5 ms·

You should read up a bit more on how people perceived it contemporaneously. It’s too easy to absolve oneself of having to think hard about the current goings on

You should read up a bit more on how people perceived it contemporaneously. It’s too easy to absolve oneself of having to think hard about the current goings on when we can look at WWII and act like the right answer was obvious to everyone.

montagg 2y ago
This is an important point. There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today. The Man in the High Castle alt history, or The Plot Against America, both involve FDR not being involved for WW2, and that's where the US stands today: at a similar decision point about how it decides to act. The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment.
- lukan 2y ago
  "The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment." Also in hindsight it is not always clear, if the choosen path was really the best.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today As strong as? I don't see much of an isolationist strain in the US today at all. The paleoconservatives are isolationist, but they barely exist any more. The Biden administration appointed a neoconservative as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
  - macintux 2y ago
    The former President reportedly was ready to pull the U.S. from NATO in his second term, and has demonstrated a strong affinity toward the autocrats currently making life miserable for our allies, which has carried over to his entire party.
    - rufus_foreman 2y ago
      Leaving NATO is not "isolationism". And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". NATO countries made a deal, part of that deal was 2% of GDP to defense, there are NATO countries that over and over have refused to keep their part of the deal, they promised to do something and year after year after year, broke their promise. Saying, "OK, we have had enough, deal is off" is not "isolationism", it's a common sense bargaining technique. And "a strong affinity toward foreign autocrats", if it were true, would also not be "isolationism", it would be the opposite of isolationism. An isolationist country does not have a strong affinity for foreign leaders of any type. I'm not quite an isolationist, but I lean that way. I wish Trump was an isolationist. I wish there was any major politician that was. Sadly, no.
      - chipdart 2y ago
        > And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". I agree, it's more than isolationism: it's sheer stupidity and the Hallmark of a compromised government official.
        rufus_foreman 2y ago
        I disagree that it is stupid to require entities you make a deal with to uphold their side of the deal. It is stupid not to do that.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Not if you’re worse off for it.
        chipdart 2y ago
        I'm not going to engage with you because you are clearly being disingenuous. The "deal" that NATO represents is not spending, and GDP targets are at best a line in the sand of a proxy variable regarding readiness. It's unbelievably stupid to claim that members of an alliance are protecting their interests by rejecting mutual defense agreements due to flutuations in the order of fractions of a percent in a metric that is by its very nature completely arbitrary.
- cafard 2y ago
  I would remark that the isolationist strain developed after WW I, and included a fair bit of the liberal intelligentsia, e.g. Charles Beard. The Library of America Reporting WW II cheats on this, and implies that isolationism was a fetish of Republican congressmen from ethnic districts. Not so.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    I was under the impression that the US was rather isolationist back in President Washington's day. And he argued rather strongly that it should remain so after he left office - in 1797.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Obviously the US has gone through various phases. The one relevant to our decision making in WW2 was largely driven by what happened in WW1.
SkipperCat 2y ago
I mention that in my 3rd sentence, but as an American of Jewish decent, the sides of WWII could not have been any clearer. My family did not have the option to weigh the facts and choose a side, it was chosen for us. I am just thankful that we happened to leave Europe before it all fell apart.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You said that now we see it as more complex. You should read about the actual arguments that were being made for and against intervention at that time. There absolutely was not an obvious consensus in the US until Pearl Harbor.

montagg 2y ago

This is an important point. There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today. The Man in the High Castle alt history, or The Plot Against America, both involve FDR not being involved for WW2, and that's where the US stands today: at a similar decision point about how it decides to act. The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment.

lukan 2y ago
"The right path is never clear when you're in the valley of the moment." Also in hindsight it is not always clear, if the choosen path was really the best.
rufus_foreman 2y ago
>> There was a US isolationist strain as strong as it is today As strong as? I don't see much of an isolationist strain in the US today at all. The paleoconservatives are isolationist, but they barely exist any more. The Biden administration appointed a neoconservative as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
- macintux 2y ago
  The former President reportedly was ready to pull the U.S. from NATO in his second term, and has demonstrated a strong affinity toward the autocrats currently making life miserable for our allies, which has carried over to his entire party.
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    Leaving NATO is not "isolationism". And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". NATO countries made a deal, part of that deal was 2% of GDP to defense, there are NATO countries that over and over have refused to keep their part of the deal, they promised to do something and year after year after year, broke their promise. Saying, "OK, we have had enough, deal is off" is not "isolationism", it's a common sense bargaining technique. And "a strong affinity toward foreign autocrats", if it were true, would also not be "isolationism", it would be the opposite of isolationism. An isolationist country does not have a strong affinity for foreign leaders of any type. I'm not quite an isolationist, but I lean that way. I wish Trump was an isolationist. I wish there was any major politician that was. Sadly, no.
    - chipdart 2y ago
      > And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". I agree, it's more than isolationism: it's sheer stupidity and the Hallmark of a compromised government official.
      - rufus_foreman 2y ago
        I disagree that it is stupid to require entities you make a deal with to uphold their side of the deal. It is stupid not to do that.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Not if you’re worse off for it.
        chipdart 2y ago
        I'm not going to engage with you because you are clearly being disingenuous. The "deal" that NATO represents is not spending, and GDP targets are at best a line in the sand of a proxy variable regarding readiness. It's unbelievably stupid to claim that members of an alliance are protecting their interests by rejecting mutual defense agreements due to flutuations in the order of fractions of a percent in a metric that is by its very nature completely arbitrary.
cafard 2y ago
I would remark that the isolationist strain developed after WW I, and included a fair bit of the liberal intelligentsia, e.g. Charles Beard. The Library of America Reporting WW II cheats on this, and implies that isolationism was a fetish of Republican congressmen from ethnic districts. Not so.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  I was under the impression that the US was rather isolationist back in President Washington's day. And he argued rather strongly that it should remain so after he left office - in 1797.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Obviously the US has gone through various phases. The one relevant to our decision making in WW2 was largely driven by what happened in WW1.

SkipperCat 2y ago

I mention that in my 3rd sentence, but as an American of Jewish decent, the sides of WWII could not have been any clearer. My family did not have the option to weigh the facts and choose a side, it was chosen for us. I am just thankful that we happened to leave Europe before it all fell apart.

llamaimperative 2y ago
You said that now we see it as more complex. You should read about the actual arguments that were being made for and against intervention at that time. There absolutely was not an obvious consensus in the US until Pearl Harbor.