PDA

View Full Version : What would Ron Paul have done in 1940?




jmunjr
11-29-2007, 03:36 PM
So McCain said USA's isolationist policy allowed Nazi Germany to succeed in conquering most of Europe..

From what I've gathered FDR ran for President with that "isolationist" policy, and even AFTER Germany had invaded our ally France(and Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland & Belgium), he still won the election with that policy. Apparently it was a big deal that we stay out of the war..

Not until Pearl Harbor did American opinion change about it..

So my question is, what would Ron Paul have done if he had been President in 1940? Stay out of it or support a declaration of war?

It was a low blow and he went a bit too far, but McCain's point was valid.

What I want to know is how far will a nation have to go to get Paul to act/support a war? And if Congress declares war but Paul doesn't support them, what will he do?

I think this is important.

Liberty Star
11-29-2007, 03:38 PM
He answers in this video clip:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/69210/

He is right, there is a difference between being against over-extension of foreign policy and being an isolationist.

UtahApocalypse
11-29-2007, 03:43 PM
So my question is, what would Ron Paul have done if he had been President in 1940? Stay out of it or support a declaration of war?

The answer is in your question "Declaration of War" If Congress debates, and votes to declare war then the President shall carry it out.

jmunjr
11-29-2007, 03:45 PM
What would his position have been? That is what we should know. If Paul had been in power would Nazi Germany's rise still have happened? Keep in mind Nazi Germany was at war with and invading and attacking most of our allies in western Europe at the time.

Ron LOL
11-29-2007, 03:50 PM
RP has said before that he'd only use force in the event of an imminent threat, or if war had been declared upon us.

jmunjr
11-29-2007, 03:52 PM
Here's a similar scenario. Paul gets into power. We pull out of Iraq and the rest of the region. In a short period of time the region gets unified by the surrounding nations. Later on this unification begins to build up militarily and in the process develops and build nukes.

Several years later these unified Middle East nations invade all of the USA's allies in the area, including Israel, and defeat the Israelis, Saudis, and others.

At what point would Paul say, you've gone too far and urges Congress to declare war? What if he doesn't but Congress declares war anyway?

gang
11-29-2007, 04:19 PM
What would his position have been? That is what we should know. If Paul had been in power would Nazi Germany's rise still have happened? Keep in mind Nazi Germany was at war with and invading and attacking most of our allies in western Europe at the time.

France and Poland were not America's allies in those times. NATO did not exist.
The better question is - would have dictators like Stalin or Hitler ever come to power without Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy?

Sean
11-29-2007, 04:24 PM
McCain would have declared war on Germany and USSR while they were still allies . Japan would have joined them with an attack on the US.

klamath
11-29-2007, 04:42 PM
WWII was the direct result of WWI where we got involved in the British German and Ottoman empire wars. Had we not stopped the stalemate in WWI they would have had to work it out. We got involved and the Germans lost. Then Britian and French decided to punish the hell out of Gemany to the point that it ruined the german ecconomy and drove the Germans to vote for a madman to fix it.
In WWII Germany declared war on us after congress declared war on Japan.
And show me one country that can take over the entire middle east. The middle east has only oil. Even a consolidated middle east would not be a threat to us. they do not have the resources or ecconomies to chalange the world.
The middle east and Germany analogies are so bogus. Germany was the highest educated and the most technically advanced country in the world at that time.

JAYCEE
11-29-2007, 04:50 PM
We provoked the Japanese attack.

Germany was no threat to the US.

We should not have been involved in WWII. Neither in Japan nor in Germany.

Isolationism is just another word for antiwar.



.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-29-2007, 05:04 PM
So McCain said USA's isolationist policy allowed Nazi Germany to succeed in conquering most of Europe..

From what I've gathered FDR ran for President with that "isolationist" policy, and even AFTER Germany had invaded our ally France(and Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland & Belgium), he still won the election with that policy. Apparently it was a big deal that we stay out of the war..

