Did non-intervention for WW2 really work?

[PonRaul88]

How would a non-interventionist policy work for WWII?

I know we didn't intervene until Japan attacked us, but let's say they never did, and Hitler took over much of the rest of world until he was too powerful to stop him from taking over the US. What would we have done then?

Or let's say we could've prevented much of the war if we had engaged him sooner rather than waiting around to be attacked. Was a non-interventionist approach still the best decision?

These are some questions that I'm unable to answer for myself, anyone care to inform me?

 

[acptulsa]

You do realize you're asking us to go back about sixty-five years and juggle about a million and a half variables, don't you?

We and Japan were entirely too at loggerheads at that time. I don't see any way we could have failed to trod on each others' toes, myself. If we hadn't been making imperialistic moves in the Pacific for the previous half century, it would have been a different world and a different war. It was much too late by even 1936 for us to go non-interventionist.

Interventionist isolationists--that was us. The politicians were trying to set themselves up an empire, and the public were kept pretty ignorant of it. No wonder it was such a shock when they finally fought back...

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

As far as Germany is concerned, it was Wilson's meddling in WWI and the Paris conference that directly led to the rise of the third Reich. A non-interventionist foreign policy may have prevented the whole thing.

 

[Truth Warrior]

"Pearl Harbor was an inside job."

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

[acptulsa]

"Pearl Harbor was an inside job."

It's a theory and no more. Except in this instance. In this thread it's a hijack. That isn't what he asked about.

 

[Truth Warrior]

It's a theory and no more. Except in this instance. In this thread it's a hijack. That isn't what he asked about.

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/PEARL.html

 

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/PEARL.html

May I ask, TW, what is meant by " 33rd degree Freemason"?

 

[Truth Warrior]

May I ask, TW, what is meant by " 33rd degree Freemason"?

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/33rd_Initiation.htm

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Misc/famous_2.htm

 

[dannno]

May I ask, TW, what is meant by " 33rd degree Freemason"?

 

[ARealConservative]

How would a non-interventionist policy work for WWII?

I know we didn't intervene until Japan attacked us, but let's say they never did, and Hitler took over much of the rest of world until he was too powerful to stop him from taking over the US. What would we have done then?

Or let's say we could've prevented much of the war if we had engaged him sooner rather than waiting around to be attacked. Was a non-interventionist approach still the best decision?

These are some questions that I'm unable to answer for myself, anyone care to inform me?

how about we go back to prior to WW1?

Would Hitler of ever been known to the world?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/33rd_Initiation.htm

http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Misc/famous_2.htm

Thanx, TW. I didn't know any of that, seeing as I'm not a secret mason of any sort.

 

[TruthisTreason]

How would a non-interventionist policy work for WWII?

I know we didn't intervene until Japan attacked us, but let's say they never did, and Hitler took over much of the rest of world until he was too powerful to stop him from taking over the US. What would we have done then?

Or let's say we could've prevented much of the war if we had engaged him sooner rather than waiting around to be attacked. Was a non-interventionist approach still the best decision?

These are some questions that I'm unable to answer for myself, anyone care to inform me?

If Japan wouldn't have attacked and we wouldn't have entered the war.

Hitler would have had his hands full with the Soviets. Over 70% of Hitler's army were fighting in the East. We only fought 30% of Hitler's force. Our history books make it out like we saved the world fighting 30% of Hitler's force. So, the answer is we've would have possibly never known communism.

Hitler never intended to wage a "world war". Check out the % of his budget, it was under 20% (15% I believe) the same as England on military spending before the war broke out. If you were going to conquer the world wouldn't you spend more in advance of your attack?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Thanx, TW. I didn't know any of that, seeing as I'm not a secret mason of any sort.

Nor am I.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If Japan wouldn't have attacked and we wouldn't have entered the war.

Hitler would have had his hands full with the Soviets. Over 70% of Hitler's army were fighting in the East. We only fought 30% of Hitler's force. Our history books make it out like we saved the world fighting 30% of Hitler's force. So, the answer is we've would have possibly never known communism.

Hitler never intended to wage a "world war". Check out the % of his budget, it was under 20% (15% I believe) the same as England on military spending before the war broke out. If you were going to conquer the world wouldn't you spend more in advance of your attack?

+9999 for truth

 

[Uriel999]

How would a non-interventionist policy work for WWII?

I know we didn't intervene until Japan attacked us, but let's say they never did, and Hitler took over much of the rest of world until he was too powerful to stop him from taking over the US. What would we have done then?

Or let's say we could've prevented much of the war if we had engaged him sooner rather than waiting around to be attacked. Was a non-interventionist approach still the best decision?

These are some questions that I'm unable to answer for myself, anyone care to inform me?

We never used a non-interventionist policy during WWII. Japan attacked us because we had put such severe economic sanctions on them because we were angry at them for attacking Manchuria and then the rest of China. The Pacific War had been brewing for decades. Don't believe me, check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Pacific-War-American-Japanese-1931-1933/dp/1557095574

It was written in 1925 and predicted the war between the US and Japan. Now on the European front, look up "Bases for Destroyers" which was a deal between the US and GB prior to our entry into the war in which the US provided the British old destroyers for bases so that if GB fell which it looked likely the Germans would not legally inherit all those British bases around the world. BTW those leases for bases were for 99 years...There are plenty of other policies that show we were actively involved with the war behind the scenes before entry but these are just some ones I remembered off the top of my head. FDR wanted war with Germany, don't forget it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

We never used a non-interventionist policy during WWII. Japan attacked us because we had put such severe economic sanctions on them because we were angry at them for attacking Manchuria and then the rest of China. The Pacific War had been brewing for decades. Don't believe me, check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Pacific-War-American-Japanese-1931-1933/dp/1557095574

It was written in 1925 and predicted the war between the US and Japan. Now on the European front, look up "Bases for Destroyers" which was a deal between the US and GB prior to our entry into the war in which the US provided the British old destroyers for bases so that if GB fell which it looked likely the Germans would not legally inherit all those British bases around the world. BTW those leases for bases were for 99 years...There are plenty of other policies that show we were actively involved with the war behind the scenes before entry but these are just some ones I remembered off the top of my head. FDR wanted war with Germany, don't forget it.

+1 Good post!

 

[torchbearer]

WWII was caued by the interventionist of WWI.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

WWII was caued by the interventionist of WWI.

And Wilson's Curse continues to haunt us.

 

[nodope0695]

How would a non-interventionist policy work for WWII?

I know we didn't intervene until Japan attacked us, but let's say they never did, and Hitler took over much of the rest of world until he was too powerful to stop him from taking over the US. What would we have done then?

Or let's say we could've prevented much of the war if we had engaged him sooner rather than waiting around to be attacked. Was a non-interventionist approach still the best decision?

These are some questions that I'm unable to answer for myself, anyone care to inform me?

Before our entry into WWII, the people were agianst our nation getting involved militarily in the wars of Europe and China....however our government did "intervene" by offering Loan-Lease of equipment and supplies to nations like England, Russia, and China to help support them against Germany and Japan. Even when Japan killed tens of thousands of Manchurians, the American people didn't want to intervien militarily. Even when Hitler invaded Poland, the American People didn't want to interviene. Even when Mussolini invaded, of all places, Ethiopia, the Amerian People didn't want to interviene. All that stuff was so far away. But Pearl Harbor was the thing that changed all that. This time, we'd been hit. And our nation came together like it never had before, never has since, and never will again.

 

[Truth Warrior]