There are a few similar threads in the past, but I'm still trying to learn. I recall FDR telling Britain that he wouldn't give them any more foreign aid without having them secure Poland's independence, and that led them to declare war on Germany. And then I recall hearing that FDR purposefully intensified and created conflicts in Europe with which he had no business dealing, but I can't find any specific information.
Also, why do some people say WWII wouldn't have happened without US involvement in WWI?
I think it is easy to understand why the US did not need to get involved. It did not need to get involved because it was in no way threatened, and could not ever be threatened. I think the argument that the whole WWII ordeal was avoidable centers rather on the actions of Britain. The point of view that Britain also did not need to fight. AJP Taylor in Origins of the Second World war in my opinion conclusively showed the war breaking out was a consequence of a confused, indecisive policy in London, that alternated between appeasment and containment. Either approach would have probably worked, but because the Brits did not know what the hell they were doing and which of the two they were attempting Hitler misread them and worked himself into a corner from which he then wasn't willing to back away from. You can get the book here: link And acess a favorable LRC review here: link
What do you mean by "entail"? It means many different things.
What made either China or Japan a threat to the US?
Communists and Pearl Harbor. The US helped the Chinese against Communism. And the US didn't like having Hawaii be bombed.
The question remains of whether the US could have simply done nothing about Japan.
The answer's yes - the US could've not cornered the Japanese into making such a desparate ploy. But all Roosevelt's attempted casus bellis with Germany floundered.
John James: Tell me "Why didn't the US need to get involved in WWII?"
Tell me "Why didn't the US need to get involved in WWII?"
I like what Caley McKibben wrote here (I can't activate links or make paragraphs for some reason): http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/23524/408264.aspx#408264 "The Nazis and the Soviets wearing each other out seems like the best possible outcome." Obviousology 101. The least that people arguing for the utilitarianism of World War 2 could do is get the analysis right, that FDR was a communist agent trying to destroy the regional buffers against the USSR and Communist China, nothing more, nothing less. If you are going to intervene in interstate affairs, you go by the rule of at any given point aiding the side that appears to be losing. Had that been done imagine how much better the map of Eurasia would have looked, not just a big Red blob
A Century of War (by John V. Denson)
In regard to the 50 million killed in World War II, it is significant that nearly 70 percent were innocent civilians, mainly as a result of the bombing of cities by Great Britain and America.
This number of 50 million deaths does not include the estimated 6 to 12 million Russians killed by Stalin before World War II, and the several million people he killed after the war ended when Roosevelt and Churchill delivered to him one-third of Europe as part of the settlement conferences.
George Crocker’s excellent book Roosevelt’s Road to Russia describes the settlement conferences, such as Yalta, and shows how Roosevelt and Churchill enhanced communism in Russia and China through deliberate concessions which strengthened it drastically, while Nazism was being extinguished in Germany.
The war and American aid made Soviet Russia into a super military power which threatened America and the world for the next 45 years.
It delivered China to the communists and made it a threat during this same period of time.
The Soviet Union pursued a far more conservative foreign policy than the US did and was considerably less belligerent.
Read The Chief Culprit: Stalin was going to go on the offensive in WWII 2 weeks later had Hitler not attacked him.
The general outline:
Germany and Russia had a NAP (non-aggression pact, not non-aggression principle :P )
However, we all know Hitler intended to break it.
We also all know that somehow the Soviets were "terribly unprepared" and were destroyed in the first scenes of the new front.
Why, we must ask ourselves.
Suvorov analyzes the facts and shows that the reason that the Soviets got wiped was that all their army on the front line was... an attack formation. Which is extremely bad for defense. Stalin would have broken the pact 2 weeks later had he not gotten attacked. Suvorov is a defected Soviet military spy, btw.
Even if you disagree with the idea (as you will initially, I am sure), do read the book, as it offers amazing insight into the technological prowess of the Soviet Union.
Damn right I will. After picking up David Glantz, Roger Reese and Geoffrey Megargee I am going to devolve into devoting time to Vladimir Rezun. Don't make me laugh.
What made either China or Japan a threat to the US? Communists and Pearl Harbor. The US helped the Chinese against Communism. And the US didn't like having Hawaii be bombed.
Have you actually read Rezun's book? I suggest you read it. If the main thesis doesn't convince you, it still provides insight into the Soviet development at the time. And a very interesting bit on the Winter War.
So China was a threat because the US helped the Chinese against Communism?
China was a threat because the communists were winning. That is why the US gave aid to the Chinese Nationalists.
Why did the US help fight against the Communists, then?
Communists sought world revolution. This obviously unsettled the American middle class, which is essentially the bourgeoisie
You are bringing forth a circular argument. US fought against them, therefore that proves they were a threat. Really, because the US never fought anyone who wasn't a threat to it?
I'm saying we don't have the info the leaders of the past did.
Of course, they very well might have had other purposes in mind. Do you suggest trade? Or just ego?