Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice

It’s fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Matthias Dapfner Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany’s largest daily paper, against thetimid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. This is a must read by all Americans. History will certify its correctness.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axe=
l 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 U…N. 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—

Europe would say that it’s far more mature and cosmopolitan than the plebian and crass United States. I would say that it’s whistling past the graveyard. But hey, one man’s jalopy is another man’s Cadillac, right?

T.

because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

Obviously Mathias is a little nuts. Everything is not at stake. One terrorist act (9/11) sent America into total and complete chaos. The Europeans have been hit by terrorists acts for decades, and yet they seem to have kept their sanity. We are just weak.

**Obviously Mathias is a little nuts. Everything is not at stake. One terrorist act (9/11) sent America into total and complete chaos. The Europeans have been hit by terrorists acts for decades, and yet they seem to have kept their sanity. We are just weak. **

I’d say that the Europeans are just appeasers who haven’t learned a thing from the Chamberlain debacle. And how is the nation’s response to the killing of almost 3,000 people something to be equated to total and complete chaos? Let’s also keep this in mind: we’ve been hit, for sure. But “Eurabia” gets hit, collectively, far harder and with far more frequency. Now why is that, do you suppose?

It’s amazing that the whole world looks to the U.S. for leadership in just about every aspect of daily life, and then when it takes up the mantle to exercise it affirmatively, the more weak-kneed among us mewl and natter on about our response.

This is the kind of stuff that can make isolationism and a retreat back into ‘Fortress America’ seem attractive.

T.

It’s amazing that the whole world looks to the U.S. for leadership

What, are you kidding me? What part of the “whole” world are you talking about?

We believe that terrorists are lurking around every corner and are convinced they can destroy us because we just want to be taken care of and protected. Who doesn’t?

In Europe the government convinces folks they will be well cared for from cradle to grave. In the U.S. the government convinces us we will be protected and maybe even avenged … Same difference if you ask me. Neither is possible of course.

My cliche libertarian thought of the day.

**What, are you kidding me? What part of the “whole” world are you talking about? **

You can go to the farthest reaches of the deepest jungles of Africa and mention that you’re from America, and invariably, somebody will want to know what we’re doing about whatever local or national or continental problem is afflicting them. I’ve seen it in the Middle East and I’ve seen it in Africa and in the Orient. To a lesser extent, I’ve seen it in South America, and you know (we see it in the media just about every day, after all) that Europe is constantly in a flutter about what the U.S. is doing, or not doing, about monetary policy, foreign policy, tariffs…you name it.

Face it, our power and reach is so vast that it almost can’t be helped that the world looks to the only ‘policeman’ or ‘social worker’, as the case may be, to solve all of its various ailments. And I think that that helps drives much of the animus against us. After all, it’s got to be a blow to the self-esteem of whatever nation is forced to choke down its pride and accept our help, or ask us for help in solving something. Look at the glee that many nations exhibited when we got hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

T.

I don’t disagree with what you write and then you state "Look at the glee that many nations exhibited when we got hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita". and then your entire argument falls apart and then again I think you’ve missed the entire point.

Don’t know if the U.S. is such a great world social worker or policeman. If we are so effective, why isn’t the world better off? Would the world be way worse off if it weren’t for us? I don’t know. After 3 years in Mozambique (world poorest country in the 1980s, recently climbed out of the bottom 10), I learned that sure people take handouts and most people in poorer countries ***ask ***and hope but they don’t expect much. And they receive very little. The world will get by with or without us. The world is full of survivors, very tough people who will get by with or without help from the richer countries. The Tsunami victims and recent earthquake victims are pitiful, but tougher, less bitter and more resigned than U.S. victims of catastrophe, that’s for sure. They don’t ***expect ***much of anything: They are just begging for help, as anyone in that situation would.

Uh, well, I’m in England and many English are greatly disappointed in the U.S. for our involvement in Iraq. I get asked all the time why the U.S. would risk its economy and boys for Iraq. I’d say the overwhelming view here is that GW is a disaster. Even some Tories think the same.

As a bit of an aside, I’d say I’m politically middle of the road in the U.S., but over here I’m more in tune with the Tories. England is shifted very much to the left of the U.S., particularly in areas like health care, land use, and social issues. Even Tories are not slash and burn developers like our American Republicans. Many of them are pro-environment, and very well educated. Boris Johnson comes to mind.

Oh, I’ve also become a fan of “Prime Minister’s Questions” a little time for Blair et al to answer questions from the back benchers and opposition. It gets quite lively and interesting. I’m trying to imagine GW participating in any meaningful way in such an arrangement. I suspect he’d flounder…

Just one rather remote example of how the English often look to the U.S. is my tennis pro’s comment about Jamie Murray’s complaints about the LTA ruining his game at age 12. “He should have gone to Bolletieri. It’s his mother’s fault.” But, here top 12 year old boys get almost 40K Pounds Sterling a year to train and play, so how do you turn that down and go to Nick B.? Well, Andrew Murray went to Spain to train and the LTA paid one third of the cost. Unheard of here in the States…Apparently the LTA now knows one size doesn’t fit all. Too bad for Jamie because he is a huge talent languishing in the trenches. Of course, he’s just 19, but he’s lost a lot of time.

