Democracy by Anne Applebaum

The prestigious Peace Prize of the German Publishers and Booksellers Association was recently awarded to Anne Applebaum at the Frankfurt Book Fair, honouring her distinguished career as one of the most celebrated voices on authoritarianism, democracy, and Eastern European affairs. Known for her detailed narratives and bold assertions, Applebaum has been a fixture in political discourse with works like Gulag and Iron Curtain. However, behind her thorough research lies a pattern of ideological alignment and institutional affiliations that raise questions about the independence of her perspective.

While accepting the award, which came with a €25,000 cash prize, Applebaum advocated for the continued supply of weapons to Ukraine.

While Applebaum has earned acclaim for her meticulous research and analysis, her work often suffers from a narrow and repetitive approach, presenting overly simplistic portrayals of complex issues. Nowhere is this more apparent than in her discussions on Poland—a country whose nuanced political and cultural landscape is often reduced to a black-and-white narrative in her writings. Applebaum’s extensive focus on authoritarianism, particularly in Eastern Europe, frequently veers into a predictable rhythm of comparisons and warnings, which over time can feel more like alarmist projections than substantive critiques. Her portrayal of Poland as a symbol of anti-liberalism or political regression misrepresents the rich, multifaceted history and current sociopolitical dynamics of a nation that defies such narrow depictions. Should this be considered worthy of an expert in Eastern European history?

Adding to this complexity is Applebaum’s paradoxical stance on Poland. She has consistently championed Poland as a democratic bulwark against Russian influence, praising its role as a defender of liberal values. However, her support appears conditional: while she applauds Poland’s resistance to Russian authoritarianism, she has been equally critical of Poland’s nationalist pivot against the West, particularly when its policies don’t align with pro-EU, pseudo-liberal ideals. This paradox highlights a selective endorsement of Polish sovereignty—supportive only when it serves the interests of certain Western institutions—raising questions about whether her commitment to national self-determination is truly about democracy.

More recently, Applebaum has used her prominence to repeatedly criticize former President Donald Trump, often drawing parallels between his rhetoric and that of historical authoritarian leaders. In an article published on 18^th October 2024 in The Atlantic, titled “Trump Is Speaking Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini,” she delves into the historical use of dehumanizing language by dictators to justify oppressive actions. Applebaum cites examples where leaders like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini referred to their opponents as “vermin,” “parasites,” and “poisonous weeds,” connecting this rhetoric to the marginalization and persecution of entire groups.

In her article, Applebaum argues that Trump’s use of terms like “vermin” to describe his political opponents echoes this dangerous tradition. She writes: “Trump blurs the distinction between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants… He has said of immigrants, ‘They’re poisoning the blood of our country’ and ‘They’re destroying the blood of our country.’… In using this language, Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He understands which era and what kind of politics this language evokes.”

This approach raises concerns about her ability to provide objective, critical evaluations of the political landscape in the United States. For a historian who claims originality and critical insight, equating Trump—a democratically elected leader who enjoys the support of millions—with figures like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini is, at best, an oversimplification. It’s important to recognize that Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini were distinct figures who operated within different historical contexts and espoused different ideologies. Grouping them together with a contemporary American politician blurs important distinctions and historical nuances.

Moreover, her comparisons overlook the complexities of modern political discourse and the unique factors that shape it. While it is valid to critique inflammatory rhetoric, drawing direct lines to some of history’s most notorious dictators without acknowledging the differences can diminish the gravity of those historical atrocities and potentially polarize current political debates further.

A forthcoming book from the Liberty in Print publishing house critically examines the career and writings of this renown historian. In Debunking Anne Applebaum, a balanced yet probing examination questions whether her celebrated insights offer a clear view or perhaps serve as a Western-centric narrative shaped by her affiliations and ideological commitments. By scrutinizing her most significant writings, the book highlights a pattern of alarmist projections that often overshadow or replace nuanced critique.

For both admirers and skeptics, this book provides a fresh lens on Applebaum’s work, reexamining how even acclaimed perspectives can reflect biases and selective agendas. It invites readers to consider the importance of context, balance, and objectivity in political commentary, especially when drawing parallels that have profound implications.