If not for Pearl Harbor when would the U.S. have entered WWII

[Toronado3800]

hard to say for sure but whats an established fact now is that FDR was a traiter and murdered those american sailers knowing full well the japenses would bomb them withholding that information from the american fleet purposely allowing them to bomb and murder them so he could get the support of the american people to enter the war and so he could stay in office past the required two terms.

I have read a bit on this and can see your point of view. IMO if the fleet was given 24 hours notice we would have lost several battleships to the same fate as the Repulse and Prince of Whales. Mayby due to Roosevelt not personally being a naval aviation genius maybe due to a racist theory the Japs couldn't use superior planes to do what the Brits did at Taronto. Who knows.

In general I think our ships: were in the right place for a battle, may as well of been sunk in port where they could be refloated, and did not enjoy a war time or modern fast response ability.

Now the Phillipeans was just an unsustainable garrison which should habe been pulled back. What a waste of lives.

 

[Picaro]

hard to say for sure but whats an established fact now is that FDR was a traiter and murdered those american sailers knowing full well the japenses would bomb them withholding that information from the american fleet purposely allowing them to bomb and murder them so he could get the support of the american people to enter the war and so he could stay in office past the required two terms.

I have read a bit on this and can see your point of view. ed back. .

Well, you should read a little more on it; it's a ridiculous theory.

 

[Toronado3800]

Well, you should read a little more on it; it's a ridiculous theory.

I consider it fact FDR put or was content with our fleet being in Hawaii where it could attack or be attacked quickly.

FDR was also somewhat of a hawk. Closest thing I read against that was a theory he merely wanted to pump our economy selljng goods to our allies. His actions in the Atlantic and the way he so strongly picked a side dial this idea back for me.

 

[Picaro]

Well, you should read a little more on it; it's a ridiculous theory.

I consider it fact FDR put or was content with our fleet being in Hawaii where it could attack or be attacked quickly.

Well, since it was a major Pacific base and fuel depot, that was the whole point of it being there. Nothing sinister about that.

FDR was also somewhat of a hawk.

He knew the world was becoming a small place, something he learned as Secretary of the Navy during WW I.

The Japanese had been becoming more and more fanatic, then when Hitler came along it was obvious he would kick off a war as well. It wasn't rocket science to see what was coming, and given the failed history of America trying to stay neutral and isolationist, it wasn't rocket science to know that policy would never work. It had never worked, at any time in American history. Sooner or later, everybody has to pick a side; it's just a fact.

Closest thing I read against that was a theory he merely wanted to pump our economy selljng goods to our allies. His actions in the Atlantic and the way he so strongly picked a side dial this idea back for me.

American business interests preferred peace; it was an era before the military industrial complex and tall office buildings full of defense industry lobbyists on permanent retainers. The 'isolationists' were big business and the financiers, many of whom were making lots of money off of Hitler and Japan. Roosevelt had to fight this isolationist power bloc for his entire time in office, even during the war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, you should read a little more on it; it's a ridiculous theory.

I consider it fact FDR put or was content with our fleet being in Hawaii where it could attack or be attacked quickly.

Well, since it was a major Pacific base and fuel depot, that was the whole point of it being there. Nothing sinister about that.

FDR was also somewhat of a hawk.

He knew the world was becoming a small place, something he learned as Secretary of the Navy during WW I.

The Japanese had been becoming more and more fanatic, then when Hitler came along it was obvious he would kick off a war as well. It wasn't rocket science to see what was coming, and given the failed history of America trying to stay neutral and isolationist, it wasn't rocket science to know that policy would never work. It had never worked, at any time in American history. Sooner or later, everybody has to pick a side; it's just a fact.

Closest thing I read against that was a theory he merely wanted to pump our economy selljng goods to our allies. His actions in the Atlantic and the way he so strongly picked a side dial this idea back for me.

American business interests preferred peace; it was an era before the military industrial complex and tall office buildings full of defense industry lobbyists on permanent retainers. The 'isolationists' were big business and the financiers, many of whom were making lots of money off of Hitler and Japan. Roosevelt had to fight this isolationist power bloc for his entire time in office, even during the war.

I ask again: When was this failed history of the U.S. trying to remain non-interventionist?

 

[Picaro]

Well, you should read a little more on it; it's a ridiculous theory.