Not until Pearl Harbor did American opinion change about it..

So my question is, what would Ron Paul have done if he had been President in 1940? Stay out of it or support a declaration of war?

It was a low blow and he went a bit too far, but McCain's point was valid.

What I want to know is how far will a nation have to go to get Paul to act/support a war? And if Congress declares war but Paul doesn't support them, what will he do?

I think this is important.

The US started WW2 when it got involved in WW1

noxagol
11-29-2007, 05:05 PM
WWII was the direct result of WWI where we got involved in the British German and Ottoman empire wars. Had we not stopped the stalemate in WWI they would have had to work it out. We got involved and the Germans lost. Then Britian and French decided to punish the hell out of Gemany to the point that it ruined the german ecconomy and drove the Germans to vote for a madman to fix it.
In WWII Germany declared war on us after congress declared war on Japan.
And show me one country that can take over the entire middle east. The middle east has only oil. Even a consolidated middle east would not be a threat to us. they do not have the resources or ecconomies to chalange the world.
The middle east and Germany analogies are so bogus. Germany was the highest educated and the most technically advanced country in the world at that time.

You win the internets! I'm glad at least one other person gets it.

fireinme
11-29-2007, 05:15 PM
If the people see that a war is needed they urge congress to approve a war and when congress says yes. Ron Paul caries it through quickly and logically. This is what a republic is all about.


* When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists. - Ron Paul
o War power authority should be returned to Congress, March. 9, 1999

Ron Paul will stick to the constitution and if you have any doubt look at his voting record. I believe that Ron Paul would be willing to help other nations if it was shown to be a real threat.


* We, in the past, have always declared war in defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody. But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security. We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our Constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars. - Ron Paul
o Republican Presidential Debate, Manchester, New Hampshire, June 5, 2007


* Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new “preemptive first strike” doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force. -Ron Paul
o U.S. House of Representatives, September 4, 2002

more quotes http://www.ronpaulfan.com/ron-paul-quotes/

Jobarra
11-29-2007, 05:25 PM
The weird thing is, we intervened heavily in Japan's affairs and that was a big reason they attacked us. Even AFTER that interventionist policy and the declaration of war on Japan, we didn't declare war on Germany. They declared war on US. Sorry Mr. McCain. You failed in your argument.

KDT1961
11-29-2007, 05:33 PM
Here's a similar scenario. Paul gets into power. We pull out of Iraq and the rest of the region. In a short period of time the region gets unified by the surrounding nations. Later on this unification begins to build up militarily and in the process develops and build nukes.

Several years later these unified Middle East nations invade all of the USA's allies in the area, including Israel, and defeat the Israelis, Saudis, and others.

At what point would Paul say, you've gone too far and urges Congress to declare war? What if he doesn't but Congress declares war anyway?

Israel already has nukes. They can take care of themselves or anyone else. Read Dr. Paul's book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom." You'll see how we support Israel, and undermine them at the same time.

tmg19103
11-29-2007, 05:54 PM
Actually, if you look at WW II alone, we were quite interventionist and that led to our entry into the war.

Japan was half way across the world attacking China and we decided to intervene and help out China - we provided our own fighter planes and pilots with the Flying Tigers. Then we cut off all exports of oil and scrap iron to Japan. This made Japan realize just how dependent they were on the U.S., and how they needed to expand their empire for raw materials, so they attacked us.

Right after Japan attacked us and we declared war on them, Germany declared war on us as those two countries were allied in controlling their parts of the world. We had ALREADY been intervening in the European war by siding with Britain and sending them a ton of supplies and wepaons - which Gernamny wanted to stop by declaring war on us so their u-boats could attack our supply ships to Britain, which Germany wanted to invade.

