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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

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

---

There may as well been a link to the article. I could barely find an opinion in there, somewhere, in there, somewhe....

Maybe I'll pop the article up on my laptop and bring it in the shitter with my newspaper.

In the shitter there's nothing left to do doo but read. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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

---

right. it's easy to take contemporary american delineations for granted. the writer is making an argument for interventionism, and interventionism & isolationism don't necessarily equate to conservative or liberal. you could easily find a right-winger who disagrees with interventionism, a left-winger who agrees with it, and vice versa.

the author's praise of reagan and the bushes' courage, as well as his comments on hitler, seem to place him as sort of a moderate right-winger? but who knows. he might be an extreme right-winger who just disagrees with genocidal racism. really can't speculate further without reading more about the guy.

Everose -

Europe is full of conservatives and it's much worse than it is here. I take it they're just too xenophobic to venture on a multicultural board :lol:

Thanks for your answer, Skweeky. I realized later the term 'conservative' I used didn't quite fit, and appreciate your understanding and answer regardless of my fumbling. :)

I would speculate that the author would be from the south of Germany which is the economic centre of germany, and is decidedly conservative and christian (and probably increasingly right wing).

Its never pleasant hearing criticism, but perhaps some of those points have merit. There are always going to be situations where the morality is clear, but diplomatic routes are stimmied, eg dafur.

Just a couple of points about the article though

Quote:

---

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.

---

the implication there is (afaik) a bit bollocks isn't it, i thought the final solution wasn't set in motion until 1941. What England and France danced around wasn't the concentration camps, but the invasion of Czechoslovakia & Poland.

Just actually took a look at the german version, is this supposed to be a direct translation because its pretty much the same but the translator has some moments of artistic licence

Quote:

---

Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery

---

he doesn't say that at all. in German it just says "Reagan ended the cold war" full stop
300,000 becomes 500,000

Quote:

---

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.

---

wholly added by the translator.

Got to go, but i'm sure theres more.

@ILW

I haven't read any further than J2's posted part... thank you for the translation..

@ j2.

Can we now expect a CBS. type of reactionary "honorable" resignation? :shifty: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogadishu

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.

---

Then I apologize for being presumptive and condescending; I found your post to lack a certain cognition of past events, but leaving that aside, my point was that this editorial was written by a German who has a historical perspective which could quite literally serve as a blueprint for a defense of American action.

I would ask how you think it is that this fact is even possible?

This man is not (at least, I gather he is not) an ex-pat American, yet his understanding of the dynamic at work between Europe and the U.S. mirrrors mine-it is understandable that under that particular circumstance you felt I was presuming his proxy, but, as I said, he and I both hold that perspective, and were I to state my case, I couldn't do any better than he has.

Again, my point is that his geographical orientation should (one might think) more closely reflect your view rather than mine; the question is, why doesn't it?

My apologies for jumping the gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then I apologize for being presumptive and condescending; I found your post to lack a certain cognition of past events, but leaving that aside, my point was that this editorial was written by a German who has a historical perspective which could quite literally serve as a blueprint for a defense of American action.

Again, my point is that his geographical orientation should (one might think) more closely reflect your view rather than mine; the question is, why doesn't it?

---

I believe I did adress past history in relation to the current situation in my first post. The author makes the point that Bush is risking total destruction of the US economy, but that the risk is worth it because "everything is at stake". My point is that "everything" was at stake in WWII as well, yet our economy was the strongest in the world. I was only adressing one part of his arguement, but I still think I was clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Again, my point is that his geographical orientation should (one might think) more closely reflect your view rather than mine; the question is, why doesn't it?

---

The burden of proof is not on me because one person in German is in favor of intervention. People have different views in the world, and this is no different in Germany. I gather that you agree that his perspective is not representative of the majority of Germans. So my question to you is why in a country that does have the historical perspective you speak of, do most people not support the US invasion of Iraq and our general foreign policy?

Just to finish off the parts of hte translation that the translator made up, the following bits are not in the german version:

Quote:

---

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.

---

I thought this was an odd comment for a german even when i'd only read the english.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the
truth.

