What was our greatest strategic error in WWII and what woukd you have done?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Isolationism meant restricting business and industry from participating in global trade and America giving up it's rights to not only allow it to trade with whomever it wanted, but demanded giving up access and rights to the open seas. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just call ourselves neutral and let the world spin out of control as if it had no bearing on us? It really is a child like concept of the world.

That's why it makes no sense to use the term isolationist, but it's a useful pejorative that sounds bad.

 

[Camp]

Isolationism meant restricting business and industry from participating in global trade and America giving up it's rights to not only allow it to trade with whomever it wanted, but demanded giving up access and rights to the open seas. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just call ourselves neutral and let the world spin out of control as if it had no bearing on us? It really is a child like concept of the world.

That's why it makes no sense to use the term isolationist, but it's a useful pejorative that sounds bad.

Isolationism didn't become a pejorative until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Technology caught up to the ideas of Thomas Payne and some of the founders. The concept of being separated from the rest of the world by oceans vanished with the industrial age that would bring huge metal ships and airplanes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Isolationism meant restricting business and industry from participating in global trade and America giving up it's rights to not only allow it to trade with whomever it wanted, but demanded giving up access and rights to the open seas. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just call ourselves neutral and let the world spin out of control as if it had no bearing on us? It really is a child like concept of the world.

That's why it makes no sense to use the term isolationist, but it's a useful pejorative that sounds bad.

Isolationism didn't become a pejorative until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Technology caught up to the ideas of Thomas Payne and some of the founders. The concept of being separated from the rest of the world by oceans vanished with the industrial age that would bring huge metal ships and airplanes.

It's a pejorative because it's a complete misnomer. It's applied to people who don't believe the U.S. should interfere in the affairs of other countries, but that doesn't imply that they don't want to trade with other countries. The real isolationists would've been those who supported the embargo against the Japanese.

 

[Picaro]

I disagree with the idea Manstein was about to break through at Kursk. If for no other reason look what happened to the Germans aftsr Kursk they were pushed back madly not like an army that "almost" won.

Some German units did break through, just not enough to exploit the breakthrough. Hitler panicked and stalled the offensive by diverting supplies and stripping divisions from the East in order to ship them west to counter the Allied invasion.

 

[Camp]

It's a pejorative because it's a complete misnomer. It's applied to people who don't believe the U.S. should interfere in the affairs of other countries, but that doesn't imply that they don't want to trade with other countries. The real isolationists would've been those who supported the embargo against the Japanese.

What should they have been called back in the 20's and 30's and what should they be called today? The description was used to identify all the many varied groups that one way or another called for a diverse range of non-intervention. They were as varied as the communist and groups being funded by the USSR to the America First Committee and beyond to the American Bund.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's a pejorative because it's a complete misnomer. It's applied to people who don't believe the U.S. should interfere in the affairs of other countries, but that doesn't imply that they don't want to trade with other countries. The real isolationists would've been those who supported the embargo against the Japanese.

What should they have been called back in the 20's and 30's and what should they be called today? The description was used to identify all the many varied groups that one way or another called for a diverse range of non-intervention. They were as varied as the communist and groups being funded by the USSR to the America First Committee and beyond to the American Bund.

How about the obvious: Non-interventionists.

 

[Camp]

It's a pejorative because it's a complete misnomer. It's applied to people who don't believe the U.S. should interfere in the affairs of other countries, but that doesn't imply that they don't want to trade with other countries. The real isolationists would've been those who supported the embargo against the Japanese.

What should they have been called back in the 20's and 30's and what should they be called today? The description was used to identify all the many varied groups that one way or another called for a diverse range of non-intervention. They were as varied as the communist and groups being funded by the USSR to the America First Committee and beyond to the American Bund.

How about the obvious: Non-interventionists.

Business and industry supplying war materials and weapons would not and was not non intervention and so the name non-interventionists would not be accurate. Isolationist indicated a want to simply keep the nation isolated from the repercussions of the war. I can supply you with product while I keep myself and my community isolated from your influence but I can not escape the fact that I am intervening with you if I am doing business with you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Semantics, guys.

Isolation does not mean non-interaction.

 

[Moonglow]

Isolationism meant restricting business and industry from participating in global trade and America giving up it's rights to not only allow it to trade with whomever it wanted, but demanded giving up access and rights to the open seas. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just call ourselves neutral and let the world spin out of control as if it had no bearing on us? It really is a child like concept of the world.

That's why it makes no sense to use the term isolationist, but it's a useful pejorative that sounds bad.

It is just a definition to describe the situation that existed, like detente...

 

[bendog]

Semantics, guys.

Isolation does not mean non-interaction.

Well, Isolation back in the late 30s meant not giving any of the "belligerants" guns.

 

[whitehall]

The original post was pretty good but I can see where it's headed when people who ain't got a clue about military strategy would rather talk about "pejorative isolationism".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's a pejorative because it's a complete misnomer. It's applied to people who don't believe the U.S. should interfere in the affairs of other countries, but that doesn't imply that they don't want to trade with other countries. The real isolationists would've been those who supported the embargo against the Japanese.

What should they have been called back in the 20's and 30's and what should they be called today? The description was used to identify all the many varied groups that one way or another called for a diverse range of non-intervention. They were as varied as the communist and groups being funded by the USSR to the America First Committee and beyond to the American Bund.

