Ww2 Axis Powers Remembering Their Dead
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Interesting stories for Germany & Japan</div> A couple interesting stories today about two of the major WW2 axis powers:
In France - <a href='http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4065988' target='_blank'>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=4065988</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany Hails First Invite to D-Day Ceremonies
Fri January 2, 2004 11:14 AM ET
By Philip Blenkinsop
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany Friday hailed its first invitation to attend ceremonies for the D-Day landings 60 years ago, when Allied forces stormed ashore in northern France in World War II.
"It is a sign of enormous significance 60 years after the so-called D-Day landing of Allied forces in Normandy that not only the victorious powers, but also the former adversary, should be invited," government spokesman Thomas Steg said.
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will be the first German leader to attend a commemoration of the June 1944 D-Day landings after being invited by French President Jacques Chirac.
The ceremony marks the Allied campaign launched at dawn on June 6, 1944, to storm the Normandy beaches at the start of the campaign to drive Nazi forces from France.
Thousands were killed in the operation, but the invasion, led by Americans, British and Canadian troops, hastened the end for Hitler's armies, already reeling before a Soviet onslaught.
France refrained from inviting then Chancellor Helmut Kohl to the high-profile 50th anniversary.
"You will recall the discussions 10 years ago after Germany was not invited," Steg said. "It is a sign that times have really changed."
He said the gesture was a further sign that the post-war era was being consigned to history.
A spokeswoman for Chirac said the invitation reflected a spirit of reconciliation and peace.
Germany was also pleased the other former Allied powers in World War II appeared to welcome Schroeder's presence, he said.
Ties between the German and French leaders have warmed in the past year, affirmed by their joint opposition, along with Russia, to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
A year ago, German MPs visited France for 40th anniversary celebrations of the Elysee Treaty which sealed their post-war reconciliation.
This year's D-Day anniversary will take place shortly after Schroeder's own 60th birthday. Born on April 7, 1944, he was two months old when the Allied landings took place. He never knew his father, who was killed in action in Romania not long after he was born. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And in Japan - <a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001828227_japan02.html' target='_blank'>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...27_japan02.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->China pans Japan leader's visit to shrine
By Natalie Obiko Pearson
The Associated Press
TOKYO — Japan's prime minister prayed at a shrine honoring Japan's war dead yesterday, a visit that appeared aimed at shoring up support at home as he prepares to send troops to Iraq but brought quick criticism from China and South Korea.
Junichiro Koizumi's annual visits to Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine outrage Asian countries that Japan invaded and brutally occupied last century. They see his tributes there as honoring Japan's militaristic past.
The New Year's Day visit could sour relations with China and South Korea as the three countries — along with the United States — try to rally behind a diplomatic resolution to the standoff over North Korea's nuclear programs.
It also could upset the delicate power balance in Asia, where countries have warily eyed the planned Iraq deployment, Japan's largest overseas dispatch of troops since World War II.
Koizumi said he decided on the visit — which was not previously announced and was his fourth since becoming prime minister in April 2001 — to pray for "Japan's peace and prosperity."
"Japan does not rest solely upon the efforts of people living now ... Japan stands upon the sacrifices of others in the past," he told said.
Yasukuni Shrine honors about 2.5 million Japanese war dead, including executed criminals such as war-era Prime Minister Hideki Tojo.
Koizumi "ignores opposition from the Chinese people and Asian people and obstinately insists on visiting the Yasukuni Shrine," the state-run Xinhua News Agency said. His visit "further harms the political basis for friendly Sino-Japanese relations," it said.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi summoned Japan's charge d'affaires to Beijing to voice "strong indignation" over the visit, Xinhua said.
The surprise visit yesterday was widely viewed as an appeal to conservative voters and lawmakers at a time Koizumi is being battered by criticism that he is rashly placing Japanese lives at risk with the Iraq deployment. Tokyo plans to send about 1,000 noncombat military personnel to repair infrastructure in southern Iraq in the next few months. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to taint the discussion with any leading questions, so just reply as you see fit. I'll chime in a bit later.
In France - <a href='http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4065988' target='_blank'>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=4065988</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany Hails First Invite to D-Day Ceremonies
Fri January 2, 2004 11:14 AM ET
By Philip Blenkinsop
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany Friday hailed its first invitation to attend ceremonies for the D-Day landings 60 years ago, when Allied forces stormed ashore in northern France in World War II.
"It is a sign of enormous significance 60 years after the so-called D-Day landing of Allied forces in Normandy that not only the victorious powers, but also the former adversary, should be invited," government spokesman Thomas Steg said.
