• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

For non RP Bots, why is Ron Paul a Loon?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: BoberFett

And just look where interventionism has gotten us. A fabulous war, angry Muslims with dynamite strapped to them, going broke policing the world. You're right, interventionism is wonderful! :roll:

I fail to see how pointing out Germany's success at our expense is a ringing endorsement of interventionism. Sounds to me like we'd be better off letting the terrorists win and enact the have Muhammed Plan to rebuild our country like we did for Germany. :thumbsup:
Iraq wasn't interventionism - that was imperialism. There is a huge difference.
The Iraq war isn't an isolated incident. Our interventionism since WWI is what now has our military and economy stretched all over the world, causing millions to hate the US and tanking our economy. Everything is related.
You call it interventionism, I call it imperialism. Interventionism carries connotations of benevolence or altruism, when actually all of these 'interventions' can easily be attributed to government policy of protecting our overseas corporate interests. To me that's imperialism. I would personally support altruistic interventionism, such as intervening in ethnic genocides or famine or disaster relief. The 'interventionism' that we've actually been involved in typically involves the killing and exploitation of brown people for corporate gain.

But the American conscience can't bear all of this, and so you'll never have a candidate who candidly engages these issues. Instead what passes for a straight talk express in this country is 90% bullshit, and is coming from all sides with few exceptions.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BoberFett
And just look where interventionism has gotten us. A fabulous war, angry Muslims with dynamite strapped to them, going broke policing the world. You're right, interventionism is wonderful! :roll:
You: see we stopped the Germans and now things aren't rosy all over the world like they should be


So...you think the world would look better now had the Nazi's won WWII? Let's see, worldwide fascist dominance and extermination of all opposition, or the occasional terrorist blowing something up. hm..coin toss....
:roll:

Nice red herring. If you recall, Hitler rose to power because of US interventionism.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Nice red herring. If you recall, Hitler rose to power because of US interventionism.
No, Hitler rose to power the same way other dictators have. By promising the moon and stars to a people so distraught and despaired they're willing to believe anything.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BoberFett
And just look where interventionism has gotten us. A fabulous war, angry Muslims with dynamite strapped to them, going broke policing the world. You're right, interventionism is wonderful! :roll:
You: see we stopped the Germans and now things aren't rosy all over the world like they should be


So...you think the world would look better now had the Nazi's won WWII? Let's see, worldwide fascist dominance and extermination of all opposition, or the occasional terrorist blowing something up. hm..coin toss....
:roll:

Nice red herring. If you recall, Hitler rose to power because of US interventionism.
Hitler did not rise to power because of the United States. You can scream it until your ears bleed, but it isn't correct.

Here are a list of things that facilitated Hitler's rise:
- France and Britain's desire to 'punish' Germany
- France and Britain's refuse to enforce said punishment.
- The economic collapse in the late 1920s.
- The rise of communism in Russia and communist thinking in Germany.
- The weakness of the Weimar Republic and the desire of many powerful people to return Germany to a monarchy or a more authoritarian state.
- The belief by those with power that Hitler could be controlled and would accept a figurehead position within Germany.
- Hitler's charisma. He built an incredible cult around his leadership and his personality - look at his campaign posters. They are black, with Hitler's face and just say HITLER. Nothing else.
- Hitler's policies. At his core, he promised to return Germany to its place in the sun. He promised to rebuild the economy. He played on the Red Scare, promising to rid Germany of communists.
- The military's dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic and the restrictions imposed on it.

That isn't a complete list, but blaming the US for Hitler is really not appropriate.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Nice red herring. If you recall, Hitler rose to power because of US interventionism.
No, Hitler rose to power the same way other dictators have. By promising the moon and stars to a people so distraught and despaired they're willing to believe anything.
Agreed. And why were they so distraught and despairing? They happened to lose a war that was primarily based on economic imperialist rivalries and saw the dissolution of their colonial empire and domestic economy.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
:roll:

Nice red herring. If you recall, Hitler rose to power because of US interventionism.
Hitler did not rise to power because of the United States. You can scream it until your ears bleed, but it isn't correct.

