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 ...
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
I singled that group in the 1930’s out because Paul’s and Buchannan’s positions come from these isolationists. There seems to be nothing entirely new in the “something new and different” of the Paulists. Just as the OWS recycle the 60’s radicals who recycled the 30’s communists who, in turn, “discovered” the IWW and Bolsheviks.
Also, the 30’s isolationists favored the rise of the fascists in Europe. So, isolationism was often more, “don’t get in the way” than “don’t influence”.
Buchanan, like many Irish Catholics (including Joe P. Kennedy), had a hatred for all things British, They would have loved seeing the swastika flying over Buckingham Palace.
His supporters are even more retarded.
You bet. Kennedy is a great example.
This statement represents the typical level of discourse on these Ron Paul threads.
“Pearl Harbor is all Americas fault, right, Mommy? - Ron Paul, age 6, 12/7/1941”
In all fairness, this statement is not a fair extrapolation from what Paul said in the article.
Do you think America has the obligation to intervene to prevent genocide? Anywhere and anytime? I don’t.
[ Psssst.... Nobody around here wants actual “facts” or a “logical” debate in response to the Anti-Paul flame throwers who dominate this forum. Now you HUSH and sit yer azz down... drink the G.O.P. Kool Aid... and go vote for Newt or Mitt... or whomever you are told to vote for by the machine. *-) ]
Both corps of “the machine” inhabiting the Beltway have recently joined to codify the means for future presidents and the present occupant of the office to select you or me for “indefinite detention” at his discretion, not subject to judicial review. So screw the machine in all its manifestations.
In truth, none of the candidates on offer are very attractive, including Paul, but for all the craziness attributed to him he is the least insane and certainly the least erratic of the bunch. Perhaps our polity is so far gone that the candidate selection process inevitably filters out all sane individuals early on. This election may be like voting for the next captain of the Titanic after it struck the iceberg. It might be better to focus on access to the lifeboats and donning flotation gear. As in Acts 27, sometimes the ship goes down but the passengers and crew manage to make it through. Now there’s a cheerful thought for the new year!
“but thats 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”
“Will happen”, as though it hasn’t been happening quite regularly and independently of who occupies the oval office. This is a very bizarre perspective on what has been and what will be happening in the world, Paul or no Paul. Well, enjoy your virtual world. The rest of us will just have to plod along in the real world without you.
Glad someone here agrees with me. A candidate who is fine with Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely positively at the top of my must-stop list.
Here’s a little history lesson for the paultards: Germany declared war on the US BEFORE the US declared war on Germany.
Hopefully, they will also become disgusted with just Romney and Paul and come out, to the surprise of FOX and the rest of the RINO fixated media.
Just to watch FOX try to explain a Newt win would be PRICELESS!
Scripture teaches us to rely on no man, but to put all our trust, aka faith, in God. We think we go to the polls to vote and it is our vote that elects leaders. How inflated is that? God clearly says it is He that selects ALL leaders and thus He sent us a HUGE message in giving us Obama who was never and never could be qualified to be president according to the US Constitution.
What has happened since? All who have gone up against the machine, even before the so called conservative operatives of that machine, have been shot down as lunatics who have no standing.
The Constitution & Bill of Rights places responsibility for self with self who is to rely on God, not government. The foundation for that comes from Torah. But we now live in a world where govt has become the man-god that man puts his trust in thereby casting off the Constitutional protections that our Creator put in place through our founding fathers.
Therefore, what I mean by separation of church and state is taking what was meant to be for God to do away from an all powerful central govt and putting that govt back in its tiny box where it belongs. And that means getting rid of the IRS and its draconian laws that force churches to register with the government and thus ties the hands of the pulpits from preaching truth.
Our country's branch that was grafted into the tree of life has been cut off and we no longer are under the full covering of His protection. Our founding fathers knew they were not the ones who won freedom from man made govt persecution. They all knew full well the freedom gained was of Divine Providence. And they knew and wrote what would happen should govt be placed in a position higher than God. They also knew that once the states gave up their independence to the central govt, tyranny would abound so that it would not matter where one chose to settle because the tyranny could not be escaped from.
It stymies the mind how conservatives do not understand what the founders meant when they wrote in the Declaration that we are now under the “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”. The bible is the most oft cited reference in the debates of the continental congress and the constitutional conventions. And while doctrines may have differed, they ALL held to the same core values and those were the values given to man by God. And it was from those values that they never went to war except to protect US citizens(War of 1812).
