I find it interesting that the last 100 years was effected by ONE wrong turn in 1914. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria & his wife Sophie were assassinated because they took a wrong turn which sparked WWI.  The Treaty of Versailles, that ended WWI set Germany up to fail which led to WWII. Another thing that the Treaty of Versailles did was break up the Ottoman Empire and those factions are STILL fighting today in the Middle East.


Pretty much most of the ills in the last 100 years can be traced back to that ONE wrong turn.


What else was caused by that ONE wrong turn?



Cat

I find it interesting that the last 100 years was effected by ONE wrong turn in 1914. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria & his wife Sophie were assassinated because they took a wrong turn which sparked WWI.  The Treaty of Versailles, that ended WWI set Germany up to fail which led to WWII. Another thing that the Treaty of Versailles did was break up the Ottoman Empire and those factions are STILL fighting today in the Middle East.


Pretty much most of the ills in the last 100 years can be traced back to that ONE wrong turn.


What else was caused by that ONE wrong turn?



Cat


From what I understand, at the time Europe was a powder keg waiting to explode. Nationalistic fervor was at an all-time high, all the major powers in the region were in a massive arms race, and they had all formed and joined rival alliances. I think that even had the assassination attempt been unsuccessful, the nations of Europe were so badly itching for a fight that something else most likely would have occurred that would have triggered the First World War.  :-\\

From what I understand, at the time Europe was a powder keg waiting to explode. Nationalistic fervor was at an all-time high, all the major powers in the region were in a massive arms race, and they had all formed and joined rival alliances. I think that even had the assassination attempt been unsuccessful, the nations of Europe were so badly itching for a fight that something else most likely would have occurred that would have triggered the First World War.  :-\\



True. It could have been something else that broke the camel's back. But many of the problems today can be traced back to that time.



Cat

I read Gregory Wallace's article. It certainly was a chain reaction of very wiling participants. Somebody was going to war with someone ... or bust!  The initial assassination attempt was unsuccessful ... but due to that 'wrong turn', the young Serb terrorist was presented with an opportunity he could not pass up. Considering he was getting drunk due to the earlier failed attempt, he did well to complete the task with only two shots!

I read Gregory Wallace's article. It certainly was a chain reaction of very wiling participants. Somebody was going to war with someone ... or bust!  The initial assassination attempt was unsuccessful ... but due to that 'wrong turn', the young Serb terrorist was presented with an opportunity he could not pass up. Considering he was getting drunk due to the earlier failed attempt, he did well to complete the task with only two shots!


I'm not sure that anyone wanted war, but all the European powers were ready for one, and there was no one around to speak to the insanity of it all.  There was also there was the struggle for colonies between the great powers (the USA was also complicit in this with the Spanish American war and the "banana wars" in Central America)

I find it interesting that the last 100 years was effected by ONE wrong turn in 1914. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria & his wife Sophie were assassinated because they took a wrong turn which sparked WWI.  The Treaty of Versailles, that ended WWI set Germany up to fail which led to WWII. Another thing that the Treaty of Versailles did was break up the Ottoman Empire and those factions are STILL fighting today in the Middle East.


Pretty much most of the ills in the last 100 years can be traced back to that ONE wrong turn.


What else was caused by that ONE wrong turn?



Cat


Not necessarily a "one wrong turn", but JFK choosing the route he did to get to the Dallas Trade Mart via the motorcade cost him his life. Had he chosen any other route, he wouldn't have been in Lee Harvey Oswald's crosshairs. If JFK doesn't go down Elm Street, he probably lives past 1963. We probably don't have 58,000 dead boys in Vietnam and an entire generation scarred by that conflict, for one thing. We also don't have, on the positive end, Medicare, Medicaid, PBS or any of the other programs LBJ created, and we don't get as much action on Civil Rights as we did from 1964-1968.

