Michael Strank: Born in Czechoslovakia, died in the Battle of Iwo Jima

Michael Strank (November 10, 1919 – March 1, 1945). A Marine born in Czechoslovakia in Jarabina (now Slovakia) was one of the six flag-raisers who helped raise US flag atop Mount Suribachi on February 23, 1945. Amid visible tensions in transatlantic relations, do you think that stories how we fought together have at least some symbolic meaning, could such stories serve as a reminder that it is worth to keep those relations alive? Or people probably do not care much about this anymore (if I will be cynical)? Read few comments.

Michael Strank

Kurk Dorsey, Professor of History, University of New Hampshire

Regarding your question about battle commemorations, I do think they still have value.  It is remarkable that we still gather at places like Normandy on a regular basis, yet I don’t recall much emphasis on remembering the cooperation in World War I or the Korean War.  I suspect that is because those wars have such muddled outcomes that it is hard to know what to say about them.

And the importance of these memories becomes more powerful when we have a president like Donald Trump, who is challenging the notion of cooperation, or when we have disputes about who gets invited–do we invite the Germans to Normandy? The Russians to Poland? I suspect that whenever Trump leaves office, we’ll find that the next president wants to emphasize the historical cooperation with our traditional allies more than before.

And of course it’s not just the United States and Europe, but also within Europe.  As Brexit rolls in, it is valuable to remember the time when Britain cooperated with anyone against the Nazis and then the Communists and thus helped to build a coalition of free states.  It may be that the trend is back toward suspicion of other people, so things like joint commemorations can be a small part of moving toward greater cooperation.  And we need to cooperate to solve problems like climate change, fair trade, and nuclear proliferation.

Stanley Sloan, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council of the United States, Visiting Scholar in Political Science, Middlebury College

At the Munich Security Conference, Slovakian President Zuzana Čaputová said of the transatlantic alliance: “We are a community of values whose strength originates from our ability to live by these values and to defend them.” Over many decades, Americans and Europeans have defended our countries in several cold and hot conflicts. When we have been able honestly declare victory, the victory was not just in defending territory or defeating an aggressive nation but was supposed to be a victory for the values for which we still stand and fight.

Today, the battle to defend the transatlantic alliance and the values it represents (see the preamble of the North Atlantic Treaty) is not just conducted with military budgets and weapons. Rather it is fought with political, economic and social programs that defend our nations and their democratic systems against attacks from illiberal external enemies and internal foes.

Therefore, we should celebrate historic victories but always with the point of demonstrating that we are willing to and capable of defending ourselves against new challenges. We are not fighting for blood, but rather for hearts and minds.

Garret Martin, Professorial Lecturer, School of International Service, American University

I do think that historical commemorations, especially over WW2 battles or moments, do have a role and can serve as a reminder of the enduring partnerships between Europe and the United States. But historical memories can also easily be manipulated for the emotional needs of the present. For instance, I remember President Macron, during the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1, warning of the resurgence of the old evils of nationalism. My sense is that he was also trying on that occasion to take a jab against the populist forces in France and elsewhere that he is opposed to…

Second, with the passage of time, do such events have the same resonance with younger crowds or less historically inclined people? As a parallel example, that European integration was a peace project would have made perfect sense for the post-war generation. I am not sure that this is evident for today’s youth in the EU.

John R. Deni*, Research Professor US Army War College, Author of NATO and Article 5

There’s a school of thought among historians and political scientists that it was the common experience in war that led to the founding of the NATO alliance and that help to explain its endurance to this day. I think these kinds of experiences — of working together with allies toward a common purpose — resonate with both those who lived through them as well as those on the home front. However, I think there’s a far stronger glue that keeps the Western allies together than just historical experience alone — it’s common interests, particularly those rooted in our incomparable trade and investment ties, that explain why we need NATO today more than ever, especially in the face of conflict and competition with Russia and China. Of course our shared values play an important role as well, but it’s the common interests both in Europe and beyond that explain why the transatlantic bond remains strong, through even turbulent times.