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will be the first German leader to attend a commemoration of the June 1944 D-Day landings after being invited by French President Jacques Chirac.
The ceremony marks the Allied campaign launched at dawn on June 6, 1944, to storm the Normandy beaches at the start of the campaign to drive Nazi forces from France.
Thousands were killed in the operation, but the invasion, led by Americans, British and Canadian troops, hastened the end for Hitler's armies, already reeling before a Soviet onslaught.
France refrained from inviting then Chancellor Helmut Kohl to the high-profile 50th anniversary.
"You will recall the discussions 10 years ago after Germany was not invited," Steg said. "It is a sign that times have really changed."
He said the gesture was a further sign that the post-war era was being consigned to history.
A spokeswoman for Chirac said the invitation reflected a spirit of reconciliation and peace.
Germany was also pleased the other former Allied powers in World War II appeared to welcome Schroeder's presence, he said.
Ties between the German and French leaders have warmed in the past year, affirmed by their joint opposition, along with Russia, to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
A year ago, German MPs visited France for 40th anniversary celebrations of the Elysee Treaty which sealed their post-war reconciliation.
This year's D-Day anniversary will take place shortly after Schroeder's own 60th birthday. Born on April 7, 1944, he was two months old when the Allied landings took place. He never knew his father, who was killed in action in Romania not long after he was born. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And in Japan - <a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001828227_japan02.html' target='_blank'>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...27_japan02.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->China pans Japan leader's visit to shrine
By Natalie Obiko Pearson
The Associated Press
TOKYO — Japan's prime minister prayed at a shrine honoring Japan's war dead yesterday, a visit that appeared aimed at shoring up support at home as he prepares to send troops to Iraq but brought quick criticism from China and South Korea.
Junichiro Koizumi's annual visits to Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine outrage Asian countries that Japan invaded and brutally occupied last century. They see his tributes there as honoring Japan's militaristic past.
The New Year's Day visit could sour relations with China and South Korea as the three countries — along with the United States — try to rally behind a diplomatic resolution to the standoff over North Korea's nuclear programs.
It also could upset the delicate power balance in Asia, where countries have warily eyed the planned Iraq deployment, Japan's largest overseas dispatch of troops since World War II.
Koizumi said he decided on the visit — which was not previously announced and was his fourth since becoming prime minister in April 2001 — to pray for "Japan's peace and prosperity."
"Japan does not rest solely upon the efforts of people living now ... Japan stands upon the sacrifices of others in the past," he told said.
Yasukuni Shrine honors about 2.5 million Japanese war dead, including executed criminals such as war-era Prime Minister Hideki Tojo.
Koizumi "ignores opposition from the Chinese people and Asian people and obstinately insists on visiting the Yasukuni Shrine," the state-run Xinhua News Agency said. His visit "further harms the political basis for friendly Sino-Japanese relations," it said.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi summoned Japan's charge d'affaires to Beijing to voice "strong indignation" over the visit, Xinhua said.
The surprise visit yesterday was widely viewed as an appeal to conservative voters and lawmakers at a time Koizumi is being battered by criticism that he is rashly placing Japanese lives at risk with the Iraq deployment. Tokyo plans to send about 1,000 noncombat military personnel to repair infrastructure in southern Iraq in the next few months. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to taint the discussion with any leading questions, so just reply as you see fit. I'll chime in a bit later.
Comments
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually most were just soldiers not even apart of the Nazi party. Nazi party members were mainly officers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nazi party members were mainly officers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I imagine SS troops, a fair share of civilians and a lot of youth(Hitler Jugend & BDM), was part of the party. Not just officers. Although it doesn't automatically mean that you are a nazi, just that you are making a smart career move.
It's inappropriate; the german troops may not have believed in Hitler, but they fought for him. Being on the wrong side is an absolute - they should not have invited him. And as for the Japanese, they live in a fantasyland (created by the US occupation propoganda under McArthur, amazingly!) that someone else started WW2 in the pacific. It's especially evident when the A-Bomb anniverseries occur - the Japanese seem to think they were the victims, and ignore 12 million dead Chinese, Korean, British, American, Philipino soldiers and civilians. especially all the ones killed with chemical weapons, biological warfare, grotesque vivisections, starvation, bayonette practice, the Bataan Death March, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nazi party members were mainly officers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I imagine SS troops, a fair share of civilians and a lot of youth(Hitler Jugend & BDM), was part of the party. Not just officers. Although it doesn't automatically mean that you are a nazi, just that you are making a smart career move. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
agreed.
