4 votes

Comparing Ron Paul To Neville Chamberlain

When Bill O"Reilly compared the two in his brief exchange with John Stossel, it occurred to me that Chamberlain's historical blunder with Hitler might be where hundreds of thousands get stuck in their concern over Dr. Paul's foreign policy. Clarify the difference between the two and I think the campaign could reach hundreds of thousands more. Who would like to start?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Like those who say, "Heed the

Like those who say, "Heed the lesson of 9-11," to mean a more bellicose foreign policy, are likewise wrong when they accuse non-interventionists or "isolationists," as "appeasers," "Chamberlains," or any other sobriquet.

The lesson of 9-11 was that an overgrown, overcommitted empire can't defend it's homeland, not to mention the pissing off many a people in the form of blowback.

World War II is that war where, by definition, opponents are backwards Troglodytes. "Heed the lesson of Munich," they say.

But what is the lessong of Munich. To me, it wasn't appeasement or isolationism; on the contrary, France and Britian had interventionist foreign policies, which is the reason Hitler needed their permission before invading Czechoslovakia. America was disengaged, not engaged or bellicose.

To those who miss the point: non-intervention concedes nothing to their foreign foe or friend; instead, the non-interventionist doesn't play the game; she doesn't play the game of interntional power politics; and is, for the most part, disengaged from foreign interfernce, not participatory, as the lesson of Munich shows.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke


I like the way you think and write. You nailed it.


The problem is decades prior to chamberlain

Hitler rose to power due to blowback from *HEAVY* crippling sanctions on Germany following WW1, which resulted in hyperinflation and a depression for germany (before the great depression, in 1922 vs 1929). THEN hitler was in power and it was too late to stop anything.

We are fermenting a hitler-esque rise in the middle east with equally crippling aggression and embargos.

Good points. Another point

Good points. Another point people may not be aware of, is the blowback may go back further than WW I. WW I certainly had a huge impetus to the nascent Nazi Party, but the Nazi Party was just an outgrowth of German nationalism that dates back to the 19th century. Where did this nationalism come from? Well, there are many reasons, but one huge reason--at least to me--came from the excesses of the French Revolution and the radical Jacobins, who wanted to export their terror of freedom to all of Euruope. This excess upset the Germans, which ended their liberalism and ushered in German nationalism. Talk about blowback!

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Ron Paul is the Dietrich Boenhoffer...

... of our time. Boenhoffer (an evangelical, if you can believe that) opposed his government's (The Third Reich)occupations, etc.. He was arrested by the military under the Enabling Act (Germany's NDAA), held in indefinite detention and then executed. If there were more Boenhoffers in Germany, Auschwitz may not have happened. The Chamberlain reference is wholly inappropriate. FDR was an isolationist. You wouldn't call Boenhoffer an isolationist.

Plano TX

Ron Paul is more of a Therapist

Trying to change these neo-con bullies into real men. I don't think people are thinking about geo-politics, more like they subconsciously want to compensate for their lack of masculinity by blowing up brown people, or more likely, have other people blow up brown people in their name, since active military supports Ron Paul more than any other candidate and gets it.


Now we,re getting somewhere! I love these epiphanies. This is better. Than the classroom.

Good article; one amendment.

Good article; one amendment. There was not a complete cessation of hostilities - the Soviets sent two divisions to attack Germany in 1920. They took advantage of a crumbling Polish government to try and settle a score on the way (Poland was attacking Ukraine) by smashing Warsaw. The Polish fought them off in what is known at the Miracle of Vistula. How different European history would have been agian, if the Soviets had got through, and fermented the revolution they hoped for.

This space available

I thought about this once before

Take a look at one war we were in almost a century ago, WWI, our country didn't get involved until 1917 near the end of the war. Before that there were millions of deaths from 3 very bloody years of fighting. The German Empire, France and England were exhausted from the fighting and about to call it quits and sign a peace treaty to end the war. We joined in and continued another year of bloody fighting resulting in thousands of American lives lost. We won World War I because we intervened and defeated the Central Powers. As a result, the Versailles Treaty was formed and aimed largely at Germany by punishing them with the payments of Europe's war debt and the splitting of its territory. This was humiliating to Germany and crushed it's economy creating huge resentment. As a result one veteran of the war, Adolph Hitler, used the Versailles treaty as a political platform and we know the rest of that story. But the irony behind our intervention into the war was, if we hadn't intervened, Hitler would have never been able to use the Versailles treaty as a platform and thus we could be seeing a very different future today.

