Remembrance Day

[whisper_kill]

Oh, and to answer your question...

The German soldier during WW2.

[|2enegade]

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

Unfortunately, when folks "write" things, I take them literally!

lol whisper_kill, I'm going to kill you!
uh oh, looks like you better start running then, eh?

Edit: then to answer you:
If you seriously would commemorate the SS soldier who killed 500 allies for the intent to stop them from freeing 500 starving Jews, then you sir are either heinously and maliciously trying to undermine the seriousness of this issue, do not understand what you are implying, or truly wish to see evil prevail... I can only hope it is one of the formers.

[whisper_kill]

I will leave you with this, as this thread has degraded to name calling again.

You are trying to argue that we commemorate the "allies" for their bravery and determination during WW2.

I, on the other hand, am trying to argue that we should commemorate "the soldier" for their bravery and determination. Period. That would include any and all soldiers. You are debating the act(s) and I am debating the person(s).

Of course I don't believe in Hitler's mass extermination of a people. Or his fanatical want to expand the German territory. Just like I find horror in events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki courtesy our U.S. friends, or the events at Masada brought on by our Italian friends. But these soldiers, I mean the individual men and women who have to face up to their fears and enemies, in all weather, far from home, under the poorest of conditions and follow orders deserve our commemoration, remembrance and prayers, not for the act but for the individual.

And I think you just revealed your maturity level. If you can't proove your points without making public death threats, who truly has the problem here?

Cheers.

[|2enegade]

And again, I say yes, it takes courage for a soldier to be a soldier regardless of what you are fighting for. However, commemoration is bestowed upon those who have done good, and not just done period. We can still remember and pity those german soldiers who lost their lives without choice, however we should not openly commemorate them to the same degree that we do our own allied soldiers, for to do so would be to commemorate the struggle and fight for evil. This, we do not want.
As you yourself presented, much like the Enola Gay and her crew are NOT commemorated so not should the german soldiers be. You yourself gave a perfect example of when courage and steadfast to orders can be present, but yet still do not warrant commemoration.
If you truly believe in commemorating the soldier regardless of the cause, then maybe you should start working on having all soldiers of terroristic regime's commemorated too, Milosvic's soldiers, Hitler's SS, and I'm sure those with more knowledge on the going-on's in Serbia, Somolia, Yugoslovia, Bosnia, Palestine, etc, could provide a never ending list of soldiers for you to commemorate regardless of their intent to inforce regimes of terror.

[whisper_kill]

Ahh yes, but the pilots of the Enola Gay were in fact commemorated!

I don't want to argue this ALL night. The fact is, we don't "commemorate" German's, the German army or the German side of WW2 and I prefer it that way.

But my stance remains. My next door neighbours father was killed in WW2. He was part of the German army. He remembers all too well and still grieves (albeit to a lesser extend). Can you deny him his remembrance? He grieves his father, the soldier, not Germany the oppressor.

[|2enegade]

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

Ahh yes, but the pilots of the Enola Gay were in fact commemorated!

Show me where. Show me where the Enola Gay crew is commemorated and honoured and celebrated for their acts. Rememberance is one thing, commemoration is another.

p.s. even if you do manage to find such a thing, at least, in the very least, the Enola Gay and her crew can be said to be doing good (the bomb was dropped to saved lives that would be lost in the battle field). Yes there is controversy about how many lives were save versus lost, however at least the intention was good. A just ends was saught through an injust means. Whereas no such thing can be said about the German regime, its intention was explicitly evil. An injust ends was saught through injust means.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

But my stance remains. My next door neighbours father was killed in WW2. He was part of the German army. He remembers all too well and still grieves (albeit to a lesser extend). Can you deny him his remembrance? He grieves his father, the soldier, not Germany the oppressor.

No one is denying his greivance or rememberance. Infact I encourage remembering all lost souls, Axis, Allied, or other. However you are failing to see the large gap between rememberance and greivance. It is good to remember Hans the german, Hans the soldier, but can you really morally commemorate Hans, the soldier who (forcefully or willingly) killed Allied forces, defending a concentration camp which slaughtered millions of Jews?

[whisper_kill]

Wow. I can't believe you just wrote:

"however at least the intention was good". Holy shit! We dropped a great big freakin bomb on a somewhat non-strategic target... but our intentions were good!! Give over.

Who are you to determine what a just cause is? A person who fights for his "people" and his "religion" is a just cause is it not? But if they do it by using a car bomb to blow up a restaurant... it's terrorism?

