How do we stop someone like Hitler with a non-interventionist policy?

[HarbingerOfTruth]

I am sure a lot of you guys remember the squabble between Ron Paul and John McCain where he called Ron an isolationist. Obviously he was wrongin calling him that, but he raised another statement, which I would like to see a good response so I can firmly believe in RP's policy.

He said the policy we had led to World War II. So my question is, how can we have a non-interventionist policy and not lead to World War II?

 

[Dave Pedersen]

Congress can always decide to declare war.

 

[WilliamC]

Well if I recall correctly Hitler had this nasty habit of making war on other countries.

Now if Congress were to feel threatened by that and decide to declare war on him, then war there would be.

Non-intervention doesn't mean letting warlike nations run amok and doing nothing. It means not getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries unless there's a serious enough threat to the USA that the Legislative Branch of government is willing to put it's collective arse on the line and declare war.

Not like we have now when the President can basically take us to war against a Nation that did not and could not directly attack us for his own political reasons.

 

[HarbingerOfTruth]

Well if I recall correctly Hitler had this nasty habit of making war on other countries.

Now if Congress were to feel threatened by that and decide to declare war on him, then war there would be.

Non-intervention doesn't mean letting warlike nations run amok and doing nothing. It means not getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries unless there's a serious enough threat to the USA that the Legislative Branch of government is willing to put it's collective arse on the line and declare war.

Not like we have now when the President can basically take us to war against a Nation that did not and could not directly attack us for his own political reasons.

I think the real concern was, to let an evil man like Hitler get so powerful, which led to World War II

 

[hueylong]

We keep the Bush family from funding the war machine of Nazi Germany.

 

[billyjoeallen]

It was our fault Hitler came to power in the first place! Wilson got us into WWI against the will of the populace and the Treaty of Versailles created the economic conditions that gave rise to NAZIism.

If we had stayed out of WWI, Germany would have stayed a monarchy and Hitler would have been a veteran excorporal and failed painter.

WWI and WWII are just the same war in two parts, like Gulf war I and Gulf War II.

 

[bbachtung]

World War I led to the rise of Hitler.

World War I ended with the lopsided and vindictive Treaty of Versailles, which left Germany in shambles (as the loser of the war) and economically crippled by sanctions. Hitler exploited the situation created by such a terrible "peace" treaty, which is ultimately why we followed WWII with the Marshall Plan (rebuilding Germany and Japan).

WWII was blowback for bad behavior and vindictiveness at the end of WWI.

 

[proximity]

He said the policy we had led to World War II. So my question is, how can we have a non-interventionist policy and not lead to World War II?

That's an easy one. Stop intervening and creating Treaties of Versailes.

 

[Mini-Me]

Well, the response is twofold:

1.) First of all, our [possibly] interventionist policy may have contributed to World War II happening in the first place: We had no real business in World War I, but our leaders basically decided they'd rather have England's side (the Allies) win, so we secretly aided them instead of remaining neutral*. Our meddling resulted in the sinking of the Lusitania. We stayed out of the war at the time and made the Germans swear to stop unrestricted submarine warfare against "passenger ships," but they knew that we were still "up to no good" and still shipping arms to England. Hence, they secretly contacted Mexico and tried to enlist them as their ally to fight the US in the event that we joined the war against them. Then, they resumed submarine warfare. When we found out that they contacted Mexico with that offer, we were "outraged" and joined the war. Had we not joined, the outcome could have been different. Maybe the Germans would have won? Or maybe they still would have lost, but the Treaty of Versailles would not have been as damaging to them? There are a lot of possibilities. However, as things went, the Germans lost the war and the Allies made them pay reparations that devastated their whole country. These reparations are considered by most historians to be one of the main causes of World War II, because Hitler rose to power by playing on the emotions of the impoverished German people.

2.) However, assuming things would have happened the exact same way, Ron Paul's policy is not entirely noninterventionist: As he has stated before, he thinks that our entrance into World War II was entirely justified, because Germany's pattern of invasion and conquest was becoming a threat to the national security of the United States. Really, this pattern was a threat to England and France first, but they allowed it to continue even while Germany was invading very nearby countries. So: If a country were to invade Mexico or Canada, Ron Paul's otherwise noninterventionist policy would most likely dictate going to war (so long as Congress declared it), because Mexico and Canada are close enough that threats to them are also probably threats to us. Furthermore, if a country was building a dangerous empire on the other side of the world and rapidly conquering other countries (as Germany did), it could similarly be deemed a threat to us, so we'd get involved then, too.

*There's still some controversy over this, but for all intents and purposes, this is the way it went down.

Plus, as someone else stated, it would have helped if people like the Bush family didn't fund Nazi Germany in the first place.

 

[Naraku]

If we stuck to the basic principles of non-interventionism and sound money, we actually wouldn't have had Hitler or World War II. The Depression caused by our tariffs and central banking system helped give rise to Hitler and it was out interventionist foreign policy that led to Japan becoming the threat it was.

 

[Kruniac]

I am sure a lot of you guys remember the squabble between Ron Paul and John McCain where he called Ron an isolationist. Obviously he was wrongin calling him that, but he raised another statement, which I would like to see a good response so I can firmly believe in RP's policy.

He said the policy we had led to World War II. So my question is, how can we have a non-interventionist policy and not lead to World War II?

Um. Let other countries have as many evil dictators as they want? If we wouldnt have stepped into European affairs, then we wouldnt have gotten attacked. We embargoed Japan due to their political beliefs, and we paid for it.

We should have let Hitler have France. He wouldnt have attacked the United States successfully. We simply had too much industrial power and manpower to defeat in an offensive war, let alone a defensive one.

Besides, NATO isnt going to allow another regime of that magnitude. We can withdraw our opinions (and tanks) from other people's business.

 

[pavilion33]

I think this was who john macain was referring to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy%2C_Sr.

 

[WilliamC]

I think the real concern was, to let an evil man like Hitler get so powerful, which led to World War II

The world is full of evil men. The United States Government should not be in the business of seeking them out and trying to destroy them because they might someday be a threat.

When they do become a threat (i.e. they take their country to war against a non-aggressive neighbor) then the Congress has the Constitutional duty to decide if this is a threat to the USA. If it is then the Congress has the authority to declare war.

Only in the case of an attack or an imminent attack should the President act first and advise Congress second.

 

[inibo]

Ron Paul explains it himself, starting about 6:51
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alxjl4IjZ9k

 

[Xenophage]

I am sure a lot of you guys remember the squabble between Ron Paul and John McCain where he called Ron an isolationist. Obviously he was wrongin calling him that, but he raised another statement, which I would like to see a good response so I can firmly believe in RP's policy.

He said the policy we had led to World War II. So my question is, how can we have a non-interventionist policy and not lead to World War II?

There are several misconceptions here that reek of historical ignorance on the part of John McCain and anyone who buys this argument.

First, United States foreign policy did not *cause* World War II. There were many factors that led to Hitler's rise to power and Germany's warmongering, going all the way back to World War I and the ridiculous terms of surrender imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler rose to power as the result of economic and social conditions in the 30's directly related to WWI. This was not the fault of any action or inaction by the United States during the 30's. McCain may have been referring to the failure of the League of Nations to prevent rearmament of the Rhineland, or Italian aggression, but the United States wasn't even a member of the League and any warfare conducted on behalf of the League's mandates would have only led to WWII occurring sooner rather than later, and its impossible to say how this could have affected the outcome of the war.

Secondly, the United States was not isolationist at all during the beginning years of WWII. The Lend-Lease Act involved us heavily in the war, where we were shipping arms and aid to England.

McCain needs to read up on his history.