Here are a list of things that facilitated Hitler's rise:
- France and Britain's desire to 'punish' Germany
- France and Britain's refuse to enforce said punishment.
- The economic collapse in the late 1920s.
- The rise of communism in Russia and communist thinking in Germany.
- The weakness of the Weimar Republic and the desire of many powerful people to return Germany to a monarchy or a more authoritarian state.
- The belief by those with power that Hitler could be controlled and would accept a figurehead position within Germany.
- Hitler's charisma. He built an incredible cult around his leadership and his personality - look at his campaign posters. They are black, with Hitler's face and just say HITLER. Nothing else.
- Hitler's policies. At his core, he promised to return Germany to its place in the sun. He promised to rebuild the economy. He played on the Red Scare, promising to rid Germany of communists.
- The military's dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic and the restrictions imposed on it.

That isn't a complete list, but blaming the US for Hitler is really not appropriate.

All brought about because the US helped defeat Germany. Ergo, we're to blame.

Of course, America is made up of people, which depending on what you believe either evolved over billions of years from primordial ooze spawned from star dust, or god made us.

So really, it's either god's fault, or the universe.

[Ergo, we are not to blame anymore than existence itself]
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
:roll:

Nice red herring. If you recall, Hitler rose to power because of US interventionism.
Hitler did not rise to power because of the United States. You can scream it until your ears bleed, but it isn't correct.

Here are a list of things that facilitated Hitler's rise:
- France and Britain's desire to 'punish' Germany
- France and Britain's refuse to enforce said punishment.
- The economic collapse in the late 1920s.
- The rise of communism in Russia and communist thinking in Germany.
- The weakness of the Weimar Republic and the desire of many powerful people to return Germany to a monarchy or a more authoritarian state.
- The belief by those with power that Hitler could be controlled and would accept a figurehead position within Germany.
- Hitler's charisma. He built an incredible cult around his leadership and his personality - look at his campaign posters. They are black, with Hitler's face and just say HITLER. Nothing else.
- Hitler's policies. At his core, he promised to return Germany to its place in the sun. He promised to rebuild the economy. He played on the Red Scare, promising to rid Germany of communists.
- The military's dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic and the restrictions imposed on it.

That isn't a complete list, but blaming the US for Hitler is really not appropriate.

All brought about because the US helped defeat Germany. Ergo, we're to blame.

Of course, America is made up of people, which depending on what you believe either evolved over billions of years from primordial ooze spawned from star dust, or god made us.

So really, it's either god's fault, or the universe.
Ergo, we are NOT to blame. By your logic, Britain should share the blame because they lost the Revolutionary War and allowed the United States to become a free, independent country. World War I helped set the stage of Hitler, but by no means did it make Hitler's rise a guarantee. If you'd bother to do any reading whatsoever, you'd quickly learn that Hitler's appointment to Chancellor was pretty much blind luck. He was a fringe candidate, who was losing power and, because the German aristocracy thought they could control him they forced his appointment through.

If you disagree I expect a real argument explaning the line of causation that makes the US guilty of Hitler.

Don't dare argue counterfactuals either, that isn't an argument. If the US hadn't entered World War I, it's pretty unclear what would have happened.

Please, enlighten me.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
CitizenKain's post is so incredibly (oh I'll just not say to be nice) I'm not even sure where to start other than if that's what people really think then we are in a hell of a lot more trouble than I ever thought we were.

I'll start with no boom-busts since the big busts called a depression. Ugh..... Well 1st there was a boom then there was the depression and as I already pointed out and as even Ben Bernanke has admitted the depression was indeed the fault of the Federal Reserve. Milton Friedman and the worlds leading economists all agree, the Fed was the leading cause of the Depression. I digress, so what you are saying the great "Boom" of the 1950's didn't happen. You know the "Baby boom"? I guess you don't realize that was a financial "boom" as well? Then of course you had the oil crisis in the mid 70's I guess you're saying that wasn't a "bust". Then directly after that you had a boom then in the mid 80's you had another bust with the savings and loan shake up. Then we boomed again and yet one more time during G H Bush we had another bust. After that small bust Clinton balanced the budget and technology got cool for everyone and we had a boom and of course in 01 we had a big bust. Now we have a boom for a very long time with the wonderful Fed providing such unbelievably candified rates for every bank who is FDIC insured gets damn near free money, all in the name of stimulating the boom.