---

Quote:

---

acting on moral conviction,

---

Quote:

---

in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance"

---

Quote:

---

Reach out to terrorists,

---

Admittedly that doesn't change significantly the tone of the article, but thats kinda shit that someone added all that, especially when you consider the emotive value of the comments added and the way they are targeted at americans. I hope that English version was written by a German because otherwise its a big fat lie when he adds in the sections about "we in Europe know the truth" and "our (German) government" (the german author is non specific about who wants a islamic holiday)
That was not a translation and shouldn't claim to be.

Edit: Added some bits above

ILW,

You are so right. The way the post was constructed detracted from it's useful points and contributed soley to how people reacted to it.

Just look at "the Daves" post, it was merely a reflection of irritation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogadishu

The burden of proof is not on me because one person in German is in favor of intervention. People have different views in the world, and this is no different in Germany. I gather that you agree that his perspective is not representative of the majority of Germans. So my question to you is why in a country that does have the historical perspective you speak of, do most people not support the US invasion of Iraq and our general foreign policy?

---

The fellow, as a businessman, has a more comprehensive understanding of cause-and-effect (historically) than your average German, by virtue of nothing more than his standing.

In a country such as Germany, where the norm is, I think, a 32-hour work-week, and state-sponsored medical programs, and such-basically your comprehensive "nanny-state", there seems to exist a presumption of enlightened existence and contempt for what one might call the "American way of life"; and I believe that is the genesis for any over-arching public opinion (in Germany) that America is wrong for acting peremptorily in the Mideast.

It is one thing for any nation to bemoan the strength of another nation which perceives a "call-to-duty", as it were, but quite another to actually hear that call, and have the power to act, even if others may deem such action to be imperialistic in intent.

Having said that, I hope you will resist the urge to draw any parallels between our invasion of Iraq and Germany's "expansion" into Chechoslovakia (the Sudetenland) and Poland in the name of "liebensraum"; although you might not see a difference, I do.

As to the end result of WWII, whether or not any are even willing to attribute Germany's defeat (and thereby the survival of France and Britain, et. al.) to the apparently over-late intervention of America, I think the end result speaks well for the U.S.; if you disagree with this last, perhaps you would speculate as to the result absent American participation?

Vid-

If there were errors in translation, or liberties taken with the original text (I thank ilw for pointing these out), I don't feel any errors recounted so far sufficiently change the intent of the piece to a degree warranting a need for retraction or repudiation.

Thanks for asking, nonetheless. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Vid-

If there were errors in translation, or liberties taken with the original text (I thank ilw for pointing these out), I don't feel any errors recounted so far sufficiently change the intent of the piece to a degree warranting a need for retraction or repudiation.

Thanks for asking, nonetheless. :)

---

Ah but i see it as being very similar in that it has falsehoods.... with the CBS "documents" the fact that the basic story was actually true was overlooked because the documents were fake....but that's a completely different thread :P

I have no doubts that this translation was within original intent of the opinion, however to quote GW Bush...... "that would be one of those".......(come on Georgie, you practiced this word all week)....... "eggsajurasions" ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

with the CBS "documents" the fact that the basic story was actually true was overlooked because the documents were fake

---

Really?

Proof?

Show me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Really?

Proof?

Show me.

---

Bush did enjoy "special treatment" to get into the national guard etc. it was a way to avoid fighting in vietnam.
He wasn't the only politicians son to benefit from connections

He also did fail to have a mandatory medical and didn't meet all the required attendance drills...all this is a matter of public record
i have never used it to diminish his right to be president in fact i have stated it doesn't matter on several occasions as i feel his military record has nothing to do with his ability to be president

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Having said that, I hope you will resist the urge to draw any parallels between our invasion of Iraq and Germany's "expansion" into Chechoslovakia (the Sudetenland) and Poland in the name of "liebensraum"; although you might not see a difference, I do.

---

Ok i never made that comparison. I actually compared nazi germany to terrorism, if only for arguements sake. I dont think you can draw strong parallels to either, but I most defenitely never compared german expansion to the US war in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

As to the end result of WWII, whether or not any are even willing to attribute Germany's defeat (and thereby the survival of France and Britain, et. al.) to the apparently over-late intervention of America, I think the end result speaks well for the U.S.; if you disagree with this last, perhaps you would speculate as to the result absent American participation?

