Paul vs. McCain -- The unspoken debate?

[solrac]

At the CNN / YouTube debates, during the mini battle between McCain and Paul --- The part where John McCain said (not verbatim):

"It was America's fault for not going to war sooner during WWII [America not being pre-emptive] that allowed Hitler to rise to power in the first place"

Ron Paul never got to respond to that point. But he did raise his head up, smile, and shake his head no as if to say "You are totally wrong on that".

What do you think Ron Paul would have said to REFUTE McCain's Hitler statement?

 

[TheIndependent]

See the article from The Atlantic (Andrew Sullivan) I put in the Campaign News forum. McCain isn't winning many friends, despite what the news tells us.

 

[TheNewYorker]

Tell McCain to go back in time and run that preemptive idea past Eisenhower and let us know what happens.

 

[Mark]

At the CNN / YouTube debates, during the mini battle between McCain and Paul --- The part where John McCain said (not verbatim):

"It was America's fault for not going to war sooner during WWII [America not being pre-emptive] that allowed Hitler to rise to power in the first place"

Ron Paul never got to respond to that point. But he did raise his head up, smile, and shake his head no as if to say "You are totally wrong on that".

What do you think Ron Paul would have said to REFUTE McCain's Hitler statement?

He didn't have to say anything, he just shook his head.

How Hitler got to where he did is a LONG story. Bankers, weapons manufacturers, same as today.

Same as it ever was.

 

[Vonhayek7]

It's interesting that McCain has suddenly developed an interest in America being blamed for WWII. Assuming he is on the same line as the other war mongerers, didn't they just blame Ron Paul for pointing out how our foreign policy has caused 9/11? Obviously this isn't a good argument to be used in a public debate, but it's interesting to see the contradictions.

There were aggressions prior to Pearl Harbor and also a declaration of war by Germany on America. These alone would be enough for congressional approval for war. Everyone helped for the war effort because it was very clear, Germany was a threat to us directly-- and not just an economic interest like in Iraq. Honestly, I don't see how an argument could be made against someone like McCain who will never see the light of peace.

Also something funny, notice how Ron Paul treats his debates like his foreign policy? He never attacks an opponent, only defends himself and sweeps em in doing so.

 

[solrac]

Tell McCain to go back in time and run that preemptive idea past Eisenhower and let us know what happens.

What would Eisenhower say?

Also here's another question. What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler never attacked America? And say America in the 1940's was just as against pre-emptive strike as Ron Paul is?

Then, wouldn't Hitler have possibly been able to take over all of Europe without America intervening? Then say by 1950 Hitler was the ruler overlord dictator of all of Europe and amassed a super army.

At some point could it not be said that a pre-emptive action against someone like HITLER becoming a super overlord supreme dicator of the largest land mass on earth with the biggest brainwashed nightmare nazi army of pure evil ever conceived of would be a good idea? A reasonable exception to the rule to never pre-emptively attack anyone?

Could that not be said? Or what is the fundamental ground breaking refutation of that idea?

 

[TheNewYorker]

What would Eisenhower say?

He would have McCain executed for Treason.

Eisenhower himself said, "[...] Preemptive war is a strategy of Nazi Germany."

 

[leonster]

Eisenhower said, approximately.... "Preemptive war is an invention of Hitler. I would not seriously listen to anyone who considered it."

 

[TheNewYorker]

Eisenhower said, approximately.... "Preemptive war is an invention of Hitler. I would not seriously listen to anyone who considered it."

Thank you for the correction. Point still remains though.

 

[AMack]

What would Eisenhower say?

Also here's another question. What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler never attacked America? And say America in the 1940's was just as against pre-emptive strike as Ron Paul is?

Then, wouldn't Hitler have possibly been able to take over all of Europe without America intervening? Then say by 1950 Hitler was the ruler overlord dictator of all of Europe and amassed a super army.

At some point could it not be said that a pre-emptive action against someone like HITLER becoming a super overlord supreme dicator of the largest land mass on earth with the biggest brainwashed nightmare nazi army of pure evil ever conceived of would be a good idea? A reasonable exception to the rule to never pre-emptively attack anyone?

Could that not be said? Or what is the fundamental ground breaking refutation of that idea?

Hitler wouldn't have had a super army. The only country he could draw troops from was Germany. Its not like the French were rising up to fill the Axis ranks after they got invaded. The Axis powers would have failed eventually anyway, but we certainly accelerated the end of the war.

I suppose I can't really say if we should go in unless I was actually experiencing it. At least if we had entered the war earlier, we would have been defending allies from invasion rather than being the invader, as we are today in Iraq.

 

[The_Ruffneck]

Hitler wouldn't have had a super army. The only country he could draw troops from was Germany. Its not like the French were rising up to fill the Axis ranks after they got invaded.