How about the obvious: Non-interventionists.

Business and industry supplying war materials and weapons would not and was not non intervention and so the name non-interventionists would not be accurate. Isolationist indicated a want to simply keep the nation isolated from the repercussions of the war. I can supply you with product while I keep myself and my community isolated from your influence but I can not escape the fact that I am intervening with you if I am doing business with you.

Non-interventionism refers to a government's foreign policy, it says nothing at all about trading with a country. It says the U.S. should not assist anybody, Britain, France, Germany, etc..., militarily or diplomatically, but should continue to have open trade with all of them even if they're fighting one another.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Isolationism meant restricting business and industry from participating in global trade and America giving up it's rights to not only allow it to trade with whomever it wanted, but demanded giving up access and rights to the open seas. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just call ourselves neutral and let the world spin out of control as if it had no bearing on us? It really is a child like concept of the world.

That's why it makes no sense to use the term isolationist, but it's a useful pejorative that sounds bad.

It is just a definition to describe the situation that existed, like detente...

Except that it doesn't describe the situation that existed at all. Again, U.S. involvement in WWI, an interventionist action, set the stage for Versailles, which led to the rise of Hitler, which led to WWII. In other words, WWII was caused by interventionist policies during WWI, not "isolationism." Furthermore, FDR was always on the side of the Allies, even while he was pretending to be neutral. This was yet another example of interventionism that caused Japan to target the U.S. and get them directly involved in WWII. So interventionism caused WWII in the first place, and interventionism caused the U.S. to get directly involved in the war after it was started.

 

[Toronado3800]

Some German units did break through, just not enough to exploit the breakthrough. Hitler panicked and stalled the offensive by diverting supplies and stripping divisions from the East in order to ship them west to counter the Allied invasion.

I dunno. I think that by the time the XXIV Panzer corps (5th SS panzer grenadier and 17th Panzer divisions) were withdrawn from Manstein in the south it would have made a difference. Consider the southern front without them could not hold the soviets in place much less launch an attack. Also consider Kluge was thrilled to just avoid getting himself encircled at this time on the northern flank of Kursk.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rsk_(map).jpg/392px-Battle_of_Kursk_(map).jpg

 

[Friends]

I sometimes wonder if the biggest error was not the one with nearly 50 years' complications afterward: Allowing the Soviet Union to continue to exist.

Right after the German invasion of the Soviet Union began President Roosevelt's military advisers told him that without U.S. assistance the Soviet Union would collapse in as little as six weeks. The United States immediately began giving the Soviets financial and military assistance. I am glad we did. I am also glad we lost the War in Vietnam.

 

[Friends]

By the time the attack on Pearl Harbor happened, the United States had deciphered the Japanese diplomatic code that was called "Magic," and knew an attack was coming, but did not know where it was coming. It was expected in the Philippines, the Panama Canal, or Pearl Harbor. Each of these should have been warned to expect a possible attack.

Roosevelt wanted to get the United States into World War II. He knew that the best way to get the U.S. into the war was to provoke Germany or Japan into hitting first. It was in his interest for the Japanese to hit Pearl Harbor. It was not in his interest for the attack to be so devastating to the Pacific Fleet as it was. If the base at Pearl Harbor had been warned, fewer ships would have been destroyed, and the U.S. counter attack would have been stronger sooner.

 

[gipper]

By the time the attack on Pearl Harbor happened, the United States had deciphered the Japanese diplomatic code that was called "Magic," and knew an attack was coming, but did not know where it was coming. It was expected in the Philippines, the Panama Canal, or Pearl Harbor. Each of these should have been warned to expect a possible attack.

Roosevelt wanted to get the United States into World War II. He knew that the best way to get the U.S. into the war was to provoke Germany or Japan into hitting first. It was in his interest for the Japanese to hit Pearl Harbor. It was not in his interest for the attack to be so devastating to the Pacific Fleet as it was. If the base at Pearl Harbor had been warned, fewer ships would have been destroyed, and the U.S. counter attack would have been stronger sooner.

Are you claiming that FDR's deceptive actions, where appropriate and necessary to turn public opinion and take America to war?

 

[Toronado3800]

As you have not supplied any examples of "holding us back," the take away from your post is "I hate religion."

Seems to eat you up.

But....it's a free country...until Liberals have control.

Are you claiming that FDR's deceptive actions, where appropriate and necessary to turn public opinion and take America to war?

Deceptive actions....we had the Pacific fleet in the right place. Just wrong tactics. Is that what you are talking about?

 

[gipper]

As you have not supplied any examples of "holding us back," the take away from your post is "I hate religion."

Seems to eat you up.

But....it's a free country...until Liberals have control.

Are you claiming that FDR's deceptive actions, where appropriate and necessary to turn public opinion and take America to war?

Deceptive actions....we had the Pacific fleet in the right place. Just wrong tactics. Is that what you are talking about?

NO!

FDR knew an attack was coming and yet he refused to warn the commanders at Pearl and Philippines. Why did he not forewarn them?

 

[Toronado3800]

NO!

FDR knew an attack was coming and yet he refused to warn the commanders at Pearl and Philippines. Why did he not forewarn them?

I think I read this a few decades back. Do you have a linm to refresh my memory? I can't remember if it was hours or days before or what. Give me more specifics please.