Well it's a tough call. One could, quite correctly, claim that if the Versailles Treaty had not been so harsh on Germany that the political and economic conditions that lead to Hitler's rise to power would never have come about. Also you could look at Japan and ask if placing economic embargos on the island might have forced Japan into a fight it didn't really want. However, that's all alternate history work and whilst I do love that field of study, it is by it's very nature inprecise and impossible to prove.
Regardless of this, the soldiers, the people who did the actual fighting were not the ones who started the war. They simply followed orders, and both Japanese and German soldiers had pledged themselves to the service of their country. As a soldier, if your commander in Chief decides to invade Poland or bomb Pearl Harbor, it's not your job to say "Well, I don't think that's such a good idea. Maybe you guys should call this off". You do what you're told.
German and Japanese soldiers both committed atrocities, but if you want to go into atrocities how about the firebombing of German and Japanese cities? Both sides in WWII had the blood of millions on their hands, and both had armies comprised of thousands of men who were simply fighting in the service of their country. For whatever reasons they joined up, at the end of the day they were all very much alike as people.
I think that the families of these dead should be allowed to remember their loved ones who fell. It's not like Germany and Japan believe that what their respective nations did in wartime was correct. They simply wish to pay their respects to their dead. I have no problem with them doing that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Should we invite Al-Quaeda to the opening of the WTC memorial, and allow them to honor their dead soldiers? They died in a cause they believed was right, after all. How about we bring over the Japanese Prime Minister to the annual Pearl Harbor rememberance and have him honor the dead airman that died while drowning the US sailors in their beds in the USS Arizona? Should Nazi concentration camp guards get to attend holocaust rememberances - just doing their jobs, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's pretty analogous. And for your Japanese revisionism, they could arguably be the beginning of WW2; they invaded China in 1937, with no embargoes in place. They would have attacked us no matter what, it was only a question of time. The embargo was a good excuse, but a military junta only keeps power by fighting their 'splendid little wars'... And as for the atrocities of the allies - they were not excusable in our modern ethical standards, but they were reactive to Japan and Germany doing such things first. In the nature and culture of the times, they were justifiable as an 'eye for an eye'.
My opinion is that, there comes a point in time when you should move on and reconcile. Your analogy with Al-Quaeda is off in the sense that:
i) They are not a nation
ii) There is an ongoing struggle with them right now.
Not everyone in Germany and not everyone in Japan was pro-war I'm sure. Sometimes you get caught up in circumstances beyond your control. And yes, I believe that their dead should be remembered alongside the dead of all countries that fell in WW2.
They should be remembered for being soldiers that served their country, nothing more nothing less.
I do not have a problem with the Germans, Japanese, or Italians honor their own war dead in their own way. But that does not mean they get to come to Allied ceremonies where they tried to prevent freedom 50 years ago. That's the price of losing, and being on the bad side.
I do not have a problem with the Germans, Japanese, or Italians honor their own war dead in their own way. But that does not mean they get to come to Allied ceremonies where they tried to prevent freedom 50 years ago. That's the price of losing, and being on the bad side. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I see your point. But in this case it is not really a question of one side having a ceremony to specifically honour the other side (which would be somewhat strange to say the least) but a gathering of all groups involved, in a spirit of reconciliation, to remember all those who fell. And hopefully to demonstrate that past mistakes will not be repeated.
At least thats the way I understand it.
For Monse:
Maybe this is just the first step in France volunteering itself to be annexed by Germany... You know, just to even remove the possibility of being overrun once again.
I think it's pretty analogous. And for your Japanese revisionism, they could arguably be the beginning of WW2; they invaded China in 1937, with no embargoes in place. They would have attacked us no matter what, it was only a question of time. The embargo was a good excuse, but a military junta only keeps power by fighting their 'splendid little wars'... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're a sharp one Monse. I'd argue that Japan would have been more interested in trying to finish the fight in China as opposed to starting a war with a nation that had 10 times their industrial capacity, but that's alternative history and it's impossible to prove either way. I accept your point though that Japan would have kept fighting, I merely question where and against who. But while we're here, an interesting question: would the USA have come into WWII if Pearl Harbor had never happened and Hitler had never declared war on the USA?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nicely answered, but also nicely ducked . I'll ask again:
QUOTE
Should we invite Al-Quaeda to the opening of the WTC memorial, and allow them to honor their dead soldiers? They died in a cause they believed was right, after all. How about we bring over the Japanese Prime Minister to the annual Pearl Harbor rememberance and have him honor the dead airman that died while drowning the US sailors in their beds in the USS Arizona? Should Nazi concentration camp guards get to attend holocaust rememberances - just doing their jobs, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well in the case of Al Qaeda, isn't it your government that classifies them as "enemy combattants" and not soldiers? Hence any rememberance ceremony couldn't happen.
