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.
USA did not enter the war in Europe.
PH was 12/7, we declared war on Japan on the 8th. Hitler then unilaterally and unnecessarily declared war on USA on the 11th. We returned the favor later the same day.
I presume your dad would think we should fight back when someone declares war on us?
BTW, the idea that Hitler and Stalin would conveniently fight each other to exhaustion while we stand by to pick up the pieces is not necessarily true.
A scenario at least as likely has the Nazis crushing the Reds in 1942, then sitting back to absorb its meal of Europe to the Urals, North Africa and the Middle East. This would have completely eliminated the Germans' resource problems. Immense quantities of manpower and industry come into their control to build up their forces. Invasion and conquest of Europe without Germany having to deal with an Eastern Front was quite literally beyond our power in WWII.
The US leaders at the time, quite rightly IMO, decided that Germany was a real threat to conquer the world, while Japan simply was not.
So the decision was taken, again correctly IMO, to address the greater threat first.
Now today we know it didn't really matter. Nukes in 1945 could have been used as effectively on Germany as they were on Japan. But in 1942 we simply did not know we'd have nukes in a few years. FTM nobody knew for sure whether they'd work till mid-July of 45.
BTW, a strategy by UK and France of leaving Hitler and Stalin to fight it out against each other is exactly what led to the infamous Non-Aggression Pact between the two.
I believe that the answer to that (from the Pauls) is absolutely yes.
The neocons are out in full force, the order of the day is trash Rand Paul anyway way you can. They’ve got to clear a path for Jeb and Rand is an obstacle that must be destroyed.
ping for later
RE: Anyone have the Rand Paul quote saying he blamed the US for Pearl Harbor?
This is his 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.”
So, what to make of it?
We cut of trade with Japan, Japan because of it, reacted angrily and BOMBED Pearl Harbor.... Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that we were to blame for cutting off trade and causing them to react this way?
Or maybe you have a different take...
RE: They’ve got to clear a path for Jeb and Rand is an obstacle that must be destroyed.
How about clearing a path for someone with a less isolationist view of foreign policy? Why does it have to be Jeb? Why not Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin instead?
True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Funny, I couldn’t find the words “Pearl Harbor” in that quote. hmmmm
BTW - I understand that Rand is a Libertarian who doesn’t believe in Foreign Policy Entanglements. I am not defending his position.
I am just tired of people “quoting” things the person being targeted never said. Reminds me of something Tina Fey said while impersonating Sarah Palin that even people here on FR believe was said by Palin.
So what does this nimrod think about 9/11?
I bet he blames the Chinese and the Koreans and the Australians too for angering Japan.
Hitler & Stalin would not have stopped. We would have still been involved and the deaths would have been greater then the 50 million +
Best case scenario, Hitler takes Moscow, Stalin is deposed along with most of the Bolsheviks, and Russia rallies to defeat Nazi Germany.....Bolsheviks and Nazis, both out of the picture.
IIRC, the comment was from a speech from several months (maybe 2 years?) ago. Seems that his comment, out of context, is being twisted and headlined now.
Yep. This article is complete BS.
I believe his comments were taken out of context. The title is misleading as well.
The GOPe and demos are coming at him from all directions.
I’ve always been convinced FDR negotiated the bombing of Pearl with the Japs!
factors other than the economic snactions iclude passage of the 2 ocean navy act. the ijn thought they needed 70% of what the usn could put against them in order to win a war. (this number was made up without a lot of basis in facts). with the 2 ocean navy they would never achieve that number after 1943 and so could not win a war.
I get your sarcasm, and you’re right. However, when potentially running for office, especially the presidency, what I said unfortunately holds true.
The “Low Information Voters” always have to be the target audience for any statements, because THEY are the majority of voters overall, across all demographics. I know it sucks, but that’s the reality. In a political world of 5 second soundbites and 30 second ads, you can’t enter an in depth discussion regarding anything. Sad, but true. I’d LOVE it if someone could, but it would be a matter of losing, while feeling good about yourself while doing it...
A chapter in history that will never be told in which FDR and Eisenhower are directly implicated is Operation Keelhaul. They both signed off directly on this operation. A major disgrace on America and and England as it sold out it’s allies and many of their own and aided the dark side of the force so to speak.
The forced repatriation of millions many of whom had been promised escape in the West for their cooperation with the allies were sold out along with our own POWs and anyone fleeing the terror they knew awaited them. Absolute dastardly behavior that most Americans would refuse to believe because it doesn’t fit into our conception the past. Probably call it a pack of lies but research it yourself if you dare.
A pretty good synopsis on this blogsite as to the extent of the operation.
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/2013/03/operation-keelhaul-hidden-allied.html
I like rand paul on economic issues but don’t trust his judgment on foreign policy based on stupid quotes like the one listed here. He has some loose screws. Paul may make good VP candidate - possibly - but that’s it. No way I would support him for president.
I’m in the “let it burn” party. Let’s just get it over with. I might not be a kid anymore, but I’d rather rebuild now instead of ten years from now when I’m ten years older.
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.