Quote:
Please explain how Interventionism CAUSED the rise of Hitler.
I am sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that the central platform of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (which eventually became the Nazi Party) was opposition to the treaty of Versailles, which crippled Germany and left them open to foreign oversight and control.
It was opposition to the treaties of Versailles and St. Germain that led to the initial populist surge which allowed Hitler to seize power in the reichstag.
An article on Wiki discusses it:
The stab-in-the-back legend (German: Dolchstoßlegende, literally "Dagger stab legend") refers to a social myth and persecution-propaganda theory popular in Germany in the period after World War I through World War II. It attributed Germany's defeat to a number of domestic factors instead of failed militarist geostrategy. Most notably, the theory proclaimed that the public had failed to respond to its "patriotic calling" at the most crucial of times and some had even intentionally "sabotaged the war effort."
The legend echoed the epic poem Nibelungenlied in which the dragon-slaying hero Siegfried is stabbed in the back by Hagen von Tronje. Der Dolchstoß is cited as an important factor in Adolf Hitler's later rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base largely from embittered WWI veterans, and those who were sympathetic to the Dolchstoß interpretation of Germany's then-recent history.
Stab-in-the-back legend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende
Not only did the DAP (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) blame the failures of Germany in the past on foreign influence from within their borders, but also from foreign influence from without their borders.
It was precisely DUE to the overwhelming restrictions placed on Germany at Versailles and St. Germain (which the German people viewed as a peace treaty, not a surrender) which created the populist resentment of foreign influence that allowed Hitler's meteoric rise to popular power, eventually seizing the Chancellorship.
A summary of the treaty of Versailles can also be found on Wiki:
The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 had a humiliating effect on the German people. Germany had once been a powerful nation; the second biggest industrial power in the world, after the USA. After its defeat in World War I, Germany was forced to accept the crippling terms enforced upon them by the Allies. This involved Germany losing their overseas colonies in Africa and Asia, as well as parts of German territory. Germany was also forced to accept guilt for starting the war.
Germany also had further military restrictions – the air force was disbanded, the army was limited to 100,000 men and the navy was limited to 15,000 sailors, six battleships and no submarines. Germany was forbidden to put troops in the Rhineland and France was entrusted to patrol it with troops to enforce these restrictions.
Germany also had to pay reparations for damages ensued by the war. This meant having to pay £6600 million (about $3 billion) in compensation. However, the land that Germany lost included 10% of its industry and 15% of its agricultural land. Therefore, this made the reparations extremely difficult for Germany to pay. In 1923, in order to collect their own compensation, the French occupied the Ruhr region in Germany – the biggest industrial area in the country. This made it even more difficult for Germany to pay other Allies the reparations.
Kaiser Wilhelm fled from Germany and a new form of government was set up in his place – the Weimar Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
And we can see, in the "25 points" published by Hitler himself and reiterated in Mein Kampf, that foreign influence was a primary factor in his disgruntlement:
1 We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of people.
2 We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
4 Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
19 We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
22 We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23 We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:
(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.
The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.
I'm still confused though, at how it is not blatantly obvious how such a strong knee-jerk nationalist movement is the natural result of international interventionism.
The very antagonism of the German people against the socialists, communists, and Jews (which fueled Hitler's rise) was evident as early as 1919, which led to the labeling of these outcasts as "November Criminals" which theme later brought a great deal of popular support to the Nazi Party enabling the rise and seizure of power on the part of Adolph Hitler.
OK this is just a beginning. there are in fact volumes and volumes of this to be categorized, but I'll start with the above.
Quote:
Intervention, when used in a collective security alliance, can be important to stopping conflict and protecting every states sovereignty. The most clear cut example of collective security intervention is the united nations decision to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait as it is in direct violation of U.N. International Law.
As you proceed to mention further below, a good example of a policy does not negate it's bad examples. But this debate was not about the pros and cons of interventionism versus non-interventionism, this was surrounding the question of whether it was American non-interventionism which helped to create Hitler. That was a propagandistic lie promulgated by John McCain which has no basis in truth or reality. The reality, in fact, is precisely the opposite. It was international interventionism which created the popular resentment against "all the world" which led to the popular uprising of the Nazi Party, the ascension to power of Adolph Hitler, and the tacit approval of the German people for Hitler to launch World War 2.
This brings up some questions
Couldn't this Idea have been applied to have been applied to Hitler when invading Austria and then Poland? Yes, if there were an active collect security alliance or more powerful state to stop him.
But I thought there was a League of Nations to try and stop another world war after the chaos of WW1? True, but it was incomplete and too weak to take any real action.
Why did the League of Nations fail to stop Hitler?
There are many reasons but three main ones
1. Russia was excluded from the league due to European bias against communists states.
2. U.S. isolationism. Not having such an important superpower as the U.S. greatly diminishes the leagues legitimacy and force.
3. Appeasement policies.
Well, first and foremost, the US was not really a 'superpower' in the 1930's. What we were, was resource-rich. We had undergone massive military drawdowns and divestment of 'peace dividends' until we were mostly a Naval power of minor note in the world.
By the time Hitler invaded Poland, he was already 'created,' he was in power, and had the full backing of the German people. Why was this so? Because the German people were angry and fighting back against the restrictions that the international community had placed upon them, and enforced by force of arms.
And another thing you don't seem to get, is that whether the structure had been the League of Nations, the UN, or a true one world government, the rise of Hitler was determined not by whatever international club was on the scene at the time, but by the German peoples reaction to the end of WW1 and the treaty of Versailles.
Understand also that among the primary reasons for the US failing to ratify either the Treaty of Versailles itself or membership in the League of Nations, was due to the efforts of statesmen such as Henry Cabot Lodge who believed that the Versailles treaty was far too draconian, that it would lead to another world war with Germany, and should be significantly revised. That revision never took place, America never became a party to Versailles, and America never joined the League of Nations.
That was as a direct result of influential men in American government believing that Versailles would spurn Germany to launch another World War due to the overwhelming harshness of Versailles.
Turns out, in hindsight, they were right.
So on two counts non intervention can be attributed to the cause of WWII. First, the United States refusal to join a international institution that could've contained WW2. Secondly, the League's inability to intervene when necessary, instead it choose appeasement.
Now, does this mean we should engage in world policing and intervention where ever we want? No. You state two perfect examples with the Shah and training of Al Qaeda where intervention is unnecessary and harmful to the global community. Another huge one is the Iraq war.
My main conclusion is that intervention can be helpful to all states when used in a collective security situation. Individual interventions like the Iraq war is not.
Ron Paul has taken staunch stances against the our involvement in the U.N. because of non interventionist beliefs and that he feels the U.N. threatens U.S. sovereignty. For this reason I cannot support him. I believe the U.N. is a positive influence for peace in the world and that giving up on it will only lead to the anarchical system of international relations that the world has seen for thousands of years.
Problem with your theory, is that it was a COLLECTIVE security situation which created the interventionist fervor of Versailles and the League of Nations. The very Versailles and League which led to the rise of Hitler.
You decry the fact that the US did not join the League of Nations, because you think if we had we could have stopped Hitler. However, the very reason we did not join was because enough influential people held power in our government who believed wholeheartedly that this radical interventionism in Germany would create nationalist angst and lead to a second world war. Again, they were RIGHT. Versailles and the League kept sticking their thumbs in Germany's ear, and it pissed off the Germans so bad that they found Adolph Hitler, KNOWING HIS TRUE PLATFORM, and foisted him upon the world as an answer.
Now you have a choice, history clearly records the factors leading to the creation and ascension of Adolph Hitler. You can either trust the overwhelming record of history, or the fantasies of one John McCain.