[whisper_kill]

Nothing says we remember like a "Commemorative Bronze Medallion"

http://www.atomichistoryforsale.com/...t/Detail?no=30

Hell, and only $22.95 USD?? What a deal! So easy to say we did it to stop the war and the fighting. Ummmm, so why did they drop a second one? To stop the war and fighting some more?

[|2enegade]

So Franklin Mint is the US Goverment now?
Hey I can open up my own minting company and start commemorating who ever I choose too...

As I said, I am not here to delve into the justification of the Fatman and Littleboy, more importantly, to point out that you cannot equally commemorate two soldiers for simply "being soldiers", because in one case just "being a soldier" promoted good, but in the other, it promoted evil, something which should not be commemorated.

Context is key. Skilled running in a 100m dash is commemorated, running away during combat is not. Skilled punching in a boxing match is commemorated, the same in a court of law is not. You see, simply "running" or "punching" by itself has no merit for commemoration; it is the context in which each is used that awards it commemoration. Likewise, you do not simply commemorate just "the soldier", but must view the context in which he is soldering in. If he is a soldier promoting good, then this context allows this soldier to be commemorated, whereas if the context is promoting evil, then this soldier should not be commemorated.

Your before last post seems to be leaning more and more to justifying terrorism and fighting for "what you believe in". This scares me. Yes, in some cases it may be increasingly harder to objectifiably state what is good and evil (such as the atomic bomb), however in cases of terrorism and natzi-ism, I ask you, is there any doubt?
Should the al-queda commemorate their terrorists? sure, they fight for what is moral as seen by al-queda. But should the majority of the free and "moral" world, I should hope not. If you and other nazi-empathizers wish to commemorate German soldiers for battlefield courage regardless of what the courage was being used for (good or evil), than I have no objection, however so long as the majority of the world who realizes that the nazi regime was evil doesn't start doing the same.

[made Man]

The victor gets to commemorate.

[|2enegade]

precisely, well put.
The victor would not see it in their best interest to commemorate those for actions which may have comprised their victory. And if the victory was for good, then it is not in the best interests of what is good to commeorate those for actions which may have comprised good and brought about evil.

[-=]MH[=-RaiDen]

Your in Germany having a nice day out with your family, next thing you know Allied planes bombed your town. Your kids are dead, wife died in your arms.

DO you think good or evil matters? When your best friend just got picked off by a sniper? Or family members and friends got killed in an air-raid? People you know for a long time wiped out by artillery?

War just becomes a Big ball of anger, hate and pain...

The less we forget...

:salute:

[DuffMan]

Renegade, what essentialy is being said is that, the poor soldier is conditioned to blieve what the government wnats him to believe. We believe that Canada is a just nation because we are conditioned to. It may or may not be the case that it ACTUALLY is, just like many young men in the middle east are conditioned to believe that it is just to kill the infidel. I may not respect the cause that the young mugahadeen died for, but I certainly respect his commitment and courage, just like I respect the courage of the US marine who killed him. War brings out the best and worst in people, and, though we may not find the cause just, it is certainly reasonable to admire the human spirit.

[whisper_kill]

Commemoration and Remembrance do not have to take the form of a public event or be televised to be valid. I think it is somewhat tasteless that they made a "coin" for purchase to "remember" that specific event. Remembrance can be as simple as contemplating a war, a soldier or an event on your own, or as we do every November 11th, a mass public display of remembrance. They are equally as important. That coin is a commemoration of an "act" that most would consider "evil".

Exactly my point Duff and Raiden.

Renegade says:

"You see, simply "running" or "punching" by itself has no merit for commemoration; it is the context in which each is used that awards it commemoration."

And that is where I disagree. The simple fact that these soldiers even came forward to do their "duty" is enough for commemoration. You see, they weren't just "running" or "punching", they were facing death square in the face, and continue to. By default, a soldier demands your respect, admiration and remembrance. You would be hard pressed to find someone within your circle of friends who would offer their life up in such a manner. It is not the act that is ALWAYS commemorated, but the soldier and their selfless decision to serve and fight for their country and ideals. Hence why we have a memorial for the "Unknown Soldier". I think you are still missing my point that I am "commemorating" or "remembering" the soldier... not the act! How can you not think the soldier is what matters? If you commemorate the "act", you should be thinking about the government and Generals and folks that made the decision to land at Normandy. I however choose to reflect on the men that actually had to do the job that these governments designed on paper!!!

