Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice - echoes in America

The 20 November, 2004 issue of Die Welt, a German periodical, contained an editorial written by Mathias Döpfner, CEO of German publishing firm Axel Springer. The article can be found here, however it is in German.

Here is a translation of that article in English:

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.

Thanks to Snopes.com for the information on this article including the translation.

In the article, Mr. Döpfner mentions that Europeans have taken a mentality of "appeasement." A point backed by mentioning the slaughter of Jews in WWII under Hitler, the slaughter in Kosovo under Milosevic, the slaughter of Iraqis under Hussein and the brutalities committed under Communism and how Europe as a whole allowed these things to happen. And time and again it was the United States who would finally come from halfway around the world to deal with the problem. Sadly, this is not a mentality that is confined only to Europe. There are a great many Americans who subscribe to the same point-of-view. To them it was better to leave the Iraqis to themselves under Hussein's oppression and concentrate instead on our own selfish domestic issues. But that's what we've become here. We've concentrated on our own "greatness" for so long that we have filled ourselves with the notion that we deserve everything we have here and then some. It's sickening.

How is it that so many Americans believe that we should have stayed out of Iraq? How is it ok for us to stand aside and allow a regime like Saddam's continue to murder so many hundreds of thousands? Are we so selfish in our greed that we should turn a blind eye to people suffering half a world away? Are we so arrogant to believe that his regime would never support terrorist acts against the United States or its interests? That he would never obtain and use weapons of mass destruction? That he wouldn't erase the US from the face of the Earth if given the chance? Or at least do his best to accomplish such a feat?

George W. Bush has taken the unpopular stance of sending America to war to remove Saddam's regime from power and allow the Iraqis to have their country back and prevent Saddam from carrying out whatever atrocities he may have carried out if left in power. Bush has had the courage to do so in the face of extreme criticism from his own people and at a great cost to this nation because he understands what's at stake. And instead of rallying behind Bush's liberation of the Iraqi people, Americans stage massive protests and compare Bush to Hitler. Bush to Hitler? Isn't Saddam a much better comparison to Hitler? I can only assume they do this out of ignorance. Because if they really had an idea of who Hitler was - of what it was like to be a Jew in Europe when he was in power - they would be very careful who they would compare to him.

We in America are so quick to jump to the aid of others when all it takes is to pick up the phone and send some money and our good deed is done. But when the stakes are higher and the cost much greater our choice is to sit by and do nothing. When people are suffering due to an act of nature we are so quick to show our "great kindness" by sending food and supplies. For most this amounts to nothing more than writing a check or clicking a button on a website. But when people are suffering due to another human being we choose to do nothing. Cowards. Like somehow telling them to stop will be sufficient. Yes Mr. Terrorist, please stop blowing things up. Please stop killing people. Thank you.

Thank God George W. Bush doesn't take such an attitude.

Five hundred thousand people die to an act of nature and they are worthy of our aid. But five hundred thousand die to a dictator and they are not. We're ok with things like tsunami relief. But when it comes to things like Milosevic or Hussein we'd rather not bother. We don't want to do anything about such things - someone might die.

People are already dying. You're just glad it's not you.

So the Iraqis would have been better off if President Bush had never sent troops to Iraq. Under what version of reality could that possibly be true? Sounds like echoes of 1940 America to me. We know all too well now how correct that sort of attitude was then. It's no more correct now. How much better would things have been - how many fewer people would have died if we had joined World War II in 1939 or even 1940? Consider that before taking the same attitude that allowed Hitler to grow so powerful while we stood by and watched.

Mr. Döpfner calls Europeans cowards for their position on Iraq. I say that they only learned from the best just across the Atlantic.