---

Of course I agree the US played a huge role in WWII and their role was absolutely positive. Personally, I believe the Soviet Union won WWII, but that is merely my opinion after looking at facts, and it has nothing at all to do with politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The fellow, as a businessman, has a more comprehensive understanding of cause-and-effect (historically) than your average German, by virtue of nothing more than his standing.

---

Huh?
He may well have a better understanding of finance and acquisition than the "average German", but how this morphs into a better grasp of historical cause and effect is a mystery to me.
Unless of course, you are willing to grant the same expertise to say, H. Ross Perot or Martha Stewart....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogadishu

Personally, I believe the Soviet Union won WWII, but that is merely my opinion after looking at facts, and it has nothing at all to do with politics.

---

Congratulations are in order because this is your most idiotic statement yet. Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Congratulations are in order because this is your most idiotic statement yet. Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?

---

I don't think any one country won WW2.

There are too many variables. We often hear the question about what would have been the result if the usa hadn't joined in... but things may have been different if the soviets were not involved and hitler hadn't over stretched his forces. Or if it wasn't for the RAF "few"

So i say to all concerned...check your ego at the door....it was a group effort.

And also remember it was our parents and grandparents that fought...not us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Congratulations are in order because this is your most idiotic statement yet. Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?

---

I don't think that his statement is as idiotic as yours, yours is just more of the tedious insult the poster rather than make any attempt at a coherent comment that goes on around here. The Soviets played a huge role in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany, some would argue that the defeat of the 6th army at Stalingrad was the turning point of WWII.

I tend to side with Vidcc myself that the war was one by a group effort. Without american aid Moscow would have fallen, without Soviet/Britian remaining free of Nazi oppression america would have never dared step foot in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

This man is not (at least, I gather he is not) an ex-pat American, yet his understanding of the dynamic at work between Europe and the U.S. mirrrors mine-it is understandable that under that particular circumstance you felt I was presuming his proxy, but, as I said, he and I both hold that perspective, and were I to state my case, I couldn't do any better than he has.

---

Vintage j2. Nary an original thought so you use a German (translator's?) words? :1eye:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Again, my point is that his geographical orientation should (one might think) more closely reflect your view rather than mine; the question is, why doesn't it?

---

Not every person is part of a hive mind like the Republican party. :dry:
All Americans don't dislike France no matter much name changing we seem to do to the food. All Britons don't like the movie Donnie Darko.

This article surprises no one. :ohmy: :sleep:

[QUOTE=Busyman]Vintage j2. Nary an original thought so you use a German (translator's?) words? :1eye:



Maybe I am misunderstanding your meaning here, Busyman. Are you saying that J2 never has original thoughts and always uses other peoples words?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Withcheese

I don't think that his statement is as idiotic as yours, yours is just more of the tedious insult the poster rather than make any attempt at a coherent comment that goes on around here. The Soviets played a huge role in the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany, some would argue that the defeat of the 6th army at Stalingrad was the turning point of WWII.

I tend to side with Vidcc myself that the war was one by a group effort. Without american aid Moscow would have fallen, without Soviet/Britian remaining free of Nazi oppression america would have never dared step foot in Europe.

---

Yeah ok.

It was the Russian and not the 101st Airborne who broke the back of the Nazi’s attempt to push back the front in the battle of the bulge. And it was probably the Russian navy who also broke the back of the Japanese navy in Midway and Coral Sea. The Russians took Berlin because we let them take it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

Yeah ok.

It was the Russian and not the 101st Airborne who broke the back of the Nazi’s attempt to push back the front in the battle of the bulge. And it was probably the Russian navy who also broke the back of the Japanese navy in Midway and Coral Sea. The Russians took Berlin because we let them take it.

---

Did you even read my post? I find it's helpful to read people's post that I'm quoting myself.

I declared in the latter part of my post that I believed that the war was won by the combined effort of the Allies, not one country by itself.

Please keep up or shut up. Either's good for me. :)

You made a comment and I responded the only difference is I did so without insulting you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBank_Hank

You made a comment and I responded the only difference is I did so without insulting you.

---

With probably the most condescending post of the year.

I'd say that's pretty offensive.

did a quick google search and found an actual translation of the german text.

