In Memory of the “Two Helmuts”: the Lives, Legacies, and Historical Impact of Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl: a Forum

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

In Memory of the “Two Helmuts”: the Lives, Legacies, and Historical Impact of Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl: a Forum Clayton Clemens, Ronald Granieri, Mathias Haeussler, Mary Elise Sarotte, Kristina Spohr, Christian Wicke and Andrew I. Port In memory of the “Two Helmuts”: the lives, legacies, and historical impact of Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl: a forum Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Clemens, Clayton and Granieri, Ronald and Haeussler, Mathias and Sarotte, Mary Elise and Spohr, Kristina and Wicke, Christian and Port, Andrew I. (2018) In memory of the “Two Helmuts”: the lives, legacies, and historical impact of Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl: a forum with Clayton Clemens, Ronald Granieri, Mathias Haeussler, Mary Elise Sarotte, Kristina Spohr, and Christian Wicke. Central European History, 51 (2). pp. 282-309. ISSN 0008-9389 DOI: 10.1017/S0008938918000389 © 2018 Central European History Society of the American Historical Association This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/89611/ Available in LSE Research Online: July 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. <CT>In Memory of the “Two Helmuts”: The Lives, Legacies, and Historical Impact of Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl</CT> A Forum with Clayton Clemens, Ronald Granieri, Mathias Haeussler, Mary Elise Sarotte, Kristina Spohr, and Christian Wicke With an Introduction by Andrew I. Port [smaller font] Most observers would likely agree, regardless of political couleur, that the Federal Republic of 1998 – Helmut Kohl’s final year as chancellor – was, in most respects, a much different country from the Federal Republic of 1974, the year that his immediate predecessor, Helmut Schmidt, assumed the reigns of political power. Governing successively for almost a quarter-century, the “two Helmuts” – the subject of the following forum – led the Federal Republic during what were, no doubt, some of its most turbulent years; this included the so-called German Autumn of 1977, as well as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the protracted process of unification that followed. To mark their recent deaths (Schmidt in November 2015, Kohl in June 2017), Central European History invited a half dozen experts – five historians and one political scientist, all based in the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands – to comment on the lives, legacies, and historical impact of these two major political figures. Each of the participants – Clayton Clemens, Ronald Granieri, Mathias Haeussler, Mary Elise Sarotte, Kristina Spohr, and Christian Wicke – was given wide latitude to approach this cluster of issues and themes in any way he or she saw fit, but the results are still, in some ways, surprising. For one, only half the contributors consider both chancellors in their initial statements, whereas the other three focus almost exclusively on Kohl. Given his role as the so- called Chancellor of Unity, this might speak to Kohl’s greater historical importance – though it might also merely reflect the scholarly interests of the participants. In any event, Spohr, who recently published a major study of Helmut Schmidt as “the Global Chancellor,” vigorously defends the legacy of the latter, arguing that Schmidt was “no less of a pioneer in international politics” than his successor. That assessment draws attention to another unanticipated feature of this forum: its focus, by and large, on the international roles of the “two Helmuts,” rather than on their domestic legacies (apart from unification and “memory politics”). But this, too, is not entirely suprising or unwarranted: after all, as Clemens observes, both politicians saw their actions in that arena as their “main legacy.” Taken together, the contributions to this forum have a number of other features in common. They all go beyond the prevailing hoary stereotypes – Schmidt as a “pragmatic” and “rational” Macher, Kohl as someone driven by more “emotive” considerations; they argue, furthermore, that the approaches and policies of the two men were more similar, in the end, than commonly assumed. In fact, the participants seem to agree that, for better or worse, there was a great deal of continuity in the actual policies adopted by Schmidt and Kohl – that both men largely “preserved” what they had inherited domestically, while pushing Europe forward “along a path that had already been paved” (Clemens). Finally, the participants all seem to agree (with Zhou Enlai in a much different context…) that it is still too early to judge what the legacies of the “two