What do you consider "the beginning of the war?"

Ok we go 4 pages and 100 posts to conclude that it started when our underpaid, overworked, and barely qualified (usually) history teacher's, using out of date text books said it did.

Well thats a weight off my mind!

 

Never doubted it for a moment, and why would you put a picture of me up for, I'm trying to hide my identity!

 

Yes, but if we haven´t done, than we won´t know how you´re looking!

 

But it was essentially a completely separate conflict. If you prefer we could use the Spanish American war or the Malay Insurrection, the Boar War, or even the Falklands as similar and perhaps clearer examples of what I meant.

 

No, it was a rebellion, since Ireland had been part of the UK since 1800.

 

If it's just the troops then the Spanish Civil War would likely qualify. Fighting of any type? Does that mean a dispute in a local bar? If you are talking substantial ground combat then I agree but a small skirmish between supporters of both sides or a shoot out with agents doesn't seem adequate in my book.

 

An armed rebellion is a war.

 

No more than 30 years of terrorism in Ulster from 1969 was a 'war'.

 

There was a treaty I believe that ended the 31 conflict that lasted a couple of years, i.e. until 37.

 

Since we are in substantial agreement this produces a bit of a paradox doesn't it?

 

As far as I'm aware there was more or less continuous fighting between the KMT, local warlords, and the Communist party, with the Japanese doing their best to divide and rule up to 1937. According to your theory, that would push WW2 back to 1931.

 

The Chinese internal conflict wasn't really part of WWII. So the period seperating the fighting between the Japanese and the Chinese government would mean the 37 date is the beginning.

 

Hey!!
I was not underpaid and I'm barely qualified for anything!
If you persist, I'll have to challange you for the "jester" title.
Or set the dreaded teacher's union on you.

 

Sorry for the long delay. I'm still not convinced that the US was not basically isolationist in the 1930's.

The "Collaborative Research: American Mass Public in The 1930's and 1940's Project", Adam Berinsky (MIT) and Eric Schickler (Harvard) is trying to unravel the data from 450 polls by Gallup, Roper, The National Opinion Council,and Hadley Cantril to make their reports usable. They are trying to develop a weighting system to the polls that will allow for the poor sampling methods that they all pretty much employed. I was not aware of it, but almost all pre-1950 polls are academically discredited due to their use of 'quota sampling methods'. They also had a "lack of high quality, individual-level data", and the data sets contained miscodings and errors that made them "problematic at present".

Gallup (especially) was interested in election results and therefore lowered population percents for groups that voted less often ... women, Blacks, and southerners. He over represented White, educated, professional males in urban settings. This skewed sample of the public is shoddy and unrepresentative. Many will reject the pre-1950 polls out of hand due to the procedures used.

This project is trying to salvage the data to make it usable with formular that are way beyond me. Basically you can not just go to the polls. Statisticians are needed to interpet the meaning of these materials.

Isolationist sentiment did fade steadily to 1941, but had tremendous staying power.
In a 1935 (I know I just bashed polls) 70% thought Nye was right. In April of 1935 50,000 veterns of WW1 held a 'peace march' in Washinton,DC.
In 1940 America First was created (incld) Wheeler, Fish, Nye, LaFollette, Wood Flynn, Lindbergh and endorsed by Fr. Coughlin. (The "Radio Priest" was at one time pro-FDR, then anti-FDR, and always anti-Semitic, however, he had a huge following at one time and even FDR's efforts to shut him up ran into a wall when his bishop in Chicago did not go along.)
By 1941 America First had 450 chapters and over 800,000 members.
FDR speeches- "I hate War", "Quarantine", "In a foriegn war"
The various Neutrality Acts and peace conferences

FDR was not an isolationist, but a very good politician. He pushed the nation toward world involvement but also reflected the national mood. Even after Pearl Harbor he did not declare war on Germany since some advisors felt he would not get the declaration in Congress (argumental). Who is being counted in this? The Senate, where Wheeler, Fish, and Nye were strong or FDR and New York educated elietes? As a matter of fact, what is history? The feelings of the wives of black sharecroppers or the actions of powerful business interests? I think you have to see who kept getting elected to Congress to see that people really didn't care that much about foriegn affairs. Look at the actions of the US. That's what counts. The basic isolation is reflected in the pure shock and disbelief of Pearl Harbor by the general populace.

I'm not sure what the 'isolation' vs 'non-intervention' issue is. I think action speaks louder than words.

 

It's worth remembering that when refering to the US "isolationist" meant a disinclination to be drawn into "foreign" wars. Not necessarily that they were disinclined to fight as actions in the Central America and the Caribean or even the Philipines clearly demonstrated. Indeed it dates back to the founding of the Republic where you will find lines to the affect of "avoid being entangled in European wars".

 

The "avoid entangling alliances" quote is from Washington's farewell speech. It referred to the problems the US faced during the French Revolution. Jefferson (very popular 3rd president) favored France while Adams (unpopular 2nd president) and Sec. of Treasury Hamilton favored Britain. Washington's advise was to (wisely) keep out. This was hard to do for a variet of reasons.

There's alot to look at in Latin America, but US involvement tended to be mostly about stability. It often revolved around investments and revolutions. The Venezuelan 1902 Crises, for instance, had the US take over Venezuelan finances to prevent European action against Venezuela. Muah of the Middle America action was to protect plantations owned by United Fruit (hence 'Banana Republic).

There has been a long split in American thinking, between expansionism and non-interventionism, with isolationism being best thought of as the period after WW1 to about 1940. Some leaders were for expansion, James Polk annexed Texas (after 10 years of opposition by non-expansionist 'Whigs', Lincoln among them). He also agreed with Britain over the Pacific Northwest (1846) and fought with Mexico for California (1848). Although Bill Mckinley 'took' the Philippines from Spain, he opposed the war and was pushed into it (by the press). He could not take Cuba since the 'anti-imperialist' blocked that from the start. Hawaii was another area that had to wait for the 'right' president to accomadate the imperialists. The Philippines were seen as a stop on the way to China (McKinley was a business president) and the "Open Door" to trade.

The isolationism after WW1 was different. There had been this constant back and forth; become involved, expand, do nothing. But the forces unleashed in 1919 were extreme. The reaction to WW1 was so negative,the press and Congress so ready to blame the 'money interests', that the US just withdrew totally into itself. The Depression only furthered the attitude. It was not just avoiding European entanglements, but really dropping out of world affairs.

 

I agree with most of what you said. Dropping out of world affairs is a bit of an overstatement, as the US was clearly involved in global trade and the affairs which threatened US interests. I would add that the US also began to officially renounce imperialism and empire during this time and were encouraging others to do so. No, they weren't about to give up Hawaii, Guam or Puerto Rico, but The Philippines were being prepared for independence and there was no further thoughts of expansion that I'm aware of.