Quote:

---

A few days ago Henryk M. 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 agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did 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 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

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 and directed against our free, open Western societies. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century -- a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight 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 the intolerant, as world champions in 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.

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 everything is at stake.

While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We'd rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor's house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.

---

Personally i think that Russia was hugely important in winning the war, obviously not the war in the pacific, but the fight against Nazi Germany. I don't know how you would measure importance in winning a war, is it in terms of number of enemy killed or amount of materiel used by you or against you, because russia would probably win in those terms, and perhaps even britain would rank higher than america. The simplest thing to say is that the allies combined were enough, if any one hadn't been there it all might have gone differently (except the french :-" )
@BBH i think its a bit late to be taking the moral high ground when you just insulted mogadishu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

With probably the most condescending post of the year.

I'd say that's pretty offensive.

---

Is sarcasm condescending, Manker? Dang. I better watch it. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Is sarcasm condescending, Manker? Dang. I better watch it. :D

---

Oh definitely :D

The above example wasn't proper sarcasm tho' as it wasn't particularly witty or ironic.

The man is most definitely on the economic right of European poltical thinking.

Regardless of his meanderings on our moral compass, with regards international affairs, he clearly has a problem with EU social and welfare programmes and the general economic direction overall. A Christian Democrat leaning pretty much to the right of his party I would say.

Europe does have right wing parties :) some of them pretty scary - fortunately none in power as such. There was a Nazi rally in Dresden the other day with 5000 neo-Nazis on the march.

Although the piece alludes to the moral justness of deposing Hitler and the old Soviet Order it nevertheless simply creates a new bogeyman - the Muslim. The same thinking just dressed in a currently acceptable target?

Curiously, many in old East Germany are nostalgic for the Ostie days (those Commies must have really brutalised them :) ) The Soviet Bloc was a dead hand of bureacracy and things had to change but their evilness post Stalin was a tad overplayed in my view. Incidently, despite the old "you'd be talking Russian now" mentality none of these former bloc countries stopped doing business in their own tongues.

Hank - The Russians were essential to WW2. Without their heroics (and they really did display enormous grit) the D-Day landings would not have been possible. A great proportion of the Wermacht died on the Eastern front. By 1945 we were not so much racing to defeat Germany but to ensure the Russians did not get to Berlin first (although they did).

The question is, would the world really be a better place if Europe returned to the gun and started marching to impose order on the world? I would humbly suggest you don't want that. If the 20th century shows anything it is that when Europe starts shooting it forgets to stop. The Liberal consensus we have adopted may be alien to Islam and, it would seem, to right wing conservatives but it has given us peace and prosperity and the opportunity to enjoy our eccentricities without slaughtering each other wholesale.

Islam is not a threat - some towns and cities have significant numbers of immigrants but the population of Europe as a whole is predominately white European - in the case of Scotland 99.3% white European. There has been some rather ridiculous stories about the Islamification of Europe (who or where these have come from I have no idea). This is nonsense. We do have Muslims and we do try to be tolerant but I personally do not think Europe is particularly multi-cultural. I fear it would not take much of an attempt to try and Islamify Europe to generate some pretty unpleasant things. (1930s deja vu).

In summary, I do not understand his accusation of cowardice. In order to be a coward one must display a fear of something. Fear is not a current European pre-occupation. If his argument is that we are not pouring money into fruitless wars due to some sort of economic cowardice how can he explain our economic risk-taking in Kyoto? Whereas the US has been troubled by the economic consequences of Kyoto.

Apologies, this response has grown legs and walked a tad.

:) On the plus side - it does at least show that arguments that might seem not to get the light of day in Europe do exist - albeit they are not perhaps mainstream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

@BBH i think its a bit late to be taking the moral high ground when you just insulted mogadishu

---

And @ Manker

I’m not trying to take the high ground on this one I’m trying to show Cheese just how much of a hypocrite he is. Here is an example:

Quote:

---

I don't think that his statement is as idiotic as yours, yours is just more of the tedious insult the poster rather than make any attempt at a coherent comment that goes on around here

---

Quote:

---

Please keep up or shut up. Either's good for me.

---

He did the exact thing the he came out and criticized me for.