Helmuts” will be. That issue is still “up in the air,” Haeussler suggests, adding that one cannot be certain whether the policies they embraced will work in the future — though it would perhaps be more surprising if ones adopted decades ago were indeed able to do so in our rapidly changing world. It is here that Sarotte provocatively criticizes Kohl for failing to introduce “needed renovations” to the exisiting international system; that, she argues, lies at the crux of many of the problems that Europe faces today. Spohr rightly reminds us, however, that one must consider “how much freedom of maneuver political leaders really enjoy.” Or, as the first Chancellor of Unity supposedly put it over a century and a half ago: “Politics is the art of the possible…” <1>Initial Statements</1> <2>Kristina Spohr (London School of Economics)</2> Between them, the chancellorships of the “two Helmuts” span nearly a quarter-century of German history. Helmut Schmidt led the country from 1974 to 1982; his successor, Helmut Kohl, served until 1998. But the verdict on their respective tenures has been very different. Kohl was seen as a bumbling provincial when he came to office in 1982 but, by the end of his second term, he had won a place in the history books as the “Chancellor of Unity” (Einheitskanzler). By the time he lost the election for what would have been his fifth term, he was hailed as the “master-builder” (Baumeister) of Europe for his decisive role in furthering the European Community’s political and economic integration through the Maastricht Treaty and the introduction of the Euro. Schmidt, by contrast, came to office with a reputation for high administrative competence and intellectual prowess, but left the chancellery under a cloud. Der Spiegel spoke for many commentators when it dismissed him as a “good chancellor with a bad record”; few features of his period in office stood out as “proof of success.” Schmidt, it was said, had been a mere crisis manager and “problem-solver” (Macher) who lacked broader vision, so that “little endured of historical significance.”1 This has also been the verdict of many historians.2 There is no doubt that Kohl’s achievements were indeed remarkable. When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, he quickly took command with his Ten-Point Plan, putting German unification firmly on the international agenda. Grasping the urgency of the situation, he came up with cogent ideas for accomplishing his goals: economically by exporting the deutschmark (DM) to the German Democratic Republic (GDR), and politically by absorbing East Germany into the Federal Republic via Article 23 of the Basic Law. Kohl was equally adept at handling the wider international setting of German diplomacy. He managed to square the four victor powers, whose Allied reserved rights still trammeled German sovereignty: the so-called 2 + 4 forum allowed him to control the process and to negotiate the final settlement of German unity with the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, and France, from a position of quasi- equality. In particular, he propitiated the French, still fearful of German power, by agreeing to give up the DM—talisman of the West German “economic miracle”—within a new European monetary union. And he led the move to deepen Europe’s political union by promoting the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Kohl was also very conscious of the challenges that German unity posed for the Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation. At a time when the Americans were hanging back, he came up with the funds to buy Mikhail Gorbachev’s support for unified Germany to remain in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and for the rapid withdrawal of the Red Army from German soil. Out of this came the new “Friendship Treaty” with Moscow in September 1990, which put relations on a new footing. Kohl continued this policy even after Boris Yeltsin replaced Gorbachev, pumping money into the new Russia and drawing it into the Group of Seven (G7) to help tie it into the West. At the same time, he supported Polish, Czech, and Hungarian membership in NATO as a sort of reinsurance against possible Russian revanchism.3 Kohl was intensely aware of historical precedent. In dealing with France, he aligned himself consciously with the principles of Westbindung and self-restraint laid down by Konrad Adenauer in the 1950s. In his dealings with Russia, he aspired to transcend the legacy of Hitler’s war. And the media also saw him as a maker of history. After the Caucasus summit with Gorbachev in July 1990, the cover of Der Spiegel proclaimed: “Allianz Bonn/Moskau: Der Krieg ist zu Ende” (Bonn/Moscow Alliance: The War Is Over).4 Here Kohl had shown himself to be a statesman with the discernment and daring to seize the historical moment of decision.
