Do you think the U.S. was really neutral at the start of WWII? Why or why not? Would it have been better for the U.S. to join the war at the beginning? Explain. Be sure to respond to a classmate and include your email address when you post your response.
27 Comments
Taylor Dean
3/30/2010 06:50:20 am
The U.S. was not neutral at the start of WWII. We always have good intentions of not being involved in foreign affairs, but it never quite works out. We always have to be involved somehow, whether it's with supplies or making embargoes with certain nations. I think the U.S. getting involved in the war physically, as in sending troops over, was inevitable. It was going to happen, we just couldn't help ourselves. Had we been in the war from the beginning, it could have prevented a lot of issues with the government and the people. I think the people felt like the government was covering a lot of stuff up as far as how involved they would like to be in the war. However, we would have went further into debt and lost more soldiers. Also, with us being involved, there could have been even greater amount of issues between us and other nations post war.
Reply
Bobby C.
4/3/2010 11:00:04 pm
The U.S. was mostly neutral at the start of WWII. Once France fell and Britain stood alone then the U.S. became more biased to the Allies. It would not have been better for the U.S. to join at the start of WWII having to go through all the extra cost to fund the war and the lives lost for three more years of war, but it would have made it easier and less devastating for the Allies if we joined sooner.
Reply
Bobby C.
4/3/2010 11:04:53 pm
I agree with Taylor that we would have spent much more money and lost many more soldiers if we entered the war earlier. I also believe that we would have tried to punish the Axis Powers as harshly as Britain and France wanted to if we would have fought them for the entire war instead of just part of it.
Reply
Taylor D.
4/3/2010 11:48:43 pm
I also agree with Bobby. He brings up a good point about making the war easier for the Allies. Maybe we could have ended the war before Germany had too much power and before the war cost all nations involved too many lives and too much money. We'll never know what would have happened, had we got involved in the war in the beginning and never had a policy of neutrality.
Reply
Ashley C
4/4/2010 12:17:43 am
I do think that the US started out neutral during WWII. Although I do not think they stayed neutral as long as they claim, for they helped out their allies from WWI. In my opinion they ended their neutrlity after the fall of France. I think that the US did what was best concerning when they started the war. Overall I think the most US lives were saved as possible.
Reply
Ashley C
4/4/2010 12:20:48 am
I disagree with Taylor Dean because even though she is correct about the US always getting involved at the beginning of WWII the US was, not for long, not involved in the war from fear of the Great Depression and being 'weak'.
Reply
Amberleigh V.
4/4/2010 10:50:27 am
When WWII broke out, the US passed neutrality acts. We did try to stay neutral with banning shipments of materials to war countries and prohibiting the transportation of people to Europe among other things.
Reply
Amberleigh V.
4/4/2010 10:54:29 am
I agree with Taylor that if we would have entered sooner, that we would have lost more soldiers too, but I think it would have been worth it if we could have stopped the mass murdering of millions of Jews.
Reply
Molly G
4/5/2010 05:44:51 am
The United States was not really neutral at the start of WWII. The actions that the U.S. took, directly affected the war being fought by European countries. Before the First World War, America may have not been completely neutral, in that they were against Germany, but America did not take actions that directly affected the battles being fought, as did the acts before WWII. For example, the Lend Lease Act of 1941 allowed Americans to sell unlimited supplies of arms to any nation defending itself against the Axis powers. This did keep the U.S. out of war, but did not keep the U.S. neutral. These types of actions, taking place prior to WWII, directly affected certain European countries and in that, directly affected the war. This was a wise choice on behalf of America though. By not joining at the beginning of war, America saved a large amount of money. Money was spent on the war during this time, but not as much as would have, if America had joined at an earlier time.
Reply
Molly G
4/5/2010 05:50:13 am
I agree with Amberleigh, a bonus of the United States joining the war at an earlier time, could be that Germany may not have gotten as powerful as they did. We may have been able to stop horrible Nazi actions, such as the Jewish Concentration Camps. But, as Amber and others have said, by not joining WWII earlier America saved numerous U.S. soldiers lives and also, more debt and costs.
Reply
ZAIn B?
4/9/2010 01:49:06 pm
No the United States was not neutral at the start of WWII. While physically not in the war support was defiantly behind the allies from the beginning. There was no way the United States would stand by while its basic American ideology was threatened. I think if the United States entered the war sooner the war would have been dragged out longer costing more lives and money. The United States late entrance into the war gave the US time to build up militarily and focus on the atomic bomb. If we has entered early who knows who would have reached nuclear dominance first.