Now of course we're going to have a nice big bust on our hands, oh boy. Yep I see what you're saying, no boom-busts since the depression.... UGH

That's just what I can think of off the top of my head too..... Wow..... Maybe you're just in denial.

Moving on how pants on head crazy North Korea is. Well to be honest we have crazy all over the place and it looks to most I think even here that if N Korea did go bat shit crazy S Korea could probably handle them. If not it's not like we can't provide aid to them.

Ugh and you bring World War 2 up as if we actually were interventionist. We were attacked in World War 2, maybe you just forgot. It was our non-intervention policy that made us the super nation we are now after ww2. Unfortunately it was our intervention throughout Germany and Europe that literally created Hitler's demonic Reich. Time to read some history I think.
Yes, it is time to read some history. We were providing substantial aid to England throughout the first years of the conflict. We were only non-interventionist in name. Hell that was even in Ken Burns' documentary. :) You won't even have to read.

I'm confused about your demonic reich statement - it was the european policy of appeasement towards Hitler that allowed him to launch his war, which is a completely opposite concept of intervention. Unless now you're talking about the EU, and if that is the case I would urge you to be very careful in your comparisons of any body or person to Hitler and Nazi germany.

Look at the origins of Nazi germany - economic devastation at the hands of the allies in WWI is the root cause. If you want more detail I suggest you read some of that history you've been talking about. Post-WW2 you had the Marshall plan, which spent enormous sums of US money to rebuild Germany. Where did that lead? To Germany becoming an economic power and model country in the world. In other words; Exhibit A: isolationism=world war. Exhibit B: reconstruction=oktoberfest.
Much better said than when I tried.
And just look where interventionism has gotten us. A fabulous war, angry Muslims with dynamite strapped to them, going broke policing the world. You're right, interventionism is wonderful! :roll:

I fail to see how pointing out Germany's success at our expense is a ringing endorsement of interventionism. Sounds to me like we'd be better off letting the terrorists win and enact the have Muhammed Plan to rebuild our country like we did for Germany. :thumbsup:
Hitler is an example of how non-intervention can lead to disasters. The US's passivity regarding Europe from 1918 - 1939 is a HUGE component of why Hitler was able to stay in power.

Hitler was a wake-up call to this country about why we need to remain active in the world. That's why the US has been so active from 1945 - present: because of World War II. Interventionism has probably gone overboard with Iraq... It is also a reason why we can't just bury our heads in the sand regarding the rest of the world.

I'd be happy to explain in more detail, but only if you request so.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
So none of you fools think the US signing of the Treaty of Versailles had ANYTHING to do with creating an environment where a dictator could rise? No wonder you all think Paul is a loon, you're ignorant fools.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
So none of you fools think the US signing of the Treaty of Versailles had ANYTHING to do with creating an environment where a dictator could rise? No wonder you all think Paul is a loon, you're ignorant fools.
It's a disingenuous argument. The Treaty Of Versailles ended a fucking World War; And the USA was but one party to that treaty. Or perhaps you missed our allies?

This Blame America First mentality is disgusting.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
So none of you fools think the US signing of the Treaty of Versailles had ANYTHING to do with creating an environment where a dictator could rise? No wonder you all think Paul is a loon, you're ignorant fools.
I never said Ron Paul is a loon and don't call me ignorant. Instead of addressing my points, you've resorted to name-calling. Honestly, I have no idea what you do for a living or what you've spent time studying, but I know German history and I'm telling you, what you're saying just isn't correct.

I've tried to point out why and I will do so again.

