Posted on 01/07/2005 1:35:12 AM PST by kattracks
A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe -- your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.
Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary-we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy-because everything is at stake.
While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We'd rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor's house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.
"All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.
"A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany."
The money line!
Sums up Euro's attitude nicely.
And this one is really hilarious:charismatic self-confidence
"charismatic self-confidence"
LOL, yes, that could mean something meaningful, but I'm afraid in Europe's case it just means they are beguiled by their own image.
But its a good start. Hope it will do some good.
Once again, great post kattracks!
This editorial should be reprinted in every European and Canadian news paper once a week. Finally someone see the big picture.
Yeah, that's right. There was 'peace in our time'. And when the real war started in May of 1940 how long did it take Hitler to take France? About 15 minutes wasn't it? Did you ever hear the phrase 'Sitzkrieg'? The only victory that the Brits had prior to that was when the Captain of the Graf Spee scuttled the ship, and killed himself. I appreciate what the Brits did in WWII and what they're doing now in Iraq, but to suggest that Chamberlain did not appease Hitler is ridiculous.
So when Europeans start killing each other we should jump in and die for one side or the other immediately?
And the reason is?
Hitler was not our problem in the 1930's. He became our problem only after other European nations tried to appease him to the point of no return.
We fight when our own self interests are at stake.
"All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.
The Spanish have pulled out of Iraq thanks to their new, appeasing leader.
Thankfully, a European says what needs to be said. That comparison of the elderly woman watching the house next door being broken into while she hides her jewelry with shaking hands...is right on target. But when will Europe wake up? Germany's white flag -- a Muslim holiday? Are they completely nuts?
I don't know what you've been drinking, but it sounds as if coffee is in order.
No one is suggesting any of the things you point out. We are saying that nations should stand up and fight for their survival, and so far it looks as if Europe is going down that same old primrose path of sacrificing the guy next door because you hope and pray the tiger will be satisfied with him. But unhappily, this tiger wants more than a noontime snack, and Europe as a whole is mighty tempting. He ate Spain last year.
I've heard more than one democrat on TV insist we were wrong to kick out Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq because he wasn't any worse than fifty other tyrants scattered worldwide, and besides, what right do we have to save Iraqis from shredders, etc.? So, okay. Where is that moral line in the sand? Following that cockamamie reasoning, we'd have to question helping tsunami victims/countries.
I'm thinking of France's shabby history during WWII, most of which is not brought up in polite company.
As John Kerry has said of other things, 'it's complicated.' Europe is supposed to have one foreign policy, isn't it? Or aren't they at that point yet? The only thing they seem to agree upon is anti-Americanism and what looks like appeasement of Islamofascism. When France, as has been reported for more than a year, puts up with roving Muslim youth gangs raping Gentile/infidel girls, when the town of Malmo, Sweden, is taken over by Muslims and the police are fearful of entering the town, something is very wrong. Americans have plenty to worry about on our own turf, no argument there. But we are discussing worldwide terrorism...Jihad. It's the elephant in the living room,a nd sooner or later, we all have to deal with it.
Europe is dead.
<< This article is extremely lazy in it's [SIC] analysis.
Firstly to suggest "England" fought Hitler shows a lack of historical knowledge.
England has not existed as a nation-state since 1707, and it is an insult to the rest of the men of the UK who fought and died fighting in WW2. >>
I agree, England is an insult to those men -- particularly to the Celts.
And to the Irish and to the Commonwealth and Empire armed forces upon whom it so often depended and to whom it so often proved so abjectly undependable.
<< Also to suggest that Europe appeased Hitler is strange considering that France and the UK started the fight in 1939. What does that say of the US who took two more years to fight Hitler? >>
To suggest that cravenly cowardly, appeasing [Vichy] France fought anyone anywhere is to demonstrate revisionary delusional fantasy -- and without the very very considerable American blood and treasure and Lend-Lease contribution otherwise virtually unarmed once great britain, with its arse in any case kicked the Hell off the continent at Dunkirk, would have been the toast it in any case very nearly was.
<< I also think more respect should be shown to "Europe" considering European soldiers "are fighting" and "being killed" alongside American troops. >>
Where? In your dreams?
Blessings -- Brian
Brian, seriously dude, calm down. I know you've got a massive problem with the English because we've met before, but to suggest that our troops are only dying in our dreams is a little harsh.
Though there are many of us at this website who have differing views on the war in Iraq, we're all united by our respect and love for those serving in horrific conditions out there.