Not that RP had time to say all this in 30 seconds, but it truly was NOT isolationism that got us entangled in WW II so McCain was dead wrong. When Hitler first invaded Poland there was no way of knowing how far he would go, nobody had any idea how strong they had secretly made their military, and nobody could have expected the holocaust to happen early on in the war before we got involved, though no doubt Jews were being repressed.

Summary: we intervened against both Japan and Germany to cause them to attack us and declare war in us respectively. We were not isolationist in the least. We either should have completely minded our own business or declared war against Japan and/or Germany on our own if we felt our national security was threatened - which it was not until Japan attacked us.

RobotJaxxon
11-29-2007, 06:46 PM
Severe economic punishment of countries causes extremist philosophies to rise in popularity.

The severe punishment of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles after WWI partially led the Nazis to rise to power.

The US and other countries invested in Germany after the WWI, and that helped them remain stable during the '20s. However, the arrival of the Great Depression caused foreign investment to dry up, and the true effects of the Treaty of Versailles came to fruition in Germany in the early '30s, with economic collapse and the rise of the Nazi Party.

Massive unemployment, hyperinflation and politicized science in the form of Eugenics led to the scapegoating and persecution of minorities and eventually the Holocaust.

Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938, after he had unified Germany and Austria. World leaders seemed to misunderstand what was going on.

The idea of preemptive war to stop potential Hitlers is cherry picking historical facts using 20/20 vision.

Throughout history, isolationism though economic sanctions or punishments have provided fuel to extremist ideologies. Economic punishment of Germany after WWI led to WWII. Economic sanctions have failed with Cuba. They failed with Iraq. They're failing with Iran. Trading and investment bring peace. Economic isolationism and military interventionism bring war.

coffeewithchess
11-29-2007, 09:03 PM
So McCain said USA's isolationist policy allowed Nazi Germany to succeed in conquering most of Europe..

From what I've gathered FDR ran for President with that "isolationist" policy, and even AFTER Germany had invaded our ally France(and Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland & Belgium), he still won the election with that policy. Apparently it was a big deal that we stay out of the war..

Not until Pearl Harbor did American opinion change about it..

So my question is, what would Ron Paul have done if he had been President in 1940? Stay out of it or support a declaration of war?

It was a low blow and he went a bit too far, but McCain's point was valid.

What I want to know is how far will a nation have to go to get Paul to act/support a war? And if Congress declares war but Paul doesn't support them, what will he do?

I think this is important.

I do believe that Hitler's rise to power was part of a direct result from WW1, not because we didn't do anything.

literatim
11-29-2007, 09:24 PM
It was neoisolationism that directly led us into WW2. We cut off Japan's source for steel, sunk German boats, and armed China to fight the Japanese.

~River~
11-29-2007, 10:57 PM
Here's a similar scenario. Paul gets into power. We pull out of Iraq and the rest of the region. In a short period of time the region gets unified by the surrounding nations. Later on this unification begins to build up militarily and in the process develops and build nukes.

Several years later these unified Middle East nations invade all of the USA's allies in the area, including Israel, and defeat the Israelis, Saudis, and others.

At what point would Paul say, you've gone too far and urges Congress to declare war? What if he doesn't but Congress declares war anyway?


First of all, that fabricated scenario would not play out as you described. Secondly, the middle east is comprised of several different factions or warring tribes who have for centuries NEVER been able to peacefully co-exist so to say that the absence of US troops would suddenly cause the whole region to unite as an emerging super-power and overtake the United States is totally skewed. If you realize that the reason they hate us, the reason they want to attack us is because we are over there occupying their region and meddling in their affairs and causing the death of their citizens to purpetuate our agenda then you would understand that by us pulling out of the region it would in effect be like removing the logs from a fire.

I think you are missing the point when it comes to non-interventionism and Ron Paul's position on this issue. Ron Paul is saying that we should not involve ourselfs in the affairs of other sovergn nations if they do not pose a direct threat to the U.S. or our interests. He is NOT advocating that we stand by and allow events to unfold to the point that our national security is put at risk. We are not the world police and we should not be acting alone as such because this seriously
hurts our relationships with not only our allies but all other countries.

