스토리/역사속으로
Old soldiers never die they just fade away
marineset
2023. 5. 28. 01:19
[General Macarthur Speech “Old soldiers never die they just fade away”]
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker and distinguished members of the Congress:
I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride ? humility in the wake of those great architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this home of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised.
Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race.
I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan considerations. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.
I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.
I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country.
The issues are global, and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector oblivious to those of another is to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other.
There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism.
If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his efforts. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You cannot appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.
Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia....
While I was not consulted prior to the President’s decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision, from a military standpoint, proved a sound one.
As I say, it proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.
This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy. Such decisions have not been forthcoming.
While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.
Apart from the military need, as I saw it, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary ?
(1) The intensification of our economic blockade against China.
(2) The imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast.
(3) Removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China’s coastal area and of Manchuria.
(4) Removal of restrictions on the forces of the republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the Chinese mainland.
For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and to bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and Allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I called for reinforcements, but was informed that reinforcements were not available.
I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese force of some six hundred thousand men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.
We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and at an approximate area where our supply-line advantages were in balance with the supply-line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized his full military potential.
I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.
Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said in effect that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting.
I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.
Indeed, on the second day of September, 1945, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows: “Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful.
“Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.” But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.
In war there is no substitute for victory.
There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace.
Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only alternative. Why, my soldiers asked of me, surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field? I could not answer.
Some may say to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China. Others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a worldwide basis.
The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy’s sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.
Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description. They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: “Don’t scuttle the Pacific.”
I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to
you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.
It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety. Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.
I am closing my fifty-two years of military service. When I joined the army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all my boyish hopes and dreams.
The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barracks ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Good-by.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and distinguished Members of the Congress, I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride - humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. [Applause 1]
(상원의장, 하원의장, 그리고 존경하는 의원 여러분, 저는 심히 겸허한 마음과 크나큰 자부심을 갖고 이 연단에 섰습니다. 저보다 앞서 이 자리에 섰던 우리 역사의 위대한 개척자들의 발자취를 회상하는 겸허한 마음과, 입법부 토론의 장이 이제껏 가장 순수한 형태로 인간의 자유를 대변하고 있다는 데서 오는 자부심으로 말입니다. [박수 1])
♣ deep humility and great pride humility는 다음에 이어지는 humility~와 pride~ 와 동격 관계다.
♣ 미국의 상원은 the Senate, 하원은 the House of Representatives, 두 개를 합해 Congress(관사를 붙이지 않음)라고 한다. senate는 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘원로원’이란 의미이고, congress도 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘함께 모이다’란 의미였다. 의장의 호칭은 하원의 경우 Mr. Speaker, 상원의 경우 Mr. President라고 한다.
Here are centered the hopes, and aspirations, and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.
(전 인류의 희망과 염원과 신념이 여기에 결집돼 있습니다. 저는 특정 당을 대변하려고 이 자리에 선 것이 아닙니다. 당면한 문제들이 당파적 이해 수준을 넘어서는 근본적인 것이기 때문입니다. 우리의 방침이 완전한 것이 되고 우리의 미래가 보장되려면 이 문제들은 국익이라는 가장 높은 차원에서 해결돼야 합니다.)
상하 양원 합동회의 고별 연설, Old soldiers never die
해임 통보를 받고 10여 년 만에 귀국한 맥아더는 1951년 4월19일 상하 양원합동회의에서 37분간의 극적인 연설을 했다. 군인에게 주어진 전무후무한 고별 연설 기회였으며 텔레비전 시대 초기의 기념비적 일화가 됐다. 박수 때문에 28번이나 중단된 이 연설을 ‘Old Soldiers Never Die’ Speech라고 한다.
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and distinguished Members of the Congress, I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride - humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. [Applause 1]
(상원의장, 하원의장, 그리고 존경하는 의원 여러분, 저는 심히 겸허한 마음과 크나큰 자부심을 갖고 이 연단에 섰습니다. 저보다 앞서 이 자리에 섰던 우리 역사의 위대한 개척자들의 발자취를 회상하는 겸허한 마음과, 입법부 토론의 장이 이제껏 가장 순수한 형태로 인간의 자유를 대변하고 있다는 데서 오는 자부심으로 말입니다. [박수 1])
♣ deep humility and great pride humility는 다음에 이어지는 humility~와 pride~ 와 동격 관계다.