The Torah gives us example after example of what happens to God's children when they place their trust/faith in man. In 1948 God allowed His children to gain their statehood back and what did they do? They turned around after God gave that rag tag group of men victory and gave God's temple land back to the adversary so excuse me if I do not sound sympathetic. While I do pray for Jerusalem and for the house of Judah(Jews who teach Talmud over Torah), their actions as God's children and the keeper of His Torah are not the actions of trusting and faithful children thus the dispersion continues & the temple remains under control of the adversary until the day Messiah returns.
Not until then will any peace be in the world, so says YHVH! He also says, blessed are those that are persecuted who put their complete trust/faith in YHVH. If we want our country back, then we had better learn what He had to say when He guided our founding father's into victory BEFORE we go to the polls to vote for someone who claims war in the name of religion is constitutional. Religion knows no boundaries and no war based on religion can ever be won by man. That alone is for YHVH for revenge belongs ONLY to Him.
Vengeance is mine saith YHVH
And I could just see Truman calling them "the striped pants boys." Ha...I had never heard that before.
Guess Ron Paul forgot that Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.
The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.
The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.
Accept, Mr. Chargé d’Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.
December 11, 1941
Good post (#58)... Some of the “conservatives” who yell the loudest about the constitution want to shred the constitution on this issue and be world police.
In years past, we were much more cautious about jumping into conflicts! When did the republican part become the war party? When did being the world police become the “conservative” position.
Moronic hypothetical question gets a moronic hypothetical answer.
Sort of disagree. The American people accepted intervention in Kosovo for the very same stated purpose: to stop genocide. Also agree that genocide is going on all over the world and we do nothing. But we apparently are willing to draw the line at genocide in Europe.
The reason for "sort of" disagreement: Germany in 1939 was no Kosovo. Armed to the teeth with superior might to ours (at the time...our military was gutted after WWI) I don't imagine Roosevelt could have succeeded in rallying the nation around invading Europe at huge cost (dollars and lives) on moral grounds alone. Today, he might.
History? Hitler would not have been able to become the threat to the world that he did without the help of the US foreign policy and Wall Street. Read WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER By Antony C. Sutton.
Paul's views on foreign is not an isolationist view any more than George Washington's was. SOS around here.
England controlled Israel during those times. Hitler offered the Jews to England to deport to Israel and England turned him down. The blame goes everywhere.
No one asked the American people about it. I don't believe the whole story behind our intervention has been written. What was going on was certainly nasty but I don't think it deserves to be called genocide.
If the American government cared so much about genocide why didn't we intervene in Rwanda? That was an indisputable genocide.
There will never be a candidate that I agree with 100%. But IMO Ron Paul is the only candidate who comes close to actually turning this country around as opposed to simply "slowing down" it's current demise. And judging by the way the "machine" has it's pantiy's all in a bunch over Paul's current surge, he must be doing something right....
Hitler offered the Jews to England to deport to Israel
Having to choose between Paul and Romney is a lousy scenario.
I would have to really meditate and pray on the matter and I’m not blowing smoke at you.
Guys like Mitt drive us off the same cliff at a slow rate of speed, but guys like Paul actually want to do a 180 on the government’s power and size.
But the catch is that Paul is soft on national security and the security of America’s allies like Israel.
I’m thinking out loud about the options.
Clinton said it was genocide, that was the justification. Whether it was really or not is immaterial in the context of the question of whether America would stand for such a war. The fact is we were told we were going to war to prevent genocide and collectively America yawned. Certainly there was no general uprising about it at the time.
If the American government cared so much about genocide why didn't we intervene in Rwanda? That was an indisputable genocide.
As I stated, it appears we draw the line at "genocide" in Europe.
No the question to Paul should have been ... do you believe God's children should start praying in true repentance for forgiveness by casting off their reliance on man to protect them and turning to the truth faith and reliance of their rag tag army of fore fathers who crossed the Jordan and defeated the adversary? That same rag tag army that defeated the adversary in 1967?
Paul has no problem going against an army to protect those he took an oath to protect. AND. He is only speaking the works of God when he refuses to enter or start a war in the name of a religious people in a land he is not taken an oath to or set over to protect. There will come a day when God, at the 2nd coming of Messiah, will call His children to stand with Him as He leads us to once again destroy the adversary and his followers. Think about it ... did the apostles go to war when one of them was persecuted? God forbid! They knew full well it was not their place to free that which God called for another purpose. And as the children of Israel have repeatedly relied on man when times got tough, it was ONLY during the times that they put their total trust and faith in YHVH that they gained freedom. It is the story of the crossing of the Jordan, it is the story of Hanakkah.