To put things in modern day terms. Think of the Canadian soldier in Afghanistan tip toeing around IED's all day. Does that soldier not deserve your respect and remembrance? He did not die for his cause. He's not in some huge hollywood fire fight. He's simply doing his job as outlined by his government, and a fucken deadly serious one at that! It is your obligation to think, remember and commemorate these "SOLDIERS" for simply being soldiers!

I applaud the tenacity and braveness of an individual who could storm a beach or the German soldier who could stand hard in the face of overwhelming odds. Both equally strong men facing down their fears, and doing what was expected of them whether right or wrong in our eyes. That is the "act". The result is war, death and ruin, which I do NOT commemorate.

You also write:
"However, commemoration is bestowed upon those who have done good". "Good" as you put it is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes the lines get blurred a little and sometimes they are black and white. But you need to look from other perspectives to properly assess what a "good" cause is. You said dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a good thing because it stopped the war. Would you say that the Romans conquering vast amounts of territory via slaughtering, fierce combat and attrition "good" because their goal was to create a united and peaceful Empire? You are born North American (I assume), lived in North America and read and watch North American media. Therefore, you have the North American attitude towards the world, your own personal Manifest Destiny attitude. However, there are billions of other people in this world, with different ideals, goals, religions, languages, beliefs, histories and agenda's. You are in no position to determine who is "right" and who is "wrong" as a general rule. And no... before you try to squirm your way into another redirection of my words, I am not trying to condone the actions of the German government and high commanders during WW1 and 2.

I am NOT a Nazi sympathizer as you so slanderously lavish upon me in a public forum and I think an apology is in order. Furthermore, have you ever served your country via the military? I HAVE.

I just thought of something while taking a shower, and I think it is accurate.

"A man believes something, because he was told it.
A man understands something, because he has experienced it."

I think if you asked an allied veteran, "Should a german soldier have the same commemorative moment as an allied soldier?", in my opinion (as I have no way to substantiate this) he would answer with a resounding YES... because he has experienced it and understands what being a soldier means.

[|2enegade]

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

And that is where I disagree. The simple fact that these soldiers even came forward to do their "duty" is enough for commemoration. You see, they weren't just "running" or "punching", they were facing death square in the face, and continue to. By default, a soldier demands your respect, admiration and remembrance. You would be hard pressed to find someone within your circle of friends who would offer their life up in such a manner. It is not the act that is ALWAYS commemorated, but the soldier and their selfless decision to serve and fight for their country and ideals. Hence why we have a memorial for the "Unknown Soldier". I think you are still missing my point that I am "commemorating" or "remembering" the soldier... not the act! How can you not think the soldier is what matters? If you commemorate the "act", you should be thinking about the government and Generals and folks that made the decision to land at Normandy. I however choose to reflect on the men that actually had to do the job that these governments designed on paper!!!

So according to you "facing death in the face" is cause enough to be commemorated? In which case suicide bombers of al-queda face death in the face every day, shall we start commemorating them too? Yes, by default every soldier deserves respect for fighting with courage, however commemoration is not bestowed defautly, but is given in respect with context.
And precisley, when one commemorates a success at Normandy, you do not commemorate soldiers alone but all who were present in making that act a success. You are too fixated on commemorating the soldier. By your standards I can purchase a gun, kill 500 innocent people, call myself a soldier, and if I truly believed in my cause, I should be commemorated for it? Dear god, I hope not.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

To put things in modern day terms. Think of the Canadian soldier in Afghanistan tip toeing around IED's all day. Does that soldier not deserve your respect and remembrance? He did not die for his cause. He's not in some huge hollywood fire fight. He's simply doing his job as outlined by his government, and a fucken deadly serious one at that! It is your obligation to think, remember and commemorate these "SOLDIERS" for simply being soldiers!

Once again, it is impossible to make my point when coagulate the meaning of rememberance and commemoration. I am not against rememberance, but I am against commemoration of evil. one remembers evil, so that it will never happen again, but one does not commemorate it and the struggle for it.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

I applaud the tenacity and braveness of an individual who could storm a beach or the German soldier who could stand hard in the face of overwhelming odds. Both equally strong men facing down their fears, and doing what was expected of them whether right or wrong in our eyes. That is the "act". The result is war, death and ruin, which I do NOT commemorate.

