Why did the U. S. go to war in Europe against Germany and Italy in World War II? Offhand I would say there were several reasons:
- Pulling the British chestnuts out of the fire. The Brits were facing an existential threat and had been importuning us to enter the war against Germany for several years by the time we actually did.
- Germany did pose a threat to the U. S. albeit not an existential one. German ships and aircraft were attacking U. S. merchant ships.
- Germany invaded the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the American Left, which had been steadfastly opposed to entering the war, insisted that we enter.
- Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the Japanese were allied with Germany and Italy. That removed the other impediment to U. S. entry into the war—American isolationists who also insisted that we enter the war.
Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor U. S. public opinion remained pro-neutrality and we were officially neutral despite providing supplies to both the British and Soviets.
Consider this article by Tatyana Deryugina and Anastassia Fedyk in the Japan Times:
After a monthslong delay, the fractious United States House of Representatives finally approved more than $60 billion in military aid for Ukraine last week — and not a moment too soon.
Two years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, there is mounting pessimism about Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. The Ukrainian counteroffensive last summer failed to achieve its stated objectives after repeated delays in the delivery of Western weapons, while Russia ramped up its own military production and made limited territorial gains. As a result, a growing chorus of voices is asking whether it’s time for Ukraine and its allies to rethink their aims and consider a negotiated settlement.Europe has been here before. The same question was being asked in 1941, two years after Nazi Germany began its own imperialist conquest by invading Poland. Among the prominent figures arguing against U.S. entry into World War II was Charles Lindbergh, who argued that there was no chance of success and that it would be best for the European war to “end without conclusive victory.”
Charles Lindbergh was a prominent isolationist. As I observed above we didn’t enter World War II until almost 2½ years after Germany invaded Poland and our entry had nothing whatever to do with Poland. I presume the authors are casting Russia in the role of Germany during World War II and Ukraine as Poland. The invasion and defeat of Poland took 35 days.
Nowhere in the article cited to the authors explain how the Ukrainians can prevail against Russia in a war of attrition or why the United States should enter into direct combat with Russia as we did against Germany during World War II.
As I’ve observed many times before, I advocate providing material support for Ukraine in its war with Russia but my objective is to secure the best possible terms for negotiating a settlement with Russia not the stated objectives of the Ukrainians. I believe the alternative to a negotiated settlement isn’t outright Ukrainian victory but continued destruction and deaths along with the possibility of a completely landlocked permanently dependent Ukraine.