Andrea Mitchell says Rand Paul is ‘isolationist,’ like those who wouldn’t take on Hitler

Two nights back, Andrea Mitchell of NBC caricatured Sen. Rand Paul’s antiwar views as “isolationist” and suggested he would have appeased Hitler.

It’s a replay of Republican debates of the last century, the isolationist senators who opposed getting into World War 2 before Pearl Harbor.

Mitchell was echoing Peter King, the rightwing Long Island congressman, who attacked Paul’s antiwar stance on CNN on July 31 by bringing up Hitler:
 

What this reminds me of, someone like Senator Paul and others in that isolationist wing, you know, the Republicans had this debate back in the 1930s when you had the isolationists and Charles Lindberghs said we should appease Hitler… I’m afraid that’s what Sen. Paul is going to do for us.

Paul certainly has a libertarian’s opposition to oversea adventures, but I don’t know that isolationist is fair. His website includes language that an antiwar leftist can also endorse: 

 If the military action is justified and there is no other recourse, I will cast my vote with a heavy heart.

I believe that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, bar none. I believe that when we must go to war, we must have a Congressional declaration of war as the Constitution mandates….

We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And to involve our troops in further conflicts that hold no vital U.S. interests is wrong.

Andrea Mitchell also said that Paul was being isolationist in trying to cut off aid to Egypt in wake of the coup there. Here’s some of Paul’s argument about American policy in the event of a “coup”:

“All military aid must end, that’s the law. There is no presidential waiver, the law states unequivocally the aid must end,” Paul said. “If we choose to ignore our own laws, can we with a straight face preach to the rest of the world about the rule of law?”

Paul’s effort failed. And of course there was a lot of talk about Israel’s interest. Even Paul said he was acting in Israel’s interest.

 

The floor debate was virtually everyone versus Paul. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said cutting off aid to Egypt would also hurt Israel, a close ally.

“This is a question of whether the senator from Kentucky knows what’s better for Israel, or if Israel knows what’s better for Israel,” McCain said.

Israel was against cutting the aid. Ambassador Michael Oren said that aid is essential to Israel’s security. And AIPAC was strongly against cutting the aid, for the same reason. 

Dana Milbank, a supporter of Israel, called Paul an isolationist for wanting to cut off the aid. In that column, he sided with McCain, who had suggested that Paul is an America Firster. Andrea Mitchell also seemed to take McCain’s side. She smiled over the fact that McCain said in the New Republic that he might vote for Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul if they end up running against one another for president.

There are surely a lot of reasons to vote against Paul. But his foreign-policy views are threatening to neoconservatives and liberal interventionists– the people who got us into the Iraq war– and surely have broad appeal.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 0 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. gingershot says:

    Andrea is an Israeli Lobby operative – an asset – and that’s it

    She and the other MSNBC Israeli asset, David Gregory, are key Zionist players for the ‘liberal left’ ‘Progressive Except Palestine’

    Andrea is always pushing the door open for the Neocon message – show by show, agitprop talking point by agitprop talking point

    If you want the Neocon/Israeli talking points straight from the horse’s mouth, don’t even bother with FOX News, just click on the ever reliable Andrea

  2. doug says:

    I don’t know where this historical revisionism comes from but the US was near the last to enter into WWII and it did not even occur immediately subsequent to Pearl Harbor but only after Hitler in turn declared war on the US. Unlike Britain, which had declared itself, as promised, at war with German when they attacked Poland, the US had no such response when Hitler attacked pretty much all of Europe including the UK.

    No. We waited until Hitler declared war on us before reciprocating. We were damned lucky that he did so as Germany might well have developed The Bomb first had they not been fighting on so many fronts.

    • Perhaps an even bigger impediment to German development of atomic bombs (along with having nowhere near the industrial base necessary to do it in WWII) was the fact that Hitler and his goons ran their best physicists and mathematicians out of Germany before, and during the war thanks to their ‘Jewishness’.

      • Exactly. Apartheid and subsequent ethnic cleansing directed against Germans with Jewish religion (plus those Germans who only had ancestors with Jewish religion) since 1935 had a big negative effect on Germany, beside all the earlier other negative policies affecting freedom of speech, freedom of association etc.

        All this would not have happened without that emergency situation after WWI with the – not only from today’s view – crazy Versailles Treaty.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “I don’t know where this historical revisionism comes from but the US was near the last to enter into WWII and it did not even occur immediately subsequent to Pearl Harbor but only after Hitler in turn declared war on the US.”

      Sure it did. The US entered the war on December 8, 1941 by declaring war on the Japanese. They entered the war in Europe three days later.

      On what basis do you think that the US should have declared war before Germany declared war on it? Do you think that the US should unilaterally declare war against any party which acts in a way it does not like? Should there not be at lease a casus belli against the US before this step is taken?