-Robert

I couldn’t follow your tennis development discussion. Are you saying the English do a great job at subsidizing it? Hard to understand. Can’t think of a top English tennis player during my adult life. When did a Brit last win Wibledom?

Tennis is not my sport, so maybe I am misinformed.

AJ: Yes, that’s pretty much the point. Tim Henman, a wonderful gentleman, almost won Wimbledon. I was watching my tennis pro give a lesson to the fellow before me and he said something to the guy about winning. And the guy said “What’s winning?” The pro said: “Oh, that’s right, we’re English. Let’s ask Robert about that.” :slight_smile: Of course, they didn’t know that my college tennis career-such as it was-was built on a fast serve and a net game. I’m not the one to ask about winning. :slight_smile: I may be the slowest triathlete in the free world as well. Although, age adjusted you may be running a close second. :slight_smile:

Anyway, Andy Murray (Scottish) is the real deal. Keep an eye out for him. He acquitted himself nicely against Federer at the Master’s ten days ago. Took a set as I recall. I can’t recall ANY prior Scottish tennis players of note. That’s like looking for Ugandan butterflyers.

-Robert

The irony is that behind the scenes the Europeans are rolling up Islamic extremists and preventing attacks. The most recent disruption was the result of the arrest of a group in Bosnia that was planning an attack on the Pope’s funeral and blow up the British Embassy in Sarajevo. The Europeans have to be vigilant. The population of Muslims in Europe is much greater than in the US, they are more pissed off, and they have ease of movement throughout Europe.

Europe is a dangerous place now. Russia is probably at greatest risk.

Everyone likes to critcize the French but their counter terrorism operation works very closely with the US.

That is correct. If you are a ‘muslim detainee’ you’ll get much better treatment in American custody than in French custody.

“The Europeans have been hit by terrorists acts for decades, and yet they seem to have kept their sanity.”

Ya know with the meat grinder Europe has been since creation I want a couple more centuries of calm before we look at it as a model of anything.

Best comment from you in a long time, Tibbs.

London has had terrorists attacks this year. Their response was not to go an invade some muslim country. In fact, they’ve had muslim extremists for years and they have never over responded. I just think the Europeans are a lot more level headed than we are.

“One terrorist act (9/11) sent America into total and complete chaos. The Europeans have been hit by terrorists acts for decades, and yet they seem to have kept their sanity. We are just weak.”

I guess if you had been around in December of 1941 you would have dismissed Pearl Harbor as just one isolated incident and claimed we were “weak” by declaring war on Japan?

Your historical ignorance is almost matched by your ignorance or dismissal of the real goals of Islamist terrorism.

First off, we have not just been attacked once. Here is a (partial) list of attacks against US interests, citizens, and territory by Islamist terrorists from 1983 to 2001 (pre-WTC II): (1) Marine barracks in Beirut, (2) Pan Am Flight 73, (3) Pan Am Flight 103, (4) Saudi National Guard Offices, Riyadh, (5) US Embassy, Nairobi, (6) US Embassy, Dar Es Salaam, (7) Khobar Towers, (8) WTC I, (9) USS Cole, (10) Somalia, and (11) Achille Lauro. It was the failure to adequately respond to all of the above by the US (including the Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton Administrations) that emboldened the Islamists to attack the WTC the second time along with the Pentagon.

Second, there is a war that has been ongoing for at least 40 - 50 years against Western/Christian and Israeli/Jewish interests by the Islamists. Denying that this war is going on is similar to the isolationist/pacifist/appeasement mentality that existed prior to WWII. The goals of the Islamists (a small percentage of the Islamic people–although many are sympathetic) are to: (1) Develop the military and political power of Islam to a position of preeminece in the world (this goal includes the retaking of all lands previously held by Islam, including a lot of Southern Europe), (2) Defeat Zionism by removing the country of Israel (and all Jews as well) from the map of the world, and (3) Eliminate the morally corrupt Western society in general and the United States specifically (the US being seen as the ultimate embodiment of Western culture).

So, we are not being “weak” as you suggest by fighting back in this war, we are being strong. The enemy only respects strength–weakness (not fighting back) is viewed as another proof of the corruptness of Western society.

You can stick your head in the sand and deny this is all happening, but you are wrong. I know this doesn’t fit in to your neat, preconceived notions about the US being wrong in everything and the source of all badness in the world, but it is true.

**London has had terrorists attacks this year. Their response was not to go an invade some muslim country. In fact, they’ve had muslim extremists for years and they have never over responded. I just think the Europeans are a lot more level headed than we are. **

Or timorous, maybe? And haven’t the Brits already invaded a Muslim country, along with their American cousins?

While I think Dubya’s “you’re for us or against us” rhetoric is a little too overly simplistic, I also think that democratic countries have to have immutable and permanent basic principles that they have to be willing to stand up and fight for.

T.

**I also think that democratic countries have to have immutable and permanent basic principles that they have to be willing to stand up and fight for. **

I think most people would agree with that but the argument is coming from those, like me, who think we are fighting the wrong people, in the wrong place, in the wrong way. I’m all for standing up and fighting but not when fighting is making things worse because we haven’t figured out who the real enemy is yet.