PuckSniperPensel wrote:
slesh wrote:
End The Curse wrote:
We tried isolationism once before. It ended badly. The world is way too small and far too integrated for that kind of a foreign policy.
? It ended badly?
What?
Pearl Harbor comes to mind.
Pearl Harbor? How does that come to mind, we were already actively involved in WW2 via the Lend Lease Act to England.
The Attack on Pearl Harbor was not due to an isolationist policy.
Eventually these feelings translated into the USA leading an international movement to isolate Japan economically and thus force them to withdraw from China. Primarily the USA plan was to cut off credit to the Japanese which would prevent them from being able to purchase petroleum. Japan received petroleum (an absolutely vital economic and military commodity, then as it is now) from three sources: The USA, Dutch east indies (Indonesia) and Burma (British controlled in the 1940's). The USA inspired movement included all three sources.
Japan could/would not accept a withdrawal from the Chinese war and instead began planning a first strike against the USA navy. Eliminating or reducing the USA naval forces in the Pacific would make the Japanese navy paramount, and thus Japan would be able to defeat the economic consequences of the USA ultimatum. After eliminating the USA navy Japan planned to occupy the Dutch East Indies and Burma, thus gaining control of enough oil to run their military and economy.
You cannot re write history to fit your own views. It is what it is.