The Time magazine brought the beginning of March 2010 interview with Ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (* 1918). The editors asked him why the "old hawks' now a world without nuclear weapons were seeking, while the pacifist (he meant the peace movement of 1979-1984) by the time the matter is now - so believe the journalists. They referred to an event on the Schmidt, Egon Bahr, Paul Nitze, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger and others had called for nuclear disarmament. I wonder why the editors ask a Schmidt what was wrong with the pacifist, it would not be sensible to ask that a pacifist? But that's the main difference between pacifists and hawks: hawks are interviewed, and pacifists are not interviewed.
It took me to read already amazed at how little understood by the Schmidt today is what moves us pacifists then what we have thought and said out loud after all. All clear: We were merely emotional; he was well informed, capable and always reasonable to complex reasoning.
Schmidt assumed us a fear that we never had, and that was in fact his own fear: the fear of the Wehrmacht lieutenant before the Red Army. We had known fear of the neutron bomb warheads to American, before American nuclear war - why we were even accused of anti-Americanism. But for Schmidt it was and is inconceivable, could have as German fear of American nuclear weapons. His fear was that the Americans use their nuclear weapons in case of war may not and let Germany down. For him, peace movement is still something of deserters who want to surrender without a fight from the advancing Red Army. And he is - I am now reading between the lines - still proud that he was then a lieutenant weitergemordet to the bitter end, Pardon: has done his duty.
had with many an old man I have dispute on the issue. One of them has then lost two of his brothers, because any general or lieutenant in time has capitulated. But yet he can on these general or lieutenant to get anything today. Debt was only in his eyes and only the Red Army.
0 comments:
Post a Comment