Was entering WWII a mistake?

[Sumner 1868]

Inspired by the Afghanistan poll.

[Cory]

No. There's no telling how much better the world would be if the USA somehow entered the war in September of 1939.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, especially without the benefit of hindsight. Remember, they'd be fighting a power that was defeated and then went to pot a mere 20 years previously.

America joining up in '39 would be like sending mass ground troops to Iraq today to fight ISIS x100.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, especially without the benefit of hindsight. Remember, they'd be fighting a power that was defeated and then went to pot a mere 20 years previously.

America joining up in '39 would be like sending mass ground troops to Iraq today to fight ISIS x100.

ISIS couldn't ever reach a fourth of the strength the Axis Powers had.

[Goldwater]

No (normal)

[ElectionsGuy]

No, the US was absolutely justified in going to war after the attack on Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war 4 days later. Who knows what the world would look like today if the imperialists and Nazis were not taken down.

[H. Ross Peron]

No. There's no telling how much better the world would be if the USA somehow entered the war in September of 1939.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Obviously entering the war when Pearl Harbor was bombed was the right move. It's insane to say otherwise.

As for if we should have jumped in earlier, it's a tricky question. Clearly, there was a moral imperative to destroy Nazi Germany as soon as it became clear how evil they were. However, there was a growing, powerful fascist movement in the US harnessing post-WW1/Depression isolationism effectively, and an unpopular entry into the war before we were attacked could have galvanized them.

[Sumner 1868]

No, despite my general loathing of militarism.

[ChainsawJedis]

Obviously entering the war when Pearl Harbor was bombed was the right move. It's insane to say otherwise.

[Cory]

As for if we should have jumped in earlier, it's a tricky question. Clearly, there was a moral imperative to destroy Nazi Germany as soon as it became clear how evil they were. However, there was a growing, powerful fascist movement in the US harnessing post-WW1/Depression isolationism effectively, and an unpopular entry into the war before we were attacked could have galvanized them.

You use the word "powerful" rather liberally.

Spoiler alert: If America enters the war in 1939 France doesn't fall and Germany is defeated by the end of 1941. Italy remains neutral however.

Not joining the League of Nations is probably the singe most disastrous foreign policy decision undertaken by the USA in the 20th Century.

[Mr. Smith]

Obviously entering the war when Pearl Harbor was bombed was the right move. It's insane to say otherwise.

[Thunderbird is the word]

War is hell and I always hate it but this was one of the few times where there was a truly existential threat to humanity that needed to be defeated.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No (Normal)

[Zioneer]

Nope, because apart from Italy, the major Axis powers were basically recreating hell on earth for people they didn't like. So stopping that was quite literally fighting for freedom.

[Cranberry]

No, I am quite very happy that the Americans stepped in and saved Europe before the Nazis...

[TDAS04]

Nope.

[Blair]

As for if we should have jumped in earlier, it's a tricky question. Clearly, there was a moral imperative to destroy Nazi Germany as soon as it became clear how evil they were. However, there was a growing, powerful fascist movement in the US harnessing post-WW1/Depression isolationism effectively, and an unpopular entry into the war before we were attacked could have galvanized them.

You use the word "powerful" rather liberally.

Spoiler alert: If America enters the war in 1939 France doesn't fall and Germany is defeated by the end of 1941. Italy remains neutral however.

Not joining the League of Nations is probably the singe most disastrous foreign policy decision undertaken by the USA in the 20th Century.

Nahh, even with an American Force France is going down.

Nothing can save France in 1940

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, every aspect of WWII was handled almost perfectly. We were attacked, we fought back, and won.

[Cory]

Nahh, even with an American Force France is going down.

Nothing can save France in 1940

Nonsense. The Germany victory in Western Europe in 1940 was a very close run thing. The capability of the French military in 1939/40 is highly underrated.

Sickle Cut was a shot in the dark, a massive gamble that required everything to go right.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Without question the US had to enter WW2

[NewYorkExpress]

After the Soviet Union was attacked we could've got away with only fighting Japan, as Stalin had far more reserves, far more front-line troops etc. He still would've gotten to Berlin, and quite possibly on the same time frame if we keep supplying him with tanks, planes etc. (And keep in mind Operation Barbarossa was about 5 and a half months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor).

That said it was politically expedient to declare war against Hitler as well (Britain was an ally, and they couldn't liberate the Western Front-which Stalin wanted, alone.)

[MalaspinaGold]

After the Soviet Union was attacked we could've got away with only fighting Japan, as Stalin had far more reserves, far more front-line troops etc. He still would've gotten to Berlin, and quite possibly on the same time frame if we keep supplying him with tanks, planes etc. (And keep in mind Operation Barbarossa was about 5 and a half months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor).

That said it was politically expedient to declare war against Hitler as well (Britain was an ally, and they couldn't liberate the Western Front-which Stalin wanted, alone.)

Hitler declared war on us first.

[NewYorkExpress]

After the Soviet Union was attacked we could've got away with only fighting Japan, as Stalin had far more reserves, far more front-line troops etc. He still would've gotten to Berlin, and quite possibly on the same time frame if we keep supplying him with tanks, planes etc. (And keep in mind Operation Barbarossa was about 5 and a half months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor).

That said it was politically expedient to declare war against Hitler as well (Britain was an ally, and they couldn't liberate the Western Front-which Stalin wanted, alone.)

Hitler declared war on us first.

It's also worth noting we could declare War on Hitler, and still let Stalin do all the work (which is pretty much what happened anyway)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The intriguing thing is what might have happened had Germany not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor.  While I don't think we'd have cut off the supplies we were sending Winnie and Iosef, it's doubtful we'd have declared war ourselves.  Rather than fight a two-front war, we'd have concentrated on the Pacific, for all the good that would have done us.  Logistics and the construction of new carriers would have kept us to roughly the same pace of advance. Maybe we'd have sent more troops to the Burma theatre, but that's about it.