I cannot find an on-line resource for this, but O’Reilly print column, whihc appears in today’s Washington Times, excoriates the Germans for taking stands against American interests. After all, O’Reilly points out, after WWII the U.S. poured trillions of dollars into the German economy - where is their gratitude now? Even if they’re not sure the U.S. in on the right side, says O’Reilly, they should support U.S. causes out of simple gratitude.
I find this reasoning rather simplistic. I’m reasonably sure that Marshall didn’t approach the Germans and say, “By the way, in exchange for all this aid, you must agree to sublimate your national interests to ours every time the two conflict.” In essence, O’Reilly seeks to hold the Germans to a bargain they never made. Even if they had, hold long could it be expected to remain in force? Does O’Reilly think the U.S. expected the Marshall Plan to buy the undivided servitude of German policies in perpetuity? If not, at what point are the Germans officially off the hook?
I’m reminded, somewhat irrelevantly, of a Simpson’s episode that takes place in the future, where Lisa becomes engaged to the very British Hugh. Moe meets Hugh and reminds him to be polite; after all, Moe points out, “…we saved your ass in World War II.”
Retorts Hugh, “We saved yours in World War III,” and Moe concedes the point.
If debts of national gratitude exist, should they influence substantive foreign policy? Should they create beholden nations? And if do, for how long?
BUT… O’Reilly’s criticism lacks perspective. Germany IS AN ALLY of the USA. It’s a friendly nation with open, friendly relations that trades with the USA, is a member of NATO, and generally support pro-American and pro-Western values. Disagreeing on some issues is normal even for allies. Germany is showing its gratitude by being a pro-Western capitalist democracy and supporting the things that perpetuate that way of life.
I don’t see the focus of the article that Germany has a debt to the US. It is one of many arguments that he makes for Germany assisting with the disposal of Saddam Hussein.
The thing he focused on that got my attention was this tidbit:
**
Germany is free to help us, or not help us get rid of Saddam Hussein. But, I would certainly hope that they would make such a decision based on the assessed risk of letting Iraq continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, not local partisan politics.
Note: The same thing happens here in the US all the time. But that doesn’t make it right.
Everything any German politician is saying now is seen in connection with the upcoming votes, whether there actually is a connection to it or not.
To the actual argument: Today’s Germany has no guilt of the war that was almost 100 years ago. So why should one still take the guilt for what happened back then? Or on another note: should the US agree with everything that happens in Italy now just because some guy from Italy “found” America in 1492? The argument is pretty weak IMO.
We did not want to relive the Versailles Treaty mistake all over again. That begat WWII. We could have dismantled German factories* and shipped them to the U.S. as reparations, of course Hitler II would have likely resulted.
*Assuming they had not all been bombed flat. We could have appropriated their new factories as the French did in the Ruhr Valley between the world wars.
LX, you need to read my post before you respond. The quote of mine that you took was regarding the German Chancellor making his decision based on local partisan politics, not a war 100 years ago.
If O’Reily is reading this:
“but the United States did not aggressively go after him [Osama] because of the perceived political damage killing him would have caused in the Arab world and Afghanistan.”
Cite?
O’Reily’s point about WWII is inappropriate IMHO. Whether we gave support to Germany is not a reason for them to support something they feel they should not support, whether we’re right or wrong on this. Maybe the Germans should aid our industries now: but they shouldn’t tow our party line just because we helped them out. The “benefit of the doubt” has nothing to do with anything.
“The Gerhard Schroeders of the world are terrorist enablers.”
Nice. Saudi Arabia is a terrorist enabler: an independant government that has concerns about the way we go about taking on Hussien is hardly on the same scale.
Apos IMHO, one doesn’t need a cite to state an opinion.
And this comment:
“The Gerhard Schroeders of the world are terrorist enablers.”
Is true, if Oreilly is correct about him not wanting to assist the US with Iraq because of local politics. What “concerns about the way we go about” it do you think that Germany has? They haven’t voiced concerns, that I am am aware of. According to the article, they flat out refused to help us at all. Is there more information about their concerns that you can cite for us?
My EUR2c: surely if the German population don’t want the war to happen - which polls have shown they don’t - it is the democratic leaders’ duty to reflect that, regardless of any alleged “debt”.
(Furthermore, I thought Columbus was Portuguese, sponsored by the Spanish).
—Apos IMHO, one doesn’t need a cite to state an opinion.—
It wasn’t an opinion: it was a truth statement about the motivations and thinking of others.
In fact, that makes it worse: there’s nothing I like less than people who think they can speak with authority about what’s in the minds of others.
—What “concerns about the way we go about” it do you think that Germany has? They haven’t voiced concerns, that I am am aware of. According to the article, they flat out refused to help us at all. Is there more information about their concerns that you can cite for us?—
Oh, gee. I wouldn’t want you to take even a cursory look at anything Germans SAY: better to just assume that they say absolutely nothing about the issue and recursively are interested only in “local politics,” which itself has no content or reason (i.e. the “leftists” don’t actually have any reason either: they’re just just bending to local politics?)
Even if Schroeder’s motivation is “local politics,” it’s absolute nonsense to pretend that the politics comes from nowhere, and has no reasons behind the views.
>> “The Gerhard Schroeders of the world are terrorist enablers.”
And the people who say things like that are idiots of the highest order. The fact is right now the US has only some support from the Uk in this and the rest of the world is against it. I guess the entire world are “terrorist enablers”? How about Americans who are also against the war? Gimme a break.
Yes. IMO, American’s who are against the war on terror are enabling terroriststs.
Saddam Hussain is building WOMD. I for one beleive he intends to use them. If he had the ability he would kill every American, Jew, and probably even European. By resisting the efforts of the US to remove him from power, you are enabling him to continue these actions.