Yes the Japanese carried out a surprise attack. What, is that an illegitimate military tactic now? Should we get the crews of the American pilots who incinerated Japanese civilians while they slept and honor the people they killed? I believe that the Japanese should be allowed to honor their dead who fought in war (and quite often very bravely in war) just as the Americans honor their dead.
Nazi concentration camp guards is a tough area. On the one hand they were just following orders, but does a soldier's duty to follow orders free them from any responsabilty for the actions they undertake? Were these soldiers actually willing to carry out these orders, or were they forced? I really don't know on this one. I'm not trying to dodge it, I'm just saying I really don't have an answer.
Regardless, that's all in the past, and the governments of Germany and Japan today are very differant to the governments that ruled these nations during WWII. I think that in the spirit of goodwill and rememberance, former enemies should be allowed to pay their respects. Of course, if Allied servicemen wanted to attend Japanese or German rememberance ceremonies, they should be allowed as well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd argue that Japan would have been more interested in trying to finish the fight in China as opposed to starting a war with a nation that had 10 times their industrial capacity<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm. And I'd think that once they had consolidated their hold over China, they naturally would have still eventually faced off with their natural enemies in the region: you and us. Without a war, I'm not sure Tojo and company could have kept their population so under control. Nor Hitler, mind you. You're right though, it's so hypothetical that it needs a whole set of new topics. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well in the case of Al Qaeda, isn't it your government that classifies them as "enemy combattants" and not soldiers? Hence any rememberance ceremony couldn't happen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hair-splitting, in my opinion. You don't have a real answer for me, I think.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes the Japanese carried out a surprise attack. What, is that an illegitimate military tactic now? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, not really my point. The point is, why should you have to honor the fallen of your attackers? Like someone else said, I don't expect the Russians would be inviting any Germans to the Stalingrad memorial, and I certainly understand why. People can pay their respects all they want, 364 days out of the year. There is no reason to have to insert yourself into other's special day of tribute. Your tribute should be an apology or silence, and your absence. Anything else is self-serving.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well let's think about it this way. Turn the clock forwards 50 years. Al Qaeda is long dead, terrorism and fundamentalist Islam has all but vanished, and modern democracies florish in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Iraq. The respective leaders of these nations come to the 50 year anniversary of the S-11 incident to pay their respects to those who died, and to demonstrate that they wish that such an event never happens again.
Now that's pretty much the same as what we have now: just substitute Nazism/Japanese militism for Al Qaeda and the various Middle Eastern nations for Germany and Japan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your tribute should be an apology or silence, and your absence. Anything else is self-serving.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But surely coming to a rememberance ceremony shows a number of things. Firstly, it shows that you believe that the conflicts of the past are behind you, and that today you are devoted to peace. Secondly, it's a gesture of respect for the dead. In it's own way, it's an apology that so many did die because of the actions of others.
I believe that it is a genuine gesture of reconciliation and a mutual desire to learn from mistakes made in the past.
On to Ryo. You raise an excellent point with a 50 years from now (ignoring the fanstasyland concept of Islamic fundamentalism dissapearing, which is not likely to happen for the next 1300 years, considering the last 1300 years) scenario. However, I think that Schroeder (and definitely the Japanese Prime Minister, who does not visit the shrines in China or Korea) are not there so much to honor the sacrifice of their enemies so much as they are to honor their own soldiers. Soldiers who willingly served evil.
It certainly comes down to timing. I do not believe it is anything but a symbol of the new Franco-German pact. But that's just my opinion; it could be an <i>amazing</i> coincidence...
Well yeah it was hypothesising to make a point. I seriously <i>hope</i> that in 50 years time fundementalist Islam, Judaism and Christianity are gone forever. But who am I kidding <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It certainly comes down to timing. I do not believe it is anything but a symbol of the new Franco-German pact. But that's just my opinion; it could be an amazing coincidence... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's possible (even probable) that the German and Japanese politicians that do take part might be gaining some sort of political advantage. But I'd say that every American, British, French, Australian politician who attends these ceremonies must love the images of them on the news showing them honoring the dead and helping veterans. There's always a political angle in such things, but it should not disguise the fact that even if there are advantages to be had, there is still a good deal of genuine emotions of rememberance and sorrow. Our Prime Minister might love the media coverage he gets by going to Gallipoli but he, like almost all Australians, feels deeply about the conflicts of the past.
