Should the US have entered WW2 Earlier?

[ElectionsGuy]

Since nearly everyone agrees the US should have entered WW2, the real questions seems to be when should the country have entered. Should we have entered earlier than we did?

No (I/O)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It should have entered it waaay before, and given support to Jewish refugees. It should also have joined in on the right side in the Spanish Civil War.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

[Sumner 1868]

It's easy to say "absolutely" today, but we must recall how WWI turned out, and why it made so many people isolationists/pacifists. An entry in 1939-40 would seem like warmongering to the majority of the public.

[Mr. Smith]

Nope (not voting with hindsight), we knew nothing of concentration camps went through enough BS with WWI, and frankly weren't strong enough to randomly declare war anyway.

Build up and prepare for the inevitable with better grounds? Sure.

Send a lot of aid to the Allies? Absolutely.

Support Jewish refugees ? Definitely.

But send good lives and deter away from the economy at home?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

But send good lives and deter away from the economy at home?

WWII actually ended up helping the economy. Purely in terms of employment numbers, I could see the rationale behind entering the war in '39, even without hindsight (though I agree that there was virtually no support for this at the time).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, we entered when we were attacked, which is what should have been done.

[Goldwater]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

[Sol]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

[IceSpear]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

[The Mikado]

No, though an earlier embargo (1936 for Italy, 1937 for Japan, and 1938 for Germany), more vigorous rearming, and increased willingness to accept refugees would have been good. Perhaps a proto-Lend-Lease for China starting in 1937.

[traininthedistance]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

[The Mikado]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

What possible justification would we have had? We were not part of the Anglo-French ultimatum to defend Poland, we were not allied with Britain, France, or Poland, nor were we allied with the Republic of China, despite our very warm relations with Britain, France, and China. The United States had an armed force in 1939 rivaling titans like Spain, and it would take two years of buildup between 1939 and 1941 before we were even on paper a serious military force again. Outside of economic pressure like the earlier embargoes I advocated, what position would we have been in to do anything whatsoever on the European front without over a year's worth of preparation?

The Pacific theater is a different beast due to the US Navy's still-considerable power, but then again, war with Japan not involving war with Germany and Italy is not exactly what this question is about. I could actually see that as a more plausible option, especially given America's massive financial and humanitarian and personal interests in China in the 1930s and Japan's naked coveting of the Philippines.

EDIT: War between the United States and Japan over dominance of the Pacific Rim was coming, coupled with WWII or not.

[Dr. Cynic]

Would it have been the right thing to do morally? Yes.

But how would you justify it to a skeptical and provincial electorate? How do we justify fighting? We know now the hindsight just what kind of situation the world was going to face, but at the time, why would Americans think Hitler was a danger to us? Roosevelt did the right thing in sending aid. What more could he have done until Pearl Harbor?

[TDAS04]

Yes, at least with hindsight. 

[Zioneer]

It should have entered it waaay before, and given support to Jewish refugees. It should also have joined in on the right side in the Spanish Civil War.

[Türkisblau]

Of course not.

[traininthedistance]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

What possible justification would we have had? We were not part of the Anglo-French ultimatum to defend Poland, we were not allied with Britain, France, or Poland, nor were we allied with the Republic of China, despite our very warm relations with Britain, France, and China. The United States had an armed force in 1939 rivaling titans like Spain, and it would take two years of buildup between 1939 and 1941 before we were even on paper a serious military force again. Outside of economic pressure like the earlier embargoes I advocated, what position would we have been in to do anything whatsoever on the European front without over a year's worth of preparation?

The Pacific theater is a different beast due to the US Navy's still-considerable power, but then again, war with Japan not involving war with Germany and Italy is not exactly what this question is about. I could actually see that as a more plausible option, especially given America's massive financial and humanitarian and personal interests in China in the 1930s and Japan's naked coveting of the Philippines.

EDIT: War between the United States and Japan over dominance of the Pacific Rim was coming, coupled with WWII or not.

Well, obviously the US was in an isolationist mood back then and we didn't have formal treaty obligations, so to a certain extent this is 20/20 hindsight, but uh... what justification?  Defending the oppressed Poles is justification enough, to say nothing of the other atrocities and genocides that would come to light later (and, if we were better, more observant people back then, would have probably been able to bring to light).  Do they not count as victims to you?

I'm not saying that we necessarily could have jumped in immediately.  If we needed some months to ramp-up, then okay, fine.  We should have been in by the Battle of Britain, though.

