Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice

[eric]

From tmrfiles,

It's not the radical element of islam one hears about non-stop that one has to fear, but the silent masses of musloms, who condone it without uttering a word. That sends a loud message.

How true. The enemy is always a coward, until he starts to get the upper hand and the passive start crawling from under logs and rocks to join in. On the outside whilst they are mingling in a peaceful society, they are all smiles, because they are still the under dogs, but I would still watch my back.

[CallMeBernard]

There seems to be a lot of divergence going on from the OP. So how about we go back to the OP and deal with it at face value?

To begin, I would like to repost the background info. and see whether or not we agree on this premise - the history - before we run around each other over the present.

***********

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.

***********

Agree or disagree?

A part of the truth is as bad as a lie, nebula.

If Britain appeased the Nazis, what about the US, who waited until 1941 to declare war on the Nazis, and even then had to wait until Nazi Germany declared war on them as part of their agrement with Japan? The US waited even longer than the British!

Also the appeasement of Germany was over the carving up of (the then) Czechoslovakia and permitting Anschluss; the horrors of the Final Solution had yet to occur (although the victimnisation of the Jews had begun).

Neither was E Europe & Communism appeased; nobody just handed over territories to them. Remember the West Berlin airlift? If appeasement was the strategy, that would never have happened. Western Europe may not have had the military strength to just roll into the USSR and demand democracy in Eastern Europe; nor after WW2 did many people have the stomach for yet another war. But that is not the same as appeasement.

Appeasement is giving something to a dictator in order to keep him sweet and on your side. Which, I am afraid to say, was the West's attitude to many an African or Asian dictator during the Cold war, lest they join the USSR's side.

So I disagree.

[nebula]

A part of the truth is as bad as a lie, nebula.

If Britain appeased the Nazis, what about the US, who waited until 1941 to declare war on the Nazis, and even then had to wait until Nazi Germany declared war on them as part of their agrement with Japan? The US waited even longer than the British!

Actually, the US was trying to stay out of the affairs of Europe all those years. "Isolationism" was more prevalent back then. There are even some today that wish the US would re-adopt the policy of isolationism.

Isolationism is different from appeasement. "Appeasement" is the actual term given for the policy Britain and France had back in the 1930's.

Now it can be argued that hindsight is 20/20 - and it is clear now that appeasing Germany was not going to stop his aggression. Appeasement toward Russia - whatever justifiable reason you may give - did leave eastern Europe in in bondage.

[MorningGlory]

A part of the truth is as bad as a lie, nebula.

If Britain appeased the Nazis, what about the US, who waited until 1941 to declare war on the Nazis, and even then had to wait until Nazi Germany declared war on them as part of their agrement with Japan? The US waited even longer than the British!

Also the appeasement of Germany was over the carving up of (the then) Czechoslovakia and permitting Anschluss; the horrors of the Final Solution had yet to occur (although the victimnisation of the Jews had begun).

Neither was E Europe & Communism appeased; nobody just handed over territories to them. Remember the West Berlin airlift? If appeasement was the strategy, that would never have happened. Western Europe may not have had the military strength to just roll into the USSR and demand democracy in Eastern Europe; nor after WW2 did many people have the stomach for yet another war. But that is not the same as appeasement.

Appeasement is giving something to a dictator in order to keep him sweet and on your side. Which, I am afraid to say, was the West's attitude to many an African or Asian dictator during the Cold war, lest they join the USSR's side.

So I disagree.

[CallMeBernard]

You may disagree, Bernard, but the truth is that the U.S. never appeased Hitler, not in any way. If anything, our fathers and grandfathers were guilty of sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the crisis in Europe, which was stupid also. We were criticized for that and now we are criticized for engaging the Hitlerian countries of our time. Keeping the dictators mentioned above away from the USSR was critical to the world balance of power; that is not appeasement. We Americans can't seem to get the world's approval of our actions not matter which way we go so.........the America bashers need to get over themselves, IMHO.

I don't believe anyone in the U.S. is as critical of Britain as you Brits are of us. Why be so hypersensitive?

There has been no critisism by me of the US intervening in present-day Hitlerian countries. My critisism is that the West (i.e. the US, Western Europe, Canada & Australia) do not intervene enough in these countries.

As for your last statement glory2000, please note the thread title, and the fact that many posters on here have been Europe-bashing. The last time I checked, Great Britian was still part of Europe.

And, to nebula, the point is that W Europe had no policy of appeasement to Russia. Our policy was to stop any further encroachment; if we had had the military strength to push it back we would have attempted it. But that would only have left a nuclear wasteland in the middle of Europe.

And, back to the original subject, please give examples of Europe's cowardice to Islam, or in general.

I'll give the following examples of us not lying down:

-Sierra Leone;

-British troops in Iraq;

-European troops in Afghanistan;

-the French law banning the burqa (and other religious paraphenalia) in schools. It may have banned the wearing of crosses as well, but it really hacked the muslims off. Crosses aren't necessary to be a Christian; they are to be a good muslim girl;

-the outcry from muslims when Jack Straw (senior British politician) said he asked Muslim women wearing the veil to take it off when talking to him;

Now please give examples of Europe's cowardice?

[ollkiller]

I've just read that article and then the rest of the posts that followed which went into the inevitable america and europe bashing. What i will say about the article is this.

Easily one of the most idiotic, simplified articles i have ever read. I could go through the article and explain my reasons but then i would waste more of my time. If you agree with this article then i would implore you to read a few history books. We should rename the article "History for Dummies".

[nebula]

And, to nebula, the point is that W Europe had no policy of appeasement to Russia. Our policy was to stop any further encroachment; if we had had the military strength to push it back we would have attempted it. But that would only have left a nuclear wasteland in the middle of Europe.

Well, I'm not sure "nuclear wasteland" would have been the appropriate term, since at the time America was the only nation with nuclear technology (at least as far as I am aware of), and America already exploded the only bombs it had made.

But I see what you are saying, and I agree that is a valid point.