If congress were to declare war Ron Paul would do everything he could to win the war and defend our country whether or not he personally supported the war because he believes in the constitution, he follows what it says and he respects the process with wich it outlines for these specific issues.

Xanax Nation
11-29-2007, 11:29 PM
I do believe that Hitler's rise to power was part of a direct result from WW1, not because we didn't do anything.

Right or wrong, Hitler's rise to power was caused by lack of cohesion of the Treaty of Versailles. Chamberlain is often pointed to as the poster child for appeasement, but given what he had to work with by the time of the Munich agreement, deep down he probably realized it was futile, after 16 or so years of them flouting the treaty. Peace in our time was wishful thinking.


Even before meeting in Versailles, the leaders of France, Britain, and the United States had stated their differing objectives for the peace conference. France had wanted Germany to be punished, Britain wanted a relatively strong, economically viable Germany as a counterweight to French and Russian dominance in Continental Europe, and the United States wanted the creation of a permanent peace as quickly as possible, with financial compensation for its military expenditures.

The result of these competing and sometimes incompatible goals among the victors was a compromise that left nobody satisfied. Germany was neither crushed nor conciliated, which, in retrospect, did not bode well for the future of Germany, Europe or the world as a whole.

http://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Versailles_Treaty

Revolution9
11-29-2007, 11:32 PM
WHAT IF.. Eleanor Roosevelt had of had wings and flew. Would this have caused a moral problem with the Nazis and their lack of flying women in their Master race? Would we have had to declare war or just have her land on the Reichstag with a list of demands to be good little Nazis..WHAT IF...

HTH
Randy

jmunjr
11-30-2007, 12:14 AM
Ok folks the reason for my post was not to say RP is wrong. I am/was quite aware of WWI and the treatment of Germany thereafter as being a contributing factor to WWII. I think others need to know this hence part of the reason for my post.

LOTS of people don't like RP because of his foreign policy. Sorry, but this is true. IF we can get it across to them that RP is not going to be a puss when things get rough then many of them will convert.

Bodhi
11-30-2007, 01:01 AM
First of all, that fabricated scenario would not play out as you described. Secondly, the middle east is comprised of several different factions or warring tribes who have for centuries NEVER been able to peacefully co-exist so to say that the absence of US troops would suddenly cause the whole region to unite as an emerging super-power and overtake the United States is totally skewed. If you realize that the reason they hate us, the reason they want to attack us is because we are over there occupying their region and meddling in their affairs and causing the death of their citizens to purpetuate our agenda then you would understand that by us pulling out of the region it would in effect be like removing the logs from a fire.

I think you are missing the point when it comes to non-interventionism and Ron Paul's position on this issue. Ron Paul is saying that we should not involve ourselfs in the affairs of other sovergn nations if they do not pose a direct threat to the U.S. or our interests. He is NOT advocating that we stand by and allow events to unfold to the point that our national security is put at risk. We are not the world police and we should not be acting alone as such because this seriously
hurts our relationships with not only our allies but all other countries.

If congress were to declare war Ron Paul would do everything he could to win the war and defend our country whether or not he personally supported the war because he believes in the constitution, he follows what it says and he respects the process with wich it outlines for these specific issues.

Welcome to the revolution! What a great first post, we are glad to have you here!

BrooklynZoo
11-30-2007, 05:23 AM
McCain has to know what he is saying is a patently absurd attack on Dr. Paul. First, as it's been stated, every time the United States has gotten involved in a war since the beginning of the 20th Century, it's led to adverse consequences later down the road.

Warning: Long post ahead.

WWI was not our business and yet international business, media and banking interests coerced our leaders, such as Wilson, into sending our boys to die for nothing. We were no more allies with Britain than Germany at that point. It was merely propaganda and baiting which led to the general public's eventual outrage and change of opinion allowing for our involvement.