[angus]

Yes(IO).  There is evidence that Roosevelt was aware of the atrocities from the second Sino-Japanese war as early as January 3, 1938.  We had many non-interventionists at the time, and likely I'd have been among them, given my own sensibilities, so I don't fault the government, but I think that in the grand scheme of things US intervention early in China would have prevented very much geopolitical grief that still haunts us today.

[Dr. Cynic]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

What possible justification would we have had? We were not part of the Anglo-French ultimatum to defend Poland, we were not allied with Britain, France, or Poland, nor were we allied with the Republic of China, despite our very warm relations with Britain, France, and China. The United States had an armed force in 1939 rivaling titans like Spain, and it would take two years of buildup between 1939 and 1941 before we were even on paper a serious military force again. Outside of economic pressure like the earlier embargoes I advocated, what position would we have been in to do anything whatsoever on the European front without over a year's worth of preparation?

The Pacific theater is a different beast due to the US Navy's still-considerable power, but then again, war with Japan not involving war with Germany and Italy is not exactly what this question is about. I could actually see that as a more plausible option, especially given America's massive financial and humanitarian and personal interests in China in the 1930s and Japan's naked coveting of the Philippines.

EDIT: War between the United States and Japan over dominance of the Pacific Rim was coming, coupled with WWII or not.

Well, obviously the US was in an isolationist mood back then and we didn't have formal treaty obligations, so to a certain extent this is 20/20 hindsight, but uh... what justification?  Defending the oppressed Poles is justification enough, to say nothing of the other atrocities and genocides that would come to light later (and, if we were better, more observant people back then, would have probably been able to bring to light).  Do they not count as victims to you?

I'm not saying that we necessarily could have jumped in immediately.  If we needed some months to ramp-up, then okay, fine.  We should have been in by the Battle of Britain, though.

I agree entirely with your sentiments and I probably would have wanted the U.S. to join the war around the time France fell, myself. However, Roosevelt was in the middle of an election campaign. If he had gone further, the isolationist public would've been more likely to kick him out.

Emotionally and with hindsight, I think most of us agree that we should've been in earlier, but pragmatically, it's hard to see the American public of that time willing to go any earlier.

I'm lucky enough to have letters from that time period exchanged between my family here and in England (From soon to be devastated Plymouth, no less). This was right before the Battle of Britain began. Isolationism among Americans and even in my previously British family was quite high.

It was the right thing to do, but the timing was just bad. If it wasn't on the eve of an election, FDR may have felt more secure about aid to the Allies.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, we had no reason to until we were attacked.

[The Mikado]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

What possible justification would we have had? We were not part of the Anglo-French ultimatum to defend Poland, we were not allied with Britain, France, or Poland, nor were we allied with the Republic of China, despite our very warm relations with Britain, France, and China. The United States had an armed force in 1939 rivaling titans like Spain, and it would take two years of buildup between 1939 and 1941 before we were even on paper a serious military force again. Outside of economic pressure like the earlier embargoes I advocated, what position would we have been in to do anything whatsoever on the European front without over a year's worth of preparation?

The Pacific theater is a different beast due to the US Navy's still-considerable power, but then again, war with Japan not involving war with Germany and Italy is not exactly what this question is about. I could actually see that as a more plausible option, especially given America's massive financial and humanitarian and personal interests in China in the 1930s and Japan's naked coveting of the Philippines.

EDIT: War between the United States and Japan over dominance of the Pacific Rim was coming, coupled with WWII or not.

Well, obviously the US was in an isolationist mood back then and we didn't have formal treaty obligations, so to a certain extent this is 20/20 hindsight, but uh... what justification?  Defending the oppressed Poles is justification enough, to say nothing of the other atrocities and genocides that would come to light later (and, if we were better, more observant people back then, would have probably been able to bring to light).  Do they not count as victims to you?

I'm not saying that we necessarily could have jumped in immediately.  If we needed some months to ramp-up, then okay, fine.  We should have been in by the Battle of Britain, though.

Defending the Poles would take us into war, all right, but war with the USSR as well, and the Katyn massacre of tens of thousands of Polish political, economic, and societal luminaries is as egregious as anything the Germans were doing in the fall of 1939/spring of 1940.

From the perspective of defending beleaguered small states from aggression, what separates the German 1939 assault on Poland from the Soviet 1939 assault on Poland?

Edit: in general, war for humanitarian reasons/"responsibility to protect" isn't an international relations concept I'm comfortable with.

Edit 2: Let's make this easier. What sort of morality would dictate that the United States has a moral obligation to protect Poland from Greman aggression, but does not hold a moral obligation to protect Poland from simultaneous Soviet aggression? I've been flipping your post around in my head all morning and I'm puzzled, I really don't get what kind of moral code would say that one was a moral obligation to assist and the other was not.