One of the causes of WWII was WWI. And World War I did not need to
happen. Wilson lied to the US and then got us into an insanely ridiculous war.
Correct, so far, so good.
It war left Germany...and virtually all of Europe in a mess. The
disastrous Weimar Republic was created in Germany which created hyperinflation
and
ultimately economic collapse. That set the stage for the fascists who told
Germans they could restore their pride and their economy.
------------------------------------------------
Here is where the problems begin.
Rather than blame the USA, which was not even in the war until 1917,
there are other far more plausible explanations for what happened :
1. French insistence on the Versailles Treaty, which left Germany with
huge indemnities it could not pay without bankrupting itself., which
it did, a mess that spiraled out of control, with a cure that was worse
than the disease, namely hyper-inflation. The USA, far from being
supportive of the treaty, was against it, and the Brits were not happy
with it either although they felt they had to go along with France.
But if I remember this correctly, Keynes, then a young advisor,
was aghast at the terms and predicted really bad stuff would happen.
2. Deflationary pressures made things worse than they should have been
because the gold standard was completely unrealistic. Basically not nearly
enough precious metal to sustain it. A mixed metal ( gold + silver ) system
with a good % of wealth calculated in terms of national assets might have
worked but at the time it was gold or nothing. Which was pure stupidity.
3. Weimar was anything but an ideal republic, but no-one had any idea
it would turn out as badly as it did. What part did America play in the
failure of Weimar ? Nothing.
As for FDR, if there was baiting, as Buchanan suggests, if the fish
was not hungry, any baiting would have been pointless. As for
Buchanan, as soon as he starts his neo-isolationist stuff is when
I stop listening. Otherwise I really admire him and was a supporter in
1996 and was at least qualifiedly OK with him in 2004. But he has
been an isolationist since he was in diapers and that view, IMHO,
is crazy. In the 30s it was especially crazy, like asking a kid at
school
to be a pacifist in a playground full of bullies.
Isolationism / non-interventionism , take your pick, both policies
are irresponsible in the world we actually live in. There is no way to
even BE non-interventionist when every other country outside of
various allies wants us to fail and tries with all their resources to
defeat us. Especially Islamic countries. We should roll over and
play dead ? I don't think so. In other words, RP is delusional.
As for the 1930s, Japan was gobbling up one country after another.
Therefore, we should do nothing ? Like today, Muslims are on the
warpath wherever you look. And what do we hear from you-know-who ?
Its all America's fault. That outlook is pure bull.
In 2008, for all the problems of that year, the GOP still could have
pulled off a victory. The party chose to jump off a cliff. Looks to me
that there is a really good chance it could happen again.
Billy
=========================================
The world wide depression did not occur out of thin air. Nor did Hitler.
As to the Pacific aspect of the war, there is a fascinating new treatise
that purports that your hero FDR baited Japan and pushed the US into war
covertly. I am sure a great historian such as yourself would have looked into
this history.
_http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/12/06/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbo
r/_
(http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/12/06/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/)
These pompous Progressives were war mongerers. They believed they could
reshape the world and they did.
Note to Chris's query. A conservative is someone who believes this
history could have been avoided if we had been smarter and more humble.
Kevin
Not the result of military expansionism :
Maybe the original 13 colonies / states, although there was a ( military )
revolution
that dragged along with it a good number of local communities that were
loyalist.
the Louisiana purchase
the Gadsden purchase
the Virgin Islands
the state of Washington, although there was threat of military action at
the time
" " " Hawaii " " " "
" " " " " "
Alaska
Everything else was the result of military expansion
Causes of WWII ?
# 1 and far away most important, the Depression
# 2 the rise of totalitarian ideologies, Fascism / Communism
# 3 dysfunctional European political policies in GB, France, etc
plus policies of various colonial powers in the Pacific
WWI created the conditions for a military industrial complex ? ? ?
After WWI we demobilized almost completely.
We had an army of about 250,000 in 1940, the smallest for
a country of our size of any nation in the world.
We were, except for the Navy, ridiculously unprepared for WWII.