The Treaty of Versailles was a travesty orchestrated once again by banking interests which strangled Germany in particular. Just as that country was beginning to emerge from the heavy economic chains it was placed under, the U.S.-caused Great Depression hit on a worldwide scale. People in Germany looked for hope and in Adolf Hitler they saw a strong leader who offered just that, despite the potential tradeoff of liberty for security. Hitler provided employment and morale, a national sense of identity and belonging, and in return he began to seek their loyalty in implementing strict and sweeping policy changes and major rearmament.

It's a mistake to say that the world did not expect Hitler's Germany to make waves; in fact the international media was quite biased against him. When people reference the 1938 "Man of the Year" in Time they do not realize the article was a hit piece. Time wrote:

"But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Fuhrer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today...There is no guarantee that the have-not nations will go to sleep when they have taken what they now want from the haves. To those who watched the closing events of the year it seemed more than probable that the Man of 1938 may make 1939 a year to be remembered."

Anyone who had read Hitler's own words or heard his speeches would know of his intentions, which were to be the dominating political force in Europe, as Britain was at the time, and to eliminate the Soviet state and Communism across the continent. He did not seek, as far as history can tell, to create one country of Europe but to be the big dog on the block.

The United States public did not seek to enter this pissing contest which again did not directly involve us. Pathological liar and Communist FDR, having already done everything within his power to destroy the American republic since his first inauguration, now did everything he could to force Germany into war so that he could renounce his campaign promise to keep the United States out of the war. FDR, you see, was a sympathizer for Josef Stalin and the two became good friends through their wartime partnership, to even the bemusement of Winston Churchill. Thus as Germany had signed the Comintern Pact which promised that if Japan became involved in a war that Germany would join them, FDR aggressively worked to antagonize and cut off Japan from needed goods and commodities. This led to Pearl Harbor, which was at the very least a consequence of United States' ineptitude if not complicity. (sound familiar?)

So in short, American losses in the two largest wars could have been avoided had we invoked common sense in foreign policy. WWII was blowback from WWI. There were no real "good guys" among the world leaders in WWII. Only varying degrees of massive corruption among men with hidden agendas.

Hypothetically, a Ron Paul administration around the time of WWI would likely have sensibly handled our response and would not have aided either side to the great detriment of the other. (And of course the creation and implementation of the I.R.S. and Federal Reserve would have been unlikely) A Ron Paul administration around the time of WWII would not have intervened in European affairs without real provocation and instead would have built American defenses and used the opportunity to strengthen the U.S. financially through free trade while other countries would be suffering from war debts. The U.S. would have become indispensable to either side and would have had a much greater say in world affairs without any American bloodshed. Further, it is likely that Stalin, arguably far worse than Hitler, would have been soundly defeated without American intervention. Thus the Cold War would have never been. German and Jewish scientists who were persecuted by the Nazis would still have been allowed safe haven here and the Manhattan Project, competing with similar quickly progressing German projects, would likely have achieved similar success and would furthermore not be needed to destroy the innocent civilians of Japanese cities. As Dr. Paul would likely have taken on the I.R.S. and Federal Reserve policies of that day, the debts of the United States would be minimal and in fact, our prosperity would have been far beyond any other nation. The way in which we handled matters diplomatically would set an example for other nations and eventually, a more stable and democratic world might have developed, without enduring animosity from or against our nation.

Of course, this is all hypothetical. I'm betting though, that if it did come to war, President Paul would not be stupid enough to put his entire Pacific Fleet in one easily attackable port. That would be kind of like putting your command center next to a known terrorist target.

Lexx78
11-30-2007, 05:52 AM
as long as wars are financed from 2 sides and no one stops the money flow it can take years.

