Mathias Döpfner
SF Mayor Gavin Newsome, separated at birth
This essay, said to be written by Axel Springer CEO Dr. Mathias Döpfner, is flying around the net like crazy.
Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice
Commentary by Mathias Döpfner
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.
…
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.
It looks like a pissing contest between some bunch of academics.
I’m too busy with real work to reply to this properly but I have to say briefly that it is rubbish. To conflate such a wide range of historical and current issues under the term ‘appeasement’ is simply silly. Appeasement in the 30’s was a complex attitude, far from simple or stupid (where WERE the Americans until late in both wars?) Situations like Kosovo or Iraq were and are entirely different from the threat posed by Hitler’s Germany.
“where WERE the Americans until late in both wars”?! We were on the other side of the planet minding our own business, duh! When the US sits on the sidelines you ask where we are. When we get involved, we’re imperialists. You can’t have it both ways!
Rubbish! John comes up with some good stuff, but this ain’t it. He must be scraping bottom for content. There is some guy running around talking about living forever, if you are looking for a story idea for the blog.
It’s strange how americans overlook their own history of appeasement. Don’t forget, appeasement, isolationism, anti-British sentiment and pro-Nazi sympathies caused tremendous damage in Europe by delaying the u.s.’s entry into WW2.
Joe Kennedy wasn’t alone in his opposition to supporting Britain and wasn’t alone in his anti-semitic tendencies.
And that’s just WW2.
Hey quit attacking the messenger (me).
I would just say, “Amen”! It’s about time someone had the guts to say these things IN Europe.
Europe is the craphole that invented the medieval period. Europe is attracted to dark ages like a moth to a bug zapper. They crave despair and gloom.
I find it terribly tragic that this land is still so viscerally disliked by those within it so that when someone outside the USA even hints at the goodness of the United States more spittle and venom is cast upon us.
Only in America.
Great idea for Europe to stop appeasing Islamic fundamentalism. But once they start down that path, they might take it into their heads to stop appeasing the world’s only remaining superpower. People develope a backbone, and there’s no telling where it will end.
Prior and including WW2, the US did not have a great track record in this department. The US approach was to stay out of European wars. We did nothing to help the British remove Napoleon. We didn’t enter WW1 until it was discovered that the Germans were conspiring with Mexico to attack the US. We didn’t enter WW2 until the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor. Granted unlike Wilson who wanted nothing to do with WW1, Roosevelt recognized Hitler’s threat but needed a reason to convince the American people. Since WW2, we have been involved in almost, if not all engagements.
When we talk about “Europe” what do we mean? Well, if we are going back to the end of the 18th century, we are primarily talking about the British and the French. I would suggest that it is difficult to argue that the British appeased Napoleon. AFAIK, neither the British nor the French appeased the Kaiser. When we hit WW2, it would be difficult to argue anything other than appeasement given Chamberlain’s handling of Hitler (or the other way around depending on how you look at it). Both the French and the British contributed to the Korea effort. The French involvement in Vietnam, however, was solely about colonization. They didn’t really care about stopping communism. The British, on the other hand, did contribute a small number of troops to help stop communism even though their contribution was really half hearted. Since Vietnam, AFAIK, the British have been involved in every engagement that we have. Thus, it is really the French’s contribution that applies to Döpfner’s commentary.
I think appeasement works when you deal with people on your level or one level above or below you, and the intentions are benelovent. Murderers, tyrants and terrorists must be treated with the only language they understand, namely, violence. After all, we wouldn’t care if terrorists killed terrorists (same level) or terrorists killed tyrants (one level difference). Europe made the same mistake that many in a civilized society makes, i.e., they believe because someone looks like you (a titled man in a suit) they think that man “thinks” like them (same level or one level difference). Hitler was a man wearing a “man suit” over a “gorilla suit” over his “man suit”. To make the world a more leveled playing field, aggression, violence and war are still needed to get the low level players up to civilized par.
What the world and many Americans tire of — is the appeasement, adoration and self-aggrandizement required by the neo-con thugs. They make Al Capone look like Michael Eisner.
Appeasement. Such an emotionally charged word with which to flog Europe–or America. Every country has looked the other way, and still does. Every country has tried diplomacy (oh. Is that ‘appeasement’? Is war the only way, now?)
Everyone likes to harp on the oppressed masses in Iraq, and how noble we are to rush to war to ‘liberate’ them. What about Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan or the dozens (hundreds?) of other hell-holes with despotic leaders and oppressed masses? Seems we can stand a little appeasement when there’s no OIL involved. We’re so self-righteous when we’re warring with Iraq (or Europe), and so lame when it comes to tackling global issues by means OTHER than force.
Why are we APPEASING the polluters who foul our air water and food and give our kids cancer? Why did we APPEASE the beef industry (it’s now perfectly legal to sell salmonella-tainted beef)? Why APPEASE the telecomm industry, who gave 80 million to candidates and got 90 billion dollars worth of public airwaves?
Oh aren’t we SO much better than Europe? Than the whole world, in fact. Yes, we’re real global superheroes.
> the appeasement, adoration and self-aggrandizement required by
> the neo-con thugs.
Having their head up their ass does not a cult of personality make.
As much as I’ve disagreed with it, I see the administration stubbornly sticking to its guns, not starting a Cultural Revolution (they merely have the guts to ride one that was started long ago).
How difficult is/was it for the Democrats to carve out a responsible, tough, reasoned middle ground without letting the pacifists and pussies creep into their rhetoric?
Now they’ve got Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean leading them.
OH MY GOD!
Meanwhile, what a sad commentary on the state of European discourse that Döpfner’s commentary is so revolutionary. They’re becoming as singleminded as the Middle East, and as politically correct as American academia.
I agree with Thomas above, and note that Germany and Japan have been hobbled in their ability to support international military engagements since WWII. But their military muscles are reemerging, and within a decade they will have the domestic authority to use them again. If only the French and Russians will let them.
Just a brief comment – usually things look much differently when you are hundreds of kilometres from places were conflict is in its full scale than being on the other side of the planet. Somehow simple people get a bit more scared than guys sitting in front of a TV with a beer in Texas. Phenomena of people identifying themselves with conflicts and problems IMHO strongly correlates with the distance to the epicenter and with the sense on what happened in history. One is about to be much more carefull when on the soil where he lives happened hundreds and thousands of conflicts in centuries before than a guy in a land which was successfuly conquered by means of violence. I think that these are things which move the public opinion and it has nothing with having “guts” (i.e. take a gun and start shooting around and think afterwards).