1Ma 2:21 God forbid that we should forsake the Law, and the ordinances: 22 We will not hearken to the kings words, to go from our religion, either on the right hand, or the left. 48 So they recovered the Law out of the hand of the Gentiles, and out of the hande of Kings, neither suffered they the sinner to triumph. 49 Now when the time drew neere, that Mattathias should die, he said unto his sonnes, Now hath pride & rebuke gotten strength, and the time of destruction, and the wrath of indignation: 50 Now therefore, my sonnes, be ye zealous for the Law, & give your lives for the covenant of your fathers. 51 Call to remembrance what acts our fathers did in their time, so shall ye receive great honour, & an everlasting name. 52 Was not Abraham found faithfull in tentation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse? 53 Joseph in the time of his distresse kept the commandement, and was made Lord of Egypt. 54 Phineas our father in being zealous and feruent, obtained the couenant of an euerlasting priesthood. 55 Yeshua for fulfilling the word, was made a judge in Israel. 56 Caleb for bearing witnesse, before the congregation, receiued the heritage of the land. 57 David for being mercifull, possessed the throne of an euerlasting kingdome. 58 Elias for being zealous and fervent for the law, was taken up into heaven. 59 Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, by believing were saved out of the flame 60 Daniel for his innocense was delivered from the mouth of Lyons. 61 And thus consider ye throughout all ages, that none that put their trust in him shall be overcome. 62 Feare not then the words of a sinfull man: for his glory shall bee dung and wormes. 63 To day he shall be lifted up, and to morrow hee shall not be found, because he is returned into his dust, and his thought is come to nothing. 64 Wherefore you my sonnes be valiant, and shew your selves men in the behalfe of the law, for by it shall you obtaine glory.
Happy Hanakkah! May YHVH bless all those who place their trust in Him just as all those before them.
SOS around here?
What is that supposed to mean? A shortage of Ron Paul supporters?
BTW, no comparison to George Washington, when it took how many months to cross the Atlantic by ship?
Ron Paul is a foreign policy disaster and completely deranged.
The problem is that IN THEORY Paul is correct- but in REALITY what do you do?
Paul just is blinded by theory. The constitution does not SPECIFIALLY give us the right to do that, but the framers could not possibly imagine every infinite problems that could happen so the language ALLOWS us to think it through.
It may have not been an immediate attack on the USA but our interests were certainly affected.
You could easily say that after they finished with the Jews they Germans were coming for us, and that their attacks on the world made the US economy worse and so it was in our interest to stop him. But Paul does not think it through that far.
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they’re not”
There was little the United States could have done to stop the Holocaust prior to 1944, mainly because most of the death camps and concentration camps were in Eastern Europe. The United States didn't have a lot of spare manpower and equipment to try to liberate the people in what would be in essence "suicide missions." The United States did little to stop the Holocaust until the camps were liberated.
Hitler was believed to have first used the term "final solution" about August 1941. He used it again in December 1941. The United States had barely declared war on Japan and Germany, so there wasn't much this country could do even if it had been a priority. In January 1942 the Wannsee conference was held, presided over by Reinhard Heydrich, and it was at this conference that it could be said that the Holocaust actually began in earnest, IMO. (To be sure, a lot of atrocities had already taken place before this conference.) As posters have already noted, the killings of Jews took place at death camps, concentration camps, and mass killings in Eastern Europe. The Nazis also murdered millions of "undesirables," and add to that, the deliberate starvation deaths of millions of Soviet POWs.
I identify with my own Irish Catholic ancestry (although I am also partially English, German and Scots-Irish). I am not fond of the Brits because of their centuries long oppression of the Irish and since Henry VIII of Irish Catholics. That does not mean that I would have "loved seeing the swastika flying over Buckingham Palace."
George VI's wife was a particularly cherished heroine of freedom during the war. Churchill was an inspiration to the entire West. Chamberlain was a bum and rightly relegated to the ash heap of history. It is not as simple as you suggest.
People in Britain knew as well, but the only person who spoke out against Hitler in those early days was Winston Churchill, and he quickly became a pariah in his own party for it.
But there our involvement was relatively minor. There would have been more opposition if there had been more US casualties.
Basically Hitler wanted Palestine to be the 'concentration camp' for Jews, knowing his Arab pals would help him with his Final Solution.
God bless Mr. Churchill. He hated Hitler and Stalin equally.