Regardless of the curses and complaints fired at her, America remains the last resort separating Europe from subjugation.

If you are familiar with this website, you know this author deals with the “transatlantic relationship” and the related "defense of advanced civilizations." It tells a lot about our time’s challenge that these are not the themes for which his diplomas predestine the writer. For the shift in emphasis, there are good reasons. It is the Atlantic Alliance and our Judeo-Christian civilization’s PC-defying confidence to rise to its own defense that will determine the future.

Several past presentations had Europe’s political collapse as their topic. Naturally, not all of Europe is anti-American, anti-Israel and thereby valiantly committed to surrendering to anyone caring to conquer it. Granted, views such as that from a Letter to the Editor might dominate here: "Israel and America are my axis of evil." To counter such portrayals of opinion, a piece defying the trend will be presented. Its much-published source is Dr. Anton Czettler, whose only blemish is that he is a senior friend of this writer. His recall, learning and vast experience make him a walking encyclopedia and a reference for ideas to be tested.

The abbreviated English version of his “The Chosen People of the New Age” is of interest not only because it fails to be fashionably anti-American. The piece deserves attention because it represents a very European view of America and as such, it undertakes to combat distortions that fog the present. Although written in 2003, it represents the current view of the author who consented to this project. The growing alienation of the Atlantic sibling-cultures represents to Dr. Czettler — and to this writer – a mindlessly taken decision whose consequences will extort, especially for Europe, a heavy price. Astonishingly, Europe’s 20th century mistakes are repeated — without assurance that the ultimate outcome will be as undeservedly fortunate as in the past.

Globally anti-Americanism is on the increase. Besides the leftists and the once KGB-supported “peace-movements,” pacifist and even church groups again participate in anti-war demonstrations. In the long run, anti-Americanism damages our national interests: the camouflaged but determinedly pursued Russian imperialism endangers not only our country [Hungary] but also Europe. To fend it off we can ultimately count only on the military means and the political commitment of America.

The interpreters of America explain Bush’s Iraq policy primarily with economic arguments. This explanation is not only superficial but is also a remnant of the Marxist decades of the past. To gain a rational perspective it is beneficial to look back at the history of the United States.

The intellectual roots of the original immigrants go back to the Old- and New Testaments. These have compared their perilous passage to the desert wanderings of the Israelites. Their symbolic purpose was to build a “New Jerusalem” across the ocean. The strong spiritual bond between Israel and the US can be inferred mainly from this Old Testament influence and only to a lesser extent from the efforts of some “Jewish Lobby.” The conservative and puritan elements that rose to influence under Bush support, more intensively than did the Clinton era’s dominant Jewish organizations, Israeli policies that can be naturally subject to criticism.

It followed from the extensive association with the Israelites that the settlers viewed themselves as a Chosen People and why, therefore, they regarded their land as “God’s Country.” This became especially obvious after independence from England and the writing of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were certain that with their system they had created an example for mankind to follow. The plans for post-Saddam Iraq reflect this conviction.

America’s development was not free of contradictions. Washington’s political testament advised not to interfere in the affairs of other continents. This testament, as well as Monroe’s doctrine, was the governing principle of an isolationist orientation that lasted until Pearl Harbor. At the same time, H. Melville, in a clear commitment to America’s historical mission, wrote this in 1850: “we Americans are God’s chosen people, the Israel of modern times.”

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries America became an imperialist power. The expansion associated with T. Roosevelt and McKinley claimed that Cuba and the Philippines must be liberated from Spanish rule, the cause of their backwardness. This “war of liberation” was justified with the ideology of “Manifest Destiny.” Yet it was also based on this creed that in the 19th century America gave refuge to those persecuted for political and religious reasons.

After her initial neutrality, mainly due to the sea war as the German Empire waged it, Wilson declared war on her. His war aims were ideologically summarized in the 14 Points that postulated the right to self-determination of all peoples. Furthermore, Wilson intended to make the world “safe for democracy.” His plan failed. The peace treaty violated the principle of self-determination and Congress kept the US out of the Wilson-initiated League of Nations.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks founded history’s most totalitarian system. In Italy Fascism, in Germany National Socialism took power. Japanese, Italian and German aggression followed inevitably. WWII began when, with Soviet support, Germany attacked Poland.