      “Unlike Britain, which had declared itself, as promised, at war with German when they attacked Poland, the US had no such response when Hitler attacked pretty much all of Europe including the UK.”

      Well, Britain declared war against one of the two states which attacked Poland in 1939, even though it promised to fight against “any action which clearly threatened Polish independence,” which the USSR’s attack in concert with their Nazi allies did. The UK not only failed to declare war against the USSR in defense of Poland, but also acceded to the USSR’s annexation of Eastern Poland after the war.

      And, further, if you are going to assert that the US was wrong not to aid Poland from 1939 to 1941, then you also must damn the UK’s failure to aid China as it resisted Japan from 1937 to 1941.

    • Roosevelt was pressuring Chamberlain to give that unconditional warranty to Poland – thereby essentially creating a war-ensuring situation.

      Unfortunately then Polish leader Rydz-Smigly’s policies deviated a lot from Pilsudski’s. Pilsudski was pursuing a policy of good neighbourhood with Germany. Rydz-Smigly’s ultimatum against Danzig and the aggressive policies against minorities in the 2nd Polish Republic (not only Germans but also Ukrainians, Belorussians, Lithuanians) triggered the German-Polish War.

      That war could have easily been solved by negotiations – however the governments of France, UK (and USA in the background) were not interested in a peaceful solution but in escalating and widening of the war into other theaters.

      Either they wanted to trigger a coup against Hitler or they wanted to get rid of Germany as competitor or they were just dense in the head and thought that getting rid of the German NS government by destroying Europe through war was a good idea.

      • Mondoweiss has achieved a diversity of voices. Even one that says that Poland and the allies were to blame for the invasion of Poland. Hurray for diversity!

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Mondoweiss has achieved a diversity of voices. Even one that says that Poland and the allies were to blame for the invasion of Poland.”

          And as long as there are those zionists in this site that propose that it was in any way moral, right, justified, fair, or legal for a bunch of Europeans to take over Palestine for a Jewish state, Russian Prussian’s opinion–wrong as it is–will not be the most offensive one on MW.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “Rydz-Smigly’s ultimatum against Danzig and the aggressive policies against minorities in the 2nd Polish Republic (not only Germans but also Ukrainians, Belorussians, Lithuanians) triggered the German-Polish War.”

        That’s a load of unmitigated garbage. Hitler’s ideas about attacking Poland and then the USSR, in order to carry out his political ambitions in Eastern Europe, ensured that that war was going to happen. The details might have been different, but no matter what Poland did, Germany would have been attacked by Germany.

        Your position is disgusting, and is the equivalent of blaming the victim for the crime.

      • Roosevelt tried to prevent the outbreak of war in 1939.

        • hophmi says:

          “That war could have easily been solved by negotiations – however the governments of France, UK (and USA in the background) were not interested in a peaceful solution but in escalating and widening of the war into other theaters. ”

          So to these people who think like the above (let’s call them Buchananites): America, Britain, and France negotiate a peace with Germany in 1939. Germany wins the war in Europe and stops at Poland and Ukraine, establishing Greater Germany. America doesn’t lose a single soldier, but 20 million people, including 9 million Jews, die, concentration camps dot Europe, Britain is run by Oswald Mosley’s kin, and the Slavs are enslaved. Did America, Britain, and France do the right thing, in your opinions?

          Because it seems like some people here think America should have remained neutral during WWII, and I, for one, would like to know how you sleep at night.

        • @Woody Tanaka
          Usually I agree with what you write – but not in this case. Do your research into the history of WWII if you are interested.

          After Poland was defeated there was still room for a peaceful solution but UK and France refused. Have you ever heard about the “phony war” or “sitzkrieg”? Only when UK and France threatened to occupy Benelux and Norway Germany started the western campaign – after doing nothing than asking for a diplomatic solution for several months.

        • @hophmi
          “America, Britain, and France negotiate a peace with Germany in 1939. Germany wins the war in Europe and stops at Poland and Ukraine, establishing Greater Germany.”

          Greater Germany was already established BEFORE the war broke out. If the western powers had negotiated quickly then Poland would have been restored to pre-war borders, Danzig comes to the Reich and a referendum in the Polish corridor would have been held. Totally reasonable in my view.

          “America doesn’t lose a single soldier, but 20 million people, including 9 million Jews, die, concentration camps dot Europe, Britain is run by Oswald Mosley’s kin, and the Slavs are enslaved.

          Check your time reference, the real war started only after Barbarossa in June 1941. Before that there were barely any damages and dead people. Britain would never have been in danger to be overrun had they negotiated.

          “Did America, Britain, and France do the right thing, in your opinions?”

          Definitely not. The results of the war were: 50+ million dead, millions of refugees, huge damages and physical losses, half of Europe under Stalin’s boot.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “I, for one, would like to know how you sleep at night.”