The signing of Versailles was important in German history, but the parts of Versailles that ultimately really hurt Germany were written and negotiated by the French and British, not the US. If the US hadn't signed the treaty, what difference would it make? The senate refused to ratify it anyway.

Ultimately, if the British and French had enforced the treaty, Hitler would not have stayed in power. So, the treaty can only be blamed in part. The real 'blame' lies within Germany itself, on the poor decision-making of those who had the power to stop Hitler. Remember, Hitler did not get elected into office. He did not take office by force. He was appointed, after the previous government failed, by a group of individuals. The deal was brokered in a back room and, like I said, required a great deal of luck and skill on Hitler's part.

The treaty was signed in 1918. Hitler came to power in January 1933. That leaves 15 years unaccounted for in which the US played no role in Europe.

How the United States is responsible for Hitler's rise still alludes me, as you've ignored every point I've made.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
So none of you fools think the US signing of the Treaty of Versailles had ANYTHING to do with creating an environment where a dictator could rise? No wonder you all think Paul is a loon, you're ignorant fools.
Which portion of the treaty are you referring to? Is it that the restrictions on Germany were too strict? Or that the league of nations was the beginning of the end, so to speak? I have no idea what it is you're suggesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
America wasn't to blame for Hitler's rise to power, the blame can be put squarely on interventionism. Oh and America supported France and Britain, so we were far from complicit.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
America wasn't to blame for Hitler's rise to power, the blame can be put squarely on interventionism. Oh and America supported France and Britain, so we were far from complicit.
Again, you're selectively responding to my argument.

What interventionism are you talking about? We spent 15 years between the wars twiddling our thumbs. We spent the years before World War I twiddling our thumbs. We were NOT interventionist. We didn't even ratify the Treaty of Versailles and, if we hadn't been at the table, do you really think the treaty would have been any different.

PLUS if the British and French had actually adhered to the treaty, Hitler would have been bounced from office in the 1930s. They didn't adhere for a host of complicated reasons, but I think I can effectively argue that if the US had intervened and told Britain we'd back them up militarily then Britain and France would have dealt with Hitler early in his reign, before he was really powerful (the Re-militarization of the Rhineland was a prime time for this type of action).

Again, US non-interventionism contributed a lot more to Hitler's rise than 'intervention' we did during World War I.

Secondly, you completely ignored my argument like usual. Please respond to the points that I made, not the points you wish I made.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
America wasn't to blame for Hitler's rise to power, the blame can be put squarely on interventionism. Oh and America supported France and Britain, so we were far from complicit.
Yeah I'm done responding to this dumbass. He hasn't responded to any of my posts that directly and simply refute all of his bs, so I'm over it. I guess I had assumed that since he made the OP he would be interested in learning something, but that's not the case at all.

TROLL FTL.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

I havent' dodged the question. All I ever seem to get from you and Mavtek are attacks.

Of course government can always be better, faster, stronger, but the very idea of throwing out everything we've built because there's nothing worth saving in an effort to bring short-term satisfaction is not the way to approach the issue. We are not on the brink of some crisis, the world is not ending, and our government, while sometimes inept, generally does a good job of running the country.
Thats not what my argument has been this whole time. Paul wants to move in the direction of a smaller government. I have stated time and time and time again that any of his policies will take time to happen and you know it. It will take steps and years to achieve what he wants. All the while we can stop downsizing at any time. But you keep advocating it will be an instantaneous change and it won't. Such an abrupt change would cause a lot uncertainty. Paul could not do it by himself, his policies would still have to pass through congress.

I want a candidate that will reform government to some degree, that will abandon a lot of Bush's policies, but again, I'm not going to elect some reactionary, radical, guy to blow everything up because Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., etc all made some mistakes.
Again, you are going with the "sticker shock" mentality . His policies will not happen over night. Period.

Really though, do you want us to move to a smaller form of government or bigger? You can't be wrong cause its your opinion.
 

