Unsung Hero

You won’t get nothing in return.
You won’t be richer.
You won’t appear on TV.
Still Anonymous.
And not a bit more famous.
What you’ll receive are: emotions,
You’ll witness happiness,
Reach a deeper understanding,
Feel the love.
Receive what money can’t buy:
A world made more beautiful.
And in your life?
What is it that you desire most?

Were Nazi Soldiers Heroes?

By Jacob G. Hornberger
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Courtesy Of "The Future Of Freedom Foundation"

Have you ever noticed that Nazi soldiers, especially those who died in World War II, are never celebrated as heroes? Why is that? Didn’t they answer the call of their government in time of war? Didn’t they serve their country by loyally obeying the dictates of their government? Weren’t they patriots for their willingness to fight and die for their country?

I’m not talking about soldiers who committed war crimes or who participated in the Holocaust. I’m talking about ordinary German soldiers, many of whom were civilians before the war started, who fought Allied forces in North Africa, at the Battle of the Bulge, on the Eastern front, and elsewhere.

Why aren’t those Nazi soldiers treated as heroes? Didn’t some of them fight as courageously and heroically as British, Soviet, or American soldiers? Why are they not honored as heroes as much as Allied soldiers are?

Indeed, why aren’t German citizens during World War II honored for having come to the support of their government during a time of war? Didn’t the German people do what citizens are supposed to do? Sure, Germany ended up losing the war but no one can say that the average German citizen didn’t do everything he could to win the war.

Yesterday, the Washington Times went on the attack against MSNBC host Chris Hayes for questioning the automatic invocation of the term ‘heroes’ to describe American soldiers who have died in America’s many wars. The Times wrote:

The word “heroes” has been used to describe America’s fallen for more than 200 years. It’s not “rhetorically proximate” to justifications for war but a traditional mark of gratitude and respect for the sacrifice made by the person who was killed and the family members left behind. It’s a way of recognizing that regardless of how a person died, he did so in service to the country. It’s not a glorification of war but a solemn acknowledgment of sacrifice.

What’s not clear from the Times’ position, however, is whether the principles it enunciates apply only American soldiers or to soldiers in every country. Applying the standard set forth by the Times, would it be appropriate for Germans to use the word “heroes” to describe Germany’s fallen in the many wars in which Germany has been involved, including World War II? Could it be said that describing Nazi soldiers killed in World War II as “heroes” would not serve to justify World War II but instead serve simply as a mark of gratitude and respect for the sacrifice made by the German soldier who was killed and the family members left behind? Could it be said that this would just be a way to recognize that regardless of how the Nazi soldier died, he did so in service to his country? Could it be said that describing the Nazi soldier as a hero would not be a glorification of war but rather a solemn acknowledgement of sacrifice?

In other words, would the Times apply its principles regarding war, soldiers, heroism, and patriotism only to the United States or universally?

Or do they apply only to the winners? Do they apply, for example, to the Soviet Union, one of the winners of World War II, which was governed by a brutal communist regime during the war and for decades afterward, a regime that oppressed Jews and others and kept Eastern Europe under its iron boot for decades after the end of the war. Were communist soldiers opposing Nazi soldiers heroes for serving their government during time of war? Were they heroes for their willingness to die to ensure that their country remained under communist rule rather than Nazi rule?

Indeed, how would the Times apply its principles to the Vietnam War, a war that the United States lost? 

Surely, it would say that American soldiers who served in Vietnam or who died there were heroes, except perhaps for the ones who committed war crimes. Would it say the same about North Vietnamese communist soldiers or about the Viet Cong?

It seems to me that the reason that Nazi soldiers have never been honored as heroes is because the world has long held Germany to a different standard than the one that the Washington Times applies to the United States. Both German soldiers and the German citizenry should have made a critical examination of what their government was doing and realized that their government was in the wrong. On reaching that determination, it was the duty of the individual soldier to refuse to participate in the military, and it was the duty of the citizen to oppose his government, even in time of war.

Obviously, the Nazi government didn’t take that position. Its position was that it is the solemn duty of the citizen to come to the support of his government in time of crisis or war. The Hitler regime viewed the citizen who joined the Nazi armed forces as a hero for his willingness to fight and die for his country. The German people who supported the troops and the rest of the government were looked upon as patriots.

Isn’t that the same standard adhered to by many Americans with respect to America’s wars, soldiers, and citizenry?

There were some German citizens who said no. Among them were Hans and Sophie Scholl and the members of a secret organization called the White Rose. Their position on patriotism was entirely different from the official one. They felt that it was the duty of a citizen to make a critical examination of his government’s policies. That’s what the White Rose members did, and they concluded that the Nazi government was in the wrong. Thus, the White Rose group not only opposed their government in the middle of World War II, they also exhorted the German citizenry, including German soldiers, to rise up and overthrow the Hitler regime.

Not surprisingly, the German authorities considered the White Rose members to be bad people and unpatriotic Germans, which is why they executed them. Personally,I happen to believe that they were among the most courageous and heroic people in history.

In 1951, during the Korean War, Leonard E. Read, the founder of The Foundation for Economic Education, wrote one of the most thought-provoking essays ever written, entitled. “Conscience on the Battlefield.” In that essay, Read stated that from a moral standpoint, no soldier can ever escape the consequences of his individual actions during war simply by later telling God that he was following orders or loyally serving his government during time of war. It was incumbent on each soldier, Read stated, to make a personal determination as to whether the killing he was ordered to do was morally justified and could be reconciled with the soldier’s individual conscience.