          Oh, I’m sure that someone who favors the zionist aparthied state, like you do, can probably figure it out.

    • jayn0t says:

      “Germany might have developed The Bomb first”. And, being evil, they would have dropped it on civilians! Thank God ‘we’ got there first.

      It’s worth looking into the story of Heisenberg’s attempt to prevent all sides developing the atomic bomb and Bohr’s refusal to co-operate with this endeavour. Heisenberg helped prevent German a-bomb development. Nazism greatly reduced Germany’s capacity to create these weapons, given the hostility of physicists, especially, obviously, Jewish ones. Democracy was a more fertile terrain.

      • Woody Tanaka says:

        “And, being evil, they would have dropped it on civilians! Thank God ‘we’ got there first.”

        Didn’t you hear what Harry Truman said??? Hiroshima was a “military base.” And he was from the midwest and used to be a haberdasher, so you KNOW he wouldn’t have lied to the American people to cover his mass murder, right??

  3. RE: “All military aid must end, that’s the law. There is no presidential waiver, the law states unequivocally the aid must end,” Paul said. “If we choose to ignore our own laws, can we with a straight face preach to the rest of the world about the rule of law?” ~ Rand Paul

    MY COMMENT: “Everyone knows” that the “white (i.e., western) man” speaks with a forked tongue (e.g., “doublespeak”)! ! !

    BRANDEIS ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTS SPEAKING WITH FORKED TONGUES:

    “In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

    ~ Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis in his dissenting opinion to Olmstead v. United States (1928)

    SOURCE – link to law.cornell.edu

    • P.S. FROM WIKIPEDIA [Forked tongue]: . . . According to one 1859 account, the native proverb that the “white man spoke with a forked tongue” originated as a result of the French tactic of the 1690s, in their war with the Iroquois, of inviting their enemies to attend a Peace Conference, only to be slaughtered or captured.

      Forked tongue of a Carpet Python - link to upload.wikimedia.org

  4. piotr says:

    I guess that Rand is an isolationist, like many of the authors at antiwar.com.

    What is wrong is the whole concept of argumentation by labels. In the case of our establishment commentators, their first task is to figure out if a certain position is “mainstream” or not, and if it is not, the case is closed. Isolationism is not mainstream. Attacking and occupying Iraq was mainstream. Calling for a boycott of Olympic Games in Russia because Russia did not deport an individual — even though it would be perhaps the most bizarre boycott ever — is mainstream.

    • American says:

      ”In the case of our establishment commentators, their first task is to figure out if a certain position is “mainstream” or not, and if it is not, the case is closed. ”….piotr

      Nope.
      The current US msm task is to make certain positions *appear to be* mainstream whether they are or not.
      Is there any mainstream media between ultra blue MSNBC and ultra red Fox?…havent seen any.
      Despite the fact that 45% of all registered voters are now registered as ‘unaffilated”.
      What we refer to as the MSM or mainstream media is actually a Hollywood Squares game show of the blue fringe team vr. the red fringe team.

  5. German Lefty says:

    Andrea Mitchell is totally right. When I hear the word “antiwar”, I immediately think of Hitler.

  6. RE: The floor debate was virtually everyone versus Paul. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said cutting off aid to Egypt would also hurt Israel, a close ally. “This is a question of whether the senator from Kentucky knows what’s better for Israel, or if Israel knows what’s better for Israel,” McCain said. ~ Weiss

    ● FROM MAPLIGHT.ORG:

    Pro-Israel contributions

    • Top Senate Recipients Funded

    Recipient | Amount
    Mark Kirk $925,379
    John McCain $771,012
    Mitch McConnell $430,925
    Carl Levin $346,478
    Robert Menéndez $344,670
    Richard Durbin $327,212
    Kirsten Gillibrand $326,937
    Mary Landrieu $296,409
    Benjamin Cardin $267,542
    Harry Reid $261,708
    Bill Nelson $259,250
    Charles Schumer $248,149
    Timothy Kaine $245,820
    Barbara Boxer $245,179
    Ron Wyden $222,431
    Sherrod Brown $221,891
    Claire McCaskill $214,271
    Robert Casey $192,550
    [CONTINUED AD NAUSEAM]

    SOURCE – link to maplight.org

    ● A HIGHLY RELEVANT QUOTATION:
    “You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions is.” ~ Mark Twain (Meaning that one’s opinions can be told based on where that person got their bread.)
    SOURCE – link to grammar.about.com

    ● ANOTHER HIGHLY RELEVANT QUOTATION:
    “You can’t use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and hit him on the snout!” ~ From ‘The Education of Henry Adams’, By Henry Brooks Adams, 1838-1918 (American journalist-historian-academic-novelist; grandson of President John Quincy Adams; great-grandson of President John Adams)
    SOURCES:
    The Education of Henry Adams by Henry Adams – link to gutenberg.org
    The Education of Henry Adams: An Autobiography (Google eBook) – link to books.google.com

