U.S. Isolationist Policy- 1939

Okay, so, we're going to do this debate, and we're supposed to be advisors of President Roosevelt. We're arguing whether or not the U.S. should have an Isolationist (no connections at all to WWII), Neutrality (meaning you can still trade with the countries at war), or an Interventionist (let's go to war!) policy.

....I got the short end of the straw. I'm on the Isolationist side.

I really have no arguments. All I can think of are

-War will cause unnecessary war and deaths (easily reputable, since Hitler would probably cause the deaths of over 11 million people anyways).

-We do not need to ration our food if we stay out of the war....kinda arguable, but WWII would probably bring everyone jobs.

-Europe won't pay back their debts like WWI. Closest thing to a good argument I could thing of.

_____________________________________

Any thoughts?

We have a moat, let's use it.
Europe's crap is Europe's crap, why should we care if some French People and Nazis are killing themselves?
There's no reason to risk American Lives to save Brits- Nazis and Japan won't be killing Americans on American ground anytime soon. (You guys can hush about Pearl Harbor)
Both governments are oppressive and will collapse soon enough with or without our push, there really is not reason to make it happen sooner at the expense of American lives.

All I got. :|

We have a moat, let's use it.
Europe's crap is Europe's crap, why should we care if some French People and Nazis are killing themselves?
There's no reason to risk American Lives to save Brits- Nazis and Japan won't be killing Americans on American ground anytime soon. (You guys can hush about Pearl Harbor)
Both governments are oppressive and will collapse soon enough with or without our push, there really is not reason to make it happen sooner at the expense of American lives.

All I got. :|

These are just assumptions, though =/.

Don't worry, I only got 3 horrible points.

Well, for my last one, you could cite some numbers from the French and Italian Resistance, as well as previous oppressive governments to support an argument stating that Nazi Germany wouldn't last long.

Argue that Stalin is a commie?

Well, for my last one, you could cite some numbers from the French and Italian Resistance, as well as previous oppressive governments to support an argument stating that Nazi Germany wouldn't last long.

Argue that Stalin is a commie?

I suppose I could do that for the first point...better than 2/3 of mine, lol.

and what does Stalin have to do with this lol?

Stalin, head of Soviet Union. He and Hitler hated each other passionately. Going to war meant siding with Hitler or Stalin.

I didn't pay attention in History Class: How scared were Americans of communism in the 30s?

Stalin, head of Soviet Union. He and Hitler hated each other passionately. Going to war meant siding with Hitler or Stalin.

I didn't pay attention in History Class: How scared were Americans of communism in the 30s?

Kinda scared at the time, but I guess I see your point....then again, FDR started seeing Soviet Russia as a potential ally the country had just recognized Soviet Russia as an official country.

The only thing that comes to mind is that if we (United States) could get motivated, we have enough land and resources to give us everything we need.

Also you kind of mentioned this but you could argue that this view is cheaper in $'s..... in the short term at least.


Dude I feel bad for you, its a tough argument.........

The U.S. should be Interventionists because Hitler has show that he is more than willing to ignore treaties if he has the capability to overrun the enemy military. Neutrality for trading between enemies never worked out as the war of 1812 showed since Britain and France just forcefully conscripted american sailors into their own navies to prevent goods from reaching one another. Britain only managed to remain uninvaded for so long and made hitler go after Stalin instead was because of supplies from the U.S. And the Japanese were expanding in Asia and the pacific as they tried to create their empire. Sooner or later, any U.S. pacific bases such as wake island would be threatened by the expanding Japanese or completely surrounded. If these bases were abandoned, that would just be following appeasement and it was appeasement that convinced Hitler he could take over Europe. The U.S. already tried to stop the expansion of the Japanese empire through trade embargoes but that only gave them more incentive to expand since they needed the resources. And should Britain be defeated, it is only a matter of time before hitler deploys all his u-boats to the eastern waters of the U.S. while the Japanese attack from the west. The whole reason behind Pearl Harbor was because the Japanese feared that sooner or later the U.S. would try to forcefully stop their expansions so they decided to take out the Pacific Fleet so they couldn't be stopped.

It's easier to come up with arguments for why we SHOULDN'T go to war when you know why your opponent advisors thinks we SHOULD go to war.

Think of the opposite and work from there.

The U.S. should be Interventionists because Hitler has show that he is more than willing to ignore treaties if he has the capability to overrun the enemy military. Neutrality for trading between enemies never worked out as the war of 1812 showed since Britain and France just forcefully conscripted american sailors into their own navies to prevent goods from reaching one another. Britain only managed to remain uninvaded for so long and made hitler go after Stalin instead was because of supplies from the U.S. And the Japanese were expanding in Asia and the pacific as they tried to create their empire. Sooner or later, any U.S. pacific bases such as wake island would be threatened by the expanding Japanese or completely surrounded. If these bases were abandoned, that would just be following appeasement and it was appeasement that convinced Hitler he could take over Europe. The U.S. already tried to stop the expansion of the Japanese empire through trade embargoes but that only gave them more incentive to expand since they needed the resources. And should Britain be defeated, it is only a matter of time before hitler deploys all his u-boats to the eastern waters of the U.S. while the Japanese attack from the west. The whole reason behind Pearl Harbor was because the Japanese feared that sooner or later the U.S. would try to forcefully stop their expansions so they decided to take out the Pacific Fleet so they couldn't be stopped.

Uh...this wasn't the point of the thread, lol.
Don't worry. I misread the first post too sometimes .

It's easier to come up with arguments for why we SHOULDN'T go to war when you know why your opponent advisors thinks we SHOULD go to war.

Think of the opposite and work from there.

KK.

Why we should go to war........counterarguments

-End the Depression.....................Uh...uh...yeah you're right.
-Protect Democracy.................*can't think of any counterarguments*
-Neutrality doesn't work, since xxx countries would backstab us.....exactly, that's why we should be isolationist!
-Hitler would invade us eventually, it's better to have some allies now.............yeah he's right.


Those are the ones I can think of at the top of my head, and only one of them counts as an argument...and a rather weak one at that...

America was founded after gaining independence from European power, so we shouldn't get caught up in European conflicts.
We're separated by a sea so they're not relevant to us.
If we don't get involved we're less likely to get attacked so we can spend our resources on furthering ourselves as a nation?
Loss of lives, think of WWI and almost every other war. Everyone gets excited about it and then people die and everyone else is horrified.

I dunno, some things off the top of my head. I'm not really a history person...

The 1920's were VERY isolationist and until Americans were directly under fire, a lot of them still believed we should keep out of WWII.

If we're neutral, we can provide supplies to either side and make a bigger profit [make more jobs + end the dwindling depression] than if we sided with one side.

The 1920's were VERY isolationist and until Americans were directly under fire, a lot of them still believed we should keep out of WWII.

If we're neutral, we can provide supplies to either side and make a bigger profit [make more jobs + end the dwindling depression] than if we sided with one side.

1. I guess I can bring up popular support somewhere in there....somehow...

2. I can't be neutral. I can't ship any materials to any country. I have to support doing absolutely nothing with either of them. Yeah. That bad.