Recommended publications
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography I. Primary Sources A. Manuscript Collections and Government Archives Foreign Affairs Oral History Program (FAOHP), Georgetown University Washington, D.C. (copies also deposited at George C. Marshall Library) Everett Bellows (February 1989) David S. Brown (March 1989) Vincent V. Checchi (July 1990) Lincoln Gordon (January 1988) John J. Grady (August 1989) William Parks (November 1988) Melbourne Spector (December 1988) Joseph Toner (October 1989) Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. W. Averell Harriman Papers George C. Marshall Library, Lexington, Virginia Dowsley Clark Collection European Recovery Plan Commemoratives Collection William C. Foster Papers George C. Marshall Papers Marshall Plan Photograph Collection Forrest Pogue Interviews (Paul Hoffman and John McCloy) Harry B. Price Interviews (conducted 1952–54) ECA and OEEC Leland Barrows Richard M. Bissell Samuel Board Harlan Cleveland H. Van B. Cleveland John O. Coppock Glenn Craig D. A. Fitzgerald William C. Foster Theodore Geiger Lincoln Gordon W. Averell Harriman Carroll Hinman Paul Hoffman E. N. Holmgren John Lindeman Shaw Livermore Robert Marjolin Orbun V. Powell MacDonald Salter Melbourne Spector Harold Stein Donald C. Stone Allan Swim Samuel Van Hyning Greece (Americans) Michael H. B. Adler Leland Barrows Dowsley Clark John O. Coppock Helene Granby Joseph F. Heath Robert Hirschberg Paul A. Jenkins Brice M. Mace Lawrence B. Myers Walter E. Packard Paul R. Porter 163 Bibliography Greece (Americans—continued) Alan D. Strachan Edward A. Tenenbaum John O. Walker Greece (Greeks) Costa Hadjiagyras Constantin D. Tsatsos Italy (Americans) Vincent M. Barnett William E. Corfitzen Henry J. Costanzo Bartlett Harvey Thomas A. Lane Dominic J. Marcello Walter C. McAdoo Guido Nadzo Chauncey Parker Donald Simmons James Toughill Italy (Italians) Giovanni Malagodi Donato Menichella Ernesto Rossi Turkey (Americans) Clifton H.
    [Show full text]
  • France and the Dissolution of Yugoslavia Christopher David Jones, MA, BA (Hons.)
    France and the Dissolution of Yugoslavia Christopher David Jones, MA, BA (Hons.) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of East Anglia School of History August 2015 © “This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived there from must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution.” Abstract This thesis examines French relations with Yugoslavia in the twentieth century and its response to the federal republic’s dissolution in the 1990s. In doing so it contributes to studies of post-Cold War international politics and international diplomacy during the Yugoslav Wars. It utilises a wide-range of source materials, including: archival documents, interviews, memoirs, newspaper articles and speeches. Many contemporary commentators on French policy towards Yugoslavia believed that the Mitterrand administration’s approach was anachronistic, based upon a fear of a resurgent and newly reunified Germany and an historical friendship with Serbia; this narrative has hitherto remained largely unchallenged. Whilst history did weigh heavily on Mitterrand’s perceptions of the conflicts in Yugoslavia, this thesis argues that France’s Yugoslav policy was more the logical outcome of longer-term trends in French and Mitterrandienne foreign policy. Furthermore, it reflected a determined effort by France to ensure that its long-established preferences for post-Cold War security were at the forefront of European and international politics; its strong position in all significant international multilateral institutions provided an important platform to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Four Conservative-Liberal Thinkers Part I Hannes H
    Hannes H. Gissurarson Twenty-Four Conservative-Liberal Thinkers Part I Hannes H. Gissurarson Twenty-Four Conservative-Liberal Thinkers Part I New Direction MMXX CONTENTS Hannes H. Gissurarson is Professor of Politics at the University of Iceland and Director of Research at RNH, the Icelandic Research Centre for Innovation and Economic Growth. The author of several books in Icelandic, English and Swedish, he has been on the governing boards of the Central Bank of Iceland and the Mont Pelerin Society and a Visiting Scholar at Stanford, UCLA, LUISS, George Mason and other universities. He holds a D.Phil. in Politics from Oxford University and a B.A. and an M.A. in History and Philosophy from the University of Iceland. Introduction 7 Snorri Sturluson (1179–1241) 13 St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) 35 John Locke (1632–1704) 57 David Hume (1711–1776) 83 Adam Smith (1723–1790) 103 Edmund Burke (1729–1797) 129 Founded by Margaret Thatcher in 2009 as the intellectual Anders Chydenius (1729–1803) 163 hub of European Conservatism, New Direction has established academic networks across Europe and research Benjamin Constant (1767–1830) 185 partnerships throughout the world. Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850) 215 Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) 243 Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) 281 New Direction is registered in Belgium as a not-for-profit organisation and is partly funded by the European Parliament. Registered Office: Rue du Trône, 4, 1000 Brussels, Belgium President: Tomasz Poręba MEP Executive Director: Witold de Chevilly Lord Acton (1834–1902) 313 The European Parliament and New Direction assume no responsibility for the opinions expressed in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • John F. Kennedy and Berlin Nicholas Labinski Marquette University
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Master's Theses (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Evolution of a President: John F. Kennedy and Berlin Nicholas Labinski Marquette University Recommended Citation Labinski, Nicholas, "Evolution of a President: John F. Kennedy and Berlin" (2011). Master's Theses (2009 -). Paper 104. http://epublications.marquette.edu/theses_open/104 EVOLUTION OF A PRESIDENT: JOHN F. KENNEDYAND BERLIN by Nicholas Labinski A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2011 ABSTRACT EVOLUTION OF A PRESIDENT: JOHN F. KENNEDYAND BERLIN Nicholas Labinski Marquette University, 2011 This paper examines John F. Kennedy’s rhetoric concerning the Berlin Crisis (1961-1963). Three major speeches are analyzed: Kennedy’s Radio and Television Report to the American People on the Berlin Crisis , the Address at Rudolph Wilde Platz and the Address at the Free University. The study interrogates the rhetorical strategies implemented by Kennedy in confronting Khrushchev over the explosive situation in Berlin. The paper attempts to answer the following research questions: What is the historical context that helped frame the rhetorical situation Kennedy faced? What rhetorical strategies and tactics did Kennedy employ in these speeches? How might Kennedy's speeches extend our understanding of presidential public address? What is the impact of Kennedy's speeches on U.S. German relations and the development of U.S. and German Policy? What implications might these speeches have for the study and execution of presidential power and international diplomacy? Using a historical-rhetorical methodology that incorporates the historical circumstances surrounding the crisis into the analysis, this examination of Kennedy’s rhetoric reveals his evolution concerning Berlin and his Cold War strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Community's Role in the Process of German Unification
    The International Community’s Role in the Process of German Unification 269 Chapter 10 The International Community’s Role in the Process of German Unification Horst Teltschik The first half of the 20th century was dominated by two world wars with more than 100 million deaths—soldiers and civilians. As a result, from 1945 on Europe was divided. Germany and its capital Berlin lost their sovereignty. Germany was run by the four victorious powers: the United States, France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. The polit- ical and military dividing line between the three Western powers and the Soviet Union ran through the middle of Germany and Berlin. The world was divided into a bipolar order between the nuclear su- perpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with their respec- tive alliance systems NATO and Warsaw Pact. The latter was ruled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) with its ideological monopoly. In 1945, two militarily devastating world wars were followed by five decades of Cold War. The nuclear arsenals led to a military balance be- tween West and East. The policy of mutual nuclear deterrence did not prevent dangerous political crises—such as the Soviet Berlin Blockade from June 1948 until May 1949, Nikita Khrushchev’s 1958 Berlin Ul- timatum and the 1962 Cuba Crisis—which brought both sides to the brink of another world war. In Berlin, fully armed American and Soviet tanks directly faced each other at Checkpoint Charlie. In Cuba, Soviet missiles threatened to attack the United States. Cold War tensions were compounded by Moscow’s bloody military interventions to crush uprisings against its rule in 1953 in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), in 1956 in Hungary, and 1968 in Prague.
