At the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin this weekend highlighted a video of Rand Paul speaking in 2012 about sanctions on Iran. In it, Paul disparages the notion of use of force, and for some reason claims the United States was partly to blame for World War II!
“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.”
Rubin spoke with David David Adesnik of the American Enterprise Institute about Paul’s remarks:
After viewing the video, he tells Right Turn, “Blaming the U.S. for Pearl Harbor is a long-standing isolationist habit that reflects tremendous historical illiteracy. Sen. Paul is very poorly informed if he thinks U.S. sanctions ‘probably caused Japan to react angrily.’” He explains, “The U.S. cut off oil supplies to Japan in August 1941, long after Japan had launched its atrocity-laden war against China in 1937. The evidence is conclusive that Japan was determined to dominate all of East Asia. Believing that the U.S. would not stand by passively if it overran Thailand, Singapore, Malaya and the East Indies, Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.”
With regard to the Senator’s comments about Germany, Adesnik declared them “so eccentric that it’s hard to be sure what he’s even talking about.” He goes on to point out the obvious, which is that we should be proud of our actions in Europe before and during the war, regardless of whether or not they antagonized the Nazis.
1) We were not "involved in a war with Germany" at that point. We were giving (Lend-Lease) aid to Great Britain, but the European war didn't blow open into a World War until Pearl Harbor (much to Churchill's delight). As to that:
2) One of FDR's Cabinet members was even quoted long after from his diaries that they hoped that Japan would take the bait. Got that? Our fleet was 'bait,' or to be likened to sitting ducks.
The need to stop Japanese imperialism is another subject. Americans need to understand that they have been used for a very long time by a Cabal of very powerful people bent on controlling the world; and the more we know about that, then the better we can understand global events FOR a very long time.
A good read: Gen. Smedley Butler's 'War Is A Racket'.
True, Germany declared war on the US when Pearl Harbor was attacked, but the US saw the war coming our way and was gearing up the factories and readying their troops. The idea that we were using the 7th fleet as bait is absurd, why would the US leave the west coast totally defenseless just to be pulled into a war ? I would think there would be other more less damaging ways. This idea of sacrificing the 7th fleet has been rumored for many years
but not one person from that time in history has ever come forward to disprove that question
So what you are saying is that the idea of sacrificing your queen is not a bright move!
Only in desperation is it a good tactic.
US leaders were pretty sure there was going to be an attack, but they didn't know when or where. Some though it might come as early as October or November. Most thought it would be in Malaysian and Indonesia considering the logistics of getting a massive fleet across the Pacific, especially as many discounted what Asians could do.
As JohnnyAnt wrote, there's no proof from people or records of the time that our leaders sacrificed the fleet at Pearl to draw the US into WW II.
JohnnyAnt: I'm sorry that I don't have all the info about that whole appalling story at hand, I read it all some time ago. But as for the comment:
"The idea that we were using the 7th fleet as bait is absurd, why would the US leave the west coast totally defenseless just to be pulled into a war ?"
you DO understand that there is a New World Order Cabal behind the geopolitical machinations of history, don't you; for whom the whole POINT was to drag the U.S. into war?? Just as in WWI; and just like it was Western bankers who financed Lenin to go to Russia and stir up the Revolution there??? (See, e.g., the writings of the very respectable researcher Antony Sutton regarding all this sort of thing.) War makes some people very, very rich - and powerful. Powerful enough ultimately to - hopefully, for them - take over the whole world.
You seem a reasonable person. You must understand this.
JohnnyAnt and Roberto: Found it. The reference to staking the 7th Fleet at Pearl Harbor like a sacrificial goat to lure a tiger (my words) was in an article in the Jan. 20th issue of The New American magazine titled 'FDR vs. Lindbergh: Setting the Record Straight' by John J. Dwyer. Relevant quotes:
"In the run-up to the 1940 presidential election, Roosevelt sought to outstrip his Republican opponent, Wendell Wilkie, with solemn pledges to the public to steer clear of war. 'I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again,' Roosevelt assured American mothers and fathers, 'your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.' Yet privately, he sounded a different tune. 'Of course, we'll fight if we are attacked,' he told staff members. 'If somebody attacks us, then it isn't a foreign war, is it?' And he did everything in his power to make sure America was attacked...
"After later meeting with Roosevelt, Churchill told his Cabinet that the president was 'obviously determined' to come into the war and 'said that he [Roosevelt] would wage war [including against German subs anywhere] but not declare it, and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it they could attack the American forces.'...
