D-Day + 70 years

Here is copy of a great message from US House Member Mike Kelly (quoting Ronald Reagan and FDR):

'Dear Friends,

Today marks the 70th anniversary of D-Day, when more than 160,000 Allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline, to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which, "we will accept nothing less than full victory."
The cost in blood for the Americans who fought there -- rightly remembered as the pillars of our Greatest Generation -- was high, but thanks to their sheer selflessness, bravery, and patriotism, "full victory" ultimately did come.

President Ronald Reagan -- who passed away 10 years ago yesterday -- said it best 30 years ago when he commemorated the sacrifice of the thousands who perished on this day at Point du Hoc. His words can be easily applied to every patriot, past and present, who has worn the uniform of the American warrior:

"The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. ... Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their valor, and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died."

In honor of those heroes, many of whom have since passed but also many of whom are still with us, I will conclude this week's note with some of the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous D-Day Prayer:
"Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
"Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

"They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

"For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

"Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

...

"And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

"With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

"Thy will be done, Almighty God."

Sincerely, Mike Kelly'

This is very problematic ...

I have been wondering for a few days wether I should respond to this post or not. On one hand, I feel obliged to set a few historical facts straight. But on the other hand I fear it might be taken sort of personnaly and considered very rude and, let's say, "ungrateful" to point them out. I feel really caught up between the two.

So I have decided to let it fall with a little methodological reminder, at least for the time being :

Public official statements can be very informative about propaganda and rethorics, but not so much about historical facts. And that's particularly true of (a) speeches made in times of war, (b) speeches with religious tones and (c) speeches made by US officials. When a text correspond to all three aggravating circumstances, one should be extremely carefull.

Concur.

niethil wrote:This is very problematic ...

I have been wondering for a few days wether I should respond to this post or not. On one hand, I feel obliged to set a few historical facts straight. But on the other hand I fear it might be taken sort of personnaly and considered very rude and, let's say, "ungrateful" to point them out. I feel really caught up between the two.

So I have decided to let it fall with a little methodological reminder, at least for the time being :

Public official statements can be very informative about propaganda and rethorics, but not so much about historical facts. And that's particularly true of (a) speeches made in times of war, (b) speeches with religious tones and (c) speeches made by US officials. When a text correspond to all three aggravating circumstances, one should be extremely carefull.

Which is why the US should have stayed isolationists and made a shit load of dimes selling weapons to both sides while feasting on popcorn.

niethil wrote:This is very problematic ...

I have been wondering for a few days wether I should respond to this post or not. On one hand, I feel obliged to set a few historical facts straight. But on the other hand I fear it might be taken sort of personnaly and considered very rude and, let's say, "ungrateful" to point them out. I feel really caught up between the two.

So I have decided to let it fall with a little methodological reminder, at least for the time being :

Public official statements can be very informative about propaganda and rethorics, but not so much about historical facts. And that's particularly true of (a) speeches made in times of war, (b) speeches with religious tones and (c) speeches made by US officials. When a text correspond to all three aggravating circumstances, one should be extremely carefull.

This is the reason we have this forum, to give us a chance to put our views and opinions forward. As long as you think carefully about what you say and do not personally attack the other members this board is generally quite a good place for a discussion.

And if things do get too heated Duckk is always there to keep a lid on things.

When reading the post for the first time Dylan's song "With God on our side" featured in my thoughts. Not all who landed on D day were from the USA and not all were Christians.
All were brave and should be respectfully remembered.

I find it amazing that anyone would find any need to "correct" perceived "historical inaccuracies" in Reagan's speech. I DO understand that not every American back in 1944 was Jewish or Christian, but the overwhelming majority were. With few exceptions, the agnostics, atheists and folk of other faith back in 1944 would not have felt the need to object to Reagan's presumption that they too worshipped the Judean Chrisian God. Almost no one would have objected back when Reagan gave the speech either.

The fact that this could become an issue on the Weber Forums is not only evidence of how persuasive secularism has become but how profoundly militant and intolerant the secularists are. They make the most reactionary Christians look like paragons of tolerance.

I say again that this conversation is evidence that the sacrifices that the US made in WW-2 have not been justified by time. If the US had simply not objected to the atrocities of Hitler and Tojo, including the rape of Nanking, and not imposed sanctions such as the oil and steel embargo, we could have save ourselves a lot of blood and treasure and perhaps avoided our own devolution
into secularist imbecility.

Hopefully; now that Obama has sown chaos in the Middle East, the US will have the wisdom to not intervene as Obama trained and equipped jihadists perform mass beheadings on their march to Bahgdad and the Iranians intervene to revive the Persian Empire.

This of course will be a disaster. However; it will be a disaster for the Europeans before it becomes a disaster for the US.

Please pass the popcorn.

It was Bush who sowed those seeds.

Sorry for any offence Fly. I was not intending to insult anyone's religion or show any disrespect to the brave men who participated.
I was just trying to point out that the speeches were somewhat jingoistic and high in propaganda.
A quick research indicates that in boots on the ground there were similar numbers of US troops to others, possibly somewhat more than half, while those supporting by sea were drawn from eight countries and predominately non US.
As to the religions I'm sure that many were Christian on both sides, and the concept of God taking sides is jingoistic. At present in Iraq the Sunnies and Shiites are each claiming that Allah is on their side.

I think David nailed it with this comment:



Poker

Daryl wrote:Sorry for any offence Fly. I was not intending to insult anyone's religion or show any disrespect to the brave men who participated.
I was just trying to point out that the speeches were somewhat jingoistic and high in propaganda.
A quick research indicates that in boots on the ground there were similar numbers of US troops to others, possibly somewhat more than half, while those supporting by sea were drawn from eight countries and predominately non US.
As to the religions I'm sure that many were Christian on both sides, and the concept of God taking sides is jingoistic. At present in Iraq the Sunnies and Shiites are each claiming that Allah is on their side.