In my opinion, Read and the White Rose people had it right. The genuine patriot stands and fights for his government when it is right and he refuses to support it and even opposes it when it is in the wrong. That’s the type of courage and heroism that enlightens a country, not the blind type of “my government, right or wrong” type of patriotism and heroism that afflicted Nazi Germany and that continues to afflict people in many other countries today.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Hornberger’s Blog Archives

Murdered American Heroes

Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan

By Rannie Amiri
June 11, 2010
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

“You [Israel] killed 19-year-old Furkan Dogan brutally. Which faith, which holy book can be an excuse for killing him? ... The sixth commandment says, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Did you not understand? I'll say again. I say in English, ‘You shall not kill.’ Did you still not understand? So I'll say to you in your own language. I say in Hebrew, ‘Lo Tirtzakh.’” – Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, 4 June 2010

In the past seven years, two Americans were unjustly, maliciously and violently killed by the Israel “Defense” Forces (IDF). Both had unwittingly given their lives for Gaza, and in the aftermath of their murders, their government forsook them.

Their names were oft-repeated—if not by follow citizens, then by citizens of the world—as events surrounding Israel’s horrific assault on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla were discussed. These two young and brave individuals were Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan.

Rachel Corrie

A 23-year-old hailing from Olympia, Washington, Rachel Corrie took time off from school in 2003 to travel to Palestine and work on a “sister city” project between Olympia and Rafah, Gaza. While there, she joined the peaceful protests and resistance activities of the International Solidarity Movement, a group committed to nonviolently opposing Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land.

On March 16, 2003 (long before Hamas came to power), IDF soldiers were bulldozing homes in the Rafah refugee camp along Gaza’s border with Egypt. Wearing a bright orange fluorescent jacket with megaphone in hand, Corrie courageously placed herself well in front of an armored bulldozer in order to prevent a home’s destruction. The driver did not stop and she was crushed to death.

Although he claimed to have not seen her, eyewitnesses said there was nothing to obstruct the driver’s vision of Corrie, especially in her brightly-colored jacket and location. The Israeli government deemed Corrie’s death “accidental.”

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights collected sworn affidavits of those present the day Corrie was killed. As expected, they directly contradict the government’s version of events. As one detailed (abridged):

“Around 4:45pm, one bulldozer, serial number 949623, began to work near the house of Dr. Sameir Massery, a physician who is a friend of ours, and in whose house Rachel and other activists often stayed. I was elevated about 2 meters above the ground, and had a clear view of the action happening about 20 meters away. Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she knelt down at least 15 meters in front of the bulldozer, and began waving her arms and shouting, just as activists had successfully done dozens of times that day. The bulldozer continued driving forward and headed straight for Rachel. When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer. She got so high onto it that she was in clear view of the cab of the bulldozer. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer’s blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, the driver continued forward, which caused her to fall back, out of view of the diver [sic]. He continued forward, and she tried to scoot back, but was quickly pulled underneath the bulldozer. We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted; one activist with the megaphone. But the bulldozer driver continued forward, until Rachel was all the way underneath the central section of the bulldozer. Despite the obviousness of her position, the bulldozer began to reverse, without lifting its blade, and drug the blade over her body again. He continued to reverse until he was on the boarder strip, about 100 meters away, and left her crushed body in the sand.

“I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bulldozer operators saw her and knew she was there. They knew she was there over 15 meters in advance, and even when they were very close to her, they could see her briefly as she was elevated on the rubble. When she was clearly underneath the bulldozer, he should not have moved, or at least lifted the bulldozer blade. He didn’t lift the blade until a couple meters after he’d drug it over her again, even though it is standard procedure to lift the blade when backing. I believe he knew she was there, intentionally drove over her, and then intentionally backed over her again.”

Just days before her death, Corrie described the dreadful conditions to which Gazans were subjected.

In a fitting tribute, the Irish-flagged relief ship Rachel Corrie set sail for Gaza to deliver 1,000 tons of medical supplies and reconstruction materials just after the attack on the Mavi Marmara. The Israeli navy, in seizing the vessel, refused to address it by name. It seems Rachel Corrie, even in death, remains persona non grata.

Furkan Dogan

Furkan Dogan was a 19-year-old young man who had just finished high school and hoped to one day become a doctor. He held dual United States and Turkish citizenship. He was one of nine killed when Israeli commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara on May 31 as it attempted to transport 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza along with five other ships in the Freedom Flotilla.

The unarmed Dogan was, in a word, summarily executed.

Autopsy revealed he was shot five times at close range; once in the chest and four times in the head. The Israeli narrative, just as in Corrie’s murder, was inconsistent with eyewitness testimony. There were no reports Dogan had resisted, fought or attacked the boarding commandos.

The lack of outrage from President Obama, his administration, or the U.S. Congress (with the exception of Rep. Dennis Kucinich) is both striking and appalling. Is the life a legal U.S. citizen murdered aboard a relief vessel in international waters by an elite military unit of a foreign country, not worthy of indignation? Was it his foreign-sounding name, that he was Muslim, or that he lived in Turkey the reason for the absence of even muted outcry?

Some may say that Corrie and Dogan were idealists who just got “caught up” in situations beyond their control or understanding.

They were not idealists, they were realists. They operated under simple, practical, honest principles: people’s homes should not be demolished by an occupying power; a besieged population has a fundamental right not to be denied food, medicine, clean water or shelter; collective punishment is inhumane and illegal.

Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan are American heroes. They were killed upholding human dignity, and their deaths were not in vain.

Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.

Rannie Amiri is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Global Research Articles by Rannie Amiri