Dvorak 1

Grant Dvorak
Professor Kelly Slivka
English 250
Assignment 4
February 28, 2017

Rhetorical Analysis of Germany, Caught Between Two Violent Extremes

Its true that we live in troubling times. Battles continue to rage in Syria, leaving many

people in need of refuge. Many Syrian refugees have gone to European countries for sanctuary,

but, sadly, not all of them flee with good intentions in mind. Lately, there has been an influx of

terror attacks in Germany after the increase in Syrian refugees there. Because of this, many have

begun to question whether Germanys open-door policy is the wisest and safest decision. On

July 28, 2016, Anna Sauerbrey wrote the article Germany, Caught Between Two Violent

Extremes, in which she describes the tender political balance in Germany between those in

support of open borders and those in favor of closing them down. She walks the line of

definitively picking a side, and instead writes her article to inform the audience of the different

positions on this issue. She does this by using pathos to inspire sympathy, providing information

about the differing perspectives on the issue, and challenging us, the reader, to think critically

about where we stand on this complex issue.

Sauerbrey begins her article by establishing various violent acts that were perpetrated by

Syrian refugees, including a shooting, a bombing, and a stabbing. This establishes an immediate

pathos connection, attempting to soften the reader to be more receptive to her argument and to be

more sympathetic to the German persons plight. With these examples, she asks us to take pity

on the people of Germany, and helps us see why they may be partial to closing the borders. She
 Dvorak 2

presents the very real threat that people in Germany are facing to inform us of the facts

surrounding the issue. She uses pathos again later when she brings up her idea of what Germany

now stands for, and how it may be changing. Sauerbrey states that these attacks and the

increasing favor of closing the borders instills a fear that the attacks will change the character of

Germany itself, destroying the tolerant, cosmopolitan identity that we have assiduously built over

decades (Paragraph 11). It is her belief that the recent attacks will corrupt Germany into being a

secluded, xenophobic country - a shell of what of the country she has grown to love.

However, while Sauerbreys account is touching, she understands that feeling alone does

not a proper argument make. One of the other points that Sauerbrey brings up is that not all of

the motives behind these attacks are the same. Some of the perpetrators were Islamic extremists,

but others werent. One of the attackers stated that he wanted to copy the Norwegian right-wing

extremist and mass murderer Anders Breivik. (Paragraph 2) The point that the author makes

with this quote is that not all of the attacks perpetrated by Syrian refugees are religiously

motivated, and that we cant simply say all Syrian refugees are bad by virtue of being Syrian

refugees. She uses logos in this regard to say that it would simply be unfair to those that are

innocent to close off all aid because of the actions of a few. In this, she wants us to understand

that there are other factors contributing to these violent events, and that its not a given that

shutting down the borders would benefit us.

But there are those that arent concerned with the innocence of outsiders. The author

recognizes the points that many right-wing politicians are making to support closing the borders.

Sauerbrey mentions the idea of the innocence of the German civilian. Surely their rights are no

less than those of immigrants? If to have open doors means to put those people in danger, then is

it any better for safety and security? Sauerbrey notes this philosophical paradox in her article by
 Dvorak 3

saying, The only way to truly prevent such attacks is to renounce the freedom and openness that

make modern Germany worth defending, (Final paragraph). To her, it seems that we are in a

delicate balance between safety and freedom. We are always trying to do the right thing, but

what is the right thing in a situation where both options lead to heartbreak?

It is because she walks this line that I believe Sauerbreys article is not so much an

argument to convince, but rather an argument to inform. To me, a layman of foreign politics, her

argument does not sway me to believe a certain way, but instead challenges my thoughts and

beliefs at their core. Sauerbreys thesis doesnt depict the evils of immigration or of isolation;

instead it inspires me to think about which I truly value more: safety or freedom. Yes, not all

Syrian refugees are bad, but if having open borders leads to the loss of innocent life because of

the actions of a few, then is the outcome truly any different from denying access to those fleeing

for sanctuary? Im afraid I, like Sauerbrey, do not have an answer to that question.
 Dvorak 4

References

Sauerbrey, Anna, Germany, Caught Between Two Violent Extremes, The New York Times,

issued on July 28, 2016, pp. A27, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/opinion/germany-

caught-between-two-violent-extremes.html?_r=0.