    ● ONE LAST HIGHLY RELEVANT QUOTATION:
    “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” ~ Jesse “Big Daddy” Unruh (in 1966), Speaker of the California Assembly from 1961 to 1968
    SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

  7. Speaking of labels, David Brooks piece this weekend is a paean to the Neocons, under the headline, The Neocon Revival. link to nytimes.com
    I’ve come to believe Brooks must always be read with a view that he writes to two separate audiences: 1) the American Public that reads the NYTimes or at least one of the many newspapers that carries his columns, for whom he writes as if he is an American conservative voice, but with a bright liberal’s sense of nuance to illuminate for those who strive be well-informed (but who are excluded from the second audience); and 2) basically Phil’s audience (though Brooks approaches it from the opposite side), which is consumed by the turmoil created by the Zionist project as it has an outsized impact on American policy and culture, but does so under various labels, taboos and misdirections that prevent the first audience from tuning into it, which is part of its reservoir of strength and effectiveness. In this column, Brooks praises Neuhaus and Berger for their not-yet-reviewed book, To Empower People: the Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy, which is part of a social science movement to view non profits “in a principal-agent paradigm,” by which nonprofits are viewed not as a result of a failure of government, but as an agent of the “public” to help influence policy, politics, etc. Brooks argues that what the Republican Party today needs is more neocons, more neocon policies. He quotes Irving Kristol as being part of a conservative movement that is okay with big government: “‘People have always preferred strong government to weak government, though they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of intrusive government.’” He elaborates:

    “The crucial issue for the health of the nation, in this [Neocon] view, is not the size of government; it is the character of the people. Neocons opposed government programs that undermined personal responsibility and community cohesion, but they supported those programs that reinforced them or which had no effect.

    “Neocons put values at the center of their governing philosophy, but their social policy was neither morally laissez-faire like the libertarians nor explicitly religious like some social conservatives. Neocons mostly sought policies that would encourage self-discipline. ‘In almost every area of public concern, we are seeking to induce persons to act virtuously, whether as schoolchildren, applicants for public assistance, would-be lawbreakers, or voters and public officials,’ James Q. Wilson wrote.

    “How would they know if programs induced virtue? Empirically. ‘Neoconservatives, accordingly, place a lot of stock in applied social science research, especially the sort that evaluates old programs and tests new ones,’ Wilson added.”

    It is a wonder that someone as bright and tuned in as Brooks can describe Neocons and their role in American policy without so much as mentioning Israel, but Brooks’s second audience knows this is just part of his method. And can speak of judging their policies empirically, i.e., on how they worked, without mentioning the abject failure of their adventures in Iraq.

    But Brooks, too, writes to Phil’s audience, but in hopes of keeping them on the reservation, sees hope in a Republican resurgence led by new improved Neocon policies, that embrace big government, but virtuously. And, indeed, if one wants to know how to effect change in American policy, studying the Neocons, their AIPAC, their WINEP, and other organizations would indeed be a fruitful research focus.

    As Rand Paul and Chris Christie square off over big government, as Rand Paul invokes US law as a basis for cutting off Egyptian arms shipments in the face of the recent coup, despite the obvious US-Israeli hand in the coup, and their interest in a stable secular Egyptian military holding back a popular Muslim Brotherhood, Brooks points us to intellectual endeavors that help explain this new order, in which neither the constitution nor the laws of the US matter much, when viewed through the lens of this new principal-agent paradigm.

    I keep wondering if Brooks believes such contortions have a prayer of continuing to empower Zionist influence on American policy, or is just pointing out how and why its ship will soon sink unless it is run aground through an emergency two-state solution. Is he a conservative or a liberal? Is he a Zionist or an American? If he were Thomas Friedman, he’d reply, Yes, let me explain.

  8. Isn’t Peter King known as a stooge of Aipac? Who seems to like the idea of war with Iran?

  9. rensanceman says:

    Once again, our undying support for the apartheid state of Israel is making the U.S. the laughing stock of the world. Instead of cutting off aid to Egypt because if the military coup, as required by Congressional legislation, Obama/Rice/Powers simply announce that they will not make a determination if it was a coup or something else. What utter fools our national leaders are. Clearly, the Zionist have taken over our foreign policy; hence, determining our national interest. General Sisi the leader of the coup is very cozy with the Israeli military. Israel, not trusting the MB decided that Morsi had to go and to install a puppet regime.

  10. stopaipac says:

    Rand Paul is an extremist supporter of Israel
    I’m sorry, but this article makes little sense.
    it reminds me of those “progressives” that have fantasies about warmongering Alan Grayson and pretend he wants to beats swords into plowshares

  11. ckg says:

    This is a question of whether the AIPAC-funded senator from Arizona knows what’s better for America, or if America knows what’s better for America.

