Argleby, I was looking for clarification in your post. I was not understanding your position. I do not agree with your analysis. 1) There was no way to avoid war in Europe. FDR wanted war. Yes there was definitlty a big netrality contingent. People in America saw this as Europe problem. This was the same mentality during WWI. Wilson did not want to involve the United States in WWI. He kept us out of the conflict for three years. It was not until Germany re-established unrestricetd submarine warfare, and the Maximillan Affair in Mexico, did Wilson finnaly relent. FDR knew we had to go to war. The US told the world we are neutral, but in reality, we were suppoting the war effort through "lend lease". The Germans knew this, and between 1939-41, sunk US merchants ships bound for Britain. That is before they declared actuall war on the US. You are abolutly wrong, there was no avoiding this conflict. Germany, and Italy were just stupid enough to declare war. 2) The Korean War. You need to familarize yourself with the Truman Doctrine 1947 , and the policy shift in 1950 from passive to active containment. The Korean war had nothing to do with regime change. It was to keep the status quo. Yes, North Korean would have lost the war if China did not send troops. McAurther was told not to push to the Chinese border. He disregarded his civilan leaders, and it cost him his job. It also prolonged the War for another 2.5 years. In the end, nothing changed. The policy of containment worked in Korea.