A german's point of view...

[ogpro]

[SIZE=2] Subject: A German Newspaper Says It All


EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry 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 toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany , then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do 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 nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany ?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain 's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time."

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, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And, Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War 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 those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "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, so devoid of a moral compass.

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 unlike almost all of Europe , Bush realizes what is at stake -- literally everything. While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we
timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation ... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive."

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe , Thy name is Cowardice. God Bless America[/SIZE]

[CVT]

Di ba nga't kaya nakapag-ambisyon ang Germany na maging superpower just before the second World War ay dahil sa "Appeasement Policy" ng mga Allies?

IMO, mukha ngang ganyan ang 'kultura' sa Europe.....

:starwars:

[GasJunkie]

right wing politics makes me want to fap. :drool:

[oliver1013]

Dun sa example niya about appeasement of Hitler before WW2, well alam natin kung ano nga ngyari. But on the contrary what if instead of appeasement the allies(France and Britain) attacked Germany before she has fully rearmed? Most likely the US and most allied civilians would not support their cause kasi sila ang perceived aggressors. And most likely will give Hitler the alibi to really attack(which he really did)pero justified na, siya ngayon ang lalabas na good boy.

How bout the situation today against the Muslims? Ano ngayon ang gusto niya mangyari? all out sa mga muslims? Dapat siguro may mabigat na reason para sa mabigat na action..

[niky]

Of particular note:

Reagan didn't end the cold war. Gorbachev did. The USSR collapsed mostly from internal economic and social pressure from decades of Cold-war militarization and posturing against the Europeans and Americans. Even the CIA, which was dedicated to bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union, admitted surprise that the Soviets disbanded and democratized all by themselves.

An ultra-rightist here, with too much time on his hands? Perhaps. He has some good points, but some mis-informed ones, too. Bush's push in Afghanistan severely weakened the power-base of Al-Quaeda, yes, but the invasion of Iraq just gave them a new place to set up shop, and a new breeding ground for future terrorists.

[oldblue]

i dont think it's "appeasement" per se. Europeans treasure their treasures so much kaya ayaw nila ng gulo. same behaviour can be seen to aristocrats, royalties and rich people, they turn a blind eye on what's happening to the surroundings as long as they can continue to enjoy their wealth.

the question is how long can they ignore the new world order? Asia is becoming more and more self-sufficient na. gone are the days that we glorify anything European like those European furnitures, fixtures, clothes etc. etc..

kapag nakaramdam na ng hirap mga yan, makiki-involve ulit yan sa world affairs.

[Jun aka Pekto]

Dun sa example niya about appeasement of Hitler before WW2, well alam natin kung ano nga ngyari. But on the contrary what if instead of appeasement the allies(France and Britain) attacked Germany before she has fully rearmed? Most likely the US and most allied civilians would not support their cause kasi sila ang perceived aggressors. And most likely will give Hitler the alibi to really attack(which he really did)pero justified na, siya ngayon ang lalabas na good boy.

How bout the situation today against the Muslims? Ano ngayon ang gusto niya mangyari? all out sa mga muslims? Dapat siguro may mabigat na reason para sa mabigat na action..

Great Britain wouldn't have been in a position to attack because it too was in the process of rearming and modernizing its armed forces (especially the RAF). The Royal Navy was huge. But, all it could muster was a blockade of German ports which probably wouldn't have done any good.

France was all about defense which is why it built the Maginot Line in the hope that it'll stop a German attack. It's air force was also pretty antiquated. It had a large and decently-equipped army. But, it was poorly led as later events showed.

The German Army wasn't that big at all. But, it was thoroughly modern, well-trained, and led by brilliant leaders who used new tactics in overpowering Europe.

The US would've stayed out of active fighting for a much longer time if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. The US was the last of the Allies to rearm and modernize which didn't really get going until early 1943. That's why it took a lot of a beating during much of 1942.