I instead applaud those Germans who were brave enough to realize that their struggle was in vein and for evil, and were able to face that bullet in the head for deserting their cause. The way I see is, in the context of the German plight, not fighting was much more braver than fighting. For fighting ensured at least you stayed alive based on your luck in the battlefield, but refusal to fight ensured your instant murder at the hands of the SS. Rethink again which one examplifies bravery. Even for the soldiers that truly believed they were doing good, I may applaud them, but in no way do I commemorate their cause, for that would be to commemorate the promotion of evil and terror.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

"Good" as you put it is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes the lines get blurred a little and sometimes they are black and white. But you need to look from other perspectives to properly assess what a "good" cause is. You said dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a good thing because it stopped the war. Would you say that the Romans conquering vast amounts of territory via slaughtering, fierce combat and attrition "good" because their goal was to create a united and peaceful Empire? You are born North American (I assume), lived in North America and read and watch North American media. Therefore, you have the North American attitude towards the world, your own personal Manifest Destiny attitude. However, there are billions of other people in this world, with different ideals, goals, religions, languages, beliefs, histories and agenda's. You are in no position to determine who is "right" and who is "wrong" as a general rule. And no... before you try to squirm your way into another redirection of my words, I am not trying to condone the actions of the German government and high commanders during WW1 and 2.

Good can be questionable when one is fighting over which colour is better. It can be questionable when one is fighting over which fruit is better. But good is WELL defined when it came to the Nazi goal. Extermination, genocide, and the arian race is clearly on the other side of good. This is larger than continental bias, this is larger then western bias, this is HUMAN bias. The Nazi regime was not taboo simply because it differed from American culture, no, it differed from the human culture. If I think driving on the right side of the road is better, that is because I am a westener, but if I think killing off any human that does not meet a perfect standard is evil, that is because I am HUMAN, and since we are all human, I carry no more bias towards that cause than any other human. Thus, in this context, my human nature fully qualifies me to determine what is right and wrong.
Speaking of redirection, I never said that hiroshima was a good thing, I simply said good intentions were meant by it, whereas the intentions of the Nazi's were not good. And by good I mean the salvation of mankind. The hiroshima bomb ensured mankind prospered (albeit through many deaths), whereas if the Nazi's succeeded it would ensure that only the arian race (1/1000 of mankind) prospered. If you disagree that salvation of mankind is a good cause, well then... I would be speechless.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

I am NOT a Nazi sympathizer as you so slanderously lavish upon me in a public forum and I think an apology is in order. Furthermore, have you ever served your country via the military? I HAVE.

lol, and when did I call you that? I cannot apologize for something I haven't said. Reread exactly what you are referring to and you will realize that "you and other X" does not explicitly define "you" as belonging to the group "X", it merely implies it. But being a man of such "literality" as you stated you are, I figured you would take that statement for its explicit (literal) meaning and thus would take no offence to it
Also, thank you for showing how your argument contains bias. My non-involvment in military matters makes me impartial to it, whereas your serving cannot but help make you even a little bias towards the soldier's plight.

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

I think if you asked an allied veteran, "Should a german soldier have the same commemorative moment as an allied soldier?", in my opinion (as I have no way to substantiate this) he would answer with a resounding YES... because he has experienced it and understands what being a soldier means.

I think if you asked an allied veteran if a German soldier should be respected for his commitment and courage, he would indeed respond yes, for he knows the hardships that he had to overcome are the same for every soldier. HOWEVER if you asked him if a German soldier should be commemorated for ruthlessly defending a concentration camp so that more Jews could be processed and killed, he would be insulted that you wish to commemorate something which he worked so hard to put an end to.

You seem to disagree with the most fundamental point of this arguement: the soldier should only commemorated within context. Disagreeing with this presents major logical flaws. Using such logic, that the soldier should be commemorated simply for being a soldier, then I would urge you to start a public rally to start commemorating soldiers of Al-Queda, and see how far you get... For aren't they "soldiers" too? Do they not believe in their cause and face death as you say qualifies them for commemoration?

I believe you are hung up on the fact that you think I am trying to slander and spite the German soldier, when infact I agree that rememberance of every soldier is a good thing. Please focus more closely on what the difference is between rememberance and commemoration. Every one can remember the DC sniper, but would you commemorate their actions?
You see my main point is that rememberance of the Nazi's actions and plight is good, so that we do not forget, but commemoration of it is not. Think of the last time you heard of an allied victory being commemorated and celebrated (I saw one on Ortona the other night), now think of the last time you heard of an axis victory being commemorated and celebrated... bingo.

(p.s. perhaps this should be moved to off-topic now)