    [Show full text]
  • Our History. Germany Since 1945
    Our History. Germany since 1945 Guide through the exkhibition k k A Cordial Welcome to the Museum of Contemporary History of the Federal Republic p Our History. of Germany Germany since 1945 We invite you to tour the Permanent Exhibition – “Our History. Germany since 1945”. Spread over 4,000-plus square metres, it is a lively and up-to-date panorama of contemporary German history, with individual perspectives set in an inkternational context. It showcases original artefacts. There are many inter- active stations plus interviews with contemporary witnesses to escort you on your way from the end of the Second World War to the present. 1945 – 1949 Burden of the Past and Germany’s Division World War II, unleashed by Germany, ends with the surrender of the German armed forces on 8 May 1945. What remains is largely a traumatized and devastated country. The Allies occupy Germany and divide it into four zones. Many people are dead or missing; families are torn apart. The enormity of the Nazi crimes raises questions about accountability: Who knew, who shared the blame? But widespread public discussion doesn’t get started in Germany until the 1960s. The ravages of war and the country’s division have devastated the economy. Rationing is supposed to assure the distribution of basic supplies, but the black market is booming. In 1948 the deutschmark is introduced in the western zones, laying the groundwork for an economic upturn. The occupied zones grow apart politically and economically: In the west is born the Federal Republic of Germany, a parliamen - tary democracy; in the east the GDR, a coercive communist state modelled on the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Security and the Fight Against Terrorism in Germany I. the German
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Dokumenten-Publikationsserver der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Dipl.-Soz. Sebastian Bukow Philosophische Fakultät III Institut für Sozialwissenschaften Lehrbereich Innenpolitik der BRD Unter den Linden 6 10099 Berlin [email protected] Internal security and the fight against terrorism in Germany Nearly periodically the topic of internal security appears on the public agenda of the Federal Re- public. Election Campaigns are held and elections have been won with the promise of more security [cp. 30, p. 13; 33, p. 10; 21]. The subjective feeling of a lack of security in different dimensions of life is omnipresent. The latest security- and monitoring-acts interfere deeply – and at the same time nearly unnoticed – with the daily life of every single citizen. The debate on crime and internal secu- rity is dominated by very emotional and ideological-normative arguments [cp. 18, p. 151]. Objec- tive arguments and evaluations of proportionality are hard to find. I. The German understanding of “Internal security” and its his- torical roots The term “Innere Sicherheit” – internal security – appeared for the first time in the 1960s. From then onwards it has always played an important role in political discussions. Since 1969 the Federal Ministry of the interior periodically published a report on „Innere Sicherheit“ (for the last time in 1994). Since then the term has been established in the political and administrational language. In 1972 the policy of internal security became the quasi status of law by the introduction of the “Schwerpunktprogramm Innere Sicherheit” (programme of emphasis internal security) [25, p.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORIA CONTEMPORÁNEA - Programa 2015
    1 HISTORIA CONTEMPORÁNEA - Programa 2015 Profesor Adjunto a cargo de la cátedra: Dr. Daniel F. Gaido Profesores Asistentes: Dr. Carlos Mignon y Lic. Jorge Santarrosa PRESENTACIÓN: En el marco del curso se estudiará la historia de Europa en los siglos XIX y XX tomando como eje el desarrollo del capitalismo, centrándose en las luchas de clases que el capitalismo genera y que constituyen la base de su historia política. Por tal motivo se pondrá énfasis en el análisis de los procesos revolucionarios, donde tales luchas, usualmente soterradas, se manifiestan con claridad. El curso abordará temas tales como el ciclo de las revoluciones burguesas, la formación de los estados nacionales, el ascenso de la democracia parlamentaria, el desarrollo del movimiento obrero, las ideologías de izquierda (anarquismo, socialismo y comunismo), el surgimiento del imperialismo moderno, la revolución rusa y el estalinismo, fascismo y nazismo, las dos guerras mundiales, el Holocausto judío, la descolonización de posguerra, el colapso de la Unión Soviética y la formación y crisis de la Unión Europea. OBJETIVOS: Desarrollar una aproximación teórica al proceso de desarrollo capitalista, analizando las transformaciones políticas ocurridas en Europa como resultado de dicho proceso. Investigar los orígenes del imperialismo moderno y sus transformaciones como resultado de los procesos de descolonización después de la segunda guerra mundial. Analizar el origen histórico de las principales corrientes políticas alternativas al capitalismo, como anarquismo, socialismo y comunismo. METODOLOGÍA Y FORMA DE EVALUACIÓN: Clases teóricas: Clases frontales con una exposición sintética de temas centrales mediante el análisis de casos representativos. La asistencia a las clases teóricas no es obligatoria.
