There are a few similar threads in the past, but I’m still trying to learn. I recall FDR telling Britain that he wouldn’t give them any more foreign aid without having them secure Poland’s independence, and that led them to declare war on Germany. And then I recall hearing that FDR purposefully intensified and created conflicts in Europe with which he had no business dealing, but I can’t find any specific information.
Also, why do some people say WWII wouldn’t have happened without US involvement in WWI?
I think it is easy to understand why the US did not need to get involved. It did not need to get involved because it was in no way threatened, and could not ever be threatened.
I think the argument that the whole WWII ordeal was avoidable centers rather on the actions of Britain. The point of view that Britain also did not need to fight. AJP Taylor in Origins of the Second World war in my opinion conclusively showed the war breaking out was a consequence of a confused, indecisive policy in London, that alternated between appeasment and containment. Either approach would have probably worked, but because the Brits did not know what the hell they were doing and which of the two they were attempting Hitler misread them and worked himself into a corner from which he then wasn’t willing to back away from.
You can get the book here: link
And acess a favorable LRC review here: link
I’m bumping this thread because it is a subject that interests me. Hitler is always at the tip of everyone’s tongue when they are arguing for interventionist foreign policy. I’d like to have the question of this thread analyzed and addressed in greater depth. I would also welcome any and all sources that offer insight on the subject from this angle.
If a man’s property is being vandalized and he is asking for help evicting the intruder from his property, as a neighbor, I would help. All these arguements boil down to the legitimacy of the state.
Pretty much every topic results in that. If you recognize the state as a the rightful property owner, then things like road laws, taxes, regulations, can all be legitimized…
For example, motorcycle helmet laws. If roads were privitized, helmets may still be required. But if you recognize that state owns the roads. Then shouldn’t it follow that they make the rules?
The most significant role that the USA played in Europe during WWII - and which was established well before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour - was provisioning the USSR (and to a lesser extent the UK) with money and arms with the result that they were able to hold out against the Germans. Is that not reason enough? The final consequence was a prolonged war along what became the deadliest front in all military history, and the establishment of Soviet governments in Eastern Europe. This Russian dominance, in turn, became the justification for the next 40 years of American interventionism and statist scaremongering in the USA.
That is not even possible. 85% of lend lease material that was delivered to the Soviet Union was received after January 1st 1944. That is after the outcome of the war was no longer in question. Lend lease was useful, but not decisive.
Lend lease shortened the war. The Soviets would have won regardless, but with American made trucks and railway cars they could do it faster and at a slightly lesser human cost to themselves.
Becuase it is likely that the Central Powers would have been able to conclude the war on far more favourable terms if the United States had not participated. No Treaty of Versailles.
Absolutely. And it is true as far as that goes, but it is not an argument that is very persuasive. That is because the Treaty of Versailles did not make WWII inevitable. Any number of things could have made it so WWII would have never happened, including some very interventionist and hardline policies. For example what if the US did not retreat across the ocean in 1919, but left 200,000 troops in France on a permanent basis as guarantors of the Treaty? Certainly then WWII would never have happened.
A fact is that 20 years is a very long time in history. With this sort of thinking you can as well say that without the Congress of Berlin WWII would never have happened. No Congress of Berlin, no Austrian occupation of Bosnia. No Austrian occupation of Bosnia, no assasination in Sarajevo. No assasination in Sarajevo no war in 1914. No war in 1914, no October Revolution, no Treaty of Versailes, no Nazi rise in Germany. There you go, now we can blame Mao, Hitler and the Bolsheviks, not on the progressive Wilson, but on the conservative Bismarck. Is this persuasive?
“I’d like to have the question of this thread analyzed and addressed in greater depth.”…i.e. Tell me “Why didn’t the US need to get involved in WWII?”
So far it doesn’t seem like anyone has done that. (Granted, I haven’t viewed Nielsio’s video’s yet, but I’m hopeful). It never ceases to amaze me how filled a thread can get without anyone ever even addressing the question at hand.
Well the OP verified a post in this thread, so at least he must have felt he had received his answer.
I’d say that a question of “Why didn’t the US need to get involved” is a little bit strange. It is like asking why doesn’t Joe need to go the store today. How can I know that? There could be any number of reasons why he doesn’t need to. To even begin contemplating this I would have to know why someone feels that Joe needs to go to the store.
Can you first say why anyone thinks the US needed to get involved?
“Need” assumes certain desirable conditions. Why didn’t I need to buy a car? Well, if I don’t have a job far away from where I live, I don’t need to buy a car because I need money. But if I do indeed have that far-away job, the previous reason is not as valid.
Thus, we must consider what the US wanted. Did it want Hitler to lose or did it want the Soviets to be crippled? It’s likely that it’s a bit of both.
@ Hitler: Europe either would have been 100% devastated without the US or it would have lost (I mean non-Hitler Europe).
@ Stalin: The US indeed should not have intervened if it had wanted the Soviets to be crippled. At least not until a bit later. The Soviets would have gotten quite beaten down. If, they at any point managed to take up the offensive and beat back Hitler, this is where the US should have stepped in to prevent the Soviets from “liberating” much of Europe and turning it over to Communism.
However, the US itself was attacked, and I do not think it reasonable to remain out of the war when you are getting hammered.
An interesting idea would have been to let China and Japan take care of each other. Two threats neutralized.
WWII had so many pivoting points that it’s interesting to ponder where the world would have gone if the US had not intervened at all.
The answer’s yes - the US could’ve not cornered the Japanese into making such a desparate ploy. But all Roosevelt’s attempted casus bellis with Germany floundered.
I like what Caley McKibben wrote here (I can’t activate links or make paragraphs for some reason): Libertarian pacifism - #32 by Caley_McKibbin “The Nazis and the Soviets wearing each other out seems like the best possible outcome.” Obviousology 101. The least that people arguing for the utilitarianism of World War 2 could do is get the analysis right, that FDR was a communist agent trying to destroy the regional buffers against the USSR and Communist China, nothing more, nothing less. If you are going to intervene in interstate affairs, you go by the rule of at any given point aiding the side that appears to be losing. Had that been done imagine how much better the map of Eurasia would have looked, not just a big Red blob
