Should the United States have taken a more active approach in the war prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor? Explain the pros and cons of such involvement.

Question

anonymous · Answer

@RasheedahOwl

paki · Answer

have a look here for details please... https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091112075931AA7ryws

anonymous · Answer

@k12andstudyislandhelp

anonymous · Answer

Yes I think so, then perhaps the Pearl Harbour attack may never have happened. There's one thing I've never understood about the attack on Pearl Harbour, why it's always called a 'sneak' attack. What other kind of attack is there? You don't announce to your target when and how your attacking do you? I think if Great Britain had fallen, American cities would have been on the receiving end the Nazi 'V' weapons. They would have been able to develop these weapons with out the constant interruption of bombers dropping HiEx on them. sinisterish · 5 years ago https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091112075931AA7ryws

anonymous · Answer

Yes, but no. The U.S. went into the great depression on October 19th, 1929. WW2 officially (for some sources) started September 1, 1939.  The U.S.'s economy just started to boost at the start of WW2. The president then, was just trying to make sure (or at least i think) the great depression didn't happen again. There may have been another great depression if the U.S. started earlier. Though, maybe they could have saved many lives at Pearl Harbor. But if they started earlier, more men would have also died on the war field.

anonymous · Answer

From me......

isry98 · Answer

No. The United States was correct in staying neutral or as you put it having a "passive approach".
However, we can see from history the U.S. was already arming itself for war.  This was the reason there were battleships lined up at Pearl Harbor in the first place. So we can see that the US did not really have a passive approach Pearl Harbor was just the straw that broke the camel's back if you will.