RP would have stopped the illegal money flow from the US to Germany and had the people responsible brought down for trial for breaking the constitution I guess. :)

noztnac
11-30-2007, 06:03 AM
He voted to go to war in Afghanistan.

mvpel
11-30-2007, 02:59 PM
It's arguable that Hitler's initial rise was a result of aggressive foreign interventionism. Germany was saddled with over a quarter of a trillion 2007 dollars worth of reparations, and the final payment schedule had them on the hook until 1988. France and Belgium invaded and occupied the Ruhr when Germany missed a few payments.

austin356
11-30-2007, 03:07 PM
One thing is certain, Ron Paul would have let every single Jew in Central Europe make their way over to America........... While FDR and England said no, and let them well..... you know.

jmunjr
11-30-2007, 05:09 PM
Also keep in mind Paul supported Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear power plant project in 1980..

Alex45ACP
11-30-2007, 06:55 PM
You have to remember that American meddling in the Russo-Japanese War and WW1 contributed to the attack on Pearl Harbor. American meddling in WW1 also contributed to Hitler's rise to power.

Israel has an very good military and they have nukes. They can take care of themselves, and could probably do a better job taking care of themselves without US meddling.

Thomas Paine
11-30-2007, 07:11 PM
I think McCain is starting to exhibit classic signs of dementia and senility. The fact of the matter is that U.S. foreign policy in 1940 didn't allow Hitler to overrun Europe. Rather, it was failure by France and England to repel Hitler back in 1936 when Germany invaded the Rhineland with a handful of troops and further failure to repel Hitler in 1938 when Germany invaded the Sudetenland. One would think that a U.S. Naval Academy graduate like McCain would have remembered his history lessons on WW2.

charles
11-30-2007, 07:23 PM
It's even worse than when John McCain tried to recommend reading Wealth of Nations to Ron at the last debate. Ron Paul is easily one of the most learned politician on economic policy in the Congress having studied Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and a host of others who John McCain probably didn't even know existed.

planetaryjim
11-30-2007, 08:49 PM
There is an excellent book by Robert Stinnett called _Day of Deceit_ which rather thoroughly analyzes the Pearl Harbor incident, and the information available to FDR leading up to it. It is, from my review of other source materials, something of an understatement to call what FDR did to the servicemen and women at Pearl Harbor and the American allies all over the Pacific "deceit." The scale of betrayal was monumental.

Yes, the Versailles treaty did a lot of damage we are experiencing still. Ending World War One was a good thing, but the Versailles treaty did a lot of other bad stuff. It created Iraq's borders. Talk about drawing a circle to include a lot of ethnic hatred and mutual animosity. It forced reparations on Germany that led to the immediate hyperinflation of their currency. Hitler first got attention in Munich in 1923 when the hyperinflation was at its worst. (In 1919 it cost 12 German marks to buy an ounce of silver. In November 1923, when Hitler made his first speech calling for a revolution, it took over 500 billion marks to buy an ounce of silver.)

Moreover, the people who wanted to run the world at the time, the Rockefellers and Rotshchilds and their ilk who had gotten the Federal Reserve Act through Congress in 1913 and signed into law by Wilson (who later regretted it more than anything else) were always ready to lie and cheat and kill for power. Look at the Lusitania incident. The German military practically begged people not to travel on that liner, and Churchill's navy deliberately led it into a submarine wolf pack and abandoned it to its fate to give the USA gov't a pretext for entering the war. WW One ended a long era of peace and prosperity for the sake of the power madness of Fabian socialists and other types of socialists.

What should have been done in 1940? America should have kept itself strong and avoided foreign entanglements. America should have elected someone decent to replace FDR who should have been found guilty of treason on many counts (and executed, if you ask me). Wendell Wilkie or Alf Landon would have been preferable to another four years of evil.

And what did the USA do? It didn't declare war in 1940, nor for most of 1941. It did, however, break the codes of the Germans and the Japanese and provided military intelligence and supplies to Britain and to some extent to the other allies. Neutrality's meaning was certainly tested with lend-lease and related policies.