I’ve got to disagree with you here. The US entry into the war was due to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Until that point, Roosevelt wanted to engage but did not have Congressional support. No nation can tolerate a military invasion without a military response.
If, as you say England could have sued for peace with Hitler much earlier had Churchill not prevented it, then it’s conceivable that without the bombing of Pearl Harbor, WWII would have ended before Roosevelt could have convinced Congress for a declaration and America would not have gotten involved. Average Americans were watching and fearing invasion but didn’t really want to get involved. Generally speaking, it does not serve America to engage with European squabbles as we are a nation decended from all corners of the world. Our own internal integrity depends on great part by leaving old world grievances behind as much as possible so they don’t take root here. Especially on the political and national stage and in dealings with other countries. Obviously, that’s more of a goal than anything and we’ve failed often but most would agree that one of our biggest challenges has always been getting along with each other given that old grievances die hard with people and given the constant influx of people from all over (until more recently anyway), situations can get sticky pretty quick and we’re always evolving.
That said, I also disagree that there was ever to be peace with Hitler. If Britain negotiated one, it wouldn’t have lasted as Hitler fancied himself a conquerer on the level of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan. His ambition was to rule the world, that was clear.
Anti-Communism began as a response to the Bolshevik Revolution but was a relatively small part of the American ideological and political discourse until after WWII. Therefore, it couldn’t have been a primary motivation for anything doing with WWII. Priorities, right? Don’t forget, Russia was our ally then.
The bulk of Anti-Communism sentiment and work was in the European political landscape in the 1920s and actually led to the rise of fascism with the Anti-Comintern pact being signed by fascist governments in 1936. Japan and China were Anti-Communist during this time frame as well. Anti-Communism didn’t enter the the American political discourse as a red scare until after WWII and the breakdown in the alliance with Russia and England.
Personally, I think a lot of it had to do with the psychological effects of birthing the atomic age and the fallout and devastation from WWII itself. Fearing those weapons in the hands of those so ideologically different. Plus, we had just fought a war against a nation with ambitions to rule the world. Real or not, there was concern of the same ambitions from communist countries.
An American history professor (Carroll Quigley) wrote a book called Tragedy and Hope where he talked about the change in warfare in the 20th century. Prior to then, wars were fought till one party ran out of money and could no longer finance warfare and would have to sue for peace. WWI was the first war financed by both sides on credit, meaning among other things (advanced technology and resources to develop more) that the devastation of war was more widespread and tended continue toward total annihilation. It left scars that have rippled through time influencing fears, thinking, and reactions even today,.the world over. The book was meticulously researched and still relevant and worth the read. It’s available for free download at the link above. I do warn you though, it’s not light reading as it’s a work of door stop proportions so it’s not something most can breeze through quickly at all.