There was NO military-industrial complex in 1940, that idea is unfounded.
Where does that idea come from, if I may ask ?
Whoever came up with it is anything but an historian and simply
does not know what he / she is talking about.
If you are going to make historical generalizations it would be
a really good idea to actually study relevant history.
Liberal Fascism is a really interesting book with a lot to say,
but it is anything but the last word on many of the subjects
it covers.
Billy
-==================================================
12/20/2011 12:14:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
It all went South with entry into WW1 when America sent millions to fight
overseas. That created the conditions for WWII and the military industrial
economy and we have been stuck in the interventionist mindset ever since.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: _Kevin Kervick_ (mailto:[email protected])
To: [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [RC] [ RC ] Military Expansionism
Perhaps we are talking about degree. Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])
To: [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected])
Cc: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:22 PM
Subject: [RC] [ RC ] Military Expansionism
Actually, James Polk, no 20th century liberal, was responsible for the War
with Mexico that added the SW, California, and Texas to the USA, and that
was the 1840s.
But military expansionism dates to the Revolution itself even if our
various
attempts to conquer Canada fell flat, both then and in 1812. There also was
a threat of war with Canada as late as "54-40 or fight," also under Polk.
BTW, Ben Franklin favored military expansion. So did other Founders,
not least George Washington.
So did TR, then a Republican , in the 1890s, and for quite a while we had
the Philippines, and still have Guam and PR from that era.
These are established facts that are not in the least dispute.
Billy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
12/20/2011 11:09:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I agree with that Chris. To me conservative = classical liberal or
constitutionalist. Military expansionism is actually a liberal idea that
began
in the early 20th Century.
Kevin
If Paul is the most conservative candidate, how do you define
conservative? I don’t resonate well with either label, liberal or
conservative.
Both terms are bloated with contradictory meanings that are in the eye of the
beholder.
Chris
From: [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected])
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin
Kervick
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RC] Age of Ron Paul
I like to use the term, Independent Conservative to show that he is
conservative. He has the most conservative voting record in the House. The
Independent label refers to the fact that he does not toe the line with
neoconservatives and Progressives who say they are conservatives. His
opponents
and the media use libertarian to paint him as something other than
conservative. I believe paul is the most conservative candidate in the race,
bar
none.
Kevin
Kevin,
>From your article, “Why are they so afraid of Ron Paul? They are afraid
because his message does not fit their increasingly outdated and tired
narrative. If people begin to embrace Paul’s independent conservative message,
many of them will undoubtedly stop listening to dinosaur Conservatives on
the airwaves.”
First sentence is great and I think true. Second sentence, I am confused
by your use of the term “conservative” to define Paul. To me, he doesn’t
fit into the normal bi-polar liberal-conservative box. Why bother to put
a conservative label on him?
Chris
------------------------------------------
Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D.
Constructive Agreement, LLC
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])
P.O. Box 39, Bozeman, MT 59771
(406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax
------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected])
_[mailto:[email protected]]_
(mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]) On Behalf Of Kevin Kervick
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:10 AM
To: [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected]) ; [email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected])
Subject: [RC] Age of Ron Paul
_http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/the-age-of-ron-paul-panic
s-the-conservative-and-gop-establishments_
(http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/the-age-of-ron-paul-panics-the-conservative-and-gop-establ
ishments)
Discovering Possibility: A Common Sense Conservative Manifesto (For
Classical Liberals Too) is available at _www.discoveringpossibility.com_
(http://www.discoveringpossibility.com/) . The book offers a sociological
perspective and corresponding culture change approach, that relies on the
principles
of classical liberalism and a Deistic spirituality and promotes four
pillars of community - freedom, personal responsibility, neighborliness, and
thrift. All proceeds from Discovering Possibility go toward the furtherance
of our mission at A Place for Possibilities,
_www.aplaceforpossibilities.org_ (http://www.aplaceforpossibilities.org/) , a
501 (c) 3 educational
nonprofit corporation.
Also, check out my writing about Independent politics on Examiner.com at
_http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/kevin-kervick_
(http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/kevin-kervick)
--
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
