American Foreign Policy - from isolationism & neutrality to interventionism?

jnimhaoileoin

Just watching a documentary about the lead up to WWII and learning of how when Roosevelt was elected, the US Army was only 135,000 strong and the government had a stated policy of neutrality, with legislation preventing the sale of arms to any nation at war.

In post-colonial times, the US has never been invaded nor threatened by another state, barring the (relatively minor in the grand scheme of things) attack on Pearl Harbour. It's understandable that the army grew enormously in size during WWII and that the US felt compelled to arm their allies during that time.

My question is why the US army could not have been reduced to its previous size after the war and equally why they could not return to their policy of neutrality? Surely WWII was acknowledged as (hopefully) being an extraordinary event, unlikely to be repeated. Even if such circumstances were to arise again, it's clear that the US had the ability to raise an army when needed and to drastically increase weapons production at short notice. Why then did they feel the need to maintain a state of constant readiness for war from then on and to adopt a new policy of interventionism, leading to the loss of countless American lives?

I never realised before that such a huge shift in attitude occurred as a direct result of WWII. Perhaps there are Americans here who might be able to explain the psychology of it or why you think this change came about? Did the US just decide it would feel more comfortable and secure by adopting the role of a military superpower? To me it appears the opposite is true and that rather than being more secure, the US has instead made itself a greater target. Or do you believe that their motives were pure and selfless, seeing their new role as a protector and defender of democracy throughout the world? This is a nice idea, but tough to believe as surely the primary responsibility of any state must be to protect and serve its own citizens.

Would be very interested to hear the thoughts of others....

TL170678

Well the UN was created in 1945 so I assume they wanted to make it strong so Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany would not happen again somewhere else. But the Korean war and Russia setting up in Cuba and the whole coldwar stuff built the military too.

BS44325

The cold war was real and lasted for about 50 years

mickeyrat

WW2 brought this country fully out of the depression. It can be argued that keeping a measured level of ready troops was in part to keep them employed while also having the experienced ready to go when needed or to train new recruits.

jnimhaoileoin

TL170678 said:

Well the UN was created in 1945 so I assume they wanted to make it strong so Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany would not happen again somewhere else. But the Korean war and Russia setting up in Cuba and the whole coldwar stuff built the military too.

I suppose that after WWII, with troops in occupation all over the place, the US just kept getting drawn into conflicts and there never seemed an opportunity to scale back the army anyway. The thought of being in constant conflict is strange to me, coming as I do from a neutral country whose army serves only in peacekeeping forces

jnimhaoileoin

mickeyrat said:

WW2 brought this country fully out of the depression. It can be argued that keeping a measured level of ready troops was in part to keep them employed while also having the experienced ready to go when needed or to train new recruits.

The employment aspect is a fair argument also

dudeman

Seems to me like it was posturing and an attempt to use military might as a deterrent against a potential threat from the USSR. Beginning of the Cold War for sure.

brianlux

"My question is why the US army could not have been reduced to its previous size after the war and equally why they could not return to their policy of neutrality?"

Three reasons.
1) We learned that war is profitable/ "good" for the economy.
2) We came out on top and declared ourselves world leader pretend.
3) We learned a deep fear that someone else might steal our eggs.

You can look at these as positives or negatives.

We could just have easily decided that now that that shit is over, let's work on building a peaceful world. If we had done that, three things would have resulted:

1) We would have learned that sustainability is better for humans and other living things rather than an endless all-consumptive "better" economy.
2) We would have seen the wisdom of cooperation between nations rather than fooling ourselves into thinking that it is good that any one country should be top dog.
3) We would be living more in harmony and with peace of mind rather than with fear and hate.

Too bad. We loose.

polaris_x

read: the military industrial complex; economic imperialism

jnimhaoileoin

brianlux said:

"My question is why the US army could not have been reduced to its previous size after the war and equally why they could not return to their policy of neutrality?"

Three reasons.
1) We learned that war is profitable/ "good" for the economy.
2) We came out on top and declared ourselves world leader pretend.
3) We learned a deep fear that someone else might steal our eggs.

You can look at these as positives or negatives.

We could just have easily decided that now that that shit is over, let's work on building a peaceful world. If we had done that, three things would have resulted:

1) We would have learned that sustainability is better for humans and other living things rather than an endless all-consumptive "better" economy.
2) We would have seen the wisdom of cooperation between nations rather than fooling ourselves into thinking that it is good that any one country should be top dog.
3) We would be living more in harmony and with peace of mind rather than with fear and hate.

Too bad. We loose.

It's a pity that those with the power to make such decisions are rarely men who witness the horrors of war firsthand. Rather they are usually those who observe from a position of safety while sending them into death and destruction

BS44325

Clearly there are people on here who think the Soviet Union was just an innocuous entity.

ldent42

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

mcgruff10

Op: two words that answer your question: Cold War.

rgambs

ldent42 said:

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

The person is not American, and did not mean offense. I doubt they know Pearl Harbor day in Ireland. I've never heard of it in Ohio.
And for the record, it was a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of the war, and the even grander scheme of life on planet Earth.

Bentleyspop

rgambs said:

ldent42 said:

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

The person is not American, and did not mean offense. I doubt they know Pearl Harbor day in Ireland. I've never heard of it in Ohio.
And for the record, it was a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of the war, and the even grander scheme of life on planet Earth.

