The history of warfare is a kind of history of technology. Innovation creates surprises, so I would not be too cocksure. I maintain that it is better to be waging hot (and cold) wars on the other guy's soil.
I saw a deal onf FDR a couple of years ago. One of those multi hour History channel deal. The country was so mad that they got pulled into WW1 that the public wanted no part what so part whatsoever of War in the 30's. FDR got elected his second term by promising not to go to war even though he knew it would be necessary to do so. Had we not gotten into WW1 then we would have not been isolationist during the 30's and could have probably done something much sooner to head Hitler off.
Where do you think the 'results of WW1' originated ? U.S. intervention in WW1 allowed the western powers to win a decisive victory over Germany. The war would have been fought to a standstill, without US intervention. (Russia dropped out when the Germans smuggled Lenin into that country. But, thats a whole different subject.) - - Because of the U.S. involvement the western powers won, which led to the crippling war reparations that eventually brought Hitler to power. - - - If the US hadn't entered the totally senseless WW1, World War 2 would likely never have been fought. - - - (Thats not to say Some kind of war wouldnt have been fought Somewhere. Human beings seem to have a talent for creating them.)
We basically agree. US intervention and reparations caused Hitler's beginning. Isolationism caused Hitlers power. Intervention in WW1 is the major reason for WW2 but it is important to look at both the intervention and isolationism. Intervention will always create negative consequences when there is no real threat. Isolationism will always create negative consequences when there is an actual threat. Intervention in WW1 created negative consequences. Isolationism after WW1 created negative consequences. Intervention lit the fuse.
Yes, I think we do agree. - - I don't know what the US could have done in Europe before Pearl Harbor, however. The national will, and resources weren't ready to fight that war. - - There was a great deal the Europeans could have done however. If they stopped Hitler from the very beginning, its unlikely he would have gotten as far as he did. I disagree that 'isolationism' will always cause negative consequences. Since the end of WW 2, interventions have gotten us in more trouble. Now we're at the point where we have troops spread thin throughout the planet. So did Rome (throughout their known world), and there were consequences to that over extension. If you believe that no place is outside of your 'vital interests', you are in for exhaustion of your resources & eventual decline. Regards, - -
WW2 was created by Europeans. Our armed forces were smaller then Romania's at the start of WW2. We were not prepared for it and should have been.
I agree with the first part. My point about isolationism was that it will always create negative consequences when there is an actual threat to the country. When a group known for saying that all Americans should die actually has a nuclear bomb isolationism is dangerous. Let's say we never participated in WW2 and Hitler dominated the entire European continent. If there was actual information discovered that he was planning to attack the US it would be dangerous and idiotic not to wage war before they were in our backyard.
Democrats start wars or they create the conditions for them. WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Carter with Iran, Clinton with Al-Qaeda and Bosnia.