Were German Soldiers fighting for the Nazis heroes?

[Undesired Walrus]

In the current Presidential election in the US, much as been made of McCain being a 'war hero' or an 'American hero' for the terrible time he experienced in Vietnam. Much of this has been coming from the Democrats as a disclaimer before slagging the man off, such as 'Now, he is a true American hero, but...'

Now, this seems slightly strange, as the Vietnam War is most likely one of the most unpopular wars of all time, and one I presume everyone here thinks was a bad idea which was led to the deaths of 4 Million people. So why the phrase 'American hero'? Because he showed incredible strength and resilience in the face of danger and utter, hopeless misery, would come the reply. He fought for his country, that doesn't mean he approved of his country.

Fine, so why isn't this phrase applied to those who served in unpopular, criminal wars throughout the world? Would a German soldier, captured and imprisoned by the US army, who refused to talk to comprimise his friends, be rightfully called a hero today? Or does the very notion of calling a soldier for the Nazis 'a hero' seem utterly wrong? What if, like John McCain, he was simply serving his country? What else could he have done other than join the army? After all, he had no choice.

What about the Japanese soldiers who only now return back from their foxholes in Islands in the South Pacific, defending their land decades past the end of the war? Are they true Japanese heroes?

Or is 'hero' only used by those who believe the Vietnam War to be admirable? Therefore, it seems strange why Obama -someone I cannot imagine seeing that War as anything other than a disaster- uses the phrase to describe McCain.

 

[plumjam]

For once, UW, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
You'll be devastated.

Seems to be a case of "my country right or wrong". In the case of Vietnam I'd say the true heroes were the conscientious objectors/deserters, plus those active in the peace movement.
I wonder how many innocent civilians McCain bombed to death before he became a hero.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Fine, so why isn't this phrase applied to those who served in unpopular, criminal wars throughout the world?

'Unpopular, criminal wars' and your loaded phrasing throughout the OP aside, who says it isn't applied to them?

Would a German soldier, captured and imprisoned by the US army, who refused to talk to comprimise his friends, be rightfully called a hero today? Or does the very notion of calling a soldier for the Nazis 'a hero' seem utterly wrong?

Not sure if refusing to talk to the enemy in captivity to not compromise his friends alone makes one a hero, but we have a couple of heroes although the notion is completely different. WW2 heroes here are mainly those who planned to assassinate or tried assassinating Hitler or other high ranking people, resisted and hindered the Nazi regime and the political aspects etc.

Apart from that, I assume Rommel and several other Generals like Guderian and low ranking soldiers are considered to be somewhat akin to a hero, although the notion and reasons, again, are very different, because the atrocities committed from '33 to '45 are simply overwhelming.

Now, on a personal level and on a level of simple courage, friendship etc, it's something different to each person I guess.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In the current Presidential election in the US, much as been made of McCain being a 'war hero' or an 'American hero' for the terrible time he experienced in Vietnam. Much of this has been coming from the Democrats as a disclaimer before slagging the man off, such as 'Now, he is a true American hero, but...'

The overuse of the term "hero" is not new to this election.

Fine, so why isn't this phrase applied to those who served in unpopular, criminal wars throughout the world? Would a German soldier, captured and imprisoned by the US army, who refused to talk to comprimise his friends, be rightfully called a hero today?

To some Germans, certainly. He was sacrificing for his team, his side, his country. Greater love hath no man, and so on.

Or does the very notion of calling a soldier for the Nazis 'a hero' seem utterly wrong?

Nope. A soldier can sacrifice himself, or give of himself in a heroic manner no matter the banner under which he serves.

What if, like John McCain, he was simply serving his country? What else could he have done other than join the army? After all, he had no choice.

*shrugs* See above.

What about the Japanese soldiers who only now return back from their foxholes in Islands in the South Pacific, defending their land decades past the end of the war? Are they true Japanese heroes?

What's with the kilt, my dear Walrus? It is easy to admire, and have respect for, the tenacity and grit of the Japanese soldier in the Pacific War. Tough cookies, and a tough foe to beat. That the guys "kept up the fight" by serving their emperor after the war was over, but they didn't know it, shows a dedication to the warrior spirit that I find profound.

Or is 'hero' only used by those who believe the Vietnam War to be admirable?

Are we building a strawman here?

Therefore, it seems strange why Obama -someone I cannot imagine seeing that War as anything other than a disaster- uses the phrase to describe McCain.

The nature of a war is political, that which is heroic (in a battlefield context) is of a human and soldierly nature. Those two sets often don't overlap. That the war was a mess in a number of ways does not, for example, render Clyde Lassen's heroic efforts, which earned him the Medal of Honor, any less heroic.
(http://www.mishalov.com/Lassen.html)

Rank and organization: Lieutenant, U.S. Navy, Helicopter Support Squadron 7, Detachment 104, embarked in USS Preble (DLG-15)
Place and date: Republic of Vietnam, 19 June 1968

Citation:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as pilot and aircraft commander of a search and rescue helicopter, attached to Helicopter Support Squadron 7, during operations against enemy forces in North Vietnam.

