mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (04/30/85)
I still don't understand, after all the furor, why Reagan's visit to Bitburg is causing such a stir. Yes, it was a mistake, I feel, not to also visit a concentration camp-- a visit to one should not have had to been added as an afterthought. And, yes, the cemetery contains the corpses of men who committed atrocities against defenseless people. But it also contains the remains of men who were pressed into service, who did not espouse the cause of the Nazis. In short, it contains the graves of men who held many different beliefs about Naziism, from those who embraced it wholeheartedly and used it as justification for some of the most horrible deeds done by man to his fellow men, through those who did not identify with the Nazis, but fought for other reasons, including some who were simply impressed into the armed forces. But the men buried at Bitburg and their differing reasons for being there are just as much a part of the legacy of the last world war as are the bitter fighting on the Russian Front, the concentration camps and genocide against the Jews, and the use of the atomic bomb. To forget why those men are buried there and to ignore the message they have to tell us is to sweep an important part of history under the rug. But the fact that the President is going to visit there and lay a wreath there honors those without honor, you say. Oh, really? Who has leaked the speech Reagan plans to give at the ceremony? Does anybody really know exactly what he is going to say? Recognition can be accomplished without honoring those recognised; in this case the recognition can be of exactly what these men stood for, and a recognition that 1) such events are part of the past now, and have to be dealt with, and 2) such events must never be allowed to happen again while it is in our power to stop it. Perhaps we should wait until the moment arrives and the speech is made before we judge who or what is being honored and recognised. Some obviously have not dealt with the situation fully, saying that the German people should never be forgiven for what happened. But forgiveness must happen if healing is to take place. Bear in mind when I say forgiveness I don't mean that those responsible still living should not be brought to justice for their part, or that the horrible roles played by some of the men in the graves at Bitburg should be forgotten. But it is time to put aside hatred, difficult though it may be. For if the hatred is not put aside and the horror and shame and tragedy and guilt dealt with now, when will it be dealt with? And if we do not do it, who will? Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom [P.S. The style of the last few lines are borrowed from a speech I saw a while back; I think it was a U.S. President-- Kennedy? Anyway, if it sounds familiar, that's probably why.]
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (05/07/85)
> > I still don't understand, after all the furor, why Reagan's visit to > Bitburg is causing such a stir. Yes, it was a mistake, I feel, not > to also visit a concentration camp-- a visit to one should not have > had to been added as an afterthought. And, yes, the cemetery > contains the corpses of men who committed atrocities against > defenseless people. But it also contains the remains of men who > were pressed into service, who did not espouse the cause of the > Nazis. In short, it contains the graves of men who held many > different beliefs about Naziism, from those who embraced it > wholeheartedly and used it as justification for some of the most > horrible deeds done by man to his fellow men, through those who did not > identify with the Nazis, but fought for other reasons, including > some who were simply impressed into the armed forces. The point is that Reagan could have made a distinction among Nazis (those who believed in the cause of Nazism), German soldiers (who may or may not have believed in Nazism) and the German people as a whole (who also may or may not have believed in Nazism). Neither all Germans nor even all German soldiers were responsible for the Holocaust. Some, in fact, worked against it. But the SS WAS responsible for the Holocaust & for a large number of atrocities committed against civlians and POWs. Reagan originally planned the trip to honor German WWII dead. He made no distinction at that time between SS [Nazi] dead & regular army dead. When he found out that there were SS graves at the cemetery, that was the time to make the distinction and to REFUSE to honor the SS. There were other places Reagan could have gone to honor Germans who died in WWII. Instead, Reagan implied that all Germans were as much victims of the Nazis as the Jews, gays, leftists, etc. were. If this is so, then who were the Nazis? Aliens from outerspace? Either you say that individuals are responsible for their actions, or you blame the group to which the individuals belong for their actions. The SS was a voluntary organization. The Nazis drafted people into their army, but not into the SS. The SS was populated by those who agreed with Nazism's principles. If the US doesn't continue to repudiate the actions of the SS, then who do we blame for the Holocaust? All Germans? It is precisely BECAUSE the idea of national guilt is so wrong that Bitburg was wrong. If the German people were not all "bad guys," we should be very careful not to honor those among them who were while saying that we are doing so to seek reconciliation with the German people. > in this case the recognition can be of exactly what these men stood for, > and a recognition that 1) such events are part of the past now, and have > to be dealt with, and 2) such events must never be allowed to happen > again while it is in our power to stop it. Perhaps we should wait > until the moment arrives and the speech is made before we judge who > or what is being honored and recognised. See above for what the White House originally told us they were honoring-- German WWII dead--NO DISTINCTIONS. > Some obviously have not dealt with the situation fully, saying that > the German people should never be forgiven for what happened. I don't think most people who object to the Bitburg visit are saying this. I think they are saying that you shouldn't honor SS soldiers because those who chose to belong to the SS embraced Nazism, & to honor the SS as if they were just ordinary German soldiers is to say something pretty nasty & unfair about the German people as a whole (not mention showing an incredible amount of moral blindness). > forgiveness must happen if healing is to take place. As for "healing" & "forgiveness," I must say that this is the first that I had heard that we didn't get along with the West Germans. Didn't we get them back on their feet again? What was the Marshall plan all about? At the end of the war, when anti-German emotions were running far higher than they are now, we helped them. Just what else do we have to do to show that a) we don't hold all Germans responsible for WWII & b) we can forgive a military foe? If Reagan wants to reconcile himself to some part of Germany, why doesn't he go to East Germany? Last I heard, THAT was the Germany with which we weren't reconciled. [& our unfriendly relations with East Germany have far more to do with Stalin & the Communists than with Hitler and the Nazis] >Bear in mind > when I say forgiveness I don't mean that those responsible still > living should not be brought to justice for their part, or that the > horrible roles played by some of the men in the graves at Bitburg > should be forgotten. Surviving SS members still hold reunions. Generally, these reunions have been very low-key and the SS members have refused to talk to the press. According to National Public Radio, Reagan's visit to the cemetery has made these men much prouder of their past and has made them feel that the world accepts their role much better. Isn't that something for those of us who hate the SS to feel bitter about? And one last word about collective guilt. European newspapers (& some American) have decided to blame the furor over Bitburg not on the singular stupidity of our government, but on (drum roll) the Jews. Allegedly it is their "undue" influence which caused the US Congress to repudiate the trip & caused so much anger over the trip. At a time when people are still believing stupid myths about "undue Jewish influence" should the president of the US be making the former SS members feel better about their place in history? I'm not Jewish & I resent the president embarrassing our country in this way very much. Unless those idiots who blather away about "undue Jewish pressure" are willing to concede that "undue Jewish pressure" is the same thing as a sense of decency, I refuse to acknowledge that "Jewish pressure" had anything to do with my outrage at this trip.