0 votes

Need help to answer WWII / Vietnam U.S. non-intervention

I am having a little difficulty with a solid platform response for having a non-intervention foreign policy.

My response for modern "terrorism" is not a problem, I have that covered well.

HItler / WWII - I am having difficulty with the rise of the third reich. WWII is the overwhelming example presented to me. It is that, 'if we used a non-interventionist policy, Hitler would not have been stopped.' - I could use some savvy input so I have responses to this example.

Vietnam - I fair only a bit better on this.

Can anyone provide some helpful information to better understand these two examples, cause and effect, and fitting in a non-intervention foreign policy?

Thanks.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hitler would have

marched all over Europe and North Africa and expanded his empire....but would have been short lived...Hitler was doomed to fail...as are all empires.

Viet Nam was a racket.

WWII was justified...Hitler was a threat and the Europeans were sissies and pacifist...we should have saved their ass...and then told them to straighten up...cause the next time they would be on their own.

Peace through strength.

Perpetual war weakens all armies.

Excelent find.

Thank you.

This has great teaching info

..

Yankee Station (Gulf of Tonkin) August 1964

I was in the Gulf of Tonkin along with 7,000 thousand other Marines, the then Top-Secret un-named 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade. Mission: To evacuate all Americans out of South Vietnam (Intervention over). Reason: CIA captured Viet Cong documents indicating they were going to exploit next South Vietnam generals coup for power, and in the confusion turn it into a blood bath for all Americans ashore - thus our mission to evacuate Da Nang and Saigon (end of intervention).

1964 : Attempted coup against Khanh government fails
Dissident South Vietnamese army officers attempt to overthrow General Nguyen Khan's government in Saigon, calling their movement the People's Council for the Salvation of the Nation. General Lam Van Phat, who had been dismissed as interior minister on September 3, and General Duong Van Duc, commander of 4th Corps, led the attempt. Government troops loyal to Khanh moved against the coup's main base near Tan Son Nhut, but the final blow to the coup came when Air Marshall Nguyen Cao Ky sent air force planes to fly over the insurgent generals' headquarters and threatened to bomb them if they did not surrender. This incident was part of the long-running political turbulence in South Vietnam that followed the assassination of former President Ngo Dinh Diem.

Reference: http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/212/2120317003.pdf

thanks

for the info and link

The Germans...

were not trying to take over the world the Zionists were!, and have done so to a certain degree.
But of course this will go right the heads of most folks here.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchco...

My karma ran over your dogma~

Why in Gods name were the Bolsheviks our allies in WW2? http://www.ihr.org/other/july09weber.html

My karma ran over your dogma~

Enough with the "Zionist" talk on DP

Flag this nonsense.

No one ever defines "Zionist" because they would be outed as racists if they did.

But every European knows that America did not really defeat the Germans, the Russians did. We cleaned up the mess and got the glory.

The US entered the war after the heavy lifting was done and the Germans were on the decline. (like all overreaching empires)

No One Ever Defined Zionist?

I suppose that consulting a dictionary is "racist" in your opinion.

Right lets be quiet..

and let the US homeland security (run by zionists) do all our thinking!
Can you define a Zionist? is it a race from ancient Israel? or is it Khazar convert from 740 around modern day Georgia? www.iamthewitness.com/doc/Ashkenazis.are.not.the.descendants...
Why does this 2% run the worlds finance and media and (wars), gee they must be really good at it eh?

Benjamin Freedman has other knowledge you should hear in regards to WW2 http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/Willa...

My karma ran over your dogma~

My karma ran over your dogma~

WW2

From an American-centric point of view, WW2 is a great example of the success of non-interventionism. The United States did not enter the war until attacked, and therefore ended up losing relatively few lives while Europe was left in shambles.

It's easy to claim in retrospect that things would have been a lot better if the U.S. had entered the war earlier. But the reality is that this action would have led to an even messier situation for the United States and even the world.

yeah

but its kinda a weak position... mostly because Roosevelt went to great lengths to invite the attack, similar to Lincoln during the War of the Rebellion.
-Prior to the attack the US cut off oil exports to japan and also froze Japanese assets.
-Roosevelt insisted on moving pacific fleet from san diego to pearl harbor, despite the warnings by Admiral James Richardson (commander in chief of the pacific fleet) that this would endanger the fleet in a vulnerable position and porvocate the Japanese... in ignoring Richardson's advice, he also removed him from command...
-Members of the Roosevelt withheld information from the commanders at Pearl Harbor hours prior to the attack based on warnings... instead of using a direct line that would have given them almost instant communications with the commanders, they opted to use a non-priority telegram which arrived about 2 hours after the attack began...
-Prior to the attack Admiral Kimmel was ordered to send all of his modern warships and aircraft carriers out to sea, leaving behind mostly outdated ships in port for the attack...
For this (as well as Lincoln and Roosevelt's war efforts) I recommend reading a very short (150~ pages) book by John Denson called Century of War: Lincoln Wilson and Roosevelt ...(my signature features a good speech by him)

Things would have been a lot better if we'd have actually been a neutral party before we actually declared war...

(oh and don't forget that from ~1840-1890 we were fighting wars for the removal of Native Americans) its time we finally step back and just declare peace like John Lennon said...

-Peace and Liberty
"Six Months That Changed the World"

Have

him read Gen. Smedley Butler "War is a Racket" and that the Bay of Tonkin was a big fat lie and on purpose to get us in the Viet Nam war. I saw a video about it.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Bay of Tonka

isn't that where they make all those toy trucks?

-Peace and Liberty
"Six Months That Changed the World"

Just watch this....

This isw what you need to watch... it is a speech given by a fellow at the Mises Institute... Six months that changed the world (these are the six months during which time the allied countries met to hash out the treaty of Versailles...)

THIS IS A MUST WATCH... I wrote four different papers on the subject for college last semester (link below)

-Peace and Liberty
"Six Months That Changed the World"

downing right now.

very good. looking forward.

My view

Vietnam is easy. It was NONE of our business. There was no threat to the US or the rest of the world. The domino theory was crap. Communism doesn't work because it is a fundamentally flawed economic system at best and just an excuse for tyranny in most instances. There was no way it would take over the world.

WWII is tougher because so many people sacrificed so much and it has gone down in history as a great victory over unmitigated evil. I try and avoid it. But if I am pressed, I point out the following:

The Nazis rose to power because of the highly inequitable outcome of WWI that essentially made it impossible for Germany to recover as a nation. The inequitable outcome of WWI was largely due to US intervention that tipped the scale in favor of one side in a conflict that had been a stalemate up until then. We empowered the French and Belgians to hobble and humiliate Germany. The US decision to intervene in WWI was based on pure government-orchestrated fraud - the Lusitania.

You can also point out that our involvement in WWII had terrible consequences. We defeated Germany and Japan and in so doing made the world safe for Stalin and Mao. Which was worse? Worst of all, we never brought the army home. We became a world empire at a cost that is mind boggling and will have played a role in our coming demise.

I point out

the Treaty of Versailles and its result on the German people which led to Hitler's rise to power.

I still have the link on the Lusitania found with munitions aboard.

http://history1900s.about.com/b/2008/12/24/munitions-found-o...

Haven''t read any follow up on this. The story seems buried.

I like your statement on making the world safe for Stalin and Mao.

Amazing

Amazing, isn't it? The cornerstone of the PR campaign that turned the US from a non-interventionist nation into an arrogant, brutal empire-builder was proven to be a HUGE, pre-arranged lie built on the needless deaths of women and children. And nobody cares.

Vietnam in a Nutshell

Before WW2, Vietnam was a French colony. The Japanese kicked the French out of Vietnam. The Vietnamese people fought back against the Japanese with a strong resistance movement (lead by Ho Chi Minh) which recieved assistance from the US.

After the war, the French forced their way back into Vietnam. Ho Chi Mihn sent word through his American contacts that the Vietnamese did not want a return to French colonial rule.

Truman ignored the wishes of the Vietnamese and the US came to support the French recolonization effort. The Vietnamese were forced to seek support from Communist nations in their battle for independence. Thus, the Vietnam conflict became one of the hot zones of so-called Cold War.

Please read the excerpt below. It will blow your mind.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_during_World_War_II

The author of Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence was none other than Ho Chi Minh. As early as May 1945 Ho had sought out a young American Lieutenant who had parachuted into the northern Vietnamese mountains with the OSS. "He kept asking me if I could remember the language of our declaration," the lieutenant later recalled. "I was a normal American, I couldn't." Eventually he realized that Ho knew more about the American proclamation of freedom than he did himself. On September 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh addressed a crowd assembled in Hanoi, and indeed, the entire world, with these words:[12]

"We hold truths that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.:
"This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. Understood in the broader sense, this means: All have the right to live to be happy and free.
These are undeniable truths.

"We, the members of the Provisional Government representing the entire people of Viet Nam, declare that we shall from now on have no connections with imperialist France; we consider null and void all the treaties France has signed concerning Viet Nam, and we hereby cancel all the privileges that the French arrogated to themselves on our territory."

i haven't read much about

i haven't read much about vietnam before, but i would like to confirm that my mind was in fact just blown.

Ho Chi Minh

Ho was actually in France during WW!... I think his name at the time was Nguyen Al-Qouc or something similar (can't remember exact spelling)... anyway... he was working as a cook/ photograph plate colorer... and it turned out that delagates from all over the world were meeting in Versailles to discuss treaty provisions following the "armistice" after WW1...

Apparently Ho showed up as a delegate for his homeland.. (he was only like 20 yo) and announced his intentions to speak of the whole self-determination part of the 14 points (which they were trying hard to ignore altogether)... Clemanceau, Lloyd George and Wilson cut him off short stating that they could read the 14 points fine on their own and he could leave... apparently this info is hard to find because he was't very important at the time and no one took notes... however I have found imormation which backs this up in a couple different biographies...

He showed up wanting self-determinaion and freedom from oppression for his people in vietname... and thats nothing to dismiss offhandedly... socialist minds have to start somewhere and it seems that China and Vietm=nam were abused so often by the west that they turned to the new system in the north, following ww1... Bolshevism/communism... it can all be boiled back to Paris 1919...

-Peace and Liberty
"Six Months That Changed the World"

Wow

intersting info

.

battle for independence

I have never heard anyone speak of vietnam in those terms.

In the Western telling of

In the Western telling of the Vietnam story the clash of the big players overshadows the lives and liberty of those poor souls who had their world turned upside down.

Two million Vietnamese people died, but in America, it's all about us: political fortunes and misfortunes, veterans who committed atrocities and veterans who were spit on, protesters in the street, helicopters pulling the last Americans from the roof of the US Embassy...

I think the Eastern front really decided the 2nd WW.

The Russians took Berlin and the Fuehrerbunker.

But that doesn't answer Your question, I know.
Just wanted to point out that Hitler would have been stopped anyway.

Too many fronts for one country.

He was really not smart enough to understand his limits.
(that's just my opinion)

-------------------------------------------------------
"I think it would be a good idea"

Mahatma Gandhi,
when asked what he thought of Western civilization

quick tip

Hitler started invading surrounding countries convinced that there would be no response as the world was still sick over what WWI had turned into. He was also hoping that the tension between France and the UK (the big boys on the block at the time) would keep them from uniting against him. However, your response should be simply that Hitler's rise to political power came from his rhetoric of how the German people were being treated unfairly after WWI with limits on their military and mandatory payment of millions of dollars every year that left Germany unable to care for their own citizens. This resonated with his public. So if the world had not been intervening in German government for twenty years, would Hitler have ever even achieved power in the first place?? As for what happened after he gained power, the argument is futile as England had adopted a "peace at whatever cost" attitude, therefore our general non-interventionist argument may fall flat. I would also pose this question: Why did we fight against Hitler, siding with Russia when one of Hitler's predominant reasons for going to war was to stop the spread of Russian communism, and then spend the next 40 years doing the exact same thing ourselves??

good points

thank you.

I'm Vietnamese America

Well, if JFK and LBJ did not assassinate Ngo Dinh Diem, the Viet Nam war would never happen. Why, because the communist was not willing to start a fight with Ngo because Ngo can put up a fight without America soldier. He did not want to start a fight with the communist because we are all brother. See for yourself before anyone call me a conspiracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNv_62v6WQ

Ngo was elected. He was not perfect because of his hard hand against the Buddhist. But he was the best that we got. At that time, Viet Nam was run by a group of general who was more interest in running casino and brothel. After Ngo was elected, he stand up to those general and shut them down. JFK and LBJ decided that they like those corrupt general instead. After Ngo was death, the VN communist did not have any problem fighting with those general and the US.