Reply
Zain B
4/9/2010 01:54:47 pm
I disagree with Bobby; it didn’t take the fall of France for the United States to support the Allies. This defiantly pushed us into the war but from the start the US was in support of the Allies. The dictatorships of the Axis were the opposite of American philosophy so supporting the Allies was probably obvious early on.
Reply
Ted S.
4/11/2010 11:59:10 am
No. The U.S. was not neutral at all in the beginning of WWII. We clearly were picking sides. Waiting to enter the war was a good strategy, but we were involved with the war the whole time.
Reply
Ted S.
4/11/2010 12:00:47 pm
I agree with ZAIn B?. He is correct in presuming that the United States was right in staying out of the war in order to keep from drawing it out.
Reply
Ryan H.
4/12/2010 11:21:54 am
The U.S. was never entirely neutral. We have always had our position on which side we would choose if we had to join a war. And even if we weren't there physically, we still provided supplies to the allies. If you are favoring one over the other, then that means that you are taking sides. So during WWII, the U.S. definitely had chosen sides.
Reply
Ryan H.
4/12/2010 11:25:48 am
I agree with Zain. The fall of France is not what pushed the U.S. to choose sides. The U.S. always new which side they were with.
Reply
Craig Judy
4/12/2010 12:35:54 pm
America was definatelt NOT neutral at the begining of WWll. Because you the Lend-Lease Act we had slowly been fighting the Axis Powers by aiding their enemies. If we would have taken an solid stance in the war, then maybe Pearl Harbor woundn't have came as such a shock to the American people. Honestly, I want to say that it would have been better to stay out of the war altogether, but with the rise of Hitler, I think that was out of the question. We should have been against the Axis from the get go, instead of being all sly with the LLA.
Reply
Craig Judy
4/12/2010 12:53:34 pm
I agree with Zain when he said "The United States late entrance into the war gave the US time to build up militarily and focus on the atomic bomb." That was one really good thing that came out of the late start.
Reply
Craig
4/12/2010 12:55:54 pm
Correction haha: another ^war because
Reply
Muma
4/13/2010 12:34:33 pm
The U.S. certainly was not neutral at the beginning of WWII. We sold good to the British at dirt cheap prices to aid them. We did not do that for Britain's counterparts. It would have been better to have joined the war sooner. We could have perhaps avoided the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We would have been more alert of enemy movements and many American lives could have been saved.
Reply
Muma
4/13/2010 12:37:53 pm
I agree with Bobby. The fall of France, a longtime ally, was somewhat of a wake up call. We needed to heed to that wake up call sooner than what we did. The build up of the military should have happened before the war when Germany started to build theirs. If the former enemy that fell in the last war makes a huge build up of weapon and such, common sense dictates that the U.S. should have too.
Reply
Paige L
4/14/2010 10:50:38 am
I also believe that the U.S. wasn't really neutral at the start of WWII. I believe this because we were always intervening and helping countries in need such as Great Britain and the Lend-Lease Act. When they were in need of more military supplies we were right there to help them.
Reply
Paige Luppo
4/14/2010 10:52:39 am
I agree with Zain in him saying that if we would've joined the war earlier it would've just wasted money and lives. And us being neutral was a great way for us to build our strength with the military which was very beneficial.
Reply
brian w
4/15/2010 02:06:30 am
The U.S. certainly was not neutral at the beginning of WWII they were just waiting for the perfect time to come in they were waiting for someone to strike them first instead of us coming out of the blue and just kick some countries butt.
Reply
Brian w
4/15/2010 02:08:13 am
I totally agree with Ken on the fact that We could have perhaps avoided the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We would have been more alert of enemy movements and many American lives could have been saved.
Reply
Natalie
4/18/2010 01:35:59 pm
no i really don't think we were that neutral i mean we knew who was right and who was wrong and we knew who was going to be on our bad side and eventually do something against us so why wait all that time for the inevitable? and with the lend lease act we were helping out people and not others. we had already chosen a side long before anything. it would have been way better to have joined the war in the beginning because i think we would have been able to prevent certain things from happening and not had the war last for so long
Reply
natalie
4/18/2010 01:38:22 pm
i agree with ken we were still doing buisness with the british
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2010
Categories |