Only the abandonment of American isolationism stopped Hitler. Or are you, like the leftists who adore Gorbachev, going to insist that Hitler let himself be defeated for the sake of the world?
Paul wants everyone to believe that the U.S. can, under his leadership, turn back the clock and go back to a foreign policy philosophy that existed before the days of trans-ocean flight, spy satellites, and ICBMs. Sorry, Ronnie -- that moment has passed, and nothing's going to bring it back. Deal with the world as it is, not the way you wish it was.
Abandonment of American Non-interventionism created hitler. Without US involvement in WWI, either Germany would have won the war or there would have been a negotiated peace. Either way, there would have been no support in a undefeated Imperial Germany for hitler & his nazis to rise to power.
Also, would a strong, united Germany have allowed the cancer of communism to take power in Russia? I think not.
Fascists came to power in post-WWI Italy because the Italians were led to believe that the Allies screwed them out of their "just rewards" due to them by virtue of the fact that they fought on the Allied side. Would the fascists have been able to use this argument to rise to power if they were not on the winning side in WWI? I think not.
The Allies extensively used, and were very dependent on native and colonial support during WWII. Countless future "freedom fighters" learned their trade by participation in WWII. Early defeats of Allied forces by the Axis, including European and American defeats at the hands of non-European Japanese, showed the third world that colonial powers were not invincible. Most colonial possesions of the European powers gained their independence because of the lessons of WWII and the fact that the west was weakened and war-weary after "victory". Problem is, they were not ready for self-government at the time. They needed generations of people to be educated in proper governance, as well as a drawn-out period of gradual transition to native rule to have had a chance to become peaceful and prosperous independent nations.
Would a third world have had a much greater chance at becoming functioning, peaceful and prosperous independent nations if the western powers had held power in the colonies longer and transitioned to self-rule over a long period? I think so.
You, and most other Ron Paul detractors argue that in "today's world", a non-interventionallist foreign policy would lead to disaster. I say that your position had it's way for almost the entire 20th century, and that it directly resulted in the bloodiest, most violent and destructive century in the history of the human race, and that it's time to try something different.
I think that history backs up my (and Dr. Paul's) position.