Arguing over the 'immediacy' of Saddam's threat is pointless since it's beating a dead horse. He'd already used WMD's against his own people and the Kurds, he was developing nukes, etc.. We feared and still do, Islamofascists getting hold of WMD's and using them against us. Obviously, one has to have a strategy, an overall plan on how to deal with danger and forestall the worst. The idea was to wage this war where terrorists lived and trained...Afghanistan. Much wiser than sitting on our hands waiting for Cleveland or Boston to go boom. And while we were eradicating murderous enemies in their lair, we'd show everyone there's another way to live and govern themselves...freedom and democracy. Iraq and Afghanistan democracies are Islamofascim's worst nightmare.
If I were German or French or Spanish or Russian or anything else, I'd take more a second look at why America went into Iraq. And sure, I'd question America's wisdom, motives, etc.. Self interest dictates this. You'd be crazy otherwise, but at some point, we have to decide whether western civilization and individual freedom are worth a candle. America has made her choice.
Just rereading your interesting replies. As an aside, are you in favor of Britain joining Europe? You speak of Europe as a continent, not a country, but I thought that's what the game was over there. Common currency, etc., common foreign policy, ala the United States, and with the ultimate goal of competing economically, etc.. Nothing wrong with that, and considering Europe's long and quarrelsome history, welcome indeed.
Your take on history seems to be rather skewed.
Which bit is skewed? That we declared war on Germany in 1939? That France declared war on Germany in 1939?
Just because we took a pasting in '39, doesn't mean we weren't there. And just because we were there for the first two years, doesn't mean that we don't appreciate the sacrifice made by the US in the last four years.
Hits the nail right square on the head.
Our mainstream press is virulently anti-Bush/and on most days, anti-American, and from all accounts, the European press runs along those lines. Certainly the world's superpower is disliked by some, and rightfully so. (Why do you think most of the US despises the New York Yankees aqnd took such delight in the Red Sox winning the recent World Series!)Some of us here are closet isolationists, dragged kicking and screaming into this brave new world of globalisation. We want to be left alone, to live our lives, raise our kids, play with our dogs, etc.. We don't sit around nights wondering how to rule the world, or even to remake it in our image...well, perhaps the Council on Foreign Relations does, but not the average man in the street.
Sadly, though, the Middle East and certain murderous crackpots therein forced us to take preemptive action. Whether first in Iraq or Syria after Afghanistan, it hardly matters. That famous quote of rousing the sleeping tiger with the attack on Pearl Harbor is still apt.
As for individual Europeans being friendly toward Americans, I'm sure you're right, but Europeans get a daily diet of how dreadful we are from your main stream press. We're no worse nor no better than anyone else, but we have spent a good part of our GNP on national defense and technilogical military wizardry, a deliberate choice that saved Europe from most of that expense and allowed her to spend her money on other things. I read an interesting article maybe a month or so ago, by a Frenchman. Perhaps it was an editorial...lamenting the changes he saw in France, and what he saw coming because of a growing Muslim population (allowed in as guest workers and paid low wages, descriminated on, etc.), and the low birthrate for the native French. Christianity, he felt, was moribund, and since nature abhores a vacuum, Muslims and Islam were poised to take over. They'd use violence, the vote, whatever it takes to assert their theocracy upon the host country. It's going on under your own nose...much as Mexicans and anyone else who cares to migrates northward across our southern border. (And yes, we have a big problem with George Bush about this particular issue.) You/we have to decide if your/our ethnic, cultural values are worth saving. Something tips the balance, I don't know what event it will be. The Netherlands had a wake up call with Theo's grisly murder, well, two, counting that earlier killing of that minister? They're rethinking a great many things, including the fact that many Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate.
That Frenchman I mentioned asked what it would take before France woke up. What would they do when Muslims desecrated the treasures of the Louvre because they believed them obscene? He felt that those with means would flee to Australia, New Zealand, and yes, even to the US.
I'm just one small voice here, and sadly inarticulate about things I hold dear. If you have time and the inclination, I would suggest seeking out the essays of Victor Davis Hanson, for one, an American historian -- Californian -- and grower of grapes. He says so much that makes sense, and is, of all things, a democrat.
I am also not much of a typist, sorry.
The Brits much preferred living on their knees, the Frogs would become whores for the Germans. Churchill called it right long before the Brits had the gall to admit it and plead with him to save them. Shameful lot. Course that was expected of the the cowardly frogs.
We need to put this in it's proper perspective.
Do we compare percentages of GDI or only the proper percentages?
Remember 67.8% of Norways GDI is controlled by Government. vs 17.6% in the US.
What percentages should we use, which is proper. If we use all of GDI as a measuring point, correct, it is smaller, if we use the percentages Government controls, it is higher.
The US always gives more than all of the other countries combined. Granted, most of it comes from private and corporate donations. But that's what we are, a free marketplace that believes in helping people. Not just that evil corporate entity.
You seem upset.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.