This is something i would respond to a question like that, but i would put a bit more research into it before i answered of course. My facts are probably a bit off but you can understand the point. :)

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. ~Ron Paul

The problem is snipping out a

The problem is snipping out a piece of history, and not seeing the context (funny, I have a teenage son who does just that!). WW2 was the outcome of WW1 and the Versailles Treaty, WW1 was the result of previous choices. Part of those choices were also about who did and who didn't support Germany financially in the build up to WW2 (Hint, the letters A, U, and S appear in their name, and that country has a history of propping up right wing dictators against the communist threat). Britain could not have sustained a war at that point, though we had a bloody good go at it until our friends came over to help. But long term, the question is the same as that which faced Reagan and the Soviet Empire: the regime was unsustainable and it was only a matter of time before it collapsed. And as pointed out numerous times by other equally well informed Paulers on this site, American intervention did not save the Jews, or the Poles, or the Romanies, and did hand half of Europe to the Soviets and help them continue for another half century.

This space available

Have you ever considered that it was propaganda?

War history is full of lies and propaganda was rampant at the time. The so called victory of World War 2 made half of Europe prisoners to communism and led to the communist uprising of China.

Many serious historians believe that it would have been better to let Germany and Russia fight it out and that Chamberlain's caution was wise.

Churchill was a warmonger thirsting for conflict.

And note that no one entered the war to save the Jews. That's become the post war narrative that supposedly explains why the war was so necessary. I could probably be imprisoned in Europe for saying that :o

That's my take on it anyway. :-)

You mention Churchill, who is

You mention Churchill, who is deemed untouchable, even though he wanted war, took part in Yalta, and was responsible for the dividing up of the ME and the beginning of problems with Iraq. For some time I was amazed at how many neocons I was in contact with thought Tony Bliar was a great Prime Minister, even though he was loathed in the UK. It was for the same reasons: he was a war-monger at heart. Media image, once again. And then they made him peace envoy to the ME!! Ron is the first politician in a long long while who has not utilised that tough image that so many seem to think they need to do. He is a man of peace, and so many are waking up to the neocon nonsense of 'peace through strength' (which means, in real language, we came, we kicked butt, we took their oil).

This space available

I just got asked this on fb,

I just got asked this on fb, this was my response:

The bottom line is, we can't afford it. Britain was mired in a recession following WWI and they didnt take the necessary steps to fix the glaring problem which was their ever expanding empire. As a result they came within maybe months of having their island overrun with German forces. Fortunately for them, a benevolent superpower stepped in. If we continue to spend $1 trillion overseas every year (46% of which is borrowed), continue to engage in conflicts we have no national security interests in, and continue to expand our military influence around the globe (see australia), should we ever have to repel a force similar to the German or Japanese militaries of WWII, who are we going to go to for help? The Chinese?

I have to return some videotapes...


In 1938, prior to the war, Chamberlain shows up on Hitler's doorstep and signed an agreement! along with France and Italy, leading to nazi Germany's annexation of a section of Czechoslovakia inhabited by ethnic German's.

Czechoslovakia was not represented and agreements with her were broken to avoid war with Hitler. From this vantage point Hitler invades Czechoslovakia. Historians say Chamberlain could have prevented this incursion. He was considered weak. Could he have stopped Hitler's aggresions and WWII or not? What would Ron Paul have done?

If Ron Paul's peace loving spirit is reminding some of Chamberlain, how do we persuade them otherwise?

I sincerely doubt a President

I sincerely doubt a President Paul would take part in a treaty that would allow one nation to annex a 2nd sovereign nation without the 2nd nation's authourity and by force.

I have to return some videotapes...