiers don't deserved to be honored for their sacrifice? It is the least we must do; to honor the little people on all sides who did and lost the most - only because they did what is required of them by society.

To not give German soldiers their just recognition would be to make a decision only based upon emotion. "They were Germans; therefore they were evil". That is Rush Limbaugh logic. It is simplistic, sophmoric, and wrong. The evil was back there in the Reich. Many hanged for their crimes. Unfortuntately too many innocent soldiers on both sides had to die before the real problem could be eliminated. Welcome to what war is all about.

No member of the Third Reich should been honored at those D-Day celebrations. Everyone else should be welcome and should be honored to meet the men they once had to kill. It is what society really comes down to. It is even a concept that every truly religious person should fully understand without question or doubt.

Am I posting something so new to everyone here? Posted is nothing new or revolutionary.

No, but it's something that should be repeated often. Good job, TW.:beer:

i didn't say that all germans were evil. i didn't say any germans were evil. what i said is that the german people, before anyone else, had the ability to prevent the war, that made D-Day a necessity. i think the german soldier who fought honorably should be remembered. i just don't know that normandy was the right place to have them.

as far as the butchering? well, glad to see you get your info from the movies. i actually expected that you would have cited a few historical works to support it, but it isn't necessary.

soldier's on both sides generally fought in an honorable manner. not because they thought there would be written rules just a few years later, but because each soldier was ruled by their own conscience. but don't kid yourself - they didn't fight based on an iron-clad set of rules. they did what ever needed to be done to accomplish the mission at hand. some of the things they did qualify as atrocities today. at the time they saw what they did as necessary for the cause and they weren't worried about some camera crew or international courts. Lt Col West (the guy who fired the weapon near the prisoner's head) would not have even been given a second thought during that time period. mission first. all else second.

And I never said that you said all germans were evil. You are reading into my post things I did not say.

You did not ask for historical citings. You asked for examples of what is meant by butchering. Again you are reading into my post things I did not say.

What I did say is that German soldiers of D-Day should be part of the D-Day celebrations.

If everyone was fighting only to accomplish the mission, then why were Germans so more willing to surrender to Americans than to Russians? Both Americans and Russians were doing everything necessary to accomoplish objectives. Why was it so much better to surrender to rather than fight the Americans - when both Russians and Americans were doing same "to accomplish the mission at hand"? Did Americans have rules of war that the Russians did not?

And if there were no such rules of war, then how did those Germans who massacred captured Americans at (was it Mandalay?) during the Battle of the Bulge end up getting prosecuted? How do we prosecute someone for a rule that did not exist?

the americans approached the fight from a different perspective than the russians did. for the american serviceman the fight was something that had to be finished before he could go home. it wasn't an issue of hating the germans for the american gi. many WWII vets held the germans in much higher regard than they did the french. they interrogated them when necessary and killed them when necessary to accomplish whatever mission at hand.

the gi, in general, did not hold the level of contempt for the german soldiers that the russians did. the war hadn't been brought to the gate of any major american city. the russian soldiers were well aware of the russian civilians who had died at the hands of the germans. they approached the german soldier with contempt and with a desire for revenge. the german soldier was well aware of that.

i am not aware of the prosecution of any front line troops after teh battle of the bulge. i believe you are talking about the Malmedy Massacre. the american response to that was the order from Headquarters, 328th IR, Dec 21. "No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight." (ambrose, citizen soldiers)

There most certainly was a trial. I just could not remember the exact name of that nearby village.

Just not sure how those Germans were originally given death sentences without there being something eqivalent to and preceding a Geneva Convention. And BTW, even back then, torture was not permitted by the US military - no matter what lawyers for George Jr can invent. Because of illegal torture, those death sentences were commuted:
Malmedy Massacre Trial

Answer was in the second (following page). US signed the 1929 Geneva Convention. Russia did not.

good research tw. i wasn't saying there weren't any prosecutions, i just wasn't aware of them. good job.

edit: spelling. need more beer.