♣ 미국의 상원은 the Senate, 하원은 the House of Representatives, 두 개를 합해 Congress(관사를 붙이지 않음)라고 한다. senate는 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘원로원’이란 의미이고, congress도 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘함께 모이다’란 의미였다. 의장의 호칭은 하원의 경우 Mr. Speaker, 상원의 경우 Mr. President라고 한다.
Here are centered the hopes, and aspirations, and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.
(전 인류의 희망과 염원과 신념이 여기에 결집돼 있습니다. 저는 특정 당을 대변하려고 이 자리에 선 것이 아닙니다. 당면한 문제들이 당파적 이해 수준을 넘어서는 근본적인 것이기 때문입니다. 우리의 방침이 완전한 것이 되고 우리의 미래가 보장되려면 이 문제들은 국익이라는 가장 높은 차원에서 해결돼야 합니다.)
상하 양원 합동회의 고별 연설, Old soldiers never die
해임 통보를 받고 10여 년 만에 귀국한 맥아더는 1951년 4월19일 상하 양원합동회의에서 37분간의 극적인 연설을 했다. 군인에게 주어진 전무후무한 고별 연설 기회였으며 텔레비전 시대 초기의 기념비적 일화가 됐다. 박수 때문에 28번이나 중단된 이 연설을 ‘Old Soldiers Never Die’ Speech라고 한다.
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and distinguished Members of the Congress, I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride - humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. [Applause 1]
(상원의장, 하원의장, 그리고 존경하는 의원 여러분, 저는 심히 겸허한 마음과 크나큰 자부심을 갖고 이 연단에 섰습니다. 저보다 앞서 이 자리에 섰던 우리 역사의 위대한 개척자들의 발자취를 회상하는 겸허한 마음과, 입법부 토론의 장이 이제껏 가장 순수한 형태로 인간의 자유를 대변하고 있다는 데서 오는 자부심으로 말입니다. [박수 1])
♣ deep humility and great pride humility는 다음에 이어지는 humility~와 pride~ 와 동격 관계다.
♣ 미국의 상원은 the Senate, 하원은 the House of Representatives, 두 개를 합해 Congress(관사를 붙이지 않음)라고 한다. senate는 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘원로원’이란 의미이고, congress도 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘함께 모이다’란 의미였다. 의장의 호칭은 하원의 경우 Mr. Speaker, 상원의 경우 Mr. President라고 한다.
Here are centered the hopes, and aspirations, and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.
(전 인류의 희망과 염원과 신념이 여기에 결집돼 있습니다. 저는 특정 당을 대변하려고 이 자리에 선 것이 아닙니다. 당면한 문제들이 당파적 이해 수준을 넘어서는 근본적인 것이기 때문입니다. 우리의 방침이 완전한 것이 되고 우리의 미래가 보장되려면 이 문제들은 국익이라는 가장 높은 차원에서 해결돼야 합니다.)
Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers, as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.
(식민지화 구상을 고수하든 하지 않든 간에, 아시아는 이런 방향으로 발전하고 있으며, 멈추지 않을 것입니다. 그것은 세계 정세의 전체 중심점이 출발점으로 회귀함에 따라 세계 경제의 최전선이 바뀐 데 따른 필연적 결과입니다.)
In this situation it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny.
(이러한 상황에서 중요한 것은, 우리나라가 이러한 기본적인 상황 전개에 따라 정책방향을 결정해야 한다는 것입니다. 식민지 시대는 이미 막을 내렸고, 아시아의 여러 국민이 자신의 운명을 자유롭게 결정하는 권리를 갈망하고 있는 현실을 외면하는 방침을 추구해서는 안 됩니다.)
♣ orient 앞에 should가 생략됐기 때문에 orients가 아니다. 필요·당연 등을 나타내는 It~that 구문에서는 that절에 should를 붙인다. It is essential that he should be prepared for this(그가 이 일에 마음의 준비를 하는 것이 중요하다).
