This Came From an Editorial in a German Publication????

This is a bit of a shock; I know nothing of this person's politics or the slant (if any) of the media in which this appeared....I imagine it raised a few hackles, in any case.

Origins: The editorial reproduced below, entitled "Europe, Thy Name Is
Cowardice," was written by Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the large German
publishing firm Axel Springer --
<http://www.axelspringer.de/englisch/home-e.htm> , and published
<http://www.welt.de/data/2004/11/20/363020.html> in the German periodical
Die Welt on 20 November 2004.

------------------------------
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 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.

I came across this article a couple of days ago, J2, and was also surprised. I tried to track down more of his writings, but ended up losing the link.

Thanks for posting this.....I will try again.

I wish the subject of the article was in the thread title.

It may as well had said...

"German Publication: Read this"

I check out later. :dry:

remind me again how long it took to convince america to join the second world war?

I thought the title was pretty good, Busyman. I asked myself the same question after reading the article originally. :D

To me it was unusual for an opinion such as this to come out of Germany.

Would this man be considered a 'conservative' in Europe?

Have we ever had any conservative Europeans on this board? Serious question, respectfully asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

[I][COLOR=Blue]


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.

---

Bush ran in 2000 on the platform of stopping nation building and US involvement in other countries. September 11th happened. September 11th was a culmination of Al Quada planning that had been going on for years. Yes, the methods of attack have changed, but the fundamental issues at stake - anti-american sentiment in the world and the reasons for it, have not. The event that really changed the world was the US invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is infitely worse than the fiasco in Vietnam. It is guaranteed the neo-cons what they need to stay in power: Terrorism. Before September 11th, Bush was on track to be one of the worst presidents in recent history. Afterwards, his approval ratings shot up, then slowly went down. Invasion of Iraq, they went up, now they are falling. In many ways this is reminiscent of Oceania in "1984" - in order to stay in power, the Party has to maintain a never ending state of war to keep the masses behind their party.

The author claims that "literally everything" is at stake - Was this not true during WWII? Yet the US came out of it with the strongest economy in the World. The dollar didn't fall, there were no huge amounts of additional national debt, and the only burden for the American economy was how to spend all our new money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

To me it was unusual for an opinion such as this to come out of Germany.

Would this man be considered a 'conservative' in Europe?

Have we ever had any conservative Europeans on this board? Serious question, respectfully asked.

---

Why is it unusual ? Do you have experience of "German thinking"?

As to the "conservative" question, it is hard to compare using Europe as a whole. Europe is not a single political or cultural mass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Why is it unusual ? Do you have experience of "German thinking"?

It was a unusual opinion for me to see stated, Vidcc. The European papers I read don't usually have this type of opinion in them, and I have read German opinions in them many times. So it was unusual for me. Simple as that. ;)

As to the "conservative" question, it is hard to compare using Europe as a whole. Europe is not a single political or cultural mass

---

I am aware Europe is not a single political or cultural mass, Vidcc. :D I guess you could say that is why I asked the question I asked. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogadishu

Bush ran in 2000 on the platform of stopping nation building and US involvement in other countries. September 11th happened. September 11th was a culmination of Al Quada planning that had been going on for years. Yes, the methods of attack have changed, but the fundamental issues at stake - anti-american sentiment in the world and the reasons for it, have not. The event that really changed the world was the US invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is infitely worse than the fiasco in Vietnam. It is guaranteed the neo-cons what they need to stay in power: Terrorism. Before September 11th, Bush was on track to be one of the worst presidents in recent history. Afterwards, his approval ratings shot up, then slowly went down. Invasion of Iraq, they went up, now they are falling. In many ways this is reminiscent of Oceania in "1984" - in order to stay in power, the Party has to maintain a never ending state of war to keep the masses behind their party.

The author claims that "literally everything" is at stake - Was this not true during WWII? Yet the US came out of it with the strongest economy in the World. The dollar didn't fall, there were no huge amounts of additional national debt, and the only burden for the American economy was how to spend all our new money.

---

"Never-ending state of war"?

Where do you come up with that?

As to your last, should we have contrived to lose WWII and weaken our economy thereby out of some misbegotten sense of guilt you haven't the decency to justify?

Honest to God (that is, if you don't mind), Mogadishu-I am absolutely baffled trying to devine precisely-or even imprecisely-where, what, and how one must ponder in order to arrive at a post such as yours.

The process you employ to derive such nonsense is beyond your ability to explain, so I will resist the urge to ask that you do so.

I am thoroughly acquainted with your urge to regularly dissent with my opinion (or any I present), but I am afraid you have stubbed all ten of your toes at once, this time.

Try a sitz bath; it may relieve the inflammation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

"Never-ending state of war"?

Where do you come up with that?

As to your last, should we have contrived to lose WWII and weaken our economy thereby out of some misbegotten sense of guilt you haven't the decency to justify?

Honest to God (that is, if you don't mind), Mogadishu-I am absolutely baffled trying to devine precisely-or even imprecisely-where, what, and how one must ponder in order to arrive at a post such as yours.

The process you employ to derive such nonsense is beyond your ability to explain, so I will resist the urge to ask that you do so.

I am thoroughly acquainted with your urge to regularly dissent with my opinion (or any I present), but I am afraid you have stubbed all ten of your toes at once, this time.

Try a sitz bath; it may relieve the inflammation.

---

Look, I really don't care what you think. If you could stop being condescending for a split second maybe you'd understand what I'm saying. As for your charge that I automatically dissent with you - all i am doing is pointing out flaws in the guys editorial. Furthemore, just because you are the thread starter doesnt give you some magical place as the person who is being attacked. I disagree with you, just like you disagree with me. Seriously, read what you just wrote.. you are being incredible condescending and basically a smart ass. I didnt once attack you in my response yet you somehow find it necessary to basically call me a dumbass. I may be younger than you, but your intentions are far more immature. You want to bait me into being a liberal crazy... im not going to that. so go ahead and pick at tiny parts of my arguement then make smart ass remarks about them.. edit my arguement so i seem like a wacko, i dont care - I am above your tactics.