  12. American says:

    Unless someone better shows up –and I cant think who that would be—I would vote for Paul. The US has gotten way too big for it’s britches, needs to be reined in.

  13. Krauss says:

    “In that column, he sided with McCain, who had suggested that Paul is an America Firster.”

    This is brilliance.

  14. Hostage says:

    The floor debate was virtually everyone versus Paul. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said cutting off aid to Egypt would also hurt Israel, a close ally.

    Yeah but Rand Paul was introducing a non-germaine amendment to the Transportation/HUD Appropriations bill, not the State Department And Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to which the Leahy Act already applies. There’s no need for any amendment. It only takes one Senator on the appropriations committee to put Egypt’s funding on hold until democratic elections are held. From the very beginning, Chairman Leahy has said the law requires that funding be stopped: http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/provisions-relevant-to-the-situation-in-egypt-in-the-fy12-state-department-and-foreign-operations-appropriations-law_–

    Even Senators McCain and Graham have admitted it’s only a matter of time:

    In the United States, which supplies Egypt with $1.5 billion in aid each year, Graham said the Egyptian army must move “more aggressively” to hold elections. He said future U.S. aid will hinge upon a return to civilian rule.

    “The military can’t keep running the country. We need democratic elections,” Graham said in a CNN interview.

    – See “Amid call for return to civilian rule || Senators McCain and Graham to visit Cairo in U.S. bid to defuse Egypt crisis” link to haaretz.com

  15. irmep says:

    The Anti-Defamation League disrupted an America First rally in Madison Square Garden using illegal means. Arnold Forster used stolen press credentials to infiltrate the meeting. When caught, they first offered a bribe, and then the Andrea Mitchell of the day, Walter Winchel wrote some press that the division that busted Forster would be “shaken up”

    The campaign worked, and no charges were filed. Israel Lobby Archive link

    http://irmep.org/ILA/ADL/1199215%20—%2062-NY-10686%20—%20Section%202.pdf

  16. Chespirito says:

    The use of the smear-term “isolationist” is based on a faulty reading of US history and conceptual nonsense. Basically anyone who opposes whatever war Dick Cheney’s daughter Liz is touting on cable tv in a given week is “an isolationist.” It’s time to free ourselves from this obfuscatory term and the faux-history behind it: link to theamericanconservative.com

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “The use of the smear-term “isolationist” is based on a faulty reading of US history and conceptual nonsense.”

      Exactly right. The politics of a regional power with a relatively modest military, two oceans away from trouble are so completely different from the globe-striding superpower of today that ANY comparison between the two eras can only be done by rascals and dunces.

    • Yes, neocon warmongers use the term to slander those who oppose foolish American military adventures in the greater Middle East.

  17. hophmi says:

    “Two nights back, Andrea Mitchell of NBC caricatured Sen. Rand Paul’s antiwar views as “isolationist” and suggested he would have appeased Hitler.”

    I think that’s generally accurate. Paul defines American interest very narrowly, and he seems to be one who would have said in 1939 that America had no business getting involved in a European war. He certainly would not have said that America should spend blood and treasure saving Jews, but not many did.

    This is a great moral failing of the modern left, this decision to cast their lot with isolationists and to end up on the wrong side of those campaigns to save oppressed peoples. The leftists argued against everything from Bosnia to Kosovo to Libya to Syria. That’s not something to be proud of.

    You have to seriously examine your morals if you profess to care about human rights and then find common cause with someone like Rand Paul.

    • American says:

      ”He certainly would not have said that America should spend blood and treasure saving Jews, but not many did. ”…hoppie

      Well, WWII wasnt ‘about’ the Jews.
      Getting rid of the Jews wasnt “the reason’ Germany started the war…..what happened to the Jews was a ‘side project’ or an ‘add on’ project so to speak of Hiter and the Nazis.

      So let me ask you… do you think that the US or any country had a special obligation to Jews specifically over others that were also under threat and being killed in the war by Germany at that time?
      I’m pretty sure based on all you’ve said before that you are gonna say yes…
      So then, tell me what it is about the Jews that you believe the US or world should have saved them ‘specifically’?
      I am also sure you’re gonna say because they were being ‘targeted’ as Jews.
      To which I would say Germany was indeed ‘targeting’ whole countries as enemies and swarths of people as enemies and you were ‘only one of them’ and ‘not the only ones’.

      • yrn says:

        American

        Who else was murdered by the Germans Nazis, just because of their “religion” belonging in Europe ?