SleepWalkerX

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,649
0
0
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: virginiakid
All of the candidates are strapped for money except for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. He has been getting some major endorsements and it appears he is starting to be taken serious. People are really looking at him as a viable candidate.
Look, if we make stuff up we don't feel as bad about losing!
What part isn't true? Ron Paul already placed second in the Louisiana Caucus and the Nevada Caucus and, besides Romney, he's the only one with the dough for commercials, event managers, campaign managers, etc. Now that Thompson is out, those delegate votes will probably go to Paul as he's the next closest conservative there. He's far from being out.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

I havent' dodged the question. All I ever seem to get from you and Mavtek are attacks.

Of course government can always be better, faster, stronger, but the very idea of throwing out everything we've built because there's nothing worth saving in an effort to bring short-term satisfaction is not the way to approach the issue. We are not on the brink of some crisis, the world is not ending, and our government, while sometimes inept, generally does a good job of running the country.
Thats not what my argument has been this whole time. Paul wants to move in the direction of a smaller government. I have stated time and time and time again that any of his policies will take time to happen and you know it. It will take steps and years to achieve what he wants. All the while we can stop downsizing at any time. But you keep advocating it will be an instantaneous change and it won't. Such an abrupt change would cause a lot uncertainty. Paul could not do it by himself, his policies would still have to pass through congress.

I want a candidate that will reform government to some degree, that will abandon a lot of Bush's policies, but again, I'm not going to elect some reactionary, radical, guy to blow everything up because Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., etc all made some mistakes.
Again, you are going with the "sticker shock" mentality again. His policies will not happen over night. Period.

Really though, do you want us to move to a smaller form of government or bigger? You can't be wrong cause its your opinion.
I support reasonable downsizing of government. I don't think 95% of our agencies are expendable or unnecessary.

I'm not saying his changes will be instantaneous, but I do not want a candidate in office who supports the extreme positions Ron Paul supports. Even if those extremes never see the light of day, I do not want a man who holds those beliefs running our country.

mmkay? :)
 

SleepWalkerX

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,649
0
0
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I support reasonable downsizing of government. I don't think 95% of our agencies are expendable or unnecessary.

I'm not saying his changes will be instantaneous, but I do not want a candidate in office who supports the extreme positions Ron Paul supports. Even if those extremes never see the light of day, I do not want a man who holds those beliefs running our country.

mmkay? :)
I understand your concern. The main problem isn't that most of these programs are inefficient or ineffective (which a lot are), but that they shouldn't be federal entities in the first place. But besides that, things usually become a lot easier to manage when you focus on them in a smaller area. Its easier to deal with corruption that way too. This is imho of course.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

I havent' dodged the question. All I ever seem to get from you and Mavtek are attacks.

Of course government can always be better, faster, stronger, but the very idea of throwing out everything we've built because there's nothing worth saving in an effort to bring short-term satisfaction is not the way to approach the issue. We are not on the brink of some crisis, the world is not ending, and our government, while sometimes inept, generally does a good job of running the country.
Thats not what my argument has been this whole time. Paul wants to move in the direction of a smaller government. I have stated time and time and time again that any of his policies will take time to happen and you know it. It will take steps and years to achieve what he wants. All the while we can stop downsizing at any time. But you keep advocating it will be an instantaneous change and it won't. Such an abrupt change would cause a lot uncertainty. Paul could not do it by himself, his policies would still have to pass through congress.

I want a candidate that will reform government to some degree, that will abandon a lot of Bush's policies, but again, I'm not going to elect some reactionary, radical, guy to blow everything up because Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., etc all made some mistakes.
Again, you are going with the "sticker shock" mentality again. His policies will not happen over night. Period.

Really though, do you want us to move to a smaller form of government or bigger? You can't be wrong cause its your opinion.
I support reasonable downsizing of government. I don't think 95% of our agencies are expendable or unnecessary.

