# Was FDR interventionist or isolationist?



## Damien. (Mar 23, 2008)

.


----------



## Danielle (Mar 24, 2008)

I think you have the start to a really successful essay here with a good question. However, I think it needs to be expanded upon. An entire paragraph of what constitutes isolationism would be a good start. More discussion about the 8 points in your final paragraph would also be good. What are the 8 points? How did they come about? More information about the Destroyer deal, etc would be a good expansion as well. Good luck.


----------



## Chessrogue (Mar 25, 2008)

I'm a world war II buff so I can say that your topic is of great interest to me. It could be said that FDR was both an isolationist as well as an interventionist, but I see him as an interventionist. At the time the world had never seen a war fought the way it was. Hitler's army had innovated the devastating blitzkrieg tactics which called for an assault by tanks, planes, and men which quickly  decimated  allied forces.  Nobody thought a country about the size of the state of Wisconsin could be so powerful. At first we kept to ourselves thinking that the world could solve it's own problems. We were more concerned with Joe Dimaggio and the Yankees baseball team than we were with some conflict that raged over an entire ocean length away. While Hitler was conquering Europe, America still remained neutral. Finally when Japan ambushed the United States at Pearl Harbor, we knew that the worlds problems had also become ours as well. The United states had declared war on the axis and became one huge manufacturer of war related items. The sleeping giant had be awoken and he was not in a good mood. We shipped most of our supplies to England where it became a vast stockpile of planes, tanks, guns, boats, and more. The world was soon ready for what was known as D-Day where the allied forces attacked Hitler's "Fortress Europe" and liberated the country of France. This was a killing blow to the Nazi regime from which it was never to recover.

Well, looks like I kinda went off on a rant back there... Anyway, as Danielle had mentioned, perhaps it is a good idea to cover on the 8 points. Other than that your essay looks good...


----------



## Just Jim (Mar 25, 2008)

This is very good, and I agree with your premise. The US would not have entered the war until much later without FDR personally pushing the effort and preparing for it.

Since this is a short essay, you shouldn't say that it was interventionist except at the beginning and end. You introduced your position clearly. Next, you should  present the facts that support your thesis, which you do very well. But you don't need to remind us of your position. Finally, you last paragraph states very forcefully that you have proven your point.

The bolding is fine. Leave a blank line after each paragraph to make it more readable.




> Clearly FDR was not in favor of the European leaders gaining control


I don't know what this is trying to say.


----------



## Damien. (Mar 25, 2008)

Thanks, you guys. It's due tomorrow. Hope I get a good grade!


----------



## For me with Squalor (Mar 25, 2008)

This is all very mainstream and American elementary school text book version of history, 
Wilson and FDR both FED chairman (Wilson basically gave it more power) both following international bankers policies. Here is a rather shocking excerpt from a lecture Wilson gave in 1907 at the Colombia University: 

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down…Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused". 

Does this sound to anyone like isolationism? Anyway FDR had the same policies masked in order to gain public support (which should not surprise anyone) with a shroud of isolationism. But is in fact more interventionist then anything.
I like the topic its broad and has a lot to discuss. But you need to dig a little deeper.
British-American, American-German relations,American-Russian,British-French relations. All very important.


----------



## Damien. (Mar 25, 2008)

.


----------



## For me with Squalor (Mar 26, 2008)

Glad to hear it, That looks like the topic for your next essay!
Its important to view the relationship, and views of other countries because they massively affect America.
Its not your teachers fault that the American education industry is at where its at. 
here is a clue as to perhaps why: 

"Since 1945, an estimated US$8 trillion has been spent on nuclear weapons, but the estimated public expenditure on education
world wide represents less than 0.5% of this amount."

Anyway I've deviated greatly from the topic. Sorry about that.


----------