Launched shortly after midnight to attempt the rescue of 2 downed aviators. Lt. (then Lt.(jg.)) Lassen skillfully piloted his aircraft over unknown and hostile terrain to a steep, tree-covered hill on which the survivors had been located. Although enemy fire was being directed at the helicopter, he initially landed in a clear area near the base of the hill, but, due to the dense undergrowth, the survivors could not reach the helicopter. With the aid of flare illumination, Lt. Lassen successfully accomplished a hover between 2 trees at the survivors' position. Illumination was abruptly lost as the last of the flares were expended, and the helicopter collided with a tree, commencing a sharp descent. Expertly righting his aircraft and maneuvering clear, Lt. Lassen remained in the area, determined to make another rescue attempt, and encouraged the downed aviators while awaiting resumption of flare illumination. After another unsuccessful, illuminated rescue attempt. and with his fuel dangerously low and his aircraft significantly damaged, he launched again and commenced another approach in the face of the continuing enemy opposition. When flare illumination was again lost, Lt. Lassen, fully aware of the dangers in clearly revealing his position to the enemy, turned on his landing lights and completed the landing. On this attempt, the survivors were able to make their way to the helicopter. In route to the coast he encountered and successfully evaded additional hostile antiaircraft fire and, with fuel for only minutes of flight remaining, landed safely aboard U.S.S. Jouett (DLG-29). Lt. Lassen's extraordinary heroism at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the U.S. Navy.

Of note: the US military lost about 5,000 helicopters to all causes in the Viet Nam war. (Some were recovered, most weren't.) Ground fire was a leading factor in helicopters falling to earth. LT Lassen (CDR Lassen when I served under him) by turning on his lights at night, with hostile ground fire all around his position, was making himself a choice target, likely to become another shoot down, in his efforts to save other men.

So what that it happened in Viet Nam? With balls that big, it's a wonder he could walk. Also of note: CDR Clyde Lassen was one of the most humble, professional, and gentlemanly officers I ever had the pleasure of serving with.

DR

 

[mrbaracuda]

Ach DR, I appreciate your posts.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

'Unpopular, criminal wars' and your loaded phrasing throughout the OP aside

Er.. Are you saying the war the Nazis fought from 1939-1945 was not criminal?

Nope. A soldier can sacrifice himself, or give of himself in a heroic manner no matter the banner under which he serves.

Heroic, but can they be described as a national hero? You are using phrases that I would describe McCain with - grit, tenacity, strength- all things to admire him for. The phrase 'national hero' appears to be thrown in there as a disclaimer. I am not seeking to denegrate a soldiers heroic efforts, but asking for the phrase to be applied to others.

The September 11th Hijackers -for example- were described universally as 'cowards'. It was in the first sentence of Bush's speech on that day. There was certainly immense tenacity in their efforts, and incredible patience that would be abandoned by many others.

Are we building a strawman here?

Can't imagine how you think I am.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Er.. Are you saying the war the Nazis fought from 1939-1945 was not criminal?

Er, no. Which war has not been criminal or at least labelled as such by at least one side, be it a bystander or the one on 'the receiving end'?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Well, if you want to get down into semantics we could delcare that no act is ever criminal.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Now I'm confused.

 

[ddt]

In the current Presidential election in the US, much as been made of McCain being a 'war hero' or an 'American hero' for the terrible time he experienced in Vietnam.

It's a rather typically American trait to highlight the military service of its leaders. AFAIK, in no Western European country is it usual to look at this; and I couldn't name any other democratic country in the world of which I know this to be the case; except for Israel, where it is also usual that top brass get into politics.

This preempts quite your whole question, I think.

The second thing is that the word "hero" gets inflated in such circumstances. I don't know about McCain's time in Vietnam, and I'm not particularly interested. My interest would be more how good he is at balancing the budget.

Fine, so why isn't this phrase applied to those who served in unpopular, criminal wars throughout the world? Would a German soldier, captured and imprisoned by the US army, who refused to talk to comprimise his friends, be rightfully called a hero today? Or does the very notion of calling a soldier for the Nazis 'a hero' seem utterly wrong? What if, like John McCain, he was simply serving his country? What else could he have done other than join the army? After all, he had no choice.

In the peculiar circumstance of Germany - apart from the fact that a politician's military past has never been a boon worth mentioning - it would only raise big attention if he'd have committed war crimes himself during WW2. Helmut Schmidt was a Wehrmacht officer and it has never been an issue. Helmut Kohl was in the HJ and that wasn't an issue either. Gerhard Schröder was born after the war. That has all been mentioned but never been a campaign issue.

Apart from that, I assume Rommel and several other Generals like Guderian and low ranking soldiers are considered to be somewhat akin to a hero, although the notion and reasons, again, are very different, because the atrocities committed from '33 to '45 are simply overwhelming.

Or Manstein, who helped build the Bundeswehr in the beginning 1950s.

Er.. Are you saying the war the Nazis fought from 1939-1945 was not criminal?

Yes it was, and it has dominated German politics for a very long time. In the 1990s, there was a debate whether Germany would participate in troops for Yugoslavia. The debate was very much dominated by the idea that Germany and war was a bad combination. In the end, they sent support troops, away from the front. Later, I think with Kosovo, it did came to sending ground troops, but all in all it was the first time since WW2 that Germany used troops for something else than its own defence.

