Can somebody explain Ron Paul's stance on WWII

sugaki

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
60
With a non-intervention policy, I'm wondering how Ron Paul would've handled WWII--we he have disallowed the Jewish immigrants trying to enter from Europe? Would he have provided no logistical support to Britain/Churchill prior to Dec 7 '41? Not imposed naval tonnage restrictions through the London Conference?

I've yet to hear his stance on this, though it gets mentioned in passing.

Anybody have a link laying out his stance on historical alliance that US have made?
 
That's a great question and I'm interested in reading on that, too.

I found this on WW ONE , in case you haven't seen it: (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/shank1.html) I'll keep looking and post anything I find on WW TWO.


Shank: Has the policy of intervention in the name of nation-building – in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly now Iran – ultimately served or undermined US interests?

Paul: It all undermines our interests. I don’t see how anything we’ve done in the last 50 years has served our interests. You can go back longer than that. I’d go back all the way to Wilson. The unnecessary involvement in World War I gave us Hitler and World War II and on. But if you want to start with more recent ones, I think Roosevelt’s promise to protect Saudi Arabia and prop up secular governments that offended and annoyed the more fundamentalist Arabs and Muslims has been a real thorn in our side. Then with the Cold War going on, there was a tremendous incentive for our government to use our CIA and our funding to literally set these schools up, the Wahhabi schools, to teach them to fight communism in the name of radical Islam.

I think the term blowback is a very accurate term. Our policies are ill-advised, maybe well intended. Some people think we need to do this to have oil, I don’t. Once we start to intervene it comes back to haunt us. Osama bin Laden was an ally and now he’s our enemy. Saddam Hussein was an ally, now he’s our enemy.

I think the founders were right about minding our own business. Try to get along with people, trade with them, talk to them. But I don’t believe in isolating ourselves. It’s ironic that they accuse people like me of being isolationist, but yet they have isolated us. Our current administration has isolated us from the world. We have fewer friends and more enemies than ever before. It’s ironic.
 
He would wait for congress to commit to war if and when congress decided to go to war then he would wage war and fight it to win it. That is the role of the chief executive and the commander in chief.

I do not believe he would have forced Japan into the war as Roosevelt did. I do believe Ron Paul would have supported a large increase in military spending prior to 1941 and we could have been economically much more potent than we actually were. Remember the United States would have been 10 times as powerful as it was if not for the federal reserve/irs and remember how much stronger we will be without those corrupting and stealing entities in our midst.

He would let congress make that decision as is determined in the constitution.
 
He said on Cavuto that we were attacked by Japan, Germany declared war on us, and Congress declared war.
 
This is an interesting interpretation:

NOT FROM RON PAUL, but from The New Liberty: http://thenewliberty.com/?p=405

[emphasis added]

World War I was fought to a stalemate before the Wilson got the U.S. involved. Russia was bankrupt and wanted out of the war, but Wilson bribed the Russian government to stay in the war, which they did. They took the money even though the political situation was disintegrating. Lenin took this as a great opportunity for another attempt to overthrow the government. He was right, the Soviet Union was born.
With the help of the U.S., England and France won a decided victory against Germany and it’s allies. England and France pushed Wilson aside and imposed severe retributions against Germany which created a bubbling German resentment and Hitler’s rise to power.
Not isolationism, foreign intervention led to World War II.
 
With a non-intervention policy, I'm wondering how Ron Paul would've handled WWII--we he have disallowed the Jewish immigrants trying to enter from Europe? Would he have provided no logistical support to Britain/Churchill prior to Dec 7 '41? Not imposed naval tonnage restrictions through the London Conference?

I've yet to hear his stance on this, though it gets mentioned in passing.

Anybody have a link laying out his stance on historical alliance that US have made?

I believe he would have imposed tough sanctions and not allowed American Corporations manufacturing Zyklon B to do business with Nazi Germany.
 
