Ron Paul, Foreign Views, Isolationism, and World War II

[kiggd]

Hi everyone.
I'm new here on the forums. I registered because I've always wanted to hear an answer to this question - as I feel it is definitely an important one in the context of Ron Paul's most controversial views of foreign policy. I really do like hearing what Ron Paul says - especially fiscally - but I really don't know how I feel about his foreign views yet.

As we all (should) know, the United States entered WWII only after being attacked by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor - which prompted over 100,000 men to enlist into the United States army.

I would guess Ron Paul would have approved of the reasons for our entry into the World War, as we were attacked and our offensive into the Pacific, Europe, and Africa was a direct response to the Japanese attack.

But here is my question - albeit it maybe a theoretical one, I think the question is a serious one in principal.

There have been historians that argue that if we would have entered WW2 earlier, we may have been able to end the war earlier (which would have probably saved millions of lives. If Ron Paul was President during the early 40s, would he have also only acted when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor?

The question arguably becomes were Germany and Japan an immediate threat to the United States? There are documents outlining that Hitler had planned to take over South America and "reorganize it" (see http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html). Would the United States be safer if Hitler had been allowed to take over South America, Africa, and Europe?

Again, all of this is hypothetical, but if the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor, we would have not entered the war and maybe entering the war sooner would have stopped Hitler early on. The US had multiple opportunities to enter the war earlier: Battle of Britain, invasion of France...

Obviously there are many complex issues at play here (ie U.S. refusing to sign Treaty of Versailles) but I think my question is valid.

Would Ron Paul say that we should have entered into World War II earlier? Or would he have waited for Pearl Harbor too?

[mosquitobite]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?309624-Why-my-dad-will-not-vote-for-Ron-Paul.

It's a good question, but you have to be open to reading more of the history than what they put in our "government schools" textbooks.

[CaptUSA]

First off, welcome to the forums. I'm encouraged simply by the fact that you came here looking for answers instead of just believing whatever some media personality wants you to think.

I understand your question is merely theoretical, but instead of looking at the point of view of what could have happened were we not attacked, we could also look at what could have happened had we gone in early. Remember that every action has consequences. The question you are asking is a common one among those that are educated by the State. Instead of looking at what interventionism costs, the State will always argue about the costs of non-interventionism. That's because with interventionism, the State can claim more power.

But let's not dwell on why the State wants to intervene more, just ask yourself why you're asking one hypothetical and not the other.

Had we entered WWII earlier, what would have been the blowback? Would our alliances have held as tightly if we were the aggressor? Wouldn't that have opened the door for our own empire building? After all, we wouldn't have been defending ourselves as much as going to war to stop another dictator that we didn't like. Guess what? There will always be dictators that we don't like - we don't need to go to war with all of them. If we had gone to war prior to being attacked, would we be worrying about European terrorists now, along with Middle Easterners?

These are questions that cannot be answered either, it's just that there are always consequences. When thinking along those lines, you can better balance the decision between action and inaction. Both are hypotheticals. There's just no reason to believe early intervention would have been better - it may have been way worse.

You just have to understand why the State wants you to believe that early intervention is always better - even though there's no proof of that.

[LibertyEagle]

I suggest reading this book.
Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War"
http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X

[bolil]

Our actions during WWI pretty much assured WWII. We funded the war in Europe (both sides which is why it was so devastating). We treated the Japanese like scum even though they fought on "our" side during the war.

[Harald]

Rule of thumb: "Government intervention begets more government intervention."

Usually when someone points at a problem and says: "See, we need government to fix it", it is a good idea to step back and look where the problem has come from.

In 1917 World War I was an expensive, painful, useless draw with no side decidely winning anything. After several years of gruelling trench warfare and millions lives lost, anti-war sentiment was high in all belligerent countries. Understanding at that point was that ceasefire is inevitable without major benefits to either side.

All of the wonderful advances of technology: Maxim machine gun, Fighter Planes, Tanks, Chlorine gas -- did not make the war decisive, cheap and fast. At that point the lesson seemed that we spent many years, wasted millions of lives and billions of pounds / franks and nothing was gained and a lot was lost.

You can imagine from that sentiment that european countries would probably take a little break from the wars for some time, giving that all participants received an expensive and very painful lesson.

That did not happen, US got in and destroyed the balance of power both in europe and the middle east.

Blowback for breaking up Austro-Hungarean empire was WWII.
Blowback for breaking up Ottoman empire is still ongoing. (See Middle East)

As to US entry into World War II. It could not have entered realistically even if it could.
Only until after USSR turned the war around and start pushing west, Britain and US joined forces to deny USSR geopolitical gains and race to Berlin began.

[ I grew up in Soviet Union, so pardon my bias there ;-) I do appreciate lend-lease supplies though and keeping Japan occupied. USSR would not have been able to fight both Germany and Japan successfully if it weren't for you guys. Great thanks!]

[Shane Harris]

FDR not only instigated Japan with the intention of provoking an attack, but he new about the Pearl Harbor attacks before they happened and did nothing. Those history professors might praise such a decision, maybe the net lives lost would be different maybe not. Either way, the moral question is: Does the end justify the means?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=30396

[tfurrh]

The main thing is Ron Paul would have acted/will act when Congress says to. Not arbitrarily, not undeclared, and not on a UN whim. He's said plenty that if Congress declares war, he will go to war, win, and come back asap.

[bolil]

I think of America like Mike Tyson (minus the ear biting and sexual assaults... although...) Mike Tyson could beat up on a dozen little guys, effectively for a while. But then he gets tired, and then Evander shows up to get back his ear, and poor Mike is to tuckered to fight. Does this make any sense?

[mconder]

To solve the rise of Hitler and the inevitability of WWII, we have to go back to what we did to Germany after WWI. It also could have helped it the bankers hadn't financed the Nazi's military build up, but hey...what do I know?

[cucucachu0000]

germany is not that big of a country they NEVER would have been able to take over the world as everyone says and that we would be speaking german now if we didnt get involved when we did. there is a limit to your population and who you can control you get spread to thin just like we are today. when a hostile military takes over a country it is only a matter of time before rebellion especially an equally advanced people. he couldnt invade britan theres no way he would have made it here and if he did we had millions of armed civilians bigger than any standing army at that time who were not about to be controlled by hitler. it would have been a suicide mission on his part and even as insane as he was i think he realized he could never do it.
most likely getting into the war saved millions of americans lives by waiting till after Germany and Japan were at there peak.