Not necessarily a "one wrong turn", but JFK choosing the route he did to get to the Dallas Trade Mart via the motorcade cost him his life. Had he chosen any other route, he wouldn't have been in Lee Harvey Oswald's crosshairs. If JFK doesn't go down Elm Street, he probably lives past 1963.

The funny thing is that JFK's presidential car was not meant to have the top opened.

It was raining in Dallas before JFK arrived and his presidential car had the top closed. However, by the time they arrived, it stopped raining and became clear and sunny.

JFK decided to have the top of the presidential car be open because he wanted "the American people to see their President". That decision sealed his faith. If he left the top closed, the bullet wouldn't have struck him because the car was bullet proof.

Anyways, your answer was American-centric. JFK's death did not change the world like how World War I did.

Anyways, Cat, you forgot about the Sykes-Picot Agreement which was secret agreement between the British & the French in 1916 to divide the Middle East up after the end of WWI.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement didn't take into consideration the ethnic and religious differences in the Middle East and they just drew random lines and created random countries that has had a lasting impact on the Middle East. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is why countries like Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia exist. All of those countries technically shouldn't exist.

Anyways, Cat, you forgot about the Sykes-Picot Agreement which was secret agreement between the British & the French in 1916 to divide the Middle East up after the end of WWI.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement didn't take into consideration the ethnic and religious differences in the Middle East and they just drew random lines and created random countries that has had a lasting impact on the Middle East. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is why countries like Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia exist. All of those countries technically shouldn't exist.


IMO the Arab world was better off with the Ottoman Empire.

The funny thing is that JFK's presidential car was not meant to have the top opened.

It was raining in Dallas before JFK arrived and his presidential car had the top closed. However, by the time they arrived, it stopped raining and became clear and sunny.

JFK decided to have the top of the presidential car be open because he wanted "the American people to see their President". That decision sealed his faith. If he left the top closed, the bullet wouldn't have struck him because the car was bullet proof.

Anyways, your answer was American-centric. JFK's death did not change the world like how World War I did.



So that meant the bullet would've ricocheted off the car and had hit Lee instead? ???

So that meant the bullet would've ricocheted off the car and had hit Lee instead? ???

I'm sorry but this statement is hilarious ;D ;D ;D

Dallas was on JFK's Pluto line (AstroCartoGraphically) - that's the worst line you can live/pass trough and it should be best avoided. So maybe if he passed on another road a similar thing could've happened, who knows?
I know from experience Pluto lines are bad, I lived 2 years on my Pluto line and if it wasn't a very safe rich Western European country I wouldn't be here telling the story. It was surviving. Many accidents happened there or almost happened to me, my health went weird etc.

Too bad my best lines and hence places to live are either in Asia, Americas or some islands off Affrican west coast, it's so hard to get to ANY of those places. The best places in Europe are from the poor parts in the east to the wealthy but very cold Baltic republics and Finland. Sorry for offtopic. :)

Not necessarily a "one wrong turn", but JFK choosing the route he did to get to the Dallas Trade Mart via the motorcade cost him his life. Had he chosen any other route, he wouldn't have been in Lee Harvey Oswald's crosshairs. If JFK doesn't go down Elm Street, he probably lives past 1963. We probably don't have 58,000 dead boys in Vietnam and an entire generation scarred by that conflict, for one thing. We also don't have, on the positive end, Medicare, Medicaid, PBS or any of the other programs LBJ created, and we don't get as much action on Civil Rights as we did from 1964-1968.



I think if JFK lived, I think the Vietnam war would have escalated anyway. If you look at troop levels, they were increasing under JFK.



Cat

Anyways, Cat, you forgot about the Sykes-Picot Agreement which was secret agreement between the British & the French in 1916 to divide the Middle East up after the end of WWI.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement didn't take into consideration the ethnic and religious differences in the Middle East and they just drew random lines and created random countries that has had a lasting impact on the Middle East. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is why countries like Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia exist. All of those countries technically shouldn't exist.


