Rand Paul Versus Ted Cruz on Foreign Policy

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
I am a supporter of yours, but on the matter of foreign policy, I'm tending to lean more toward Rand Paul.
Rand Paul tends to take a less-intervention position on the matter of Russia's apparent aggression toward the Ukraine and the Crimea in particular. You take a more hawkish position, although you tend to limit your hawkishness to sanctions.
The reason I tend to side with Sen. Rand Paul, is a consideration of World War II history.
Prior to World War II, Germany geared up militarily and invaded the Sudeten, which they claimed was basically German. Note that the Russians claim the Crimea as being basically Russian.
From there, Germany invaded one country after another, without any significant resistance by the invaded countries. Germany set up in each country a national administration favorable to the German homeland.
Difficulty to the German aggression came in two forms. They were thwarted in their endeavor to invade and take over Russia and similar failed attempts to take over England. It was then that the US entered the war on the side of England and Russia, which established World War II and ended in the total defeat and annihilation of Germany.
We may be seeing a repeat of that operation mode in Russia's start with the Crimea. However, the likelihood is that World War II was not so far back that some people do not remember the outcome. As I said, Germany was defeated and annihilated in the process. It was only through the largess of the US Marshall Plan that Germany was rebuilt to its present form. In the rebuilding, restrictions were placed on the redevelopment of German military power and those restrictions exist to the present day, with US troops stationed to enforce the restriction.
In addition to the suffering of the German people, there was suffering to the people of Italy, as a German ally. Suffering was not only limited to the obvious losers of the war, but also the people of Poland, England, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and Western Europe in general.
With the US late entry into the conflict, it lost several million soldiers, which was obviously suffering, but the US homeland was not physically destroyed, while Western European was.
With the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) many years ago, the US effectively said to Western European nations, "You need not maintain a military force to protect yourself from invasion, we, the US, will protect you." That needs to be changed. Western European nations have no basis to expect the US to protect them. They need to establish their own defensive military and be ready to take action, as they should have done prior to World War II.
I am logically on the side of Rand Paul. It is Western Europe's responsibility to protect itself from invasion by Russians, Chinese, or aliens. It is the US responsibility to convince Western European countries that we will not do this for them. We should start to dismantle NATO and eliminate restrictions on Germany to re-militarize, so that they may be able to defend themselves.