But again, that is not the same as whether the war was trivial. Even if we focus only on the negative results of the war, four and a half decades of the Iron Curtain is not trivial.

“Trivial” is the opposite of “important,” not the opposite of “good” or “desirable.”

And no need to mention how one of the greatest empires of the modern world, Kaiserliche Deutschland, simply collapsed.

But look at the Crimean War. It inspired horror as the bloodiest conflict up to that point, and was in fact the first modern war. Shall it be remembered for some Hastings-like significance, 300 years from now. I doubt it. And so it is with the Second World War. We averted a great, murdering horror, it is true; but at what cost? That we faced an even greater horror, Communism, which didn’t just kill individuals, but entire civilizations.

Of course, we are out of that tunnel now. Imagine, say, if the Cold War was Germany vs. America instead of the USSR vs. America: I daresay we would have been out of this hole a lot faster, and with a lot less damage (starting with the destruction of civilization of the entire East Europe). But the result would likely have been the same.

To say that the war was not trivial is not the same as saying we should have gotten involved. I don’t think the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars were trivial either, but it was right to stay out. But World War II as trivial? That just isn’t the right word.

For that matter, so does the United States.

This is an important point, illustrating the limits of neutrality. Neutrality did not, after all, save Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium. Greece…and I could go on. All of these states tried their level best to stay out of the war, and yet they were still overrun by the Nazis. Switzerland had the benefit of formidable geography, a robust military…and no real strategic advantage in its occupation to Germany.

And come to that, when the latter condition disappeared, it was not enough to save Switzerland from Napoleon.

This answers Myles’ concern above. Germany was more aggressively ambitious, and capable, than was Stalin’s USSR. Failure to act would have resulted in a Nazi monolith astride Eurasia, and eager to devour more (and mass genocide). But in any event it was not this which brought the U.S. into the war (try as Hull and FDR might), but the attack on Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war.

None of which is a brief for unlimited imperial adventures without end of the sort we have seen. Only that pure neutrality is not always successful. And this is, alas, bound to be even more true in a world in which technology has lengthened the reach of potential aggressors.

I agree with Daniel about how isolationism has largely disappeared from American political life. Not even the end of the Cold War brought it back. Iraq may not do so either; but perhaps it has tempered public enthusiasms for further adventures abroad.

It doesn’t help, too, that American foreign policy in the first decade post-war essentially involved shooting its own two feet. When Britain tried to take back the Suez in ’56, Eisenhower organized a run on the pound sterling. Needless to say, the disintegration of the British and French empires, which were previously the dominant Western presence, and the anti-Communist bulwark, in those areas where Americans were ill-equipped to take over, worked to the great advantage of the Soviets and the great disadvantage of the anti-Communist West. Englanders and Frenchmen left behind vacuums; Americans were unable to replace them.

One sometimes get the sense that Acheson and Hull were not thinking clearly when they were delineating post-war policy.

Despite the American tendency toward Churchill-worship, I rather suspect that in three centuries’ time he will be remembered as yet another Gustavus Adolphus, someone who gloriously took his country to insignificance.

In another century or two, I suspect that WWII will be remembered more as the horrific denouement of the 20th century’s interrupted Thirty Years’ War, and people in the future will probably marvel that so much destruction was unleashed for what will seem to them to be fairly trivial disputes, much as most people today do regard most of the wars in which Switzerland refused to join over the centuries.

Called on this, he responded:

As so many people here seem to be doing this week, you miss the point entirely. The point is that staying out of wars that one’s country does not need to be involved in is a wise course of action.

But the first quote above was not about the Swiss perspective on WW2; it was a future’s-eye perspective on the war’s having been fought over “fairly trivial disputes.” Changing “the point” to whether Switzerland should have fought in WW2 — and I am happy to concede they had no duty to do so — does not correctly represent the first quote, which perhaps Mr. Larison should good-naturedly retract rather than defend by avowing that its “point” is something other than what it quite literally says.

