Congressman Paul’s critics are now claiming he is a Neville Chamberlain, who would have, were he president at the outset of World War II, have given Adolph Hitler a free ride (see here). With Dr. Paul at the helm, the last century would have been the beginning of a Nazi Reich. --- neocons always resort to the jewish habit of calling people anti- semitc, racists, and nazis
ignore them as they really are stooges On Dec 28, 12:19 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron Paul as a Stooge for Adolph Hitlerby Walter Block > Believe it or not, Congressman Paul’s critics are now claiming he is a > Neville Chamberlain, who would have, were he president at the outset of World > War II, have given Adolph Hitler a free ride (seehere). With Dr. Paul at the > helm, the last century would have been the beginning of a Nazi Reich. > Nonsense. > First of all, a President Paul would never have foisted an oil embargo on > Japan. So, there would have been no attack on Pearl Harbor, and no fighting > with the Japanese military would have been necessary. This consideration > alone means that hundreds of thousands of innocent people would not have > perished. And, also, it would not have been the case that the U.S. would have > been the only country in history to have actually used atomic weapons. (Is it > not a bit hypocritical for the U.S. to object to Iran having a nuclear weapon > on this ground alone?) > Second, Congress did indeed declare war on Germany; this is compatible with > the U.S. Constitution, which Ron Paul, if no other candidate for President in > 2012, fervently supports. > Third, and most important, it is unlikely that Hitler would have ever arisen > to power in Germany without U.S. entry into World War I, in 1919. Although > contrary to fact history can only be speculative, consider the following > points. > Before the U.S. poked its nose into a war that was none of its business > (neither side threatened us), the war was fought on a roughly equal basis. > Thousands of soldiers, on both sides, perished in fighting over a few acres > of trenches. Likely, this war would have petered out before too long, if only > due to the fact that both sides were running out of material, human and > otherwise, necessary to carry on. But, our ruling class had more bonds with > the British than with the Germans, so our way ahead was clear, with no > President Paul to save us from our folly. > As a result, the Allies beat the Axis powers. Following up on this, the > punitive Treaty of Versailles was imposed upon the losers, who were declared > solely responsible for the hostilities. This lead to the German > hyper-inflation of 1923, which, along with the aforementioned Treaty of > Versailles, reduced the German society and economy to a rubble. It was only > in the aftermath of these body blows to the German people that a scoundrel > such as Hitler could have arisen. > A Paul presidency in 1940 would have meant a war with Germany, but not Japan. > However, a President Paul in 1919 would not have encouraged U.S. entry into > that conflagration. If he was successful, there would have been no need for > any declaration of war against Germany, as there would have been no Adolph > Hitler and his Nazis in charge. He would have been, instead, an unknown house > painter. With a President Paul at the helm, there would have been no > holocaust; no 50 million people perishing during this war; no dropping of > atomic bombs on innocent civilians, women and children, to our eternal shame. > Speaking of this "war" nomenclature, the historians have got it all wrong. > There were not two separate wars, so-called World War I, and then so-called > World War II. There was onlyoneWorld War. It started in 1914 and ended in > 1946; yes, yes, there was a slight cessation of hostilities between 1919 and > 1939, but the so-called "interwar period" consisted of the Allies taking > steps that brought Hitler front and center, in effectcreatedhim, and thus > assured the continuation of thisoneWorld War. (In like manner, the historians > who claim there was a "Civil War" in the U.S. between 1861 and 1865 are > similarly mistaken. A civil war takes place between two parties each of which > desires to rule the territory occupied by the both of them. The Spanish Civil > War qualifies in this regard, because the Communists and the Fascists both > wanted to rule over that entire country. But in 1861, while the North wanted > control over the entire U.S. both North and South, the South only desired > tosecede. So, a more proper name for this conflagration would be, The War to > Prevent Southern Secession, or the U.S. War of Secession.) > Can we be sure of any such alternative history of the sort I am assuming with > Ron Paul as President during these earlier epochs? Of course not. But, it is > more likely, far more likely, than the scenarios painted by the enemies of > Ron Paul in their feverish attempt to deny him the presidency, and to deny > the rest of us the peace and prosperity we all want. Contrary to fact history > can only be a guess-timate. The critics of Congressman Paul maintain he would > have been a pushover for Hitler. I maintain, to the contrary, that he would > not havecreateda Hitler as did actually occur, and, had he taken office only > in 1940, he would have presided as commander in chief over a war declared by > congress. He would have won it more quickly, since he would have only had to > fight Germany and Italy, not Japan too. Yes, Germany only declared war > against America because of the U.S. declaration of war against Japan. But, as > long as Congress declared war on Germany, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. > armed forces Paul would have acted in a Constitutional manner in pursuing > this war. Dr. Paul does not oppose war per se, only offensive wars not > declared by Congress, as he has stated over and over again. Ron Paul is a > veteran of the U.S. Air Force; he has served his country in a military > capacity, unlike the hordes of chicken hawks now calling for unconstitutional > imperialist wars but who sought deferments when they were young men. > The racism and anti-Semitism charges have failed. This Hitler criticism is > just plain silly. They can’t call him a flip-flopper. They have already > attacked his suits and his eye-brows. Yes, his eye-brows. I guess they are > not sufficiently presidential. What smears are next for Dr. Paul, as he > sweeps his way into the White House? We can only speculate. How about, Ron’s > love child? Children? Or, his 15 mistresses? No, wait; here is a better one: > Ron as child abuser. Remember those 4,000 babies he delivered? Well, he > molested them all. This just in: they are now criticizing his > investmentportfolio. More fast breaking news: Ron is "indifferentto throwing > people out of work." Will wonders never cease? It’s really hard to keep up > with all the attacks. I mean, the man is a real ogre. Maybe we Paulians > shouldn’t support him? Nah. He’s the best man to clean out the Augean > stables. Congressman Paul might have some difficulty winning the Republican > nomination, but when it comes to his face off with President Obama next year, > he’s going to kick butt. Obomba’s supporters will desert him for his > imperialist militarism, for his bailouts, for his opposition to drug > legalization. Independents, and even Democrats, will prove Dr. Paul’s margin > of victory.http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block190.html -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