The fact that she didn't mention it dosen't mean she forgot about it.  That treaty was one of the prime examples of European imperialism, which was one of the background causes for WWI, and an extremely arrogant example.  In many ways it is the cause of the current turmoil in the Middle East (which is a European designation).  The other major factor was the establishment of Israel in Palestine which,  as the Zionists said was "a land without a people" and they were "a people without a land"  and so, along with the Sunni/Shia conflict, we have chaos in West Asia

Anyways, Cat, you forgot about the Sykes-Picot Agreement which was secret agreement between the British & the French in 1916 to divide the Middle East up after the end of WWI.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement didn't take into consideration the ethnic and religious differences in the Middle East and they just drew random lines and created random countries that has had a lasting impact on the Middle East. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is why countries like Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia exist. All of those countries technically shouldn't exist.



I didn't mention it by name but that is what I meant when I said about the break up of the Ottoman Empire.




The fact that she didn't mention it dosen't mean she forgot about it.  That treaty was one of the prime examples of European imperialism, which was one of the background causes for WWI, and an extremely arrogant example.  In many ways it is the cause of the current turmoil in the Middle East (which is a European designation).  The other major factor was the establishment of Israel in Palestine which,  as the Zionists said was "a land without a people" and they were "a people without a land"  and so, along with the Sunni/Shia conflict, we have chaos in West Asia



And this is what I meant in my first post.


My point is, we are still dealing with the fallout from something that happened over 100 years ago.



Cat

The fact that she didn't mention it dosen't mean she forgot about it.  That treaty was one of the prime examples of European imperialism, which was one of the background causes for WWI, and an extremely arrogant example.  In many ways it is the cause of the current turmoil in the Middle East (which is a European designation).  The other major factor was the establishment of Israel in Palestine which,  as the Zionists said was "a land without a people" and they were "a people without a land"  and so, along with the Sunni/Shia conflict, we have chaos in West Asia




I didn't mention it by name but that is what I meant when I said about the break up of the Ottoman Empire.




And this is what I meant in my first post.


My point is, we are still dealing with the fallout from something that happened over 100 years ago.



Cat

Gotcha! O0

I think if JFK lived, I think the Vietnam war would have escalated anyway. If you look at troop levels, they were increasing under JFK.



Cat


Perhaps but I don't think anywhere near as much. In 1968 there were half a million young men over there fighting. I don't know that JFK would've let it grow to that extent. I also don't think he would tried to micromanage the war as LBJ did; which I have heard actually hurt our cause. A lot of Vets feel that if the Generals were allowed greater freedom (like in WWII) that we might've "won." JFK was more of a level-headed man and pragmatist than LBJ was. LBJ suffered from paranoia and a deep insecurity. He was sure that if he didn't enlarge Vietnam, the Right wing would smell blood in the water and use it to attack him and his Great Society programs. He also connected a loss in Vietnam with a personal loss. JFK was more of a pragmatist and perhaps recognized a losing cause (LBJ knew Vietnam was a losing cause as early as 1964) but rather than throw more troops and money at it, he would've probably pulled out.

JFK is a guy who spoke publicly about a US moon mission but privately complained about the cost of it, and was in the last weeks of his life in private discussion with Khrushchev about doing a joint mission with the Soviets. LBJ was guns and butter and passionate intensity. JFK was cold, calculating and pragmatic. LBJ was a choleric man, and what you saw was what you got. He was crude, easily angered, but also deeply passionate about what he believed in. JFK was closer to Bill Clinton. He could be warm and charismatic on the outside while calculating his next move. The entirety of JFK's Presidency was very calculated; his entire image, even. He was dispassionately intelligent.

I think if JFK lived, I think the Vietnam war would have escalated anyway. If you look at troop levels, they were increasing under JFK.



Cat
If JFK had live, there is one thing for certain that would not have happened, Jacqueline Kennedy (née Bouvier) would have not had married Aristotle Onassis.

