No to the European policy of appeasement toward Donald Trump

        So far, von der Leyen and the rest of the European leaders (with some honorable exceptions) have done nothing in the face of Donald Trump’s bullying except try to placate his unpredictable and irascible character through concessions and kind words, even though we could describe their docile attitude as a form of sycophantic servility and vassal-like clientelism. And this is not the path to curb the expansionist appetite of the triumphant beast.

A. N. Chamberlain (United Kingdom), É. Daladier (France),
A. Hitler, B. Mussolini and G. Ciano
in Munich on September 29, 1938
Photo: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R69173 / CC-BY-SA 3.0
CC BY-SA 3.0
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17264876

       It is a folly that may prove very costly, because, as any educator familiar with the most basic mechanisms of the human psyche knows, the surest way to turn a child into a monster is to indulge all of his whims. Showing a firm refusal before the demands of his will become insolent, selfish, and insatiable is the only way to socialize him.

        Recent history gives us proof of this and confirms the pathological amnesia of the human species, which drags us from catastrophe to catastrophe, turning History into something very much like blood sausage, which is made with blood and repeats itself, as Ángel González wrote.

         In September 1938, shortly before launching his war of extermination against millions of human beings and the annihilation of Europe, Hitler and Mussolini were feted by the prime ministers of France (Édouard Daladier) and the United Kingdom (Neville Chamberlain) at the Munich Conference. There, the representatives of democratic Europe accepted the annexation of the Sudetenland (territory of Czechoslovakia) by Germany in an attempt to avoid war. This was called the policy of appeasement. Hitler wanted to possess that mountain range on the border between what is now the defunct Czechoslovakia and Poland, citing reasons of national security and alleged historical rights, since, according to him, the majority of the population of that Czechoslovak region was German and the Czechs were massacring the Germans of the Sudetenland. These are similar to the arguments Donald Trump now puts forward regarding Greenland and South America, as well as those Vladimir Putin uses when he claims Russian sovereignty over Ukraine and the former Soviet republics. Incidentally, one day we will have to explain why, from progressive positions, large mobilizations in Europe against the Russian occupation of Ukraine have still not been called, four years on. Could this omission perhaps be the result of the same stale tactical thinking that led a large part of the European communist left in the 1930s not to denounce Stalin’s support for the colonial policies of the European powers in Africa—something that caused Albert Camus to leave the French Communist Party—or in the 1950s to keep a complicit silence in the face of the USSR’s expansionist and repressive policy in Hungary; or, today, to show infinite indulgence toward Castro’s Cuba and the excesses of Venezuelan Chavismo?

        The German and Italian tyrants then offered Europe peace in exchange for land. However, as was to be expected from the greedy and capricious will of a spoiled child who had risen too far, Hitler was not satisfied with the concession and violated the agreement shortly after it was signed, invading Czechoslovakia on March 16, 1939.

        But there was more, because on August 23, 1939, despite the blatant breach of the agreement and the military invasion, another great satrap of the time, Joseph Stalin, also tried to appease the Aryan beast through pacts. The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was signed by the foreign ministers of both countries in Moscow. Just nine days later, on September 1, Hitler invaded Poland, thus triggering the Second World War.

         Trump—and, of course, Putin (and the same applies to the presidents of China, North Korea, or Israel)—must be told from Europe that powerful monosyllable they have heard so rarely: “no.” And it must be done before it is too late, although perhaps we have already run out of time. And immediately afterward, we will have to face the economic and military consequences that this “no” may entail. This requires strengthening the political and military unity of European countries—both necessary and bolder than mere economic unity—around the rules of international law, which Europe has also betrayed in the Palestinian conflict.

www.filosofiaylaicismo.blogspot.com