        • American says:

          August 6, 2013 at 10:04 am
          Who else was murdered by the Germans Nazis, just because of their “religion” belonging in Europe ?….yrn

          Jehovah Witnesses were the *FIRST* religious members rounded up and imprisoned by the Nazis—–way before the Jews were rounded up.
          Catholics priest and nuns opposed to Hitler werent put in camps they were excuted right off the bat.

          You dont actually know anything about WWII and Germany do you?
          Only thinking and caring about Jews makes you ignorant of real history.
          You should educate yourself.

        • Hostage says:

          Who else was murdered by the Germans Nazis, just because of their “religion” belonging in Europe ?

          Of course that argument is a red herring, since secular persons of Jewish descent were murdered without any regard for their religious beliefs. Once you properly frame the question to ask what other ethnic groups were murdered, then the answer includes several groups of Slavs, and the Roma.

        • hophmi says:

          “Jehovah Witnesses were the *FIRST* religious members rounded up and imprisoned by the Nazis—–way before the Jews were rounded up.”

          Persecution of the Jews began in 1933; the first boycotts were on April 1, and six days later, Jews were banned from government service. So I’m not sure how long the Jehovah’s Witnesses took precedence. Jehovah’s Witnesses were persecuted before the Nazis took power, including through decrees signed by Hindenburg and by other German Churches. But that’s hardly the same thing.

          Regardless of whether they were rounded up or not, there’s really no comparison here. About 1,400 Jehovah’s Witnesses died in the Holocaust, around 1,000 of them German, or 1 out of every 20 remaining in Germany after 1939. On the 214,000 Jews left in Germany after 1939, 90%, 9 out of 10, were murdered during the Holocaust. Most of the 100,000 Jews who fled Germany to other parts of Europe were also murdered.

          So, we have 90% versus 5%. And, much as I’m sure you’ll find a reason to take issue with it, a good deal of the persecution of the Jehovah’s Witnesses had to do with their refusal to join the German Army. Jehovah’s Witnesses could avoid persecution by renouncing their faith and signing a document supporting the German Army. Jews and Gypsies had no such option.

          As usual, American, your knee-jerk defensiveness is telling.

        • American says:

          ”As usual, American, your knee-jerk defensiveness is telling.”……. hoppie

          No, I ‘m not being defensive, I am being painfully ‘blunt’ with you in asking why you think anyone should have ”risked their own people” to specifically ”save your people”.
          I am not even saying that people shouldnt risk their own lives or welfare to save the defenseless or others, obviously people the world over have done that many, many times.
          What I am getting at is your attitude..the fact that you only care about the Jews, not anyone else that died or suffered in WWII.

      • hophmi says:

        “Well, WWII wasnt ‘about’ the Jews.”

        No one said it was.

        “Getting rid of the Jews wasnt “the reason’ Germany started the war…..what happened to the Jews was a ‘side project’ or an ‘add on’ project so to speak of Hiter and the Nazis.”

        Again, you seem to be referring to claim no one made here. It obviously wasn’t a “side project” to anyone Jewish.

        “So let me ask you… do you think that the US or any country had a special obligation to Jews specifically over others that were also under threat and being killed in the war by Germany at that time?”

        I think the Allies had a collective responsibility to do more than they did to save Hitler’s civilian targets, and the Jews were Hitler’s principle civilian targets; 6,000,000 of them died, including over 90 percent of the Jews in Poland, many in concentration camps.

        “I am also sure you’re gonna say because they were being ‘targeted’ as Jews.”

        “To which I would say Germany was indeed ‘targeting’ whole countries as enemies and swarths of people as enemies and you were ‘only one of them’ and ‘not the only ones’.”

        That’s fine. Hitler murdered most of the Jews in Europe. 6 million Jews were murdered, far more than any other civilian, non-combatant group during the war. That Jews were targeted for being Jewish, as Jews, is beyond any rational debate.

        • American says:

          Hoppie says….

          ‘Again, you seem to be referring to claim no one made here. It obviously wasn’t a “side project” to anyone Jewish. ”

          A says: …..You dont have to state the claim outright, nothing is more obvious in your many comments than that you consider Jews to be the only part of WWII that was important. And again, that the Jews were the most important part of WWII to Jews doesnt mean it was the most important part of WWII to the rest of the world. Why for instance should have the British or the Russians or the French have cared more about Jewish survival than their own survival?

          ”I think the Allies had a collective responsibility to do more than they did to save Hitler’s civilian targets, and the Jews were Hitler’s principle civilian targets; 6,000,000 of them died, including over 90 percent of the Jews in Poland, many in concentration camps.”

          A says:…..First off the 6 million figure is no longer accurate , it’s been downgrade by 1/1/2 or 2 million since the change in numbers at one camp in Poland I believe. Second, although the Jews were Hitler’s main ‘civilian’ target, the war itself targeted civilians all over Europe….some where around 50 million ‘civilians’ (the stats have been posted here several times) were killed during the war..by bombing, starvation, in Japanese POW camps, etc..