" Roosevelt loosed ships, such as the U.S.S. Greer, on German U-boats in aid of the British. Other American vessels such as the U.S.S. Niblack themselves attacked U-boats in waters thousands of miles from the United States...
"And while Hitler went to extremes to prevent German attacks on Americans, even forbidding attacks on U.S. ships in self-defense, Roosevelt publicly denounced the Germans for attacking U.S. naval vessels. Key Roosevelt lieutenant Robert Sherwood wrote following the war: 'If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land.'
"Nonetheless, Roosevelt failed to provoke Hitler into committing overt acts of war against American vessels, as the German dictator was determined to avoid a Great War-like two-front European land war. So Roosevelt turned his efforts to the Pacific and the Japanese, to bait them into attacking the United States. Of course, provoking a Japanese attack also provided a back-door strategy to U.S. entry into the war in Europe because of Japan's alliance with Hitler...
"After meeting with the president on October 16, 1941, Republican Secretary of War Henry Stimson, a staunch internationalist and member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in his diary: 'We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move - overt move.' A diary entry six weeks later following a meeting of the War Cabinet - less than two weeks before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - clarifies what Stimson meant by 'overt move': 'The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.' After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Stimson confessed that 'my first feeling was of relief…that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.' After the war, he added that, 'We needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act.'
One can debate the value of all this geopoliticizing. But not the facts.
The issue at stake here is that the US was partly responsible for making the Japanese angry enough to attack us by trade sanctions to attack the US.
This is one man's opinion written down in a scholarly format, but standardized history states that they attacked us w/out provocation at Pearl Harbor.
I still maintain that the version Rand, and the other apologists writing here, portrays the US as the victim who deserves to be slapped around, because she just keeps making him mad! So, if you think rape is OK, because the woman must have wanted it because she just dressed provocatively!
Also, the whole Stimson justification is based on what Stimson wrote in his diary about what HE thought should be done, and had NOTHING to do with what the President said or did not say!
Its the games people play with words, because I had to read it 3 times to realize that those words had NOTHING to do with Roosevelt!
Good try! Better luck next time!
Thanks Stan for showing us by the example of WWII that there was not a single one of the "Progressive Wars" that could not have been avoided. Had our Founders' policy of non-intervention held sway, instead of the "consensus" interventionist foreign policy that Wilson and the Roosevelts imposed.
If the "Great Crusade" was mired in warmongering on both sides, every war of the United States, from the time of the war with Spain through the invasion of Iraq, must be suspect.
Patriots know that defense of the nation is too important to be left to the Federal Establishment... that's why we have a 2nd Amendment!
The 2nd Amendment wasn't designed for defense against foreign invasion, nor for sport, hunting, or home defense. It was primarily designed for defense against a home grown tyrannical government.
No, we don't have to be reactive; we can and should be proactive. At the same time we must utilize all other possible avenues to remove this tyrannical regime, though most don't seem very promising.
By the way, even if the deaths you mention hadn't occurred, we'd still be justified in using force as a last resort to remove those who refuse to abide by the Constitution. But as I wrote, we must still act on all fronts.
I realize many want revolution NOW. Sadly, I question many of their motives. Many seem to think it will be a mere stroll down Constitution Avenue and some yelling in front of the White House. I wonder how many of them realize that our Civil War resulted in more deaths than any other war we fought.
That's not saying we should acquiesce or be pacifistic; just that we should be ready to count the cost of what may have to come about soon.
RFB, I fear your synopsis is right.
In addition, when those wanting a government constrained by the Constitution gather in DC, I believe the Leftists will plant an agent provocateur in their midst to try to start a police riot as what occurred at the Democrat Nation Convention in Chicago in 1968. It wouldn't surprise me if this regime participated in such an incident.
So you're saying we should have continued to supply Imperial Japan with raw materials despite its aggression in China, Manchuria, and Southeast Asia, is that it? Are you also saying we deserved to be attacked because we "provoked" Japan by not supplying it materials to further its war efforts?
That seems to be what Rand Paul is accused of "believing" although he hasn't said it. I believe Paul should be firmly asked to clarify his position before we make erroneous judgments about him. In any event, he's not my first, or tenth, choice for nomination for the GOP. However, he'd be far better than Hillary Clinton or other Democrat for president.