Add. The combat forces of the German Army was thoroughly modern. Strange enough, it's primary resupply means on the ground was still a horse and carriage.

[ogpro]

Dun sa example niya about appeasement of Hitler before WW2, well alam natin kung ano nga ngyari. But on the contrary what if instead of appeasement the allies(France and Britain) attacked Germany before she has fully rearmed? Most likely the US and most allied civilians would not support their cause kasi sila ang perceived aggressors. And most likely will give Hitler the alibi to really attack(which he really did)pero justified na, siya ngayon ang lalabas na good boy.

How bout the situation today against the Muslims? Ano ngayon ang gusto niya mangyari? all out sa mga muslims? Dapat siguro may mabigat na reason para sa mabigat na action..

I think the U.S. would have supported the Allies no matter what. Hitler's plans were incredibly despicable, it would have been one of those things where you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The problem is they didn't, and that caused the massacre of millions, YEAP MILLIONS, of jews in europe. What would you have done?

I believe, without trying to offend any of the muslims in this forum, that there does seem to be a pervading war-like attitude and irrationality among hard line muslim countries. Sadly, the religion itself promotes it, or rather, allows a select few to dictate what to THINK to the masses.

[StraightSix]

Diplomacy or war ... it has always been, and always will be a tricky choice. For a continent ravaged by two world wars and for almost 50 years in fear of a much more catastrophic third, we should at least try to understand why Europeans try "appeasement" first.

As the Kosovar saying goes, "You know the real meaning of peace only if you have been through the war."

---

OT: During WWII, America gave much needed help to Britain. Dec. 31, 2006 marks the date when Britain made the final payment to the US. Not to imply that the US is a greedy lender (as the rate was very low) but rather, as an ally, Britain honored its commitment even if it takes 60 years.

Unfortunately, it still hasn't paid America its WWI debts

[ogpro]

Of particular note:

Reagan didn't end the cold war. Gorbachev did. The USSR collapsed mostly from internal economic and social pressure from decades of Cold-war militarization and posturing against the Europeans and Americans. Even the CIA, which was dedicated to bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union, admitted surprise that the Soviets disbanded and democratized all by themselves.

An ultra-rightist here, with too much time on his hands? Perhaps. He has some good points, but some mis-informed ones, too. Bush's push in Afghanistan severely weakened the power-base of Al-Quaeda, yes, but the invasion of Iraq just gave them a new place to set up shop, and a new breeding ground for future terrorists.

I think you may have put it a bit too black and white. When you give Gorbachev full credit for ending the cold war, you fail to give credit to the efforts of the US in pressuring him to do so. You said it yourself when you stated it was partly due to "posturing against the Europeans and Americans." Reagan was the first american president since Kennedy to toe the line against communism, and didn't give up an inch when pushed. I'm also going to have to disagree that the CIA's main goal was bringing about the downfall of the USSR (http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/ciahist.htm).

The fall of the USSR was brought upon by several key factors, and one very important fact that you fail to bring up was that it was set in motion after Reagan made his impassioned speech on the Berlin wall. That wall eventually went down, along with the rest of communist Europe. You fail to note that a huge part of of the destabilization of communism had to do with connecting with the people of that country, and showing them that there is hope beyond what their govt can do for them. Why do you think the Marcoses were so afraid of Ninoy? What do you think fueled the Edsa Revolution?

The USSR's collapse showed the innefectiveness of a communist regime and the corruption that it fosters.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, sadly only time will tell whether Bush will go down in History books in infamy or as an honored statesman. There is no doubt that Saddam's open aggression towards his neighbors and refusal to abide by U.N. sanctions and rules constituted some grounds for harsher action, but whether a full invasion was called for remains a question I can't answer. I do believe that when left unchecked, that whole area was going to be a hell hole at some point. The only countries that are stable are U.S. backed (somewhat), and that must get on the nerves of the other theocratic governments who languish in the 3rd world. Invading Iraq might be the first push in the introduction of democracy to the middle east.