          ”That’s fine. Hitler murdered most of the Jews in Europe. 6 million Jews were murdered, far more than any other civilian, non-combatant group during the war. That Jews were targeted for being Jewish, as Jews, is beyond any rational debate.”

          A says:…..Once again – 6 0r 4 mil number of Jews starved to death in camps vr. 25 mil Russian civilians starved and bombed to death. There isnt any difference in being targeted as a ‘Jewish enemy’ of the state and being targeted as ‘non Jewish enemy’ of the state –dead is dead either way.

          However you are right, there is no ‘rational” debate with you .
          Why for instance, should the US or allies be criticized for not getting Jews out of the camps when the US and allies couldnt even get their own POWS out of Japanese camps?
          Shouldnt they have tried to save * their own people* first?
          Since what you practice above all else is *my people first* you should be able to understand that other people will also practice *their people first*.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “I think the Allies had a collective responsibility to do more than they did to save Hitler’s civilian targets,”

          As you viciously slander the memories of millions of people who did more than you ever will and spit on their graves, what, exactly did they not do that you believe they were obligated to?

    • Here’s another great post from our Russian Prussian friend adding to the diversity of mondoweiss.

      Friend, and I use that word in the bizarro sense: The holocaust was perpetrated between 1941 and 1945, insofar as the decision to kill masses of Jews seems to have been taken some time in the summer of 41 and implemented then and in the fall of 41. oh, by the way, check your calendar, america entered the war on december 7th and the genocide started before then.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “I think that’s generally accurate.”

      No, what that is is patent nonsense.

      ” He certainly would not have said that America should spend blood and treasure saving Jews, but not many did. ”

      Yes, sadly people are concerned about themselves and their own people and not some people in some far off land. It’s a common human reaction. How many Jews in the first half of the 20th Century said that they should spend their blood and treasure to stop the Armenian Genocide? Or to stop the Soviets from starving the Ukrainians? How many voted to spend their own blood and treasure to attack Japan to get it out of China? How many israelis voted to spend their own blood and treasure to save the Cambodians from the Khmer Rouge? Or to stop the Rwandan genocide?

      If it’s a “great moral failing,” then the failure of israel is as great, if not more, giving the disgusting way it abuses the holocaust for its political ends. If you don’t damn them for not stopping all the instances of genocides and assaults on minority human rights around the globe, then you’re a hypocrite for damning an American in the 1930s who did not think that America had any business getting involved in someone else’s conflict halfway around the world.

      “You have to seriously examine your morals if you profess to care about human rights and then find common cause with someone like Rand Paul.”

      LMAO. Someone who favors a state that is the Jewish equivalent of the Klan, if the Klan had gotten a state, dictating to others about human rights… priceless. Attend the beam in your eye, zio.

      • hophmi says:

        “How many Jews in the first half of the 20th Century said that they should spend their blood and treasure to stop the Armenian Genocide?”

        Well, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. certainly worked to stop it and asked the Americans to intervene. And he was the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and one of most prominent Jewish leaders of his time.

        And of course, Jews have long been overrepresented in movements to get global action on most of these issues.

        “If you don’t damn them for not stopping all the instances of genocides and assaults on minority human rights around the globe, then you’re a hypocrite for damning an American in the 1930s who did not think that America had any business getting involved in someone else’s conflict halfway around the world.”

        LOL. Someone else’s conflict. In the first place, America had a clear interest both in stopping the advance of fascism in the world and in maintaining a Europe that reflected both liberal democratic values and free market values. They certainly expressed that interest during the Cold War. Second of all, America is a little bit of a different case, given its resources, financial, political, and military. America is actually in a position to stop some of these things from happening.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Well, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. certainly worked to stop it ”

          Great. One. And how much of his money did he spend to do it? How many of his sons did he send to fight?

          “And of course, Jews have long been overrepresented in movements to get global action on most of these issues.”

          Sure. Great talkers. The israelis have one of the most powerful militaries in history. How many troops did they send to stop the genocides in the Balkins or South East Asia or in Africa?

          “LOL. Someone else’s conflict. In the first place, America had a clear interest both in stopping the advance of fascism in the world”

          Yes, someone else’s conflict. And we’re not talking about “America” but the America Firsters. And you weren’t talking about abstract American interests in your slander of Paul, you were talking about “saving Jews” and nothing else. If you don’t think that the average America Firster saw the oppression of the Jews by the Germans as someone else’s conflict, you’re insane.

          “America is a little bit of a different case, given its resources, financial, political, and military. America is actually in a position to stop some of these things from happening.”

          Sure. America is always to blame for not helping the Jews even though they spent treasure and spilled blood doing exactly that, but israeli is always innocent. Got it.

