Prior to November 1941, Europe was in war crisis (Seton-Watson, 1945). The United States could have chosen to cooperate in the rehabilitation of Europe either actively or passively. Either way, one method or the other could have been chosen. Try as might have, it is not possible for the United States to ignore Europe, despite choosing passive parts. Such passivity, if attempted, means tremendous struggle, far more challenging for the country to live through than the entire nation comprehends. It might have resulted easily in a struggle for the lives of the people.
On the contrary, choosing to join Europe would have undoubtedly resulted in acceleration of the recovery of world trade, with very blessing to the people of the nation, that we soon might not have realized that there was a struggle. The one difference in effect between the active or passive cooperation of the United States would have involved an element of time before recovery of the world –time which might have taken generations before world recovery, but which would have been measured by human suffering.
If we, as Americans believe that the prevention of human suffering should be conducted by the people who find themselves in positions to do so, then it is possible to believe in the cooperation of America with Europe in their crisis (Kagan, 2004). Should America be of the mind to ignore the suffering of other people, we may hold that American aid is not indispensable to joining the Europeans, for time will put to an end the trouble in the end despite the choice taken. However, in case we are selfishly inclined, it would be appropriate to bear in mind that without exercising all the means within power to restore Europe to sanity, then we shall not escape without misery and unhappiness in the United States.
References
Seton-Watson, H. (1945). Eastern Europe between the wars, 1918-1941. CUP Archive.
Kagan, R. (2004). Of paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order. Vintage.
