samghebProf. Woods
I read Gottfried’s review of the book and he questioned two of the central arguments against intervention by Buchanan.
Nr.1
He says that it isn’t likely that the ideal scenario from non-interventionists of the Nazi’ss and the Soviet bleeding each other was unlikely given that Germany only struggled on two front war and without England/France Germany could have focused on the Soviet Union:
“The only way Hitler was driven from power was in a two-front war, and tens of millions necessarily died to achieve that end. Although actions might have been taken to end that war sooner, and in a less unconditional and more humane fashion, without conceding Eastern Europe to Stalin, England could not have gotten rid of the Nazi government without taking up arms. Certainly the U.S. could not have afforded that luxury.”
Nr.2
That Hitler wouldn’t have gone westward is also not the case according to Gottfried:
“A wealth of evidence, including broad hints in the Hossbach Denkschrift (November 1937), in which Hitler had revealed his plans for territorial acquisition to his generals, indicate that German westward expansion was in the cards even before the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938. ”
If Gottfried is right it rather hard to still hold a non-intervention position on WWII although obviously just having refrained from entering WWI would be ideal.
http://takimag.com/article/buchanan_kennan_and_the_good_war/print#ixzz2AAbc5p4L