Zkuq said:
I'm not sure this is necessarily true. Based on my (limited) reading, US actions prior to Pearl Harbor were quite escalatory, as the US didn't just let Japan do whatever it wishes. I'm not sure I'd call that isolationist or calling the war something that just happened to come to meet them. To me, it seems like among the US leadership, it was accepted that the actions they took might lead to the US getting involved in the war. |
The math for the US was pretty simple from an overall viewpoint in WWII.
-The US was already headed to become the worlds dominant super power, so by staying out of the war, all they would be doing is accelerating that transition by watching the rest of the world be set on fire. As long as you figured Nazi Germany would eventually lose that is.
-If the US thought Nazi Germany could eventually win however, then you have no choice but to join the war, otherwise the Nazi's would become the dominant super power, and you're not going to take the chance of hoping to be able to deal with them down the road. Going to war with Nazi Germany decades after WWII when they have control over the entire other half of the world just cannot happen period, if you're the US.
The only reason the US would have to enter WWIII this time around is if they were failing to the degree where they had exhausted all options and the only thing to keep them on top would be to (help) set the world on fire, which would still be very risky. Either that, or if certain powerful 'regimes' within the US felt their power was in serious jeopardy and wanted to hold on. Starting (preferably through disguised means) or joining an existing war to create a third world war would be a last ditch effort to try and cling to power in the US, but again, would be very risky.
