Intervention vs Non-intervention

[BigRob]

How could FDR and Truman fail to recognize the abhorrent and murderous nature of Stalin? How did they fail to see the millions murdered and enslaved in the USSR? How did they manage to ignore the fact that Stalin aligned with Hitler in '39 and then conquered half of Poland, the Baltic States, and invaded Finland all before we entered the war? FDR even buried intel reports regarding the Soviets assassination of the Polish officers at Katyn because he did not want to offend Uncle Joe. We must realize that FDR was a radical leftist who liked Stalin, but hated Hitler. The hypocrisy of his beliefs are amazing, but typical of leftists then and today.

Again, we should not have aligned with the Brits and the Soviets. We should have stayed neutral. The result of our neutrality could have resulted in a stalemate in the east and ultimately an end to the war. Thus leaving Stalin and Hitler contained. And lots of 18 year old American boys alive.

I think its a speculative claim that our nuetrality would have resulted in a stalemate in the East. I think there would be plenty of arguments to be made that it would have resulted in the entire European continent being dominated by the Soviet Union.

 

[BigRob]

Are you trying to tell me Congress knew everything FDR, Wilson, and LBJ were doing? If so, you are mistaken. All three were involved in activities to incite military action without the knowledge of Congress or the American people. They were interventionists!

Congress certainly has the power to find out -- and then hold accountable those who were in fact withholding information such as this.

Citing the Constitution is fine. The problem is most presidents, since at least Wilson, do not think they are constrained by it. Do you think for a minute that BO feels the constitution constrains his power? He could get us in a war tomorrow if he felt so compelled. Do you think Wilson and FDR felt constrained by the Constitution?

I don't care if they "felt constrained" by it -- the simple fact is they are constrained by it, and if Congress did their job it could limit the power of the Executive.

 

[Centrehalf]

How could FDR and Truman fail to recognize the abhorrent and murderous nature of Stalin? How did they fail to see the millions murdered and enslaved in the USSR? How did they manage to ignore the fact that Stalin aligned with Hitler in '39 and then conquered half of Poland, the Baltic States, and invaded Finland all before we entered the war? FDR even buried intel reports regarding the Soviets assassination of the Polish officers at Katyn because he did not want to offend Uncle Joe. We must realize that FDR was a radical leftist who liked Stalin, but hated Hitler. The hypocrisy of his beliefs are amazing, but typical of leftists then and today.

I see that you don't like FDR and I'm not saying FDR was a great guy but I think you're assigning way too much power to him. FDR was not responsible for the USSR becoming a superpower. Let me rephrase...the American buildup to WWII was not part of some plot by Roosevelt to make the USSR a superpower.

Again, we should not have aligned with the Brits and the Soviets. We should have stayed neutral. The result of our neutrality could have resulted in a stalemate in the east and ultimately an end to the war. Thus leaving Stalin and Hitler contained. And lots of 18 year old American boys alive.

If we don't join the Allies Germany owns all of Europe instead of the USSR owning half of it.

 

[Gipper]

Putting aside for a moment your other arguments, I want to zero in on this idea. What do you propose in lieu of seperation of powers? I don't think you can blame seperation of powers for Congress failing to do its job.

POTUS can only act unilaterally (for the most part) when Congress allows it, and if they do nothing, then are implicity allowing it.

Agreed. I do not know what Congress and the American people can do to prevent a POTUS from acting unilaterally. In my view, FDR, Wilson, and LBJ should have been impeached for their actions. But, we know this will never happen once troops are committed.

 

[Gipper]

I think its a speculative claim that our nuetrality would have resulted in a stalemate in the East. I think there would be plenty of arguments to be made that it would have resulted in the entire European continent being dominated by the Soviet Union.

I don't think so. Germany had to fight a two front war (three fronts if you include Africa). If they only had to fight the Soviets, it is very possible a stalemate would have resulted. But, it is most certainly speculation.

Remember that the Soviets only succeeded in stopping and routing the Germans, once they pulled their troops from Siberia, who were there for fear of a Japanese invasion. Had the Japanese invaded Russia rather than attacking Pearl Harbor, the Soviets would likely have fallen.

