Posted on 03/31/2014 11:04:32 AM PDT by gwgn02
At the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin this weekend highlighted a video of Rand Paul speaking in 2012 about sanctions on Iran. In it, Paul disparages the notion of use of force, and for some reason claims the United States was partly to blame for World War II!
“There are times when sanctions have made it worse. I mean, there are times .. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily. We also had a blockade on Germany after World War I, which may have encouraged them … some of their anger.”
Rubin spoke with David David Adesnik of the American Enterprise Institute about Paul’s remarks:
After viewing the video, he tells Right Turn, “Blaming the U.S. for Pearl Harbor is a long-standing isolationist habit that reflects tremendous historical illiteracy. Sen. Paul is very poorly informed if he thinks U.S. sanctions ‘probably caused Japan to react angrily.’” He explains, “The U.S. cut off oil supplies to Japan in August 1941, long after Japan had launched its atrocity-laden war against China in 1937. The evidence is conclusive that Japan was determined to dominate all of East Asia. Believing that the U.S. would not stand by passively if it overran Thailand, Singapore, Malaya and the East Indies, Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.”
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
If Japan had to pay more for oil they would cease to be a sovereign nation?
Who was about to conquer Japan in 1941, exactly?
Although much more coherent and seemingly down to earth than his dad, these are looney-tune ideas. He either stops saying this stuff now and focuses on today's REAL issue and threat to all of us (our OWN government beast) or say goodbye to Rand.
Palin, where are you?
http://mises.org/document/3130/Back-Door-to-War-The-Roosevelt-Foreign-Policy-19331941
Keep in mind that there were many people who hated FDR a lot more than they hated the Nazis or the Japanese. What irks me is that many of them end up becoming indifferent to their own country out of anger and frustration, no longer patriots; it's similar, I think, to those who are so mad at Obama that they excuse Putin for his crimes.
Bravo! Great reply. FDR was a traitor on all accounts, allowing the sucker-punching of Pearl Harbor so as to bring the US into WWII. We probably would have ended up in the war anyway, but the way it was done was reprehensible.
I may have to read the Hoover book. thanks for the link.
Kind of like the morons who hate Obama so much (and refuse to believe he has an expiration date) that they are falling in love with Putin and Assad.
Completely irrational.
You are correct that the issue is not as simple as Bad Japan.
In the 30s the Japanese were quite literally faced with a choice between continued expansion into SE Asia to get the markets and resources they needed to maintain a first-world economy. Or a retreat to the home islands and perhaps Korea and Formosa. Which were not even capable of growing adequate food for the exploding Japanese population.
After WWII Japan survived by selling its products all over the world, first cheap crap and then increasingly value-added stuff. This wasn’t an option in the 30s, because tariffs imposed by other nations prevented them from selling their products.
So when FDR imposed the sanctions, the Japanese couldn’t stay where they were, and retreat wasn’t a very attractive option. Their only real option was to strike for regional empire that would allow them to survive as an imperial power.
IOW, Paul was right that FDR intentionally forced the Japanese into a no-win situation. His mistake was in thinking the Japanese would be unable to do anything about it.
Since the Japanese had started two previous wars, against China and Russia, by surprise attacks on the enemy’s premier naval base, at the very least American naval and political thinkers showed an amazing lack of forethought as to the possible repercussions of their policies.
Yep, Paul is a bit off with these comments. Does that disqualify him on the other issues of the day? No, just makes me look skeptically at some of his foreign policy views. Still, rather curious that this has come up now along with some very interesting stories about how Jeb Bush is the man for 2016. If you ask me, the mountain that will be made out of the mole hill that are these comments from Mr. Paul are simply part of the GOP-e’s “destroy the latest perceived conservative frontrunner” machine kicking into gear early.
I for one decline to roll with it and post such things as “Rand is done” or “What an idiot” etc. Nope, I view any of these stories about conservative leaning candidates through the lens of not trusting the messengers and through looking for a possible hidden agenda.
Not to mention the need to PROVOKE the largely isolationist American people to get into the war against the Axis powers to save the Brits AND their lucrative opium trade in their remaining Chinese colonies after the rape of Nanking.
And John Toland and others have documented that FDR and his people had advance warning of the Japanese fleets move toward Pearl and failed to alert Kimmel and Short, leaving them open for the attack. Both men were hung out to dry in the aftermath.
My jury is still out on the “wisdom” of all of that, a sentiment NOT shared, I’m sure, by the families of those killed at Pearl and beyond. But, as the politicians crudely say to themselves, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And to take the position that the Japanese were not provoked is to ignore not only the history of how to get a nation into a war but the specific 411 surrounding our entry into WWII. And there was a bit of documentation that a number of US firms continued doing business with Hitler and many of their German based facilities were off-limits to our bombers.
When I was in the service during the early run up to Vietnam, some of my more knowledgeable and cynical comrades often uttered this phrase: “War IS good for business. Invest your sons.”
All of that said, looking at the mess in the world today, can anyone say that it would look much different had we stayed home after 1941?
Attack me for this if you will. Bracing for impact.
Thanks, Gore Vidal.
I’ve been hesitate to endorse Rand Paul waiting to see if he was his father in disguise. Looks like it was a prudent move.
Here we go again. The Left basically lies while the video shows his point is unintended consequences, not "blaming the U.S. for WWII". Unfortunately, many on the Right will take the Leftist bate. Yes, I think Rand's worst feature is his foreign policy, but the Left hates him and the Right taking on their lies doesn't help.
Whoa.... be careful there pal. A rational explanation of the truth often doesn’t go well with the knee-jerk brigade. (Great explanation by the way)
Are there not enough current issues that Rand Paul can make himself a fool over? Why pick an event that happened 72 years ago?
He is not Presidential material.
Rand Paul always talks like this. He goes against the best Tea Party candidates whenever he feel like it.
How can anyone ever be surprised by anything he says?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
After his endorsement of Mitch McConnell, nothing he does surprises me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.