You never heard about Pearl Harbor Day in Ohio? That's not good. Doesn't say much for the schools there.

Actually some might say it was a major event in regards to WW2. As it was the precipitating event to get the U.S. into the war. Previous to that event the U.S. was doing its best to stay out of it.

But I'm sure there are people out there who would dispute that.

rgambs

Bentleyspop said:

rgambs said:

ldent42 said:

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

The person is not American, and did not mean offense. I doubt they know Pearl Harbor day in Ireland. I've never heard of it in Ohio.
And for the record, it was a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of the war, and the even grander scheme of life on planet Earth.

You never heard about Pearl Harbor Day in Ohio? That's not good. Doesn't say much for the schools there.

Actually some might say it was a major event in regards to WW2. As it was the precipitating event to get the U.S. into the war. Previous to that event the U.S. was doing its best to stay out of it.

But I'm sure there are people out there who would dispute that.

I'm sure I heard of it many times and just blocked it out. I do my best at ignoring war propaganda and aggrandizement.
I suppose if you look at it from a standpoint of the events that it led to, it would be pretty major. The event itself, though, is no Dresden or Hiroshima.

ldent42

rgambs said:

ldent42 said:

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

The person is not American, and did not mean offense. I doubt they know Pearl Harbor day in Ireland. I've never heard of it in Ohio.
And for the record, it was a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of the war, and the even grander scheme of life on planet Earth.

I know that she's not American and I know she's cool people. That doesn't meant it shouldn't be pointed out when a remark is inappropriate. Otherwise how would she learn any better? I mean the woman is watching documentaries about WW2 it's obvious she's interested in learning.
And I get that we are all specks of dust and nothing matters in the grand scheme of things but it is still inappropriate to make a flippant remark about an attack on American soil (an act of war) on the anniversary of it. Pretty sure the 2000+ people who were killed in that attack and their loved ones consider it to be a little bit more than a minor event.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

Bentleyspop said:

rgambs said:

ldent42 said:

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

The person is not American, and did not mean offense. I doubt they know Pearl Harbor day in Ireland. I've never heard of it in Ohio.
And for the record, it was a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of the war, and the even grander scheme of life on planet Earth.

You never heard about Pearl Harbor Day in Ohio? That's not good. Doesn't say much for the schools there.

Actually some might say it was a major event in regards to WW2. As it was the precipitating event to get the U.S. into the war. Previous to that event the U.S. was doing its best to stay out of it.

But I'm sure there are people out there who would dispute that.

I'm sure I heard of it many times and just blocked it out. I do my best at ignoring war propaganda and aggrandizement.
I suppose if you look at it from a standpoint of the events that it led to, it would be pretty major. The event itself, though, is no Dresden or Hiroshima.

How exactly is Pearl Harbor an example of war propaganda?
And you do realize that more people died in Berlin and Tokyo then Dresden and Hiroshima?

mcgruff10

Bentleyspop said:

rgambs said:

ldent42 said:

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

The person is not American, and did not mean offense. I doubt they know Pearl Harbor day in Ireland. I've never heard of it in Ohio.
And for the record, it was a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of the war, and the even grander scheme of life on planet Earth.

You never heard about Pearl Harbor Day in Ohio? That's not good. Doesn't say much for the schools there.

Actually some might say it was a major event in regards to WW2. As it was the precipitating event to get the U.S. into the war. Previous to that event the U.S. was doing its best to stay out of it.

But I'm sure there are people out there who would dispute that.

Pearl Harbor is one of three dates in American history that everyone remembers exactly where they were, what they were doing, who they were talking...etc. when it happened. The other two being the Kennedy Assassination and 9/11.
And Pearl Harbor definitely wasn't a minor event in World War 2. Without Pearl Harbor Japan probably conquered a heck of a lot more land, possibly Australia. Without Pearl Harbor chances are Germany doesn't declare war on the US and without a two front war the majority of Europe might still be talking German.

jnimhaoileoin

ldent42 said:

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

I certainly apologise if I caused any offence, I'm sure you know it would never be my intention. As gambs said, I did actually say it was a minor attack 'in the grand scheme of things' i.e. not that it was a minor event but that as a military action, it was minor compared to far greater assaults or invasions, which could more feasibly incite a country to full scale war

Hope this clarifies what I meant, I certainly didn't intend for anyone to think I was making light of the lives lost

ldent42

jnimhaoileoin said:

ldent42 said:

Did you seriously call Pearl Harbor "relatively minor" ON Pearl Harbor day?

Not cool, bro. Not cool at all.

I certainly apologise if I caused any offence, I'm sure you know it would never be my intention. As gambs said, I did actually say it was a minor attack 'in the grand scheme of things' i.e. not that it was a minor event but that as a military action, it was minor compared to far greater assaults or invasions, which could more feasibly incite a country to full scale war

Hope this clarifies what I meant, I certainly didn't intend for anyone to think I was making light of the lives lost

Hun I know what you meant. I still think you're wrong. It was a major assault on our military in our country's territory. That's more than enough to warrant retaliation. I was at the memorial last year. It's a pretty big deal.