The Helvetic Republic anyone? The only reason the Swiss actually have that option is because it’s an internationally recognized neutrality that was imposed in the Congress of Vienna. It has nothing to do with them optionally staying out of every important war in the past 400 years. Hell they were a puppet state for nearly 20 years during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic period.

Or how about comparing it to Denmark-Norway, which because of staying in 1807 effectively wound up being forced into the war and becoming just Denmark after Napoleon’s capitulation?

The only reason the US could actually afford to be “neutral” in the Napoleonic War was because it had no significant threat from French interests, while the British were too occupied with financing their coalition wars against the French to actually bother with the US.

I think you’re stretching a bit with relevant examples when you’re counting American actions during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic War era as “neutrality” particularly with regards to the War of 1812. Given the rather blatant intervention by the United States against France during the Quasi-War era, the fact that the rearmament of the United States Navy during that time period helped spur part of its ability to expand the merchant marine and its trading power in the immediate aftermath, that was hardly a case of neutrality paying off, but rather actually actively intervening to scare off an enemy which by most accounts was incapable of actually threatening your substantive interests.

Whether or not the War of 1812 can be considered disastrous also depends on your definition of such. Sure it achieved none of the aims that it was launched under (except perhaps stopping impressment simply by making sure no American ships sailed at all) but it also did help lead for causus belli against certain Indian tribes, and perhaps as important emphasized the need for the US to restore a strong navy, and create the basis for expanding the role of the US trade in the world.

In addition, the case of Denmark is probably a good counterpoint to the concept of neutrality, given its geographic proximity to the actual theater of the war (Europe) and the fact that it was basically attacked without provocation precisely because it WAS neutral. The second Battle of Copenhagen in particular had disastrous consequences for the Denmark, which lost Norway as a result of siding against the British as a result, and pretty much destroyed what had been a very effective and modern naval force.

Norway also in WWII is probably just as instructive in how useful “neutrality” can be. In general, the only way to actually remain neutral is to be in a position that’s strategically untenable to drag into involvement.

While the Swiss were truly neutral, the Swedes tended to lean toward whoever was ahead in the war. Ireland was also neutral, while many forget this now. I think most military historians assume that had either German or the Soviet Union prevailed totally, all the neutrals would have been invaded. During the war Germany got what it wanted from Sweden (raw materials) and really had no reason to take on Switzerland.

Whether it ought to be so or not, this is almost certainly false (at least in one century; it is hard to predict for two centuries away).

I didn’t say all were; simply that Sweden and Switzerland are. Certainly you don’t have to be some dyed in the wool Greatest Generation partisan to realize that Sweden and Switzerland’s situation vis a vis WWII were far from stable. And that despite much talk of their own ability to defend themselves, they were never tested, and its not exceptionally clear how they would have fared without external support.

“Indeed, it tends to be the involvement of outside powers that escalates and worsens the effects of the war. ”

Only if you consider loss as the ultimate form of de-escalation. I imagine, if there were no American intervention into WWII, that the loss of Britain and other countries would have no doubt happened with fewer lives loss due to military action and obviously no American one’s. But its not hard to estimate what the eventual cost in live’s would have been, even granting the German occupiers being far more lenient than their historical example shows. It’s also not hard to imagine what would have become of most of Asia if Japan had maintained its occupation. Sins do not come merely in the form of commission, as the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima/Nagasaki, but also in the form of omission, and looking the other way.

Also equally, each of the biggest Allies had gotten their ability to face the Nazis down and beat them by going on the march themselves long before…. There’s quite the difference in ‘tude on imperialism since WW2. Athens and the UK, especially, did amazingly similar things. The UK still gets bennies from its old Empire – from being at the head of the Commonwealth, having marketing and financial industry edges from that time, even London’s Tube, mostly built in Imperial times by killing lots of coolies; if there’s ever a serious fallin, that segment’s probably history forever.

Today’s best example of direct democracy is probably California, since direct votes can override everything else. Good thing California’s imperialism is limited to business, or we might see enemy cities being looted by vote…. But we have seen its ability to do sane business gutted over the years. All good political systems need eumonia in the form of checks and balances.