3 ms·

That's a very different claim from what was said originally though. It's true that World War II resulted in the US being much more powerful, but the evidence th

That's a very different claim from what was said originally though. It's true that World War II resulted in the US being much more powerful, but the evidence that this was the intention all along in joining the war is very shaky. Both among national elites, and even moreso among the general public, opinion was pretty strongly isolationist and against getting involved in World War II until Pearl Harbor happened. There's not really any reason to believe that there was a master plan to make the US the global superpower by entering the war, it just kind of happened.

shepherdjerred 3y ago
That's my understanding as well. We _may_ have entered the war if Pearl Harbor had never happened. If the Japanese had not attacked, the United States certainly would've entered the war later, but I don't think you could ever refer to it as a "power play".
palmfacehn 3y ago
Entering later rather than sooner was a power play. Ascribing intent is tricky here. Personifying the modern state is another iffy area. "Directed history" is another can of worms.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  Again, I think this is wrong and you're suffering some hindsight bias. In retrospect it can look like the entry of the United States into WWII was always inevitable, but this is not how people saw things at the time. Up through 1941 the American public saw the war as a European affair that was not our problem: people were strongly against actual military involvement and even the Lend-Lease Act was quite controversial. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that the entry of the US into the war was a sure thing.
  - palmfacehn 3y ago
    It is too subjective to ascribe intent. It is worse than psychoanalysis because "the US" isn't a distinct individual. Instead there's a collection of individuals, all with different sets of sometimes overlapping incentives. Inevitability isn't the question. Rather, "power play" in terms of post-hoc analysis is the only question we can probe. Suggesting otherwise is a leap beyond conjecture. Without implying that this was the analysis at the time, we can safely say that the US was positioned to be the sole remaining industrial superpower post war, if the US entered the war at the time which it did. If it had entered earlier or not at all, this may not have been the case. The original comment was concise. Perhaps it was appropriate for a simple assertion, but it did leave room for ambiguity.

shepherdjerred 3y ago

That's my understanding as well. We _may_ have entered the war if Pearl Harbor had never happened. If the Japanese had not attacked, the United States certainly would've entered the war later, but I don't think you could ever refer to it as a "power play".

palmfacehn 3y ago

Entering later rather than sooner was a power play. Ascribing intent is tricky here. Personifying the modern state is another iffy area. "Directed history" is another can of worms.

Analemma_ 3y ago
Again, I think this is wrong and you're suffering some hindsight bias. In retrospect it can look like the entry of the United States into WWII was always inevitable, but this is not how people saw things at the time. Up through 1941 the American public saw the war as a European affair that was not our problem: people were strongly against actual military involvement and even the Lend-Lease Act was quite controversial. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that the entry of the US into the war was a sure thing.
- palmfacehn 3y ago
  It is too subjective to ascribe intent. It is worse than psychoanalysis because "the US" isn't a distinct individual. Instead there's a collection of individuals, all with different sets of sometimes overlapping incentives. Inevitability isn't the question. Rather, "power play" in terms of post-hoc analysis is the only question we can probe. Suggesting otherwise is a leap beyond conjecture. Without implying that this was the analysis at the time, we can safely say that the US was positioned to be the sole remaining industrial superpower post war, if the US entered the war at the time which it did. If it had entered earlier or not at all, this may not have been the case. The original comment was concise. Perhaps it was appropriate for a simple assertion, but it did leave room for ambiguity.