The most likely result of the US “sitting out” WWII was Germany crushing USSR and having all the resources of Europe, Russia and the Middle East to use to build its military machine, including the development of the Bomb.
Not a good idea.
The basic issue is that the Germans, being efficient, were a greater threat than the commies, who weren’t. Given roughly the same amount of resources, the Germans were a much greater threat. And had they won the war in Europe, they would have had all the resources of what is now Russia plus the EU plus the Middle East. Within a decade they had the potential to vastly outbuild the military capacity of the Western Hemisphere, even assuming some Latin dictators didn’t decide they were a better bet.
The Nazis were, IMO, slightly more evil than the commies. But that’s not the issue. It’s which was the greater threat to American security. And that’s why I think we made the right decision in WWII, though quite possibly not for the right reasons.
“The basic issue is that the Germans, being efficient, were a greater threat than the commies, who weren’t.”
The Soviet Union showed who was the greatest threat, by sharing in the invasion of Poland (and Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland) without the German excuse (recapturing German territory), by beating the Nazis, and by the 45 years that followed the war; every American killed in Korea and Vietnam can be laid at their feet. For a war that was fought (at least by Britain) because of the invasion of Poland, it is hard to see how the West “won”. Germany’s military was made for short-range, short-term wars, and they lost the first one they fought that was neither of those.
In terms of comparing evil, they are the same (just different enemies lists); national socialism and world socialism are birds of a feather.