What would Ron Paul have done in 1940?

[jmunjr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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~]

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.