Something that I didnt know about World War I was that were were neutral (well Woodrow Wilson was anyway) until somebody sounds like purposefully sent the Lusitania - Luxury Sealiner of the day thru German controlled water, and Germany attacked and sank it killing 1200 Americans. Sounds to me like a few buildings we know where a lot more Americans died, murdered, just to piss people off so we'd go to war...

Reference: Zeitgeist - The Movie: The Federal Reserve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBZne09Gf5A&NR=1

Theres three more 10 minute clips I havent watched yet in this video so it may have some good information about WWII that I havent seen yet...
 
Ron Paul would have minded his own business so that "WWI" should have been called "EWI" and there would never have been an "EWII". Ron Paul would not have embargoed Japan. And Ron Paul would have acted on the coded transmissions intercepted from Japanese and pre-empted the Pearl Harbor attack.
 
The US probably wouldn't have ever gotten involved in WWI, if it wasn't for the deliberately sinking of the Lusitania. WWI directly led to the rise of the power of the Central Bank in Germany, which destroyed the German economy and currency....which led to Hitler's rise to power.

WWII? FDR intentionally provoked the Japanese, then, he let it ultimately happen. www.jbs.org/node/58

Now, in the public limelight, he probably wouldn't say this, but, I'm fairly sure he believes it....after all, he did read "The Creature from Jekyll Island".
 
I believe he would have imposed tough sanctions and not allowed American Corporations manufacturing Zyklon B to do business with Nazi Germany.

We put an embargo on Japan and as we all know, that didn't work out to well. I'm not so sure he's a fan of sanctions.
 
With a non-intervention policy, I'm wondering how Ron Paul would've handled WWII--we he have disallowed the Jewish immigrants trying to enter from Europe? Would he have provided no logistical support to Britain/Churchill prior to Dec 7 '41? Not imposed naval tonnage restrictions through the London Conference?

I've yet to hear his stance on this, though it gets mentioned in passing.

Anybody have a link laying out his stance on historical alliance that US have made?

WW2 in Europe wouldn't have happened if the US had not intervened in WW1. FDR layed sanctions down on Japan BEFORE WW2 even started, that is an act of war.
 
Something that I didnt know about World War I was that were were neutral (well Woodrow Wilson was anyway) until somebody sounds like purposefully sent the Lusitania - Luxury Sealiner of the day thru German controlled water, and Germany attacked and sank it killing 1200 Americans. Sounds to me like a few buildings we know where a lot more Americans died, murdered, just to piss people off so we'd go to war...

I need to point out that your numbers are wrong. There were only 197 Americans on board, of whom 128 lost their lives. Still significant, obviously, but far from 1200. (See the Wikipedia article.)

But your main point -- of inciting Americans to war -- is plausible. The German embassy attempted to run an advertisement in 50 American papers to alert passengers to the fact that the Lusitania was a legitimate target, and traveling aboard was a risk. The American State Department intervened, and only one newspaper ended up running the ad.

The most important thing to remember about the Lusitania is that she was under instructions from the British Admiralty to: (a) report any submarine sightings, and (b) attempt to ram German submarines if the submarine crew attempted any boarding to inspect the Lusitania.

For these reasons, the Lusitania was acting as a British naval auxiliary (not a passenger ship) and was thus a legitimate military target.

Moreover, it's difficult to understand how the United States claimed to be "neutral" during this time period. The US was supplying war material to England, and even the Lusitania herself was carrying ammunition. A 2006 dive expedition found 15,000 rounds of 0.303 (7.7×56mmR) caliber rifle ammunition in boxes in the bow section of the ship, the type used for all British battlefield rifles and machine guns.
 