[GasJunkie]

No wonder our country's going the cr*pper, we need american intervention.




:fly:

[ogpro]

No wonder our country's going the cr*pper, we need american intervention.
:fly:

LOL...we need american intervention like we need another actor as president....


ooooooooh....hehe...yeah I said it.

You want to know what this country needs? It might hurt to hear....hehehe

[GasJunkie]

more of me.....:rofl01:

[empy]

Dun sa example niya about appeasement of Hitler before WW2, well alam natin kung ano nga ngyari. But on the contrary what if instead of appeasement the allies(France and Britain) attacked Germany before she has fully rearmed? Most likely the US and most allied civilians would not support their cause kasi sila ang perceived aggressors. And most likely will give Hitler the alibi to really attack(which he really did)pero justified na, siya ngayon ang lalabas na good boy.

this point is spot on. case in point - Iraq. if Saddam was behind the WTC attacks, or he did some other attack on the US or an ally, the whole US and much of the world would support this war. but Saddam was, at least for the moment, minding his own business (well, sort of) at the time. so now the US is the bad guy.

preemptive strikes make a lot of sense strategically, but not politically.

i don't think appeasement is a distinctly european issue either. plenty of asian and factions within the US government are very much guilty of this behavior.

No wonder our country's going the cr*pper, we need american intervention.

wait, isn't Canada already a state of the US?

[empy]

i dont think it's "appeasement" per se. Europeans treasure their treasures so much kaya ayaw nila ng gulo. same behaviour can be seen to aristocrats, royalties and rich people, they turn a blind eye on what's happening to the surroundings as long as they can continue to enjoy their wealth.

baliktad yata dude. look at world history and see what percentage of wars (particularly in europe) are started by the ruling class (whether it be a monarchy, oligarchy or plutocracy).

[GasJunkie]

wait, isn't Canada already a state of the US?

*hmmpppphhhh*







but


*secretly blushes*



:bleh:

[Jun aka Pekto]

this point is spot on. case in point - Iraq. if Saddam was behind the WTC attacks, or he did some other attack on the US or an ally, the whole US and much of the world would support this war. but Saddam was, at least for the moment, minding his own business (well, sort of) at the time. so now the US is the bad guy.

Many people regard the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a continuation of Desert Storm. Many people thought leaving Saddam in power was a huge mistake and was a factor in Bush Sr not being re-elected. Well, that and his "Read My lips. No new taxes" remark.

It was sickening when US forces had to watch helplessly while Saddam's military turned on its own citizens. Army and AF units had the Iraqi military on their gunsights. But, they were under strict orders from the man on top not to open fire. Bush Sr had given in to appeasement of the Arab contingent in the Coalition. The Arabs didn't want to take down Saddam and Bush Sr obliged them. There certainly was resentment among the troops and back home at "not finishing the job" in 1991.

Now, Bush Jr comes along and finds excuses to invade Iraq. I find that more than coincidence. I think he wanted to rectify the goat that's been riding the Bush clan's coattails for the past 12 years. Using 9-11 as an excuse didn't hold any water. I didn't believe it for one moment. WMD was a good excuse. And for those not keeping score, consider that Saddam had been playing cat and mouse with the UN for 12 years. 12 years is plenty of time to hide (or hopefully destroyed) any traces of WMD's. The oil for food program wasn't working either. Most of the money made seemed to have gone to Saddam's pockets rather than the population. Details of that is still coming to light.

I tend to agree that it's too early to tell if Bush Jr's policies were the right one. We'll find out in the coming years.

Add: If the Shiites had any grudges against the US, the failure of the US to come to their aid while they were being massacred in 1991 is likely one of them.

[niky]

RE: Ronnie Reagan: granted, you have to give him props for standing up to the reds... but that's really all he had to do, as every president before him.