Secondly, the impact of aligning with us and the Brits gave the Soviets considerable intel and material they would not have received had we stayed neutral. This too might have prevented their beating the Germans.

 

[Gipper]

Congress certainly has the power to find out -- and then hold accountable those who were in fact withholding information such as this.



I don't care if they "felt constrained" by it -- the simple fact is they are constrained by it, and if Congress did their job it could limit the power of the Executive.

Yes, but again you are stuck on the true meaning of the Constitution. If we had followed the Constitution, the entire welfare state including Obamacare would not exist. It exists and the Constitution has been repeatedly ignored for decades.

That ship sailed long ago.

 

[Gipper]

I see that you don't like FDR and I'm not saying FDR was a great guy but I think you're assigning way too much power to him. FDR was not responsible for the USSR becoming a superpower. Let me rephrase...the American buildup to WWII was not part of some plot by Roosevelt to make the USSR a superpower.



If we don't join the Allies Germany owns all of Europe instead of the USSR owning half of it.

I do not believe our military buildup was a plot to make the USSR a superpower. I am saying FDR was a terribly flawed man much like BO. His failures to recognize Stalin and the Soviets for what they were, caused terrible suffering and most certainly lead to them becoming a superpower. The consequences of the actions taken by our leaders in war are almost universally bad. So, lets stay out of war.

Yes, Germany would control all of Europe and no doubt that would not be good. Does that mean American boys must fight and die? I think not. Germany did not attack us.

 

[Gipper]

This summarizes my view:

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams

 

[GenSeneca]

Good thread...

America should never initiate the use of force - that is the heart and soul of non-interventionism. Force should only be used against those who initiate the use of force against us and only for the purpose of eliminating the threat. There is absolutely no reason we should hang around after the threat has been eliminated to engage in "nation" building. If someone attacks us, we decimate our enemy and then leave. Diplomatically, we let nations know that any nation who attacks the US will only bring about it's own ruination - and make good on that promise whenever attacked.

Iran fires anti-shipping missiles at US ships? We destroy the missile batteries and eliminate the threat. No need to posture or make speeches, no need to threaten an invasion of Iran, no need to make demands or call for sanctions at the UN, simply state the facts: "Iranian missile batteries fired at US ships today and the US navy responded by destroying every Iranian missile battery capable of attacking US ships." Period.

We don't need military bases all over the globe, we don't need troops in 130 countries, our navy and CIA can be utilized to deal with any external threat that doesn't require a full scale mobilization of US resources - i.e. war. We would save hundreds of billions of dollars returning to a non-interventionist foreign policy. However, we should NOT shift those savings over to propping up our failing welfare state - that too needs to be eliminated.

 

[Centrehalf]

I don't think so. Germany had to fight a two front war (three fronts if you include Africa). If they only had to fight the Soviets, it is very possible a stalemate would have resulted. But, it is most certainly speculation.

True, this is speculation but the German Field Marshals felt that a defensive line at the original Polish border could be easily defended and was a worst-case scenario. Some of them even felt that some of the gains could have been kept, but Moscow and the Caucasus were off the table at that point. The need to move troops from the East to the West threw these plans out the window.

Remember that the Soviets only succeeded in stopping and routing the Germans, once they pulled their troops from Siberia, who were there for fear of a Japanese invasion. Had the Japanese invaded Russia rather than attacking Pearl Harbor, the Soviets would likely have fallen.

The troops from Siberia were recalled specifically for the defense of Moscow. They had almost nothing to do with halting the Germans, the weather and terrain did that. I doubt the Japanese could have done much to effect the outcome even if they had decided to invade.

Secondly, the impact of aligning with us and the Brits gave the Soviets considerable intel and material they would not have received had we stayed neutral. This too might have prevented their beating the Germans.

I think you are severely underestimating the Soviet intelligence gathering abilities of that time period. As for the material, yep, they got a lot from us but I would say that our assistance in reorganizing and training their military was also a factor in their success.