From the outset Franklin Roosevelt had opposed the “aggressive” Germany, Japan and Italy — he omitted the USSR from the list regardless of her action against Poland and the Baltic States. He faced obstacles when he wanted America to enter the war on Britain’s side as the isolationists of Congress and the public limited him to armament deliveries. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor aided Roosevelt and therefore America, already then potentially the greatest power, could enter the war. Preceding this development Churchill and Roosevelt proclaimed the Atlantic Charter that (again) promised self-determination to all peoples. With Churchill’s silent consent it was Roosevelt himself who, in Casablanca, by announcing the doctrine "unconditional surrender," shoved the Charter aside.

Note that Casablanca stood only seemingly in opposition to American traditions. The US has never pursued a policy of cynical balance borrowed from the European tradition. Her thinking had been shaped by the war of extermination against the Indians and the Civil War that ended with the capitulation of the secessionists. In these campaigns, the enemy was not another state but the incorporation of “evil” that had to be annihilated. In the eyes of Hull and Morgenthau, Hitler represented this “evil.” The only wrinkle in this thinking had been that victory was achieved with the succor of another “evil,” the USSR. Regarding her Roosevelt practiced “realpolitik,” that is a version of the policy of value-free balance-of-power. The price: decades of Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe.

The President and the public shared the illusion that Stalin has given up on world revolution and that he was leading Russia, reflecting unique local conditions, toward some vague "New Deal." The brutal annexation of central and east Europe’s states made Truman aware of the real nature of the Soviet Union. Then, under Eisenhower, the anti-Soviet public’s view fomented by McCarthy and others began to regard the USSR as the embodiment of “evil.” Moscow having become a nuclear power, the announced anti-Soviet crusade remained restricted to the level of theory. This, to our peril, we Hungarians learned in 1956.

The election of Ronald Reagan signified, in favor of our country and its entire region, a decisive turning point. Reagan’s government returned to America’s historic mission. Thus, to the consternation of the Left, he proclaimed the Soviet Union to be the “Empire of Evil.” To avoid nuclear war he followed up by announcing the SDI. The same Leftist circles that direct the present’s anti-Bush demonstrations were, for years, able to move hundreds of thousands to march on Europe’s and America’s streets in opposition. Not against the USSR that, with her strategic rockets in Czechoslovakia, endangered global security! Not at all. They marched against the “actor,” the “trigger happy cowboy.” To the world’s good fortune, Gorbachev realized that Russia was unable to compete with what the press derisively called “Star Wars.” Thus, under the energetic pressure of Bush, Sr., Russia was forced to surrender central-eastern Europe as a Soviet zone of influence.

Ideologically Bush, Jr. is Reagan’s pupil. Since 9/11, his evil is international terrorism. It is still difficult to determine today to what extent Saddam had access to WMDs. However, we know that he was a reckless criminal having murdered about 10,000 of his own people by using poison gas. Revealingly no one has demonstrated against him. This is not to insinuate that everything that Bush does must automatically be correct. I also notice with regret that the relationship of the White House to the current ("Socialist") government of our country is better than to the right-of-center that had lost the elections. Nevertheless, Bush’s worldview is closer to the center-right opposition’s than to the ruling leftists.

Meanwhile, let us remember that we can thank the USA, primarily Reagan and Bush, Sr. for our liberation from Soviet oppression, the Communist dictatorship, and that we became a free and democratic country. Let it be reiterated here: against a reawakened Russian imperialism we can only rely on America’s political commitment and military power.

Updating threats, today Czettler adds to “Russian imperialism” something like “Islamist expansionism.” Against such pressure, not in the least due to the strategic negligence of Europe’s leaders and her faint-hearted inhabitants, there is nothing standing between us and demise than the maligned Americans. Regardless of the curses and complaints fired at her, America remains the last resort separating Europe from subjugation. In the manner of the drunken fool Europe throws mud at her only protector, kowtows to her would-be conquerors and ignores the contradiction. That a significant minority in the US concurs and that her public opinion is more concerned with Britney Spears' rehabs than with global threats targeting her is as regrettable as it is a fact. This condition becomes understandable given the average person’s limited experience with catastrophes that cannot be Pelosied away by the magic of “immediate withdrawal.” Excuses along these lines also fit the west of Europe. Enjoying good weather since 1945 under a free umbrella amounts to ineffective preparation to defend liberty against anything beyond rampaging guinea pigs. Thinking in such terms it is more difficult to comprehend the naiveté of some majorities in east-central Europe. Theoretically the recent practical experience the region had with foreign domination, should provide for a general awareness of past, present and future perils and the ways of coping with them. Thinking that the reward for refusing American protection will lead to a grant of immunity by those who combat western civilization is strategic imbecility. Jettisoning the American alliance can only be justified if an alternative to US protection is found. As things stand the list of candidates that are willing and able to play this role appears to be short.