Posted on 04/01/2014 8:08:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The views in the video aren’t surprising.
They’re the views of Ron and Rand Paul and their intellectual milieu which believes that most wars are set up by banks. According to them, the US need not have gotten involved in WW2.
“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.” Paul says.
Paleocon revisionist historians go on to claim even that Japan exhausted every diplomatic outlet and that it had no choice left but to bomb Pearl Harbor.
Sanctions were never really the issue though. Japan wanted European powers out of Asia. And it considered America a European power.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a flanking raid in support of the Japanese seizure of the Dutch East Indies. A major reason for Japan’s attack on the US was its assumption that FDR would not have let Japan attack the UK without a response. We no doubt could have abandoned the UK and the Dutch, watched the atrocities from a distance, the torture, mass murder and rape, and gone on selling Japan anything it wanted.
Would that have worked? Doubtfully.
The Japanese army and navy were poorly controlled and its officers were drunk with power and victory. Their understanding of their own limitations was often non-existent. Plans for war with the US had been in place for a while and there were historical grudges there long predating FDR.
A victorious Japan would have been even more difficult to co-exist with than an overcommitted one. Furthermore Hawaii had enough Japanese that the whole Volksdeutsche scenario would have reared its ugly head.
The US could no doubt have ceded Hawaii, but where exactly does all that end?
Japan, like Nazi Germany, was trying to compensate for a bad economic policy with war and conquest. Every victory fed military egos while piling up more problems that could only be dealt with through more war and conquest.
The idea that the US could have just stayed out of Japan’s way is like thinking that you can stay out of a mugger’s way. You can, a few times, but if you intend on being in the neighborhood, he will come for you.
My Dad, who was in Philippines, Leyte Gulf, Battle of Luzon - said he never understood why the US entered the war in Europe. Wouldn’t it have been better to simply let Hitler and Stalin bash each other’s brains out? I still can’t disagree with his position.
If you’ve read Japanese thoughts on the situation, that was exactly their thinking, that they would have an approximately 12-18 month window where they could project and consolidate power and resources, or be forced to take a back seat to the demands of the west.
What the Pauls are saying is that we essentially knew that, and also knew that in forcing them to play their hand early the administration would get what they really desired which was a declaration out of Germany bringing us into the European theater before the Germans could consolidate a continental hegemony.
Not what he said at all.
RE: Not what he said at all.
It would be helpful to copy and paste his exact quote:
http://therightscoop.com/rand-paul-america-partly-to-blame-for-pearl-harbor-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.”
You’re right about there being nothing to gain from discussing anything pre-historic (ie, anything before December 7th 1941). Everyone knows that nothing happened between the end of the the civil war and the first week in December of 1941. Cable teevee says so.
I’m aware of the history of what Japanese reasons given are but the Paul’s contention that the Japanese were “probably forced....” doesn’t include the Death March, the Rape of Nanking nor the Germans, presumably “forcing millions into ovens to bring to the world’s attention that the German people were forced into poverty by the other European countries after WWI.”
So, as I asked above, is Rand Paul suggesting that if Iran PROVED to be developing nukes, that we do nothing and let them?
And if Russia invades Eastern Ukraine, Moldova and other East European countries, we do nothing?
Correct or not, Rand Paul is ill-advised to enter into historical controversies. He risks sounding like an oddball and a crank. That is why US Senators tend to falter as candidates for President: they like to run their mouths about damn near anything and everything. In contrast, Governors (and Presidents) discipline themselves and avoid controversies that do not directly advance their goals.
Sanctions are provocative. That’s the point of them. But they are an “effect” in themselves...not a cause.
RE: Sanctions are provocative.
OK, next question.... should America NOT be provocative in the case of Iran or Russia?
Because he is stupid.
How on EARTH anyone calling themselves a Patriot can support the Pauls is absolutely beyond me.
Interesting. Not one word about the Japanese war on China and how
that helped to drive the US policy regarding Japan. As to the Rands,
politicians should confine their public history analysis to the most
basic concepts such as what the Founding Fathers intended. Newt,
whether we like him or not, would be an exception because he is
a professional historian. The Rands read a dubious book authored by
a WWII era isolationist or they just find a way to conform history
to their liking. Either way they look foolish in my book. Too bad.
I generally like Rand.
And since “undocumented immigrants” vote Democrat 8-1 and register overwhelmingly as Democrats (the `Freeby Party’), according to Rand we need to stop talking deportation, and “legalize” and embrace them.
What a maroon. If Rand Paul isn’t a Democrat, he should be.
(See new tagline, created especially for the recent bounty of Demo-liars: Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Biden, et al.)
I presume you meant US failures were largely responsible for the great success of the attack, not for it's being launched.
the same logic that blames the us for pearl harbor applies when blaming society for criminal behavior.
Rand Paul did not blaim the U.S. for WWII.
He stated, most correctly, that sanctions can lead to uninteded consequences.
Japan’s decision on attacking the U.S. when it did was based almost solely on the effects of the oil embargo placed upon it.
Sanctions are a form of ultimatum and be the party given the ultimatum may not choose the option that we would prefer. That was Rand Paul’s point, and its a valid point.
Uncle Joe Stalin made the Japanese look like bedwetting school girls but FDR gave Stalin Manchuria and North Korea, not to mention Poland(!), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, etc.,etc., and practically ensured the Communuization of China and the deaths of ten of millions Chinese.
Anyone have the Rand Paul quote saying he blamed the US for Pearl Harbor?
Didn’t think so.
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.