Moonglow
Diamond Member
after WWI till WWIIWhat "isolationism?"The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
after WWI till WWIIWhat "isolationism?"The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...
So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.after WWI till WWIIWhat "isolationism?"The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...
Wilson did not want that to happen, but he was a small voice in the din of Europe's need to lay the blame...So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.after WWI till WWIIWhat "isolationism?"The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...
That being said, there were those who saw the rise of militarism coming out of Japan and Germany that wanted the US military to build a force that would be prepared to counter and deter those counties aspirations to expand their land mass through military means. The isolationist in this country prevented the build up and preparedness that may have averted those aspirations. And lets not forget it was a powerful media isolationist that leaked "RAINBOW" just days before Pearl and was used by Hitler in his declaration of war. The isolationist were well organized and may have actually helped drag the country into the war they wanted to avoid.So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.after WWI till WWIIWhat "isolationism?"The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...
Irrelevant. His involvement is what made it possible. In other words, the U.S.'s interventionist policies in WWI led directly to WWII.Wilson did not want that to happen, but he was a small voice in the din of Europe's need to lay the blame...So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.after WWI till WWIIWhat "isolationism?"The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...
Of course we can also point out how FDR purposefully provoked both Germany and Japan by openly favoring the Allies while he was supposed to remain neutral, which also gives the lie to the claim of "isolationism," without which there would have been little need to concern ourselves with the militarism of either country.That being said, there were those who saw the rise of militarism coming out of Japan and Germany that wanted the US military to build a force that would be prepared to counter and deter those counties aspirations to expand their land mass through military means. The isolationist in this country prevented the build up and preparedness that may have averted those aspirations. And lets not forget it was a powerful media isolationist that leaked "RAINBOW" just days before Pearl and was used by Hitler in his declaration of war. The isolationist were well organized and may have actually helped drag the country into the war they wanted to avoid.So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.after WWI till WWIIWhat "isolationism?"The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...
And as I said before, there would have been a more equitable peace after WWI, i.e. not forcing Germany to take all the blame for the war and paying ridiculous reparations and giving up land, had the U.S. not gotten involved and tipped the war in the favor of the British and especially the French. Under the terms of a more equitable peace, one that probably was the outcome of a draw more than one side beating the other into submission, Germany would have retained its position in the world and there would have been no reason to turn to a demagogue like Hitler to bring them back to greatness.hardly since it was the Wehrmacht that was accused by the Germans to have stabbed the German nation in the back for surrender... and the oppressive control of German territory held for repayment of the war..That led to economic breakdown and hyperinflation, giving way to extreme nationalism that rose until the economy improved, once the depression hit the nationalist were on the rise yet again...
The economy and it's conditions after the Great Depression led to nationalism which led to the rise of Hitler...and thus WWII...
A blockade only sustainable because the U.S. refused to hold the British accountable for their illegal blockade the way the way they did with the Germans for their submarine and mine warfare in British waters. Had they been treated equally, neutrally, in other words, then the British would have been forced to give up their blockade in the face of the Germans' sub warfare or because the U.S. refused to continue trading with them.The Germans were losing on the home front with the blockade and their defeat was inevitable, thanks to the axis powers losing ground and their army's disintegration...Italy was beating Austria and the Turks were losing their empire..
Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..
not really the allies paid in gold for the US to produce arms....Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..
Yes, but how much war material did the "isolationist" "neutral" U.S. send to Germany?not really the allies paid in gold for the US to produce arms....Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..
None that I know of....But it was Germany that was considered belligerent and the US Congress wanting to aid it's time honored allies...Yes, but how much war material did the "isolationist" "neutral" U.S. send to Germany?not really the allies paid in gold for the US to produce arms....Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..
Of course it was Germany that was considered belligerent, because they were being sold to the public as the enemy. They had to be belligerent, and Britain and France had to be standing up to "evil." The fact, however, is that all participants were being completely irrational and belligerent, and the U.S. simply favored the Allies because Wilson needed to get involved in the war to try to put his delusions of remaking the world into action. This gives the lie to the claim of "isolationism," however.None that I know of....But it was Germany that was considered belligerent and the US Congress wanting to aid it's time honored allies...Yes, but how much war material did the "isolationist" "neutral" U.S. send to Germany?not really the allies paid in gold for the US to produce arms....Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..
They also would have come to a quick agreement, perhaps even an alliance with Japan that would have freed up Japanese troops to fight against us as well as Russian troops from the east to be added to the fight with us.No, we could not have beat the Russians in 1945.
All of our divisions were overseas, and we had none in the pipeline or training.
The British and French and American populations would not have tolerated rearming and fighting the Russians.
If we attacked the Russians, they would have been in Paris and Rome within four weeks.