        • Hostage says:

          LOL. Someone else’s conflict. In the first place, America had a clear interest both in stopping the advance of fascism in the world and in maintaining a Europe that reflected both liberal democratic values and free market values.

          Of course the United States was doing a damn good impression of a fascist state itself during that period, thanks to racial segregation, Jim Crow laws, compulsory military registration and conscription, the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the Palmer Raids, & etc.

          In fact, the public was so appalled by the flagrant war profiteering that occurred in WWI, that they rejected the League of Nations and its policy of the open door on trade and collective military action.

          For that matter, the League of Nations itself never fulfilled its own obligations under Article 10 of its Charter to prevent Axis aggression and defend the lives and property of its own member states. Frankly the UN hasn’t done much better in preventing aggression and genocide against other groups. In that respect, the Israelis and their slogan “Never again”are almost a joke. When did Israel ever participate in a humanitarian intervention that wasn’t part of its own nation building exercise?

    • Donald says:

      “The leftists argued against everything from Bosnia to Kosovo to Libya to Syria. ”

      Syria? You want the US to intervene in Syria? Which set of mass murderers should we side with? Or should the US send in hundreds of thousands of troops and after we flatten the place, do some nation-building like we did in Iraq? That worked out great.

      Oh, and speaking of that, you curiously forgot to mention that on the interventionist left Iraq was supposed to be another case where we were going to go in and save people. Come to think of it, so was Vietnam. And so were numerous countries during the Cold War when the US sided with killers in the name of fighting communist threats to freedom.

      • Re: Iraq. Was “saving people” just part of the BS used to sell the war?

        Christian leaders in Syria thought Assad gov’t gave better protection to them than they could expect in a democracy.

        • Donald says:

          “Re: Iraq. Was “saving people” just part of the BS used to sell the war?”

          Yes, though it sort of depends on who you mean. I think some of the dumb interventionist left believed it–the New Yorker types like George Packer, for example. Hitchens believed it. He’d been waiting his whole life for the opportunity to play George Orwell, dump on his former friends on the left and see himself as the great contrarian while his career predictably skyrocketed as a result of his “contrarianism”–but aside from him, I think some liberal types really did jump on the pro Iraq war bandwagon thinking they were going to bring happiness and ponies and cute puppy dogs to the benighted denizens of Iraq.

          As for Syria, I’ve heard that repeatedly, both in the press and also from a friend of a friend with connections over there–Christians in Syria are terrified of the Sunni fundamentalist rebels. How exactly do the pro-interventionist Westerners imagine we’re going to bring happiness and ponies to Syria? Well, aside from bombing them, of course. That’s usually step 1.

        • Agreed, Donald. Some backers of the illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq thought it was a humanitarian exercise of sorts. They ignored warnings the invasion would prove catastrophic for the ancient Christian communities of Iraq. And the ancient Christian communities of Syria said, prior to the outbreak of civil war, that Assad gov’t was a better protector of their interests than a “democratic” gov’t would be.

    • eljay says:

      >> You have to seriously examine your morals if you profess to care about human rights and then …

      What a sick f*cking joke, coming from a hateful and immoral Jewish supremacist who routinely:
      - excuses, justifies or glosses over past and ON-GOING Jewish (war) crimes, including terrorism and ethnic cleansing; and
      - advocates for Jewish supremacism and a Jewish-supremacist state.

  18. The neocons have broad appeal across both party lines, Dems and Repubs, but the GOP will not get the libertarian vote until and unless they expulse the neocon warmongers. The libertarian sentiment is maybe not as wide today as it is deep but it is growing on campuses across the country. There is no love lost between libertarians and neocon repubs.

    http://www.yaliberty.org

    “Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is the largest, most active, and fastest-growing pro-liberty organization on America’s college campuses. With more than 380 chapters and 125,000 student activists nationwide, YAL seeks to identify, educate, train, and mobilize young people committed to winning on principle.

    This is not a new beginning but a continuation of a youth movement already brewing in this country. Our objective is to facilitate its success. Please take a moment to watch this video and use the links in the right column of this page to learn more about YAL.”

    This is a battle that Libertarians will welcome, Let’s air it out some it’s getting stuffy in this here republic.

  19. doug says:

    The US declared war on Germany only after Germany declared war on the US. Germany was not required by treaty to do so but after they did the US promptly reciprocated. IMO it was indeed fortunate that Germany did this enabling the US to reciprocate.

    The Manhattan project was given a big kick in the butt as a result. The US, protected from significant attacks on it’s mainland was able to produce nukes well before anyone else. Whether this was possible otherwise is debatable. That FDR, who was amongst the few informed about the potential of nuclear weapons, may have done what he could to provoke war in spite of a reluctant citizenry ( who was not informed of the potential of nuclear weapons) is unclear.