America First: What if America had sat out WW2 (war, Roman, influence)

[HappyRider]

Trump has resurrected America First as a doctrine. Some say the term is ugly, mostly relating to WW2 and the desire to stay out of it. My question is how would the war have turned out if indeed America had stayed out? I am not at all sure that Germany would have prevailed.

[Thatsright19]

Seeing as how Russia was responsible for 8/10 deaths on Germany's most hardened troops, they would have most likely rolled over Germany and took all of Western Europe.

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by Thatsright19

Seeing as how Russia was responsible for 8/10 deaths on Germany's most hardened troops, they would have most likely rolled over Germany and took all of Western Europe.

Could have they done it without Lend-lease? Could they have possibly held onto that much land. I doubt it. In fact, I suspect the cold war would have come to an end earlier.

[OpanaPointer]

A little historical context. The Committee to Defend America First* only had ~800,000 members (out of 130,000,000) total during it's life span. It was isolationist in a time when the US public in general were growing increasingly aware that we would have to fight the Axis and we should be ready for that while helping Britain and China stay in the fight.

The America First Committee closed it's doors on Dec. 8th, 1941, as a failed doctrine.



*As opposed to the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.

[Ariete]

Oceania would be simultaneously in war with Eurasia and Eastasia.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Trump has resurrected America First as a doctrine. Some say the term is ugly, mostly relating to WW2 and the desire to stay out of it. My question is how would the war have turned out if indeed America had stayed out? I am not at all sure that Germany would have prevailed.

One problem that chronically occurs in What-If? threads is that people rarely bother to explain their proposed historical divergences. For example, in this timeline of yours you neither explain why the United States decides to simply let Japan get away with attacking Hawaii or the Philippines, or alternately why Japan somehow foregoes any of the sort of action in the Pacific that would result in American entry into the war. The former is implausible, while the latter implies a non-expansionist Japan.

Also, as I've noted before, war in the Pacific means war in Europe for the United States. It is often assumed that the only reason that the United States entered the European theater in World War II is that Hitler foolishly declared war on the United States. However, the bulk of historical evidence shows that after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, war with Germany (and Italy) was imminent and not dependent on Hitler's actions.

And these historical divergences are critical - after all, how can we assess what might have happened unless we understand the historical context in which those things might have happened?

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Trump has resurrected America First as a doctrine. Some say the term is ugly, mostly relating to WW2 and the desire to stay out of it. My question is how would the war have turned out if indeed America had stayed out? I am not at all sure that Germany would have prevailed.

It's not a new doctrine in the US. The popular trend toward isolationism in the US comes and goes. It was in place before WW1 and again before WW2 and again after Vietnam. This current administration also carries out the same practice in theory, with the current result I might add of chaos regarding foreign affairs. Isolationism is never realistic for a world power.

But in regards to your "what if" question - we stayed out of it as long as we could. The only plausible and realistic "what if" scenario question really is what if we had entered the war earlier. But finally, Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on the US. So you have to repharase your question as a "what if Japan had not attacked the US and what if Germany had not declared war on the US".

In those two cases, not sure about Japan, they would have bogged down in China still but have free reign over the rest of Asia. Germany likewise would have still been bogged down in Russia and would have eventually been beaten back, France would be under Soviet hegemony eventually. Britian would soldier on in their Island fortress.

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Trump has resurrected America First as a doctrine. Some say the term is ugly, mostly relating to WW2 and the desire to stay out of it. My question is how would the war have turned out if indeed America had stayed out? I am not at all sure that Germany would have prevailed.

Hmm. I am no fan of Trump, but perhaps if The Donald had been President instead of LBJ, we wouldn't have lost 58,000 men in Vietnam. Seems to me an American president ought to often think of America first. If he didn't, maybe he'd be better off as the UN Secretary-General.

Too many people conflate historical isolationism a la Borah/Lindbergh with American self-interest. The former is an anomaly of simpler times; the latter is a perfectly rational approach to foreign policy.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Trump has resurrected America First as a doctrine. Some say the term is ugly, mostly relating to WW2 and the desire to stay out of it. My question is how would the war have turned out if indeed America had stayed out? I am not at all sure that Germany would have prevailed.

I can't make any sense out of this at all.

First, what could the United States have done to avoid the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Second, do you think we should have stayed out of World War II after the Japanese sank our ships in Hawaii and bombed our airfields in the Philippines?

Third, should we have ignored Germany's declaration of war against our own country that followed the attack on Pearl Harbo? (many forget Germany declared war on us first)

Finally, I have a general criticism that will make here. I see too many threads in this forum that are "what if" threads. I don't quite see the fascination that some people have with alternative history that never happened. I mean, I could ask all these:

1. What if the Pilgrim's ship sunk before they arrived at Plymouth Rock?

2. What if George Washington had never been born?

3. What if General Grant had been killed during the siege of Vicksburg?

4. What if the Republican Party had not split in 1912?'

5. What if...if.....if...if...if.

I think "what if" questions and their discussion are a poor use of both the History Forum and most of our time. The value in history is taking lessons from the past to help us guide our nation in the future. Let me give some examples of useful and practical historical topics:

1. What can we learn from the decline and fall of the Roman Empire?

2. What can we learn from the Munich Crisis in 1938?

3. What can we learn from the Great Depression and the policies followed by the three presidents that preceded FDR?

4. What can we learn from the Vietnam War in terms of our modern day foreign policy?

I wish I saw more questions like these being discussed here. The forum is often a disappointment to me for that reason.

[Stewart G. Griffin]

Well, Hawaii wouldn't be American so Obama wouldn't be president now.

But more generally, either Hitler or Stalin would have prevailed in Europe and the Japanese would have spread their influence across the east, possibly including China. I imagine American influence upon the wider world would not have taken hold to anywhere near the extent it has.

The what if's in those scenarios go on forever and all sorts of outcomes become possible, but I think Britain & America would have been the biggest losers.

It's an interesting question to pose, but of course everybody's theory could be right or wrong.