Skip to comments.Ron Paul in 2009: “I Wouldn’t Have Risked American Lives” To End The Holocaust
Posted on 12/27/2011 9:32:29 AM PST by Nachum
On the evening of Sept. 16, 2009, I was invited to a function for Rand Pauls U.S. Senate campaign at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform.
I had been invited by a friend of mine via Facebook who was a passionate supporter of Ron Paul. Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students.
I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening.
And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?
And the Congressman answered:
No, I wouldnt. I wouldnt risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, thats fine, but I wouldnt do that.
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
The thing is, even if we didn’t declare war on Germany, Hitler would have (and actually did) declare war on the US, precisely because Hitler believed the US was run by Jews.
Why would Hitler go through all of the trouble of killing Europe’s Jews, and leave the country that in his mind, was still run by Jews, alone?
To Hitler and the Nazis, the war was all about eliminating the Jews, and as a byproduct, gaining ‘lebensraum’ for the German people. That’s why the Nazis were willing to sacrifice resources, that normally would have gone to the military, for instituting the “Final Solution.”
There IS such a thing as a write-in candidate! We have to stop Romney by any (legal) means necessary!
US war aims in Europe had ZERO to do with "stopping the holocaust", except that (of course) once Germany was conquered and a US-Soviet military government was put in place, the holocaust would end.
But that's not why we went to war, and if fact, our government did NOTHING to call attention to the plight of the Jews, in fact, quite the opposite was true.
Ron Paul is a true Libertarian. I would expect that answer from him. He should not be running in the Republican party but should instead be running for President in the Libertarian party.
From our perspective, we knew the Nazis were evil in many ways, the treatment of the Jews at that time, was considered only as one aspect of that evil....of course after the Nuremberg Trials, we learned a lot more about just how evil they were towards the Jews.
I expect to do same. Actually I feel like going into hibernation right now, for at least a year.
That right there is the one reason for the one area of caution I have for Ron Paul...
Immigration - both legal and illegal.
Anarchists are typically “open borders” types...
And of course, it’s the reason why we need better candidates of the like of McClintock, Tancredo and Hunter.
That is correct!
The goal was to destroy the German war machine and defeat Hitler, not save the Jews.
By June 6, 1944 the Holocaust had been underway for 6 years.
There were opportunities to disrupt railways and the death camps, but the Allies did not seize the opportunity!
America turned away refugees.
FDR was complicit in the Holocaust.
Virginia law prohibits write-ins only in the primary. Our choice will be Romney, Paul, or stay home.
I can't imagine that turnout will be anything short of pathetic.
Wrong....I say, write in "Mickey Mouse" for POTUS, but make sure you go to vote GOP for Senators and Congressmen, that's what really matters.
“nobody knew there was a true Holocaust that had been occuring until the allies started liberating the death camps..”
They knew earlier than that:
An intelligent person would not have answered this question in any way, shape or form for the simple reasons that Ron Paul could not have been president during WWII (he was 6 yrs. old in 1941), we as a nation did not know in 1941 about the extermination of Jews in Europe and Hitler did have designs on America. It is a totally useless question...unless the interviewer is trying to get Ron Paul to tacitly admit he's an anti-Semite. A trap which he blithely walked right into.
The only intelligent answer to the question would have been, "I'm sorry. I deal in reality. Next question."
So then the Nazis would have just shot the Jews instead of gassing them....plus those acts wouldn't have shortened the war. Better to use those resources towards destroying the Nazi war machine, and bring a quicker conclusion to the war.
Hindsight is 20/20, although we knew what the Nazis were doing to the Jews in 1938, keep in mind, anti-semitism was not unique to Nazi Germany , it was a European national pastime, so it was not considered to be all that out of line with what occurred in many other European countries.
It was easy for the Reich to demean, isolate, mark, and then whip the populace into a frenzy against the Jews. Those who were prosperous were high profile, and the recent economic ills the Germans had suffered were relatively easy to blame on the Jews.
The presence of such a ready scapegoat was further engineered to be used as a unifying factor for the remainder of the population (one of the dangers of mob rule).
It is highly likely that Alinsky studied the dangerous mob anger (groupthink) phenomenon exhibited by many of the German people during the years leading up to the war.
The same sort of anger can be capitalized upon in the US (pick a target group), especially with the current echo-chamber mentality applied in the MSM and in politics.
That is incredibly dangerous to a society and government which has as its basis the protection of the rights of the few against the many, even if we may find the few (ecowhackos, troofers, OWS, whoever) to be people we disagree with or don't like.
When we 'criminalize' believing differently, we set the stage for slaughter in our own back yard.
Would he tolerate the genocide of any people to save American lives or just the Jews?
[ The only intelligent answer to the question would have been, “I’m sorry. I deal in reality. Next question.” ]
On the contrary, it was a quite reasonable hypothetical, a standard “gotcha’ that every candidate must expect to field from time to time, and Paul’s answer could have contained greater detail, but it covered the essential point: US presidents do not have the constitutional authority to deploy troops into combat without reference to a pressing national interest, whether the appeal is being made for Jews, Armenians, Tutsis, Kosovites, Libyans, or North Koreans. Our current and recent presidents have not always recognized that limit on their authority, at least not on a consistent basis. Vote for more of that if you like. Some of us prefer a candidate who will respect the limits of his authority.
Of course they knew, and probably that knowledge was the reason they insisted on ‘Unconditional Surrender’ for the Nazis, as opposed to negotiating a truce with them. And frankly in some quarters there was pressure to do just that, out of a bigger fear of the Bolsheviks.
Nobody in the American government knew that 6 million jews had been murdered until after the war.. even your article says Roosevelt wasn’t told of the severity.. Eisenhower was shocked when the real numbers started to come out of the vast genocide that took place.. but that’s really a moot point because this is about Ron Paul and the genocidal misery that will happen around the world if he has his way