|
Hitler a Product of Isolationism? Ah, more of the same: politicians acting like they know and understand history, the concept of liberty, or the role of government intended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Since today's my birthday, I'm not going to stick to the "it-has-to-be-current-news" rule. Instead, I'm going to pull out something old, relatively speaking--from the GOP "CNN YouTube" debate of 28 November, 2007. Unfortunately, the lies, half-truths, and misunderstandings that held sway there still reign supreme in the world of Big Media. Let's take a look. McCain: Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed. And, uh, I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. How can a man possessing such a paucity of knowledge regarding world and U.S. history be the GOP front-runner for president? This idea--that isolationism and appeasement "caused" World War II--is so prevelant that it is often taught in our schools, at almost every level. But a cursory study of history, beginning with World War I, reveals the plain truth: the two world wars were both part of the same Great War, and appeasement and isolationism had little to do with the rise of Adolph Hitler. By 1917, the First World War was winding down. Troops were demoralized and deserting in large numbers, and both sides had pretty much fought to a standstill. Finally over? Probably would have been, but it was then that the U.S. decided to jump in. Let's see what this policy of foreign interventionism, which flies in the face of the Constitution, was able to accomplish. Instead of allowing the war to end itself, the U.S. added much-needed fuel to the Allied fire, and with its help the Allies were able to crush the Central Powers, setting the stage for the Treaty of Versailles--a document designed to degrade Germany to the utmost, a document that led directly to World War II. Such a document would likely never have been possible without the awesome power of the United States stepping into the arena. Our government tipped the scales of the war dramatically, and the rest is history. The defeated, humiliated, bankrupt, desperate Germans elected Hitler to ressurrect their dignity. He would do the opposite, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that he was viewed by millions, at least at first, as a German savior of sorts, ready to restore glory and honor to the fallen German people. Mr. McCain, it wasn't "isolationsim" that led to World War Two. It was World War One and particularly the debilitating and humiliating Treaty of Versailles--thanks in large measure to a relatively new U.S. foreign policy of interventionism. McCain's next comment, of course, proves that the man who may be our next President doesn't actually know what the definition of isolationism is... McCain: We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationsim and appeasement. First, a brief historical note. It's funny (perhaps that's not the right word) when one looks at who was fighting whom during World War Two. The Allies consisted of, among others, the British (whose world empire was second to none at the time), the French (who also controlled a vast foreign empire), the Russians (whose government would be responsible for more of its own citizens' deaths than any other in world history outside of Mao's China), and the Chinese (whose own government was brutal, dictatorial, and bloody). These were the "good guys"--McCain's supposed "appeasers," the "isolationists." Isolationists? Weren't these the guys who owned most of the world? Let's look up the word in the dictionary. Webster's defines it as follows: i·so·la·tion·ism (ī'so-lā'shu-nĭz'um) n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. According to this definition, the Allies were the great Anti-Isolationists! Never before in world history have a group of allies ever been in control of such a large portion of the world. And suddenly Germany, Italy, and Japan (the late bloomers) want a piece of the world, too. So Japan snatches Manchuria from the Russians and begins taking portions of the Chinese coastline. Italy moves on east Africa. And Germany takes back a few areas just overs its own borders that at one time had been part of Germany anyway. And Britain, France, and Russia do nothing. What were they to do, after all? Tell the Germans, Italians, and Japanese that they shouldn't be doing that sort of thing? Of course not! The British, the French, and even the Russians were the kings of world conquest in their day. Who were they to say you can't grab a little land now and again? Yet John McCain calls the Britain and France of the 1930s "isolationist." So how do Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas differ from isolationism as defined by Mr. Webster? Let's talk about that tomorrow. I'll cheat again and use another Republican Primary debate clip.
|