The collapse of an empire may seem to happen overnight, but it doesn't. It's accumulated decades worth of social, cultural and economic stagnation that brought the Russians to that point. Decades of "Radio America" and bootlegged blue jeans, and visits by foreign artists which showed the Russians a different way of life. In the meantime, the inefficient communist regime was wasting tons of resources through inefficiency and an overly heavy beaurecracy. I can't remember where I saw it, but it was estimated a huge percentage of crops were damaged, malverted or spoiled even before they reached Moscow stores... helping to further aggravate the abject poverty most Russian citizens found themselves in.

Communism's downfall isn't really just corruption, it's the inability of the Russian communist system to regulate itself. Corruption is rampant everywhere, from the darkest corner of the Philippines up to the back hallways of the White House... it's just that a democracy often has better controls and built-in guards against autocracy and corruption. No matter how much politicians may try to subvert those controls, they're still there... except of course when someone is smart enough to subvert the system to his own uses (Marcos)... a feat that every second president after him has tried to do, unsuccessfully (Ramos, GMA).

EDSA Revolution? You mean the US had something to do with that besides withdrawing support from Marcos and granting him asylum till the day he died? Please, do tell... ...as I recall, the US didn't mind him turning himself into a semi-leader-for-life, simply because he was such a good weapon against the reds.

The USSR just spent too much of its money and resources trying to match the West nuke for nuke, tank for tank, plane for plane and ship for ship. They'd have loved to take over the world if they weren't afraid of US, French and British nukes (oh... maybe the French nukes wouldn't have hurt that much... ), but they were satisified with subverting governments to their cause in South America and the Middle East.

The real rot had started to creep in during the 60's and 70's, when massive militarization and industrialization left Soviet agriculture languishing, and took up an inordinate amount of the union's budget. Things were steamrolling downhill by the late 70's, and in the 80's, as a measure of reform, Gorbachev initiated his famous "perestroika" and "glasnost"

Perestroika opened up the economy for local industry, and actually permitted private ownership. Glasnost opened up the government to public scrutiny, and relaxed control over the media. This was done initially to permit transparency in government, as a means to make it more efficient and help curb corruption, but it put all of the Communists' dirty laundry in the light.

This fact, more than anything, brought about the downfall of Communism. The reforms would have helped the Soviet Empire become stronger, but it was too much, too soon. Ethnic tensions long buried came to the surface, nationalism amongst satellite states started to take root. The US was starting to have too much access and influence inside the Union, too. Finally, the old hardliners rebelled, trying to take back what the party had lost... and when their rebellion failed, that was the end of the glorious Soviet Empire.

-----

The CIA's main activities during the cold war were to ensure national security through intelligence gathering, but they also took a very active role in thwarting the USSR's expansion into sensitive areas. They took direct hand in training revolutionaries and guerillas in various hot spots, and regime-change was part-and-parcel of their work. Some of it didn't come out so well... they never managed to kill Castro, despite numerous attempts... their support for the Contras blew up in their faces when it was exposed to the public... and they failed, horribly, to protect the Shah of Iran from a formenting revolution (another SOB that the US supported despite a dubious human rights record, simply because he was their ally... any wonder why Iran hates the US?)

But they did well in hounding and harrassing the USSR and its allies. One of its biggest victories was Afghanistan, when by utilizing small guerilla forces, they were able to hit the Russian army so badly that they finally pulled out. It's sad that the Taliban and Osama subverted these trained guerillas to their own goals, but sh*t happens.

One former CIA director admitted that disbanding the Soviet Union was their dream, and they were actually surprised, somewhat, when it finally did.

-----

The author of the original article, putting Ronald Reagan's hawkishness as the primary and over-riding motivator for the fall of the Wall, and by conjecture, the Soviet empire itself is incredibly simple-minded and short-sighted. And besides... Ronnie didn't even fire a single shot. Oh, yes, his strength in standing against the faltering Soviet emprie did help speed the process along, but he wasn't the cowboy with guns blazing that the author sees him as... he was acting as a smart statesman pressing on with all the political weapons in his arsenal... not in a hail of bullets.

