(November 18, 2023 at 6:13 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: If two camps are engaged in a struggle that could lead to serious change in the balance of power between them. Then, arguably, it is impossible for a third major power whiz economic interests affecting either or both of the camps, and the potential to develop the capability to project power to near the scene of the conflict, to be neutral . Best, it could pretend to be neutral by avoiding actions which may legalistically be considered an active war against one or the other camp. United States most absolutely was not neutral before pro Harbor. And there was a combat in Auburn name against both Germany and Japan.
A power that is technically not at war, but does everything again to help the military cause of one side and hinder the military cause of another is an absolutely no way neutral
The US recognized that the Axis was our enemy, either real soon, to their disadvantage, or later, when our potential allies are defeated. I don't see this as a hard choice. The best illustrations of our choice were "shoot on sight" (anti-Uboat patrolling) and putting the engaged Allied countries ahead of Japan with regard to fuel and munitions production (we send 100,000 rifles to England before Pearl Harbor.)