Heroic, but can they be described as a national hero?

I'd reserve the term "national hero" for someone very extraordinary - someone who really helped form or survive his nation in troubling times.

Er, no. Which war has not been criminal or at least labelled as such by at least one side, be it a bystander or the one on 'the receiving end'?

There is a very big difference between how Germans look back on WW2 or how Americans look back on Vietnam.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Interestingly, you often see in WWII literature the word "heroic" to describe tenacious fighting by our side, and "fanatical" to describe the same thing on THEIR side.

Paraphrasing General Patton:

"Don't die for your country. Make the other guy die for HIS country."

 

[Gurdur]

What a huge can of worms. This is a very significant debate, and one of great importance to much of German public life today (see the naming of barracks, for example).

The debate is complex, long and .... tough. As a result, I will not enter it, sufficient to say I agree with elements of both what Darth Rotor is saying, and also some elements of what Undesired Walrus is saying. Now I'm going to find a foxhole to hide in.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Now I'm confused.

Well thank God we can close that tedious chapter!

 

[Sunstealer]

It's a rather typically American trait to highlight the military service of its leaders. AFAIK, in no Western European country is it usual to look at this; and I couldn't name any other democratic country in the world of which I know this to be the case; except for Israel, where it is also usual that top brass get into politics.

Haven't you answered your own question? How can one comment on a leader's military service if he/she has none?

I actually think it would be better if leaders did have military service, that way they would at least have some knowledge of the armed forces and what is required of them and their civilian politicians. I always wonder if a Mr Tony Blair would have backed the US if he had had military experience and perhaps combat experience rather than training as a lawyer.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fine, so why isn't this phrase applied to those who served in unpopular, criminal wars throughout the world?

Do you think the only criticism of Nazi soldiers is that they fought in unpopular wars? I do not. The fact that they protected a government which was inherently evil and inhuman matters quite a bit in how I evaluate such thing. Hitler wasn't just some bloke who happened to make a bad choice by invading Poland. Conclude what you will about Vietnam being a mistake (though I note that the mistake is attributed to us, not to the North Vietnamese), but the government that US soldiers fought for was a basically decent government.

 

[ddt]

Haven't you answered your own question? How can one comment on a leader's military service if he/she has none?

AFAIK, most US politicians haven't been career soldiers. Between Eisenhower and Powell, I couldn't name one. The others have been draftees - well, Clinton did his draft in Canada . Most European countries have a draft too - Britain happens to be an exception.

I actually think it would be better if leaders did have military service, that way they would at least have some knowledge of the armed forces and what is required of them and their civilian politicians. I always wonder if a Mr Tony Blair would have backed the US if he had had military experience and perhaps combat experience rather than training as a lawyer.

But there were 500 more MP's deciding on that, weren't there? And Chirac, Schröder, Balkenende, Aznar, etc., have all done their draft I guess.

 

[Ziggurat]

AFAIK, most US politicians haven't been career soldiers. Between Eisenhower and Powell, I couldn't name one.

Powell never ran for any office, so I don't think he can be called a politician. But how could you forget George Washington? And there's also Ulysses S. Grant and Andrew Jackson.

The others have been draftees

There have actually been a lot of presidents who served voluntarily in the military, though usually not for long enough to be considered career soldiers. Teddy Roosevelt was a volunteer and fought in the Spanish-American War. So was JFK and George H.W. Bush, both of whom served during WW2. Jimmy Carter was also a volunteer, though not during war time. I'm sure there are others too.

But we've also had a number of wartime presidents with no real military experience as well - Lincoln and FDR come to mind as prominent examples. Military experience may be useful, but it doesn't seem like a requirement, even in a wartime president.

 

[GreyICE]

There have actually been a lot of presidents who served voluntarily in the military, though usually not for long enough to be considered career soldiers. Teddy Roosevelt was a volunteer and fought in the Spanish-American War. So was JFK and George H.W. Bush, both of whom served during WW2. Jimmy Carter was also a volunteer, though not during war time. I'm sure there are others too.

One or two. Lets start a list:

Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Lyndon Bates Johnson
Harry S. Truman
Ronald Reagan

Starting to see any pattern here?

Also, whoever made the soldier comment, lets all edit our posts so no one quotes you, and you can avoid immense embarrassment. I'm so glad you're not American.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The fact that they protected a government which was inherently evil and inhuman

You believe it would have been easy for you to have refused to join the army in Germany at that time? Do you honestly believe Ziggurat, that you would have been able to keep yourself out of it?

Do you think the only criticism of Nazi soldiers is that they fought in unpopular wars? I do not.

No. Which is why I clearly added 'criminal'.

 

[Ziggurat]

You believe it would have been easy for you to have refused to join the army in Germany at that time? Do you honestly believe Ziggurat, that you would have been able to keep yourself out of it?

Did I say anything along those lines? No, I did not. Not being a hero is not enough to make one a villain. Do not attribute opinions to me which I have not expressed.