Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, MAY 3, 1985
PAGE 9
now apparent that it was Kohl's eagerness to cement Germany's re
conciliation with the United states and to win recognition for
the country's postwar transformation that caused him to propose
the cemetery visit in the first place••••
There is also concern about possible longer-term fallout from the
controversy. "It will take time for this to show up, but it will
come," said Prof. Stuermer. "Hardfaced bureaucrats totally un
derestimate the politically emotional dynamite that lies in those
graves."••• The controversy also comes as West Germans have begun
to focus for the first time on the personal sufferings of their
own citizens during the war, a subject. previously untouched be
cause of the guilt that hangs over that entire period of German
history. "No German parent dared tell his child how hard it was
during the war," Stuermer said. "It just was never done."
Some German leaders blamed Chancellor Kohl for forcing Mr. Reagan into a
seriously compromising position. Franz Josef Strauss labeled the prepara
tion for the Bitburg visit as "clumsy" and the results "embarrassing." He
called instead for Reagan to lay a wreath at a tomb of the unknown soldier
in Munich, a monument for those killed in World Wars I and II. The news
paper BILD, in a recent front-page commentary, urged Kohl to cancel Rea
gan's scheduled cemetery visit. "Suddenly it is clear .Q!! what thin ground
the 'friendship' of former enemies stands," the commentary said. "Friend
ship cannot be forced with violence or with grand gestures. The chancellor
should spare Reagan the journey to Bitburg."
Several commentators said the affair has achieved the very opposite of what
Mr. Kohl intended and has instead managed to identify the Germans more
closely with Hitler in the eyes of the American public than they had been
for years. "The old wounds, which were supposed to be healed, have broken
open again," wrote Dietrich Strothmann in DIE ZEIT.
The Nicaragua-Vietnam Parallel
"A Nation Drenched in Bickering: His Nicaragua Policy in Tatters, Reagan
Faces Risky Rebuilding," was the title given to an article written by David
Gergen in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, April 26, 1985. Mr. Gergen formerly served
in the Reagan White House.
Mr. Gergen took note of the fact that
immediately after the House handed Nicaragua a victory, Sandinista leader
Daniel Ortega contemptuously flew off to Moscow, to plead for economic and
military aid, especially in light of rumored U.S. economic sanctions
against Nicaragua.
The Nicaraguan debacle this week �n Congress is sure to bring a
new wave of recriminations in a nation already drenched with
partisan bickering. Now that the House has rejected all forms of
aid to the rebels in Nicaragua, Republicans are itching to charge
Democrats with losing Central America. To the GOP it looks as if
the United States is now breaking faith with the rebels, abandon
ing them in their hour of peril••••
The finger-pointing cannot disguise the critical fact that U.S.
foreign policy
in
Central America is� in shambles. Congress
has tossed out the Reagan plan and left nothing in its place. Not
since pulling the .E!!:!g .Q!! Vietnam and refusing� to rebels in
Angola! decade ago has Congress handcuffed� President� badly.