Europe, Thy Name is Cowardice

The editorial reproduced below, entitled "Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice," was written by Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the large German publishing firm Axel Springer, and published in the German periodical Die Welt on 20 November 2004. My father recently sent it to me in a mass forward which brags that it checks out with Snopes.com. I extracted a better translation of the article and include it here. I included the article in its entirety as a courtesy. You can either read the full, unadulterated article and then refer to the article with my comments, or simply read the second article with the comments inserted. Normally, I would make my comments using footnotes to refer to certain passages. Because that is not ideal for the internet, I will make my comments using brackets like these: [ comments here ].

"A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — thy name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so painfully true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim holiday.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti- appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, and Bush — supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair — recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in history will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road.

In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily [Germany's former Federal Minister of the Interior] justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy — because everything is at stake.

Yet while America's so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive. We'd rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to "Reach out to murderers." These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice."

Now the same article with my comments:

"A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — thy name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so painfully true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. [Trying to pretend that Saddam Hussein had the ability to gain enough power to someday conquer a good portion of the world and to someday drive his tanks down the Champs Elysée is ridiculous, and I think we all know it.] Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. [This is utter bullshit. The war in Kosovo was a NATO-led conflict. Whereas it is true that the Europeans' forces were weaker and less skilled by far than the Americans and that the Europeans could not have won the conflict without the help of the Americans, it was not like the Europeans did nothing. The American troops were sent to fight under the NATO flag by their Commander-In-Chief Bill Clinton! Funny, he is not mentioned later in the article as one of the great American presidents.] Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim Holiday. [Now might be a good time to mention that the word "appeasement" has at its core the word "peace". I urge you to read the political history of this word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement] What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade [the use of this word practically negates the entire article, indicating that this person is some kind of religious zealot, more than willing to sacrifice our men an women, sure that it is the will of God that we wipe out Islam.] underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. [I am not sure that suicide bombers have such high-falutin' notions as a war against "our free, open Western societies."] This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness. [Actually the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker found that the Iraq War has not only not helped terrorism but may have made it worse. So, whom is being spurred on by what?]

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti-Appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War [Reagan was present at the collapse of the Cold War, but it was the systematic isolation of the East Bloc, and their own mismanagement that eventually forced the entire system to collapse. Reagan didn't really do anything to achieve that. If we have anyone to really thank for the end of the Cold War, it is Mikhael Gorbachev with his ideals of Perestroika and Glasnost.], and Bush — supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair — recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in History will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road. [Oh, it will, believe me, it will.]

In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society [the fact that he uses the word "liberal" must really chap the asses of those people who are heralding this article as "truth."] with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic. [Is this person actually trying to pretend that a typical European is more materialistic than an American? This is fucking laughable. Ok, to review for all of those that don't know it: no one in Europe goes without healthcare; no one in Europe lives on the streets because they are too poor for housing. Americans don't want to have these things because that would mean they would have to pay more in taxes. Put more simply, Americans are more selfish than Europeans. This means that Europeans are materialistic? No.]

For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy — because everything is at stake. [Uh, not to mention the 3,246 soldiers who have, to date, died! Let's not forget the actual lives that have been lost in this fiasco. Bush, by the way, seems to be doing this all on his own at this point. The majority of Americans believe that the war was a mistake:

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

Yes, a mistake 56%
No, not a mistake 41%
No opinion 2%
(Jul. 2006)

Source: Gallup / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,005 American adults, conducted from Jul. 21 to Jul. 23, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.]

Yet while America's so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive. [It could cost lives.] We'd rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to "Reach out to murderers." [I have been in Germany since 2003 and, to date, have never seen a televangelist on TV. I have no idea what this guy is talking about.] These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice." [This article should be renamed "Europe, thy name is Pragmatism". In my opinion, Europe has done the right thing. Saddam should have been contained and forgotten about. But, now countless numbers have died and will continue to die because, according to this author, Bush had the moral gumption to do what was right. Hmmm. Do I need to remind everyone that the war began because Bush lied, trying to tell America and the world that Iraq was a threat because of its weapons of mass destruction? Now, conservatives are doing what they hate most, writing history from a revisionist slant, as they try to convince us that the Iraq War is morally right because we needed to free those Iraqis from their murderous suppressor. Do you have any idea how many murderous suppressors there are in this world? We cannot go after them all. The US has long criticized Europe's philosophical view that nations such as Iraq have the responsibility of freeing themselves from within, much in the same manner that America did in the 18th century. I used to disagree with this notion, believing that it would be better to give everyone freedom as quickly as possible. But, isn't it obvious by now that the Iraqis are simply not ready for it. Their whole society has not the developed infrastructures and way of thinking that would even allow it. That is yet another factor which makes the "Iraq situation" an impossible one.

America and Americans can try to sit on the high ground of moral superiority as long as they like. The facts remain so, at least at the present, that I am less in danger of a terrorist attack sitting here in Germany than I would be if I were sitting somewhere in the US. To assume that American security is not in any way the fault of bad US foreign diplomacy is a kind of denial that is bound to bring about even more problems in the future. Why can't people, even conservatives, just admit that Iraq was a huge mistake? Let's learn from that mistake for a better future.]