I consider it fact FDR put or was content with our fleet being in Hawaii where it could attack or be attacked quickly.

Well, since it was a major Pacific base and fuel depot, that was the whole point of it being there. Nothing sinister about that.

FDR was also somewhat of a hawk.

He knew the world was becoming a small place, something he learned as Secretary of the Navy during WW I.

The Japanese had been becoming more and more fanatic, then when Hitler came along it was obvious he would kick off a war as well. It wasn't rocket science to see what was coming, and given the failed history of America trying to stay neutral and isolationist, it wasn't rocket science to know that policy would never work. It had never worked, at any time in American history. Sooner or later, everybody has to pick a side; it's just a fact.

Closest thing I read against that was a theory he merely wanted to pump our economy selljng goods to our allies. His actions in the Atlantic and the way he so strongly picked a side dial this idea back for me.

American business interests preferred peace; it was an era before the military industrial complex and tall office buildings full of defense industry lobbyists on permanent retainers. The 'isolationists' were big business and the financiers, many of whom were making lots of money off of Hitler and Japan. Roosevelt had to fight this isolationist power bloc for his entire time in office, even during the war.

I ask again: When was this failed history of the U.S. trying to remain non-interventionist?

Which century and decade do you want to start with? That 'neutrality' fantasy idea has been around since the Revolution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, you should read a little more on it; it's a ridiculous theory.

I consider it fact FDR put or was content with our fleet being in Hawaii where it could attack or be attacked quickly.

Well, since it was a major Pacific base and fuel depot, that was the whole point of it being there. Nothing sinister about that.

FDR was also somewhat of a hawk.

He knew the world was becoming a small place, something he learned as Secretary of the Navy during WW I.

The Japanese had been becoming more and more fanatic, then when Hitler came along it was obvious he would kick off a war as well. It wasn't rocket science to see what was coming, and given the failed history of America trying to stay neutral and isolationist, it wasn't rocket science to know that policy would never work. It had never worked, at any time in American history. Sooner or later, everybody has to pick a side; it's just a fact.

Closest thing I read against that was a theory he merely wanted to pump our economy selljng goods to our allies. His actions in the Atlantic and the way he so strongly picked a side dial this idea back for me.

American business interests preferred peace; it was an era before the military industrial complex and tall office buildings full of defense industry lobbyists on permanent retainers. The 'isolationists' were big business and the financiers, many of whom were making lots of money off of Hitler and Japan. Roosevelt had to fight this isolationist power bloc for his entire time in office, even during the war.

I ask again: When was this failed history of the U.S. trying to remain non-interventionist?

Which century and decade do you want to start with? That 'neutrality' fantasy idea has been around since the Revolution.

Start wherever you like. The U.S. has a surprisingly large amount of wars in its history for a nation that has been "neutral" since its inception.

 

[Picaro]

I ask again: When was this failed history of the U.S. trying to remain non-interventionist?

Start wherever you like. The U.S. has a surprisingly large amount of wars in its history for a nation that has been "neutral" since its inception.

Since you're asking me to prove a negative, define what you think constitutes ' real neutrality', and how the U.S. allegedly violated it all the time. Do you think it means the U.S. gets to decide who it sells goods to and when, or do you think it means belligerents get to tell the U.S. who and what and when it sells goods to?

As for ' the large amount of wars', take that up with the belligerents who start them, and then think they get to decide what our foreign policy is, and then attack us when they don't get their way on ordering the U.S. around. Apparently you have some idea that 'neutrality' means everybody else decides that, and not us.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I ask again: When was this failed history of the U.S. trying to remain non-interventionist?

Start wherever you like. The U.S. has a surprisingly large amount of wars in its history for a nation that has been "neutral" since its inception.

Since you're asking me to prove a negative, define what you think constitutes ' real neutrality', and how the U.S. allegedly violated it all the time. Do you think it means the U.S. gets to decide who it sells goods to and when, or do you think it means belligerents get to tell the U.S. who and what and when it sells goods to?

As for ' the large amount of wars', take that up with the belligerents who start them, and then think they get to decide what our foreign policy is, and then attack us when they don't get their way on ordering the U.S. around. Apparently you have some idea that 'neutrality' means everybody else decides that, and not us.

You said the U.S. has a failed history of "isolationism." It's not asking you to prove a negative to give us examples of what you're talking about.