Yeah... I can see how those who believed in exterminating Jews and other "inferior" races deserve an honored burial and remembrance.... ummm... errrr... scratch that. I can't see how murderers who believe in their cause deserve any honor.
Ryo... I'm wondering if Monse ( and my own ) opposition to visit would be as strong if he were simply there to honor and remember the Allied soldiers and not the German soldiers... I'm thinking that would be acceptable... Its just that, and I won't speak for Monse here though, the German soldiers, regardless if they were devout Nazi's or not, do not deserve to be honored... Honoring them is the same as honoring what they stood for... And honoring what they stood for is in direct opposition to what the Allied soldiers stood for... And honor both ideals at the same time is a huge dis-honor to the Allied soldiers, those that did and did not die.
On the other hand: The leader of Al Quaeda is still the same. They volunteered to join the organisation. They volunteered to take part in terrorist actions.
Germans of today think they were liberated, not conquered. Sounds like pretty much the same case as Iraqi's commemorating US casualties ( that is, if you were pro-war).
Yeah.... and firebombing thousands of completely innocent people, civilians, then atom bombing 2 major cities killing millions and causing radiation effects that are still showing today <i>isn't</i> murder. Justifiable? No, you were just on the winning side, so you think your countries actions were right.
Taking this whole discussion into a bit of a strange state here, this all depends on what you believe is right and wrong. Most of you seem to think that, because of people (almost all of whom are now dead) doing questionable things over 60 years ago, their entire country and all representatives of it deserve the same treatment that the original political people deserved. But, back then, Hitler wasn't destroying millions of jews, gypsies, mentally ill people, handicapped people etc because he enjoyed being evil, he was doing it because he thought he was right. He probably couldn't see what people had against him. Basically, the "right" side of arguments comes from the country that can beat the other country. Just because the Allie's views on "right" were different to the Axis' views on "right" doesn't make one side "wrong". And i seriously doubt the allie's entered the war to stop the suffering of millions of people at the hands of the Nazis, it was more like "Stop them before they grow more powerful than us and invade".
All those arguments aside, because they have no real relation to this apart from my anger at all the "olo we kicked germany's **** olo load of nazis still rofll" attitude i seem to be hearing more and more of recently, why is it wrong for the current leaders of a nation to show their respect to people their pre-decessors (god... doubt i spelled THAT right) did? I can't understand why they should just "stay away" from the whole issue, isn't that like pretending it never happened? Just because you think that staying away is more respectful, doesn't mean they should. I, for instance, would think that they're staying away because they don't give a rat's **** about what happened.
Monse, i see your point about it just being for a bit of publicity, and if it is completely that, then it is sickening to use such a drastic event for it. But it seems most of you here would have reacted in the same way even if it was 100% due to them being sorry for their countries actions. Most allied soldiers never wanted to kill the German army, they wanted to kill Hitler, but his army was in the way and they weren't moving. Most Axis soldiers probably didn't want to fight, but it was fight or die. So why keep the blame going?
As for the Al-Queda thing, well, that isn't finished yet. It'd be a bit stupid to invite members of them to come to a memorial service when you're still not sure they aren't going to blow themselves up and take you and others with them.
Correct. I would not expect for the Germans to invite the British to the Dresden rememberance, or the Japanese to invite the US to the Hiroshima rememberance. Those are their days of reconciliation, not ours. And saying 'you were just on the winning side' ignores the issue that if each of these axis countries had not started WW2, they would not have been retaliated against. Try not to put your opinions in my mouth - instead, ask.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But, back then, Hitler wasn't destroying millions of jews, gypsies, mentally ill people, handicapped people etc because he enjoyed being evil<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you really believe this, there is no point trying to talk to you about anything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the Al-Queda thing, well, that isn't finished yet. It'd be a bit stupid to invite members of them to come to a memorial service when you're still not sure they aren't going to blow themselves up and take you and others with them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please re-read what was said, as you are getting confused. We were talking about years later, not next September.
And as for the al-queda thing, i must have skipped a bit of the above posts. If you're talking about years from now, say 60 years (same as WW2 from now), and if they're no longer actively hating and attacking America, why not let them come to a memorial? As long as it's to show that they feel bad about the whole thing, there's no reason for them not to.