 

[Centrehalf]

Yes, Germany would control all of Europe and no doubt that would not be good. Does that mean American boys must fight and die? I think not. Germany did not attack us.

They didn't attack us? Yes they did. They were sinking American shipping in the N. Atlantic because we were trading with Britain. You've said repeatedly that we should have stayed neutral and you've portrayed our trade with Britain as a provocation. I would suggest to you that halting that trade with Britain would have been anything but neutral, it would have been a wink and a nod to Germany.

We don't need to guess what the Founders would have done, they were faced with a similar situtation, and they didn't consider open sea lanes and trade to be a provocation. They sent the Navy and some Marines all the way to Africa to kick the everloving crap out of people who were interfering in our trade.

 

[Gipper]

They didn't attack us? Yes they did. They were sinking American shipping in the N. Atlantic because we were trading with Britain. You've said repeatedly that we should have stayed neutral and you've portrayed our trade with Britain as a provocation. I would suggest to you that halting that trade with Britain would have been anything but neutral, it would have been a wink and a nod to Germany.

We don't need to guess what the Founders would have done, they were faced with a similar situtation, and they didn't consider open sea lanes and trade to be a provocation. They sent the Navy and some Marines all the way to Africa to kick the everloving crap out of people who were interfering in our trade.

No...no....no.... You call providing military hardware of all sorts, to the Brits, TRADE. It was a provocation..interventionist and NOT TRADE. What do you think all that equipment was used for? It was used to kill Germans. Do you not think that a provocation in the minds of Germany? It most certainly is NOT following a policy of non-intervention or neutrality.

Can you please name all these American merchant ships sunk by Germany PRIOR to their declaring war on us?

The Barbary Wars are a good example of non-interventionist policy. We took care of the problem and left. It is not comparable to intervening in foreign wars we had no business being involved in....like WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq...that is INTERVENTIONIST!!!

 

[BigRob]

Yes, but again you are stuck on the true meaning of the Constitution. If we had followed the Constitution, the entire welfare state including Obamacare would not exist. It exists and the Constitution has been repeatedly ignored for decades.

That ship sailed long ago.

Congress is free to kill any of those programs at any time.

 

[Gipper]

The troops from Siberia were recalled specifically for the defense of Moscow. They had almost nothing to do with halting the Germans, the weather and terrain did that. I doubt the Japanese could have done much to effect the outcome even if they had decided to invade.

I do not believe that is historically correct. The Soviets moved 18 divisions from Siberia to fight the Germans. I do not think that number of soldiers is insignificant.

The Soviets did have good intel because all their diplomats were spies. Stalin had a spy in Tokyo who informed him the Japanese had no intention of invading the USSR in 1941. This allowed the movement of all those divisions and equipment, which broke the back of the German invasion.

The Japanese army was a potent force in 1941. Had it attacked the USSR, the effect would have been significant. Japan and Russia had a long history of conflict prior to 1941. And most recently they had heavy battles along the Russia/China border in 1939. Japan fared quite well.

Although the Wehrmacht's offensive had been stopped, German intelligence estimated that Soviet forces had no more reserves left and thus would be unable to stage a counteroffensive. This estimate proved wrong, as Stalin transferred over 18 divisions, 1,700 tanks, and over 1,500 aircraft from Siberia and the Far East,[60] relying on intelligence from his spy, Richard Sorge, which indicated that Japan would not attack the Soviet Union. The Red Army had accumulated a 58-division reserve by early December,[37] when the offensive proposed by Zhukov and Vasilevsky was finally approved by Stalin.[61] However, even with these new reserves, Soviet forces committed to the operation numbered only 1,100,000 men,[58] only slightly outnumbering the Wehrmacht. Nevertheless, with careful troop deployment, a ratio of two-to-one was reached at some critical points.[37] On 5 December 1941, the counteroffensive started on the Kalinin Front. After two days of little progress, Soviet armies retook Krasnaya Polyana and several other cities in the immediate vicinity of Moscow.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#Soviet_counteroffensive

 

[Gipper]

Congress is free to kill any of those programs at any time.

You are dreaming.