Hitler and Interventionism
I guess this is common knowledge, but hearing the way Senator
McCain used the worn-out Hitler analogy against Dr. Paul ("we
allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of
isolationism and appeasement"), I felt I should repeat basic
history.
I am assuming that McCain was referring to inaction when Hitler
became evidently belligerent around 1938 (Hitler came to power in
1933, but McCain probably wasn't referring to this date).
In a limited sense, McCain is actually correct. If France and England
had acted decisively anywhere between 1935 and 1939, Hitler and his National Socialism would
have been a footnote in history.
But this is an extremely superficial look at history and any
deeper investigation will debunk McCain's position. Hitler's golden
ticket to power was the Versailles
Treaty, which was essentially economic and political
interventionism perpetrated by France and England. The war
reparations bankrupted the Weimar Republic and the political
limitations (limiting the size of the army, imposing a de-militarized
zone in the Rhineland, etc) created plenty of hatred against the
treaty. Had the Allies chosen to leave Germany in peace after WWI,
German democracy likely would have survived and Hitler would have
been the sad, failed artist that he was always meant to be.
Basically McCain is saying that interventionism
is needed to clean up the mess created by interventionism. In other words, McCain is arguing for a vicious circle. The US
bailed out France and England when their interventionist policies on
Germany caused blowback. Who is going to bail out the US?