Senator Paul is outstanding on some issues, but he’s hardly a conservative. That means we can ally with him at times, but we have to occasionally oppose him.
While his statement is likely true—that America’s trade actions helped influence the Japanese to attack us—he stunningly ignores the greater context. The Japanese were an evil, militaristic culture bent on regional conquest. Calling them evil is an understatement, because the Japanese were absolutely inhuman to anyone they conquered. In other words, they deserved everything they got in WWII and probably a whole lot more.
I don’t think America should be trading with nations like pre-WWII Japan. That would have made us complicit in their actions toward others, like the rape of Nanking in 1937. It also bears noting that we did NOT initiate actual military hostilities. The Japanese started it, and thank God we finished it. They are a far better people today because of it.
A factually true statement. The sanctions against Japan were meant to curtail its ability to fight a modern war against China, and they were extremely effective.
Iron ore, steel, and oil were the key embargoed items, and oil was the real big one. The embargo left Japan with two choices; i.e. take the oil or submit. Japan chose the former.
The lesson being that the enemy always has a choice when you present them with an ultimatum, and any effective embargo is an ultimatum.
FDR was quite foolish to present such an ultimatum to the Japanese and then not be ready for them to fight. What did the Japanese absolutely need, if they weren't to submit? Oil, which could only be gotten in Indonesia.
P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C
He goes down on notch in my estimation. Not beacuse of his theory. I don’t know enough deatilas of the history of the era to say if it’s vaguely possible, but rather because it was a stupid thing to say. And, if you’re running for office you should avoid saying stupid things (unless you’re a democrat, and then it’s expected and won’t hurt you. Look at Biden.)
Continuing to fuel Togo’s war machine with American oil would have made us complicit in the rape of China.
The video posted at the given link:
Rand Paul explains his vote in favor of sanctions against Iran
In it he was explaining his vote for the sanctions saying he believed that we needed to do something to Iran, and most of the video he explains why a pre-emptive war against Iran is a bad idea.
His ignorance of history is breathtaking. As the saying goes, it is better to remain silent and be thought as an idiot than to speak out and remove all doubt.
At this point I can only conclude that there is no doubt but that Rand Paul is an idiot.
Had he said we should have been better prepared to defend Pearl ok, but blaming us for Pearl is out of whack. The guy comes across as a weasel.
“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.”
There is a lot of truth in what he is saying but any legitimate defense the Japanese might have for their actions were destroyed by their cruelty and brutality towards conquered people.
Also attacking a country in a sneak attack is guaranteed to cause hatred towards those doing the attacking.
I have a book titled “The Rape of Nanking” which should enrage all civilized people. Oddly enough the hero of Nanking who saved thousands of Chinese was a Nazi.
Diplomacy starts with understanding your opposition & understanding the possible consequences of any course of action. I’m not well-versed in what led up to WWII. Could FDR have taken a different set of actions? Would it have mattered? We certainly know the results of what WAS done.
We’ve watched Obama address his opposition over the course of his tenure with contempt - first the Republicans & now Putin. He is ill-equipped to carry out diplomacy on any level. Maybe a more sensitive understanding of the possible consequences of any action are what we need.
I’m not sure I want Rand to run for President in 2016, but nothing in this article causes me any concern.
“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.”
Can your really argue with the above statement? But of course there are no win situations where no matter what you do, the inevitable is going to happen.
What Rand Paul said isn’t really so much of a stretch. I would recommend you read the Just read MODERN TIMES: THE WORLD FROM THE TWENTIES TO THE EIGHTIES by Paul Johnson, a highly respected conservative Catholic historian.
Quit paying attention to what RINO lovers say. They are trying to make Jeb your candidate so they will try to make more of something someone else says to get a negative reaction and start wars between conservatives.
“.. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily”
We reserve the right to cut off trade with whomever we choose. People shouldn’t have to fear getting attacked because someone becomes “angry”. That’s not a rational response.
It sounds like David Adesnik from the American Enterprise Institute is the one that needs the history refresher. FDR’s embargoes were indeed the trigger for Japan’s attack on the United States. Moreover, this has been generally accepted among most WW2 historians. This is not controversial.
Rand Paul is, unfortunately, bereft of an understanding of history. And we know what happens when we don’t learn our history, don’t we?
“we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily”
1931 - Japan invades Manchuria
1934 - Japan withdraws from the Washington Naval treaty
1936 - Japan signs a treaty with Nazi Germany
1937 - Japan invades deeper into China
1937 - Battle of Shanghai
1937 - The Rape of Nanking by Japan results in the death of 300,000 Chinese
1938 - Japan attacks the Mongolia and Soviet Union borders
1939 - Japan captures Nanning in southern China
Prior to 1939, the United States supplied Japan with >80% of its materials. Is Rand Paul suggesting that the United States should have continued to support Japan’s aggression against East Asian countries? Japan was already acting angerly. It would have been irresponsible AND decidedly anti-libertarian to continue supplying the Japanese aggression.
Here is how Japanese agression continued:
1940 - Japan increases all military spending, such that the military is more than half the Japanese budget.
1940 - Japan invades Indochina
1941 - Japan sends spies to Hawaii
1941 - Japan signs a neutrality pact with the Soviets
By early 1941, the United States embargos all oil to Japan. Japan responds with warfare. Hardly a measured response, and any suggestion otherwise is looney.
Rand Paul is off his rocker. His statement isn’t even compatable with libertarian principles.
“Rand Paul: America Partly To Blame For Pearl Harbor, World War II”
For the Japanese the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the greatest of all military blunders in the history of warfare. If Roosevelt was really trying to encourage them to start a war they then unfortunately took the bait.
Standing up to a bully probably will make him angry and he may strike you because of it. That doesn’t mean it’s right to just do nothing and let the bully have his way.