-----

RE: Appeasement: It's always easy to say that action is the last recourse. Easy to criticize while one government stands by and does nothing while someone else goes in hog-wild and tries to bat at the problem with a really big stick... but:

1. What would it hurt to have a Muslim holiday (which seems to be what the piece is ranting about... weirdly) ?

By celebrating, what, Ramadan? Are they rolling over and exposing their soft underbellies to the greedy knives of the Muslims?

I'd rather celebrate both Christmas and Ramadan than do the disgustingly idiotic Christmas-Hannukah-Kwanzaa-Solstice thing that the US seems fond of nowadays. Instead of celebrating their culture, they try to erase all traces of it in the name of political correctness, instead of embracing it, and other people's culture (weirdly, Muslims say they have no problem with celebrating Christmas).

2. What does the author want?

Bush's military actions and their results were mixed. As I've said, Afghanistan struck at the heart of the enemy, but the Iraqi invasion simply gave it another place to fester, as well as fostering anti-Western sentiment around the world. Yes, Saddam was a horribly bad man, who may have done horribly bad things, but so is Kim Jong-Il. And what about China? Tianamen Square? What about the genocides in Africa, that went for so long before anyone actually took notice? The Iraqi invasion used reasons as a matter of convenience that didn't hold true.

Yes, it's good that Saddam is out of power, but the manner of its happening has led to complications beyond that, that have made Iraq even more dangerous than it was.

There are other ways of destroying an enemy country. Economically (Soviet Union) or culturally (China)... By allowing China to absorb western ideals and making them adapt to Western commerce and industry, we're destroying the communist regime there, bit by bit... eroding their power.

What does the author want Europe to do? Invade Syria? Lebanon? What does he think an invasion of land will do against an enemy whose resources aren't in a stable economy, held land or political area, but in radicalist ideals, chaos, anger, poverty and exposure? (anger, poverty and media exposure guaranteed by war and fighting)

You don't destroy these people with tanks and bombs. You've got to go in there and pick them out, one at a time... try not to step on any toes, as every innocent you accidentally kill creates a dozen more angry recruits for Al Quaeda. It's not easy. This is a war that requires more brains than brawn.

3. Who are we fighting?

Islamic radicalism isn't Islam itself. There is a silent majority of Muslims out there who are aghast at the pictures on TV of protesters burning pictures of political figures and rioting over Danish cartoons. Strangely, some of those protests are just a few dozen or few hundred people... small groups led by radicalists. Of course, all you see is the shouting on TV, but you don't see how big they really are. A few thousand Muslims in the streets =/= a million Muslims at home.

But of course, the media is all over it. And as they cover it, they inspire other downtrodden, economically disadvantaged and poorly educated youth, angry at the world, and, coincidentally, Muslim, to act out, or join the radicals. They recruit people over the Internet, through TV and radio propaganda... and every riot, demonstration, missile attack, invasion, bombing, assassination... whether done by radicalists or by the West, inspires more of them to rebel and take up arms.

So... the answer then... is to kill them all?

As long as you have poverty, strife, a lack of education, and these fiery speeches of hate from both sides saturating the airwaves, this problem is never going to stop.

We've seen it in France. We've seen it in LA, too... the festering hate and angry frustration of the underclass with the "establishment", that resulted in the LA riots (and hey, they were blacks, not Muslims...).

It's a rot in Western society that'll be hard to fix (hey, no system is perfect...), but as long as someone is trying to bridge the gap between regular Muslims and regular Christians, there's hope that the number of "radical" Muslims will go down.

It's not a sure thing, but it's all we've got.

[empy]

cliffs notes?

[niky]

cliffs notes?

Sorry... I can't even remember all of it myself. :hysterical: At least I didn't hit the character limit like in the religion thread...