입력 2007-08-09 10:22:00
I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride ? humility in the wake of those great architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this home of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised.
Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race.
I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan considerations. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.
I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.
I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country.
The issues are global, and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector oblivious to those of another is to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other.
There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism.
If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his efforts. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You cannot appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.
Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia....
While I was not consulted prior to the President’s decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision, from a military standpoint, proved a sound one.
As I say, it proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.
This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy. Such decisions have not been forthcoming.
While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.
Apart from the military need, as I saw it, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary ?
(1) The intensification of our economic blockade against China.
(2) The imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast.
(3) Removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China’s coastal area and of Manchuria.
(4) Removal of restrictions on the forces of the republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the Chinese mainland.
For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and to bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and Allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I called for reinforcements, but was informed that reinforcements were not available.
I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese force of some six hundred thousand men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.
We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and at an approximate area where our supply-line advantages were in balance with the supply-line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized his full military potential.
I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.
Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said in effect that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting.
I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.
Indeed, on the second day of September, 1945, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows: “Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful.
“Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.” But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.
In war there is no substitute for victory.
There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace.
Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only alternative. Why, my soldiers asked of me, surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field? I could not answer.
Some may say to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China. Others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a worldwide basis.
The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy’s sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.
Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description. They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: “Don’t scuttle the Pacific.”
I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to
you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.
It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety. Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.
I am closing my fifty-two years of military service. When I joined the army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all my boyish hopes and dreams.
The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barracks ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Good-by.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and distinguished Members of the Congress, I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride - humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. [Applause 1]
(상원의장, 하원의장, 그리고 존경하는 의원 여러분, 저는 심히 겸허한 마음과 크나큰 자부심을 갖고 이 연단에 섰습니다. 저보다 앞서 이 자리에 섰던 우리 역사의 위대한 개척자들의 발자취를 회상하는 겸허한 마음과, 입법부 토론의 장이 이제껏 가장 순수한 형태로 인간의 자유를 대변하고 있다는 데서 오는 자부심으로 말입니다. [박수 1])
♣ deep humility and great pride humility는 다음에 이어지는 humility~와 pride~ 와 동격 관계다.
♣ 미국의 상원은 the Senate, 하원은 the House of Representatives, 두 개를 합해 Congress(관사를 붙이지 않음)라고 한다. senate는 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘원로원’이란 의미이고, congress도 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘함께 모이다’란 의미였다. 의장의 호칭은 하원의 경우 Mr. Speaker, 상원의 경우 Mr. President라고 한다.
Here are centered the hopes, and aspirations, and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.
(전 인류의 희망과 염원과 신념이 여기에 결집돼 있습니다. 저는 특정 당을 대변하려고 이 자리에 선 것이 아닙니다. 당면한 문제들이 당파적 이해 수준을 넘어서는 근본적인 것이기 때문입니다. 우리의 방침이 완전한 것이 되고 우리의 미래가 보장되려면 이 문제들은 국익이라는 가장 높은 차원에서 해결돼야 합니다.)
상하 양원 합동회의 고별 연설, Old soldiers never die
해임 통보를 받고 10여 년 만에 귀국한 맥아더는 1951년 4월19일 상하 양원합동회의에서 37분간의 극적인 연설을 했다. 군인에게 주어진 전무후무한 고별 연설 기회였으며 텔레비전 시대 초기의 기념비적 일화가 됐다. 박수 때문에 28번이나 중단된 이 연설을 ‘Old Soldiers Never Die’ Speech라고 한다.
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and distinguished Members of the Congress, I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride - humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. [Applause 1]
(상원의장, 하원의장, 그리고 존경하는 의원 여러분, 저는 심히 겸허한 마음과 크나큰 자부심을 갖고 이 연단에 섰습니다. 저보다 앞서 이 자리에 섰던 우리 역사의 위대한 개척자들의 발자취를 회상하는 겸허한 마음과, 입법부 토론의 장이 이제껏 가장 순수한 형태로 인간의 자유를 대변하고 있다는 데서 오는 자부심으로 말입니다. [박수 1])
♣ deep humility and great pride humility는 다음에 이어지는 humility~와 pride~ 와 동격 관계다.
