Was it possible for the US to stay completely neutral in WW2?

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,866
Georgia, USA
I think that would be more a European problem than an American one.
Really? A victorious Nazi Germany controlling all of Europe and most of Asia isn't a problem for the USA ?

In the OTL why do you think the USA stationed forces in West Germany ?
Was it because it thought that a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was a really, really bad thing ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Dec 2017
357
Florida
Yes the USA didn't abandon diplomacy but it acted to restrict the expansion of Imperial Japanese power.




I remember a pro-Soviet war movie The North Star (1943) - try making that movie 10 years later!

I would refer to that as abandoning diplomacy and engaging in naked imperialism. Though I can see why it would be confusing cause sometimes people associate diplomacy with imperialism. Great article by Robert Higgs, I love his book Crisis & Levithan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Dec 2017
357
Florida
I think some posters are committing to too much hyperbolic fatalism. As if the US WAS the sole reason for a WWII win or a Cold War win.
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,866
Georgia, USA
I would refer to that as abandoning diplomacy and engaging in naked imperialism. Though I can see why it would be confusing cause sometimes people associate diplomacy with imperialism. Great article by Robert Higgs, I love his book Crisis & Levithan.
I would not call that imperialism. It was acting against imperialism....the USA was hardly seeking to gain territory in Asia.
 
Dec 2017
357
Florida
I would not call that imperialism. It was acting against imperialism....the USA was hardly seeking to gain territory in Asia.
It already had the territory it needed so why would it want more? The US was already a dominant player in the Asian theater and was already an Asiatic superpower with influence over China and a colony in the Philippines, Hawaii, and bases in the unincorporated islands. It was maintaining the position it already established in the early 20th century. The US combating imperialism? :lol:
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,866
Georgia, USA
It already had the territory it needed so why would it want more? The US was already a dominant player in the Asian theater and was already an Asiatic superpower with influence over China and a colony in the Philippines, Hawaii, and bases in the unincorporated islands. It was maintaining the position it already established in the early 20th century. The US combating imperialism? :lol:
Perhaps you have a different definition of "imperialism"

Consolidating your power and influence by establishing bases is not imperialism.

And if the USA already had the bases and territory it needed, why did it establish more in 1945 onwards?

Japan/Okinawa, Korea, Vietnam...
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
I think some posters are committing to too much hyperbolic fatalism. As if the US WAS the sole reason for a WWII win or a Cold War win.
It certainly wasn't the SOLE reason for this, but both of these things would have become much harder without US participation and involvement, no?
 
Dec 2017
357
Florida
It certainly wasn't the SOLE reason for this, but both of these things would have become much harder without US participation and involvement, no?
Could of been harder, could of been easier. It's all about what is more likely. I just wanted to play the devil's advocate and try to bring a little moderation to the discussion.