    [Show full text]
  • Yugoslav Destruction After the Cold War
    STASIS AMONG POWERS: YUGOSLAV DESTRUCTION AFTER THE COLD WAR A dissertation presented by Mladen Stevan Mrdalj to The Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Political Science Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts December 2015 STASIS AMONG POWERS: YUGOSLAV DESTRUCTION AFTER THE COLD WAR by Mladen Stevan Mrdalj ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University December 2015 2 Abstract This research investigates the causes of Yugoslavia’s violent destruction in the 1990’s. It builds its argument on the interaction of international and domestic factors. In doing so, it details the origins of Yugoslav ideology as a fluid concept rooted in the early 19th century Croatian national movement. Tracing the evolving nationalist competition among Serbs and Croats, it demonstrates inherent contradictions of the Yugoslav project. These contradictions resulted in ethnic outbidding among Croatian nationalists and communists against the perceived Serbian hegemony. This dynamic drove the gradual erosion of Yugoslav state capacity during Cold War. The end of Cold War coincided with the height of internal Yugoslav conflict. Managing the collapse of Soviet Union and communism imposed both strategic and normative imperatives on the Western allies. These imperatives largely determined external policy toward Yugoslavia. They incentivized and inhibited domestic actors in pursuit of their goals. The result was the collapse of the country with varying degrees of violence. The findings support further research on international causes of civil wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Division World War II Vol One.Pdf
    THIRD INFANTRY DIVISION THE VICTORY PATH THROUGH FRANCE AND GERMANY VOLUME ONE 'IVG. WILLIAM MOHR THE VICTORY PATH THROUGH FRANCE AND GERMANY THIRD INFANTRY DIVISION - WORLD WAR II VOLUME ONE A PICTORIAL ACCOUNT BY G. WILLIAM MOHR ABOUT THE COVER There is nothing in front of the Infantry in battle except the enemy. The Infantry leads the way to attack and bears the brunt of the enemy's attack. The primary purpose of the Infan­ try is to close with the enemy in hand-to-hand fighting. On the side of a house, tommy gunners of this Infantry patrol, 1st Special Service Froce Patrol, one of the many patrols that made possible the present offensive in Italy by feeling out the enemy and discovering his defensive strength, fire from the window of an adjoining building to blast Nazis out. The scene is 400 yards from the enemy lines in the Anzio area, Italy. Fifth Army, 14 April, 1944. The 3rd Infantry Division suffered 27,450 casualties and 4,922 were killed in action. 2 - Yellow Beach, Southern France, August, 1944 3 - Marseilles, France, August, 1944 4 - Montelimar, France, August, 1944 5 - Cavailair, France, August, 1944 6 - Avignon, France, August, 1944 7 - Lacroix, France, August, 1944 8 - Brignolles, France, August, 1944 9 -Aix-En-Provence, France, August, 1944 12 - St. Loup, France, August, 1944 13 - La Coucounde, France, August, 1944 14 - Les Loges Neut, France, August, 1944 15 - Besancon, France, September, 1944 18 - Loue River, Ornans, France, September, 1944 19 - Avonne, France, Septem&er, 1944 20 - Lons Le Sounier, France, September, 1944 21 - Les Belles-Baroques, France, September, 1944 22 - St.
    [Show full text]
  • Ike's Rebuff' of De Gaulle in '58 Bared
    statement that he could no longer justify delegating Free World defense decisions to the United States, adding: "It would be more realistic at this time to create a tripartite or- ganization to take joint de- cisions on global problems." Ike's Rebuff ' State's memorandum does not mention Germany, but Schoenbrun states what was well known: the Dulles view Of de Gaulle that France was a continental power like Germany and not a world power like the United In '58 Bared States and Britain. This con- k i lL/101 cept de Gaulle then rejected By Chklmers M. Roberts and today still rejects, as indi- Washington Post Mail Writer cated by the current NATO, problem he has created in Wel A bit of history was put on search for a world-wide French the public record yesterday great power role independent but It will probably serve less of the United States. the cause of enlightenment The Eisenhower reply on Oct. 20 reflected the Dulles than further to exacerbate view. The President replied French-American relations. close cooperation at line sum- mit between France, the Unit- that "our present procedures The State Department re- ed Kingdom and the United for organizing the defense of leased to a Senate subcom- States." the Free World clearly require mittee the text of a 1958 De Gaulle on Sept. 17 wrote the willing cooperation of letter from President- Eisen- President Eisenhower "to indi- many other nations, both with- hower that in effect rejected cate that NATO in its present in and outside NATO. We can- President de Gaulle's call for form no longer met the needs not afford to adopt any system an American-French British of French security" and noted which would give to our other directorate to take joint de- that France had world-wide re- allies, or other Free World cisions on global problems.
    [Show full text]
  • I-2014 Infobrief II.Pub
    Info-Brief 1/2014 Juni 2014 www.deutsche- stiftung-eigentum.de Liebe Freunde und Förderer der Deutschen Stiftung Eigentum, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, Prof. Schmidt-Jortzig erhält den „Preis der Deutschen Stiftung Eigentum“ und es erscheinen zwei neue Bände der „Bibliothek des Eigentums“. Im ersten Halbjahr 2014 hat sich viel getan und so geht es auch weiter! Stiftungsrat Bei seiner offiziellen Verabschiedung am 13. Februar 2014 in der Mendelssohn- Vorsitzender: Remise wurde Prof. Schmidt-Jortzig für seine langjährigen Verdienste um die Stiftung Dr. Hermann Otto Solms mit dem „Preis der Deutschen Stiftung Eigentum“ geehrt. In der Laudatio hob Prof. De- Prof. Dr. Otto Depenheuer penheuer die verantwortungsvolle und erfolgreiche Führung der Stiftungsgeschäfte Max Freiherr v. Elverfeldt durch Prof. Schmidt-Jortzig hervor und betonte dessen Engagement für die Idee des Ei- Nicolai Freiherr v. Engelhardt gentums, das für den ersten Stiftungsratsvorsitzenden immer eine Herzensangelegenheit Michael Moritz gewesen ist. Mit einer Festrede zum „Wert des Eigentums“ dankte Prof. Schmidt- Dr. Horst Reinhardt Jortzig für die Auszeichnung und freute sich, die Arbeit der Stiftung weiterhin im Stif- Michael Prinz zu Salm-Salm tungsrat begleiten zu können. Prof. Dr. Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig Gerd Sonnleitner Bernd Ziesemer Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Otto Depenheuer Vorstand Vorsitzender: N.N. Karoline Beck Wolfgang v. Dallwitz Geschäftsführerin Verbunden mit dem Festakt war die Übergabe des 10. Bandes der Bibliothek des Rechtsanwältin Eigentums „Staatssanierung durch Enteignung“, den der Vizepräsident des Heidrun Gräfin Schulenburg Deutschen Bundestages, Johannes Singhammer, MdB, entgegennahm. Alle Reden und Grußworte anlässlich der Veranstaltung haben wir in der beiliegenden Broschüre festgehalten. Besonders lesenswert – erfreuen Sie sich an den gedruckten Redebeiträgen und Fotos.
    [Show full text]