♣ 미국의 상원은 the Senate, 하원은 the House of Representatives, 두 개를 합해 Congress(관사를 붙이지 않음)라고 한다. senate는 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘원로원’이란 의미이고, congress도 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘함께 모이다’란 의미였다. 의장의 호칭은 하원의 경우 Mr. Speaker, 상원의 경우 Mr. President라고 한다.
Here are centered the hopes, and aspirations, and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.
(전 인류의 희망과 염원과 신념이 여기에 결집돼 있습니다. 저는 특정 당을 대변하려고 이 자리에 선 것이 아닙니다. 당면한 문제들이 당파적 이해 수준을 넘어서는 근본적인 것이기 때문입니다. 우리의 방침이 완전한 것이 되고 우리의 미래가 보장되려면 이 문제들은 국익이라는 가장 높은 차원에서 해결돼야 합니다.)
상하 양원 합동회의 고별 연설, Old soldiers never die
해임 통보를 받고 10여 년 만에 귀국한 맥아더는 1951년 4월19일 상하 양원합동회의에서 37분간의 극적인 연설을 했다. 군인에게 주어진 전무후무한 고별 연설 기회였으며 텔레비전 시대 초기의 기념비적 일화가 됐다. 박수 때문에 28번이나 중단된 이 연설을 ‘Old Soldiers Never Die’ Speech라고 한다.
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and distinguished Members of the Congress, I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride - humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. [Applause 1]
(상원의장, 하원의장, 그리고 존경하는 의원 여러분, 저는 심히 겸허한 마음과 크나큰 자부심을 갖고 이 연단에 섰습니다. 저보다 앞서 이 자리에 섰던 우리 역사의 위대한 개척자들의 발자취를 회상하는 겸허한 마음과, 입법부 토론의 장이 이제껏 가장 순수한 형태로 인간의 자유를 대변하고 있다는 데서 오는 자부심으로 말입니다. [박수 1])
♣ deep humility and great pride humility는 다음에 이어지는 humility~와 pride~ 와 동격 관계다.
♣ 미국의 상원은 the Senate, 하원은 the House of Representatives, 두 개를 합해 Congress(관사를 붙이지 않음)라고 한다. senate는 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘원로원’이란 의미이고, congress도 라틴어에서 나온 말로 ‘함께 모이다’란 의미였다. 의장의 호칭은 하원의 경우 Mr. Speaker, 상원의 경우 Mr. President라고 한다.
Here are centered the hopes, and aspirations, and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.
(전 인류의 희망과 염원과 신념이 여기에 결집돼 있습니다. 저는 특정 당을 대변하려고 이 자리에 선 것이 아닙니다. 당면한 문제들이 당파적 이해 수준을 넘어서는 근본적인 것이기 때문입니다. 우리의 방침이 완전한 것이 되고 우리의 미래가 보장되려면 이 문제들은 국익이라는 가장 높은 차원에서 해결돼야 합니다.)
Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers, as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.
(식민지화 구상을 고수하든 하지 않든 간에, 아시아는 이런 방향으로 발전하고 있으며, 멈추지 않을 것입니다. 그것은 세계 정세의 전체 중심점이 출발점으로 회귀함에 따라 세계 경제의 최전선이 바뀐 데 따른 필연적 결과입니다.)
In this situation it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny.
(이러한 상황에서 중요한 것은, 우리나라가 이러한 기본적인 상황 전개에 따라 정책방향을 결정해야 한다는 것입니다. 식민지 시대는 이미 막을 내렸고, 아시아의 여러 국민이 자신의 운명을 자유롭게 결정하는 권리를 갈망하고 있는 현실을 외면하는 방침을 추구해서는 안 됩니다.)
♣ orient 앞에 should가 생략됐기 때문에 orients가 아니다. 필요·당연 등을 나타내는 It~that 구문에서는 that절에 should를 붙인다. It is essential that he should be prepared for this(그가 이 일에 마음의 준비를 하는 것이 중요하다).
입력 2007-08-09 10:22:00
반응형