The problem with people, neocons and liberals and most mainstream sheep alike, is that they take history out of context, and do not look at the big picture, that all these issues are examples of statecraft at its finest, and we keep getting duped and continue to let history repeat itself. A great example is Al-Qaeda. We TRAINED the Wahabbists, we trained Bin Laden and his forces how to fight the communists, we gave them weapons, we backed them. Then they turn on us, naturally, and we claim we are being "attacked" and that we are somehow powerless over the islamic boogeyman unless we KILL SMASH DESTROY. T

he interventionism goes beyond just bases in Saudi Arabia - it goes so much deeper. As Alex Jones says (and i do not believe all of his claims, including about 9/11, but he does a very good job at analyzing just how government is able to grow itself), "problem, reaction, solution" - the state creates a problem through intervention of some sort- whether it be economic intervention or military intervention - then it "reacts" under the justification that it had to "do something" to stop the problem, then they propose a solution that always involves an increasein state power. US history is littered with these examples, yet people always confine themselves to debating specific events, such as WWII, the war in Iraq, etc, as standalone event, and do not attack the entire cycle of statecraft. We overthrew mossadegh and put in the shah, which increased tension with iran, which eventually boiled over and led to the hostage crisis, which made Iran our enemy, which led us to side with Iraq and give Saddam weapons during their war, which were then the justification for going into Iraq again. Noneof this would have happened had we minded our own business. Same goes with Al Qaeda, etc. The only real threat to our national security and survival in the past century was the Soviet Union, and it was diplomacy and sensibility that kept peace between the two super powers, not premptive war and intervention - it was the interventions that nearly led us TO war.

People need to take in the whole picture and learn about all the interconnecting pieces before they can have a respectable opinion on these matters. One of the biggest problems with mainstream American sentiment, both left and right, are these very real ignorances about the whole picture. It is this ignorance that allows statecraft through war and interventionism.
 
The only real threat to our national security and survival in the past century was the Soviet Union, and it was diplomacy and sensibility that kept peace between the two super powers, not premptive war and intervention - it was the interventions that nearly led us TO war.

I agree with your main premise that these "interventions" very often just lead to more problems. Reminds me of the "old lady who swallowed a fly" children's song.

I'm curious if you have ever read anything from Ron Paul regarding the cold war era policy of containment and/or the domino theory.

What are your own thoughts to that?
 
"One of the biggest problems with mainstream American sentiment, both left and right, are these very real ignorances about the whole picture. It is this ignorance that allows statecraft through war and interventionism."

And one of the reasons this is so is that the people who decide to send us to war fund the schools and buy the schoolbooks.
 
WWI caused WWII. Directly. And WWI was a textbook example of an unnecessary war.

But even disregarding that...the Japanese attacked us, and the Axis declared war on us. Congress then declared war. So RP would have waged war had he been President.

THIS IS SO CRUCIAL. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT DECIDE WHEN WE GO TO WAR.

Congress does. Period. No exceptions. The fact that all the Presidential candidates are now being asked when _THEY_ would take our nation to war is both ludicrous and frightening.
 
WWI caused WWII. Directly. And WWI was a textbook example of an unnecessary war.

But even disregarding that...the Japanese attacked us, and the Axis declared war on us. Congress then declared war. So RP would have waged war had he been President.

THIS IS SO CRUCIAL. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT DECIDE WHEN WE GO TO WAR.

Congress does. Period. No exceptions. The fact that all the Presidential candidates are now being asked when _THEY_ would take our nation to war is both ludicrous and frightening.

Did FDR not place sanctions on Japan first?
 
Brief history

Post WWII American intervention includes:

Pre 1950 in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh's forces were funded and trained by the United States Office of Strategic Services (OSS - modern day version is CIA) (Harry Truman as president of USA)

1950-1954 Vietnam-France conflict, "By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort."

10 years later America goes to war with Vietnam - 1963-1968.

1979-1988 was the Soviet-Afghanistan War, Mujahideen forces were funded by America (Jimmy Carter), and I'm fairly sure that the Mujahideen is known as Al'Qaeda to us nowadays. "Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions." - Google "Operation Cyclone".

13 years later America invades Afghanistan - 2001-present day.

1980-1988 America openly funded Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war.

2 years later America invaded Iraq (George HW Bush) and 13 years after that invaded Iraq again (George W Bush)


I don't know much about the Korean war and as much as I do know is from wikipedia and this site - http://www.fdrs.org/facts_about_the_korean_war.html


This is why I'd support Ron Paul's Non-Interventionist position.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top