I'm not saying his changes will be instantaneous, but I do not want a candidate in office who supports the extreme positions Ron Paul supports. Even if those extremes never see the light of day, I do not want a man who holds those beliefs running our country.

mmkay? :)
Fair enough, but realize those beliefs founded this country.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: virginiakid
All of the candidates are strapped for money except for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. He has been getting some major endorsements and it appears he is starting to be taken serious. People are really looking at him as a viable candidate.
Look, if we make stuff up we don't feel as bad about losing!
What part isn't true? Ron Paul already placed second in the Louisiana Caucus and the Nevada Caucus and, besides Romney, he's the only one with the dough for commercials, event managers, campaign managers, etc. Now that Thompson is out, those delegate votes will probably go to Paul as he's the next closest conservative there. He's far from being out.
From the last FEC filings, which were published last September, the frontrunners had huge amounts of cash. Romney had over 62 million, McCain had 30 million, Giuliani had 45million. Paul had 8 million.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: virginiakid
All of the candidates are strapped for money except for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. He has been getting some major endorsements and it appears he is starting to be taken serious. People are really looking at him as a viable candidate.
Look, if we make stuff up we don't feel as bad about losing!
What part isn't true? Ron Paul already placed second in the Louisiana Caucus and the Nevada Caucus and, besides Romney, he's the only one with the dough for commercials, event managers, campaign managers, etc. Now that Thompson is out, those delegate votes will probably go to Paul as he's the next closest conservative there. He's far from being out.
From the last FEC filings, which were published last September, the frontrunners had huge amounts of cash. Romney had over 62 million, McCain had 30 million, Giuliani had 45million. Paul had 8 million.
Yeah cause its last September now :roll:
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
America wasn't to blame for Hitler's rise to power, the blame can be put squarely on interventionism. Oh and America supported France and Britain, so we were far from complicit.
Again, you're selectively responding to my argument.

What interventionism are you talking about? We spent 15 years between the wars twiddling our thumbs. We spent the years before World War I twiddling our thumbs. We were NOT interventionist. We didn't even ratify the Treaty of Versailles and, if we hadn't been at the table, do you really think the treaty would have been any different.

PLUS if the British and French had actually adhered to the treaty, Hitler would have been bounced from office in the 1930s. They didn't adhere for a host of complicated reasons, but I think I can effectively argue that if the US had intervened and told Britain we'd back them up militarily then Britain and France would have dealt with Hitler early in his reign, before he was really powerful (the Re-militarization of the Rhineland was a prime time for this type of action).

Again, US non-interventionism contributed a lot more to Hitler's rise than 'intervention' we did during World War I.

Secondly, you completely ignored my argument like usual. Please respond to the points that I made, not the points you wish I made.
Mavtek, just admit you have no response to what I've said and stop distorting history for your political arguments.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
America wasn't to blame for Hitler's rise to power, the blame can be put squarely on interventionism. Oh and America supported France and Britain, so we were far from complicit.
Again, you're selectively responding to my argument.

What interventionism are you talking about? We spent 15 years between the wars twiddling our thumbs. We spent the years before World War I twiddling our thumbs. We were NOT interventionist. We didn't even ratify the Treaty of Versailles and, if we hadn't been at the table, do you really think the treaty would have been any different.

Cool, yea didn't say we did, did I?

PLUS if the British and French had actually adhered to the treaty, Hitler would have been bounced from office in the 1930s. They didn't adhere for a host of complicated reasons, but I think I can effectively argue that if the US had intervened and told Britain we'd back them up militarily then Britain and France would have dealt with Hitler early in his reign, before he was really powerful (the Re-militarization of the Rhineland was a prime time for this type of action).

Again, US non-interventionism contributed a lot more to Hitler's rise than 'intervention' we did during World War I.

It was intervention in the form of sanctions from the original treaty that allowed Hitler to manipulate his money supply and get the Public hopping mad at the rest of the world. I'm not sure what assertion you making. We diplomatically supported Britain and France and the Treaty that dealt these sanctions. Now if you say we could have handled it via military action, sure maybe, but if the sanctions were to continue it would pave the road for the next Hitler. The cycle continues...........

Secondly, you completely ignored my argument like usual. Please respond to the points that I made, not the points you wish I made.
I got busy in the cage match. Let me look through the topic and I'll get back to you.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS