0 votes

What would Ron Paul have done about WW2?

If Ron Paul were president during the same time FDR was, would he have launched a war as large against the Germans, Japanese, and Italians? I hear a lot of backlash against the Civil War and Abe Lincoln and most other wars in the US but nothing about WW2. Any thoughts?




Comment viewing options

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

first he would have prevented wwII

By not joining WWI. The treaty of Versailles was the end of wwI but the start of wwII. It drove Germany to war and never would have been possible had wilson kept his but out.

Secondly Paul would have staved off the attack at pearl harbor instead of just letting it happen as FDR did. If the fleet was pushed out of pearl harbor and in a better defensive position...Japan most likely wouldn't have attacked, and thus we would have had no reason to attack them. Due to the christian just war principle that Paul sticks too.

Yea I know there are a lot hypothetical in my post but your topic was fantasy when you think about any way. Remember economics would have been different under paul too.

it depends

It depends on when Paul would have been elected. Had he been elected in 1932 as FDR originally was, the "Great Depression" would have been far less painful. The Federal Reserve would have seen its powers reduced and likely have been eliminated. There would have been none of the expanded Federal government which occurred. No WPA, Social Security, AAA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, no New Deal and New New Deal, no bankruptcy of incorporated UNITED STATES. The United States would be a shining example of how to build prosperity, a symbol of hope that free markets help the poor better than the rising Communist and Fascist dictatorships of the 1930's. There would have been no treaties of alliance. There would have been no injurious insult to Japan and thus no Pearl Harbor. Paul would not break every campaign promise and assurance to keep us out of the war as did FDR. Without the secret assurances of support from the American President, Britain would have been forced into more vigorous negotiations with Germany. Hitler was not interested in conquering Britain but in changing the balance of power in Europe. If anything, he and Stalin would have been the only battlefront as Hitler's "Lebensbaum" desire for land led East and toward the destruction of what he saw as the real threat; Soviet Russia.

Oh and of course, we'd still have our gold, and our Constitutional currency. This would indeed have been a very different world today, had you replaced FDR with Ron Paul.

For those unfamiliar with the idea of World War II as an unnecessary war, please take the time to read Pat Buchanan's excellent "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War".

I think

we entered WWII with the constitutionally required 3/4 approval vote from Congress, didn't we? Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not much of a student of history.

I cant imagine it not being

I cant imagine it not being unanimous.

Ventura 2012

assuming that the japanese

assuming that the japanese would have attacked even if we did not embargo them like FDR did, he would have declared war and things probably would have been similar.

Ventura 2012

Like he said tonight at USC ... Strong Defense

If it's a "CONSTITUTIONALLY CONGRESSIONALLY DECLARED" WAR --- GO IN AND WIN IT - THEN COME HOME! No Nation or Empire Building or Occupation ~

I would like to think that Dr Paul

would have seen getting in ww11 just as unnecessary as any other military involvement wev'e let ourselves get into.Just think about it we overthrew a harsh brutal dictator that was probalbly responsible for the death of 6 million people [hitler] only to allow another harsh brutal dictator that was probalbly responsible for the death of 20 million people [stalin ] too continue.If we hadnt got involved the two would have probalbly canceled each other out.'history books are always written by the winners'

we would not have been in

we would not have been in WWll because Ron Paul would not have tricked Japan into attacking us...

A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. Proverbs 22:3

A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. Proverbs 22:3
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword.

Yep.

I think the Japanese were backed into a corner by Roosevelt. The European conditions that led to war were in large part due to punitive measures after WWI.

Following a Ron Paul foreign policy, the United States would have been willing to talk and trade with all parties involved. We will never know whether this foreign policy could have tipped the scales to avoid war altogether. There were a lot of hawks in that era, so it would have been a daunting task to say the least.

End of story

.