Charlie Rose

johnnyriff  06/14/2009 05:53 AM Report

Beautiful. thank you.

fuzzalow  06/11/2009 02:56 PM Report

A discussion spoiled by the skewed enthusiasm of Brinkley.

Brinkley's comments were not those of a dispassionate historian but akin to a publicist working the media room.

Cicero  06/10/2009 01:31 AM Report

So we Americans should ignore those moments in history where we as a Nation moved toward the betterment of man and the philosophy that brought us to that point. Instead we should simply focus on negative things and shut up. To do otherwise is just, to care for people outside the US is selfish and "jingoistic flag waving"...got it...good point..we should just be selfish...

esantoro  06/10/2009 12:06 AM Report

I also disliked the jingoistic flag waving. Thank you, REMant, as always, for articulating my own sentiments better than I could have.

We might have more to celebrate (or not) had the U.S. entered the war in '39 and not '44. The reasons we waited so long to enter the war speak more honestly about what this country is about than does all the self-serving cheer-leading in this interview.

I was happy to see Elie Wiesel on afterward to comment on how little we learn from history.

ShalomFreedman  06/09/2009 04:27 PM Report

Free people everywhere owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the soldiers, living and dead who fought and sacrificed at Normandy.

tartufe  06/09/2009 03:56 PM Report

Hear, hear for the two previous posts. We're jingoistic enough without the raw, raw flag waving of aint-we-the-greatest. England took it on the nose. Eighty to ninty per cent of our success was a fact of geography a la the two largest oceans on the planet. Our productive capacity contributed along with the veterans - who indeed deserve their accolades as they die off. Ironically GM was a large part of that production. WWIII will supplant tanks etc with nukes so their absence wont be all that critical.

brewerchris  06/09/2009 02:59 PM Report

This British expat has to wonder yet again why it is that the non-American contribution is practically ignored? More than half the soldiers on the Normandy beaches were British or from the British Commonwealth, for goodness' sake! Plus, practically all the air sorties were flown by the RAF, the Royal and Merchant Navies provided all the ships and sailors, etc. etc... Don't insult OUR veterans by ignoring their bravery, heroism and sacrifice. Why only US Forces guests? Why did Brinkley only mention Omaha and Utah beaches? Why is it that - with the honorable exception of the president - even thoughtful, decent Americans seem incapable of avoiding a kind of graceless xenophobia and insularity even in commemorating a famous Allied - dare I even say a United Nations - victory? It might not rank up there with Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" smack in the face to all non-US forces that fought in Normandy - but shame on you, Mr Rose, shame...

REMant  06/09/2009 02:52 PM Report

The D-Day landing has been completely overblown and over-celebrated. There were many WWII landings and battles just as devastating and as critical, and our losses, in any case, in no way measure up to the Soviet's. Glossed over are the facts that the naval bombardment missed its targets, the parachute and glider drops were a fiasco, the landing craft didn't get close enough to the beach and the Utah beach landing was largely unopposed. I would also like to point out that despite the fairly recent jihadist-type propaganda to the contrary, the US did not enter the war to liberate the Jews, nor did it win it by itself. However, the men who did go ashore in the first wave deserve commendation, because as is the military's habit, they picked troops who had seen the most fighting already to do it. As to the over-celebration, I was present at the 25th anniversary, where I was fortunate to get to talk with Generals Bradley and Collins, and while I don't think anyone begrudged a 40th or 50th anniversary or even perhaps a 60th, this business of contrived presidential photo-ops every 5 years is ridiculous, and I assume it is designed to remind the uppity Europeans they owe their freedom to America, as much as for political consumption here. The overly dramatic Reagan undoubtedly wanted support for his defense over-spending, rabid anti-communism and invasion of tiny Caribbean nations, as well as the votes of the elderly. And contra Sen McGovern, for whom I once raised money, if the Germans had had the weapons the Americans and Soviets had, which was largely Hitler's fault, they undoubtedly would have done better than the Americans, and perhaps the Soviets, and most participants still alive will tell you that. With respect to Mr Brinkley's assertion, there is such a plethora of records of the war, that I can't imagine any more being necessary, so this whole business strikes me as a kind of myth-making - the tales of Christian self-sacrifice Americans love - that I think we can really do without, and which is actually a disservice to both history and youth. I am reminded of the line in White Christmas where Crosby says, "If you are under a falling building and someone offers to pick you up and csrry you to safety, don't think, don't pause, don't hesitate a moment, just spit in his eye." Erich Maria Remarque wrote more realistically about war and its aftermath. Go read his All Quiet on the Western Front, the two sequels, The Road Back and Three Comrades, and the others.