Uhlan
Lv 6
Uhlan asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why did McCain say at the debate last night "we let Hitler come to power?"?

Did we? Is that really true?

Should we have stopped Hitler in 1933? How could we have done that short of invading Germany? What would have been the grounds for the invasion?

How could we have known Hitler was bad when he hadn't built Aushwitz or started any wars yet? Isn't who leads Germany for the Germans to decide rather than us Americans?

Is McCain saying that America has a duty to invade other countries to prevent someone from getting power that we don't like or suspect that we won't like in the future?

If that isn't what McCain was saying, what was he saying?

18 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    McCain is feeling the pinch from Ron Paul's popularity, and so he had to take a pot-shot at Ron. But by doing so, he revealed his neo-con mindset. Pre-emptive strikes will only allow more pre-emptive strikes in the future.

  • Pfo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    You must not be aware of history. The world realized Hitler as a potential threat right when he invaded Poland. That was the turning point where he became the clear bad guy. FDR wanted to join up with France and England in fighting the Nazi forces, but the American people vehemently said no, we should stay isolated, that's what our forefathers said (funny, you hear that a lot these days too). So, FDR could not commit American forces to aid our allies. What he did was send them material support. Had we sent out armies, it is very possible that Germany would not have conquered most of France, would not have destroyed most of England, would not have allied with Italy and Japan, their would have been no D-Day, we wouldn't have had to drop the atomic bomb.... Things would have been a lot different and probably a lot better. That's what McCain was saying. The American people didn't want war so bad that they neglected considering if it was necessary, and so blinded by our forefathers advice THEY are somewhat responsible for the horrible things that occurred in the world. They held FDR responsible for his decisions, and FDR being a responsible leader upheld their concerns at the behest of several million people's lives.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The question is not should we have, but could we have?

    Historical records indicate Hitler rose to power in the Great Depression, which was apparently world wide, by the creation of jobs to bolster the economy and endearing the population to his ideals. Said ideals were based on the belief that all races were inferior and only the Ayran race should rule, the main objective being the elimination of the Jews. Hitler continued to rise in power and started his world conquests by the signing of treaties between countries, Britian and France among the coountries and then breaking them. Since we were trying to recoop from our own depression, we became an isolationist country, not getting involved in the world affairs.

    Now as to your question of whether McCain meant we have a duty to invade other countries, no we don't, not outright. Our assault in the regions of Afghanistan and Iraq was with the aid and approval of other countries with what was then considered reliable intelligence of weaponry (later found to be false) but the training camps of the terrorist activities were discovered. We did allow Saddam to gain control of an unstable Middle East but like all things mortal, he became corrupt, and therefore was eliminated, not by this country, but by his own nation.

    From the context of what McCain meant is that we should not allow history to repeat itself by slowly returning to an isolationist nation. We make mistakes too, but with the help and agreed cooperation of nations, events like these can be prevented.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The concept is summed up by the phrase "while America slept." I wouldn't read too much into this one phase from McCain. I don't think he is a fan of pre-emptive war especially since our armed forces are depleted, and he know it. You might want to read his website for further clues about his foreign policy.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    That's what he was trying to elude to, yes. He was saying that America should invade at the first sign of the potential that there might be someone with thoughts of rising to power in another country.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    McCain was blowing a bunch of smoke out his a_s_s.

    He knows he is losing the military vote/campaign cash support from active duty members to Ron Paul and is desperate to get it back, since it is all he really has at this point.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It wasnt necessarily 1933 but before 1939 we surely knew there were problems on the way and could have stopped things before they got out of control but like everyone else we chose to look the other way

  • Ktcyan
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    McCain is a scary kook! He likes that pre emptive war strategy and only uses the Geneva Convention words when it suits him, he's dangerous if he thinks we let Hilter do what he did and I'd like to know why he's not raging about Darfur then?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    google Neville Chamberlain...and then google liberal apathy regarding Islamic terror

    the above answers and this question pretty much seal the deal that Bush is a visionary and prove the fact.

    .if we fail to learn the lessons of history,..we are bound to repeat them

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's an esy thing to say in retrospect, just like saying we should have done more to prevent 9-11...it is easy to find fault after something happens, but people are not fortune tellers.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.