Could a different U.S. foreign policy in the 1930s have prevented te outbreak of World War II?

Question

What was U.S. poicy owards Asia at that time? How exactly was that policy effective or ineffective in preserving peace?

Answer 1

You have focused on Asia with this question so that will be my emphasis. The 1930s were very different than today. There was strong isolationism in the United States. An overwhelming number of Americans believed we should not have fought in World War I, and that mistake should not ever be made again.

President Franklin Roosevelt was ahead of public opinion in seeing the 1930s in Japan and Germany represented a new kind of aggression that in fact threatened us. He tried to get support for some U.S. responses, but American isolationism was too strong. No support existed for trying to check Japanese aggression, such as in its vicious and horrible invasions of Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937. The slaughter was horrible. Much more than Kosovo, for example. Belligerent Japanese militarist had taken over much of China, and sought to take control of Southeast Asia. Around 1937 an American ship, "The Panay," was in neutral water and engaged in no hostile activity. With no cause whatever the Japanese struck the ship, killing many of the crew. No action was taken against Japan. We accepted a weak apology.

In 1941 the United States did nothing to provoke the Pearl Harbor attack. Therefore, considering all these events no American diplomacy could have prevented Japanese expansion and militarism. It could only be argued that if perhaps the United States had taken a stronger stand, demonstrated a clear willingness to resist, the Japanese might have checked their aggression some. But I would argue America's policy was as reasonable as possible, and we simply could not then force Japan to be peaceful and not expansionist.

The same was basically true in Europe, where Hitler had shown in the 1930s with the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, Poland, and in other territory, he was determined to try and take over Europe. You could not have peace in Europe without surrendering to appeasement and letting Hitler take over the continent, and then more.

It would be my view and probably a large number of historians that the United States in the 1930s had no power to prevent World War II.

Answer 2

Not so much in the 1930's, but if the senate had voted to confirm the treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations it could have been prevented. The League of Nations operated under the belief of "Collective Security" which meant that if one nation were attacked then the other member nations were expected to respond. However since the US never joined the League of Nations and supported isolationism, the rest of the world saw no need to respond when Japan attacked Manchuria or Italy attacked Ethiopia. When you look at just the 1930's, the United States probably didn't have the resources to stop the buildup of World War II as they were concentrating what little resources they had at the time on building it's own infrastructure.

Answer 3

I'd say no - a different US policy may have keep the US out of the war however it would not have prevented it. When Japan started on their quest to build a Greater Asian Empire the US enacted a series of increasingly strict embargoes aimed at cutting off Japan's supplies of raw materials needed for their war effort. The embargoes included things like oil, aviation fuel, steel etc.

Had the US lifted these embargoes, it's unlikely that Japan would have attacked the US, at least not immediately.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, Japan pursued two simultaneous courses: try to get the embargoes lifted on terms that would still let them continue to expand and build a Greater Asian Empire and to prepare for war with the US.

Even if the US had lifted these embargoes, Japan would have still continued on their course of aggression, they may have avoided US holdings that's all.

Even then I would think that lifting the embargoes would have only temporary delayed an attack on US possessions since Japan wasn't really interested in having Western colonial powers in their back yard.

As for effective or ineffective in preserving peace, I'd also say that it was pretty ineffective since clearly peace was not preserved. The effect of the embargoes however may have made fighting Japan somewhat easier since their industrial output and there ability to wage war were always hampered by limited natural resources.

Answer 4

On the German front:
Only if a diplomatic and military intervention when germany started to retake the certain parts of Germany and no one had caved into giving up the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia.
Inevitably, the Germans would have attacked Russia. Hitler and the Nazis considered the Russians, and Poles, "inferior"and a conflict was ineveitable.

Japan:
Japan had control of Korea and parts of China in the early 30s, so the war had already started there.
If Japan had their own reserve supplies of oils, coal, etc, they would not have launched a pre-empitive attack on the US Fleet (if you knock out the US Fleet, you stall US involvement) due to the US embargo of such raw materials at the time.
Japn was bent on expansion at the time.
Ironically, had Japan also attacked the fuel depots and repair facilities at Pearl Harbor, they would have have had the US Pacific fleet out of commission for months. (Without the shipyards, none of the ships could have been repaired in time for the Battle of Guam. Without the Fuel depots, the fleet could not have a forward refueling point ... think what happened after the Katrina hurricane)

Answer 5

I suppose it's possible if we had been less isolationist we might have gotten involved before it truly became a "world war", but we really weren't all that powerful yet militarily (which is all Hitler cared about). We only became so powerful b/c of the demands of the war.

We could have attacked Hitler after his first invasion or two. But it would have been almost impossible to get public support for this much less start a draft.

As for Asia, I'm not sure what would have prevented Hirohito, don't know enough about him.

Answer 6

Funny how people blame the US, WWII was started by a fascist warmonger who fancied Austria.

Answer 7

no........none..............no.......there were two headstrong crazy leaders who wanted the whole world for themselves......had nothing to do with policies, just humans in power