Western Europe was always soft. It's a pattern of behavior going back to 1933.

Submitted by There is NO Santa Claus (United States), Jul 19, 2016 at 08:39

We often forget how Western Europe routinely failed to take a hard-line stance against Communism. In some instances, they simply refused to stand up against Communism. In other cases, they told the US that they'd go along if the US was so determined.

Were it not for America's presence in NATO, the European governments would have readily caved into Soviet demands. This didn't happen because the United States had the willpower and resources to take a stand.

This time, it's different!

First of all, America allowed massive national treasure to disappear through "taxation without representation" by OPEC thus weakening our resources and resolve against Islamization. This same plunder was allowed in a European economy much more susceptible to corruption.

With the influx of Muslim refugees, Islamization has become a domestic problem for Europeans; not a foreign confrontation with a specific country (like the USSR) or group of countries such as the Warsaw Pact. Because of this, Europeans must confront Islamization by themselves. The United States cannot send in the Cavalry to rescue Europe this time.

Yet we should remember that many Western European governments were less than anxious to confront the Soviet threat. Many of them practiced denial and pretended the threat didn't exist.

This attitude continued after the Cold War and took only a brief hiatus when Saddam Hussein threatened to monopolize the tool of corrupt economic plunder that enriched Europe's elite. Once Saddam Hussein was neutralized, it was business-as-usual on an even larger scale.

Now, with OPEC's power and influence on the wane (perhaps only temporarily) we are seeing SOME resistance to Islamization. Yet, the majority of Europeans remain unresolved to confront a new wave of imperialism following the heels of the Third Reich, and subsequently the USSR. It's a pattern, Mr. Pipes.

There were always Europeans willing to confront imperialist movements of the past. They were always a minority. They could not succeed in their efforts without considerable help from the United States.

As before, European resistance to an imperialist movement is in the minority. This time, the United States will not be there to help. That goes double with our current American government.

This time, Europeans must resist on their own. Sadly, history does not support your thesis Mr. Pipes. I see no Winston Churchill or even Charles DeGaulle to assert the national identity of Euopean nation-states. Rather, I see an eroded sense of national identity caused by a European Union that has made the ground fertile for Islamization.

Those resisting Islamization are nationalists who are derided as xenophobic tyrants whose views are opposed to the false sense of "progress" envisioned by the formation of the European Union. In some cases, the accusation is accurate. This only leads to a further lack of resolve.

I'm afraid history doesn't support your thesis, Mr. Pipes. I hope I'm wrong. To convince me that I'm wrong, someone needs to explain to me why "This time, it's different!" Or at least, someone needs to convince me how the United States can help European states whose public continue to remain unresolved in facing yet another imperialist threat.

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".