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.