Slavs wanted to fight against Stalin but Hitler treated them worse than even he did , just another in the long list of mistakes he made.
Axis peak war production was in the year 1944 which was the main reason they lost the war along with Japan bringing the USA into the war in 1941.

As for pre-emptive strike , the outcome of the cold war was a victory for the US and no strike was ever launched.If a pre-emptive strike was ever launched against the USSR i believe the world would be in far worse shape than it is today.

 

[PredatorOC]

I posted a brief rebuttal to McCain's argument on mises.com:

I guess this is common knowledge, but hearing the way Senator McCain used the worn-out Hitler analogy against Dr. Paul ("we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement"), I felt I should repeat basic history.

I am assuming that McCain was referring to inaction when Hitler became evidently belligerent around 1938 (Hitler came to power in 1933, but McCain probably wasn't referring to this date). In a limited sense, McCain is actually correct. If France and England had acted decisively anywhere between 1935 and 1939, Hitler and his National Socialism would have been a footnote in history.

But this is an extremely superficial look at history and any deeper investigation will debunk McCain's position. Hitler's golden ticket to power was the Versailles Treaty, which was essentially economic and political interventionism perpetrated by France and England. The war reparations bankrupted the Weimar Republic and the political limitations (limiting the size of the army, imposing a de-militarized zone in the Rhineland, etc) created plenty of hatred against the treaty. Had the Allies chosen to leave Germany in peace after WWI, German democracy likely would have survived and Hitler would have been the sad, failed artist that he was always meant to be.

Basically McCain is saying that interventionism is needed to clean up the mess created by interventionism. In other words, McCain is arguing for a vicious circle. The US bailed out France and England when their interventionist policies on Germany caused blowback. Who is going to bail out the US?

http://mises.com/blogs/libertas/

 

[PredatorOC]

At some point could it not be said that a pre-emptive action against someone like HITLER becoming a super overlord supreme dicator of the largest land mass on earth with the biggest brainwashed nightmare nazi army of pure evil ever conceived of would be a good idea? A reasonable exception to the rule to never pre-emptively attack anyone?

Hitler actually proves the folly of interventionism. He kept making enemies and opening new fronts. Eventually, German forces were simply too thinly spread out and defeat was certain. Even if Hitler would have won against the USSR, he wouldn't have been able to control it all. The Wehrmacht was basically over-extended by 1941.

 

[CelestialRender]

The answer's so simple it's ridiculous: Cavalier military actions in other people's nations (WWI) caused WWII. Not isolationism at all.

Literally, all of my respect for John McCain was completely removed watching that debate.

 

[grfgerger]

The answer's so simple it's ridiculous: Cavalier military actions in other people's nations (WWI) caused WWII. Not isolationism at all.

Literally, all of my respect for John McCain was completely removed watching that debate.

I feel the same way. I used to regard him very highly. He is an absolute disappointment and has sold himself and his country out.

 

[Lexx78]

I am surprised when I found out that the Bush family could take so much power (CIA and 2 presidents) after financing the Germans in WW2, and that granddad wasn't convicted for treason.

and that still almost no one mentions or mentioned it.

It shows again what media is capable/not capable of.

And McCain scared the hell out of me cause he reminds me of Cheney and his remark made me feel sick, I loved RP's comeback but the whole debate was a perfect directed show of media control.

So I am sure he convinced a lot of people because RP didn't had a script like the rest, he just spoke the truth like he always does and has done.

 

[1town]

We don't get to choose our Hitlers.

If that's the policy, I suggest we assassinate Bush. Who knows, he could be the next hitler...

 

[Geronimo]

Ron has/had a chance to debate McCain (and Huck) on January 5th.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=44438

Why he chose not to take part in this two man debate is beyond me.

 

[awigo50]

I am surprised when I found out that the Bush family could take so much power (CIA and 2 presidents) after financing the Germans in WW2, and that granddad wasn't convicted for treason.

and that still almost no one mentions or mentioned it.

It shows again what media is capable/not capable of.

And McCain scared the hell out of me cause he reminds me of Cheney and his remark made me feel sick, I loved RP's comeback but the whole debate was a perfect directed show of media control.

So I am sure he convinced a lot of people because RP didn't had a script like the rest, he just spoke the truth like he always does and has done.

People are responsible for their own crimes, not other peoples. sheesh.

 

[deedles]

He didn't have to say anything, he just shook his head.

How Hitler got to where he did is a LONG story. Bankers, weapons manufacturers, same as today.

Same as it ever was.

I think he got a little help from American companies and 'citizens' like Prescott Bush, too, didn't he?

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/291107wolf.mp3