If JFK had live, there is one thing for certain that would not have happened, Jacqueline Kennedy (née Bouvier) would have not had married Aristotle Onassis.


Then whom would she have married? ???

I'm sorry but this statement is hilarious ;D ;D ;D


Why do you find it funny? It was a serious question if JFK had the roof of the car down and the bullet might of for some strange reason ricocheted off the car and hit Lee Oswald, would the bullet have done that? ???

Then whom would she have married? ???
She married no one else, she would still be JFK.

Why do you find it funny? It was a serious question if JFK had the roof of the car down and the bullet might of for some strange reason ricocheted off the car and hit Lee Oswald, would the bullet have done that? ???

That's not how bullet proof cars work Howard.

That's not how bullet proof cars work Howard.
Are the bullets absorbed into the car.

Are the bullets absorbed into the car.

Yes.

And besides, IF the bullet did ricochet, Oswald was so far away that there would be no way it would have hit him.



Cat

And besides, IF the bullet did ricochet, Oswald was so far away that there would be no way it would have hit him.



Cat

Yes, that is correct.

Perhaps but I don't think anywhere near as much. In 1968 there were half a million young men over there fighting. I don't know that JFK would've let it grow to that extent. I also don't think he would tried to micromanage the war as LBJ did; which I have heard actually hurt our cause. A lot of Vets feel that if the Generals were allowed greater freedom (like in WWII) that we might've "won." JFK was more of a level-headed man and pragmatist than LBJ was. LBJ suffered from paranoia and a deep insecurity. He was sure that if he didn't enlarge Vietnam, the Right wing would smell blood in the water and use it to attack him and his Great Society programs. He also connected a loss in Vietnam with a personal loss. JFK was more of a pragmatist and perhaps recognized a losing cause (LBJ knew Vietnam was a losing cause as early as 1964) but rather than throw more troops and money at it, he would've probably pulled out.

JFK is a guy who spoke publicly about a US moon mission but privately complained about the cost of it, and was in the last weeks of his life in private discussion with Khrushchev about doing a joint mission with the Soviets. LBJ was guns and butter and passionate intensity. JFK was cold, calculating and pragmatic. LBJ was a choleric man, and what you saw was what you got. He was crude, easily angered, but also deeply passionate about what he believed in. JFK was closer to Bill Clinton. He could be warm and charismatic on the outside while calculating his next move. The entirety of JFK's Presidency was very calculated; his entire image, even. He was dispassionately intelligent.


I'm sorry but I have to disagree with much of this.  Some of what you say about the personalities of JFK and LBJ are accurate, but each shared a good % of both qualities.  LBJ was not Trump.  He was cold, calculating and always planning, and JFK was sometimes impulsive (does the bay of pig ring a bell?).  But my big issue with your post is that your analysis  lacks historical perspective.  Of course no one can know what JFK would have done about Vietnam, and I suggest that speculation along those lines is fruitless (like decadeology).

As to LBJ's "paranoia and deep insecurity" well, it's always dangerous psychoanalyzing historical figures, and as a historian (and non-psychologist)  I say away from those flights of fantasy.

Please don't take offense, I say these things as one who  lived through these times (I was able to avoid the draft - long story but NOT bone spurs) and was very much aware of what was going down

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with much of this.  Some of what you say about the personalities of JFK and LBJ are accurate, but each shared a good % of both qualities.  LBJ was not Trump.  He was cold, calculating and always planning, and JFK was sometimes impulsive (does the bay of pig ring a bell?).  But my big issue with your post is that your analysis  lacks historical perspective.  Of course no one can know what JFK would have done about Vietnam, and I suggest that speculation along those lines is fruitless (like decadeology).

As to LBJ's "paranoia and deep insecurity" well, it's always dangerous psychoanalyzing historical figures, and as a historian (and non-psychologist)  I say away from those flights of fantasy.

Please don't take offense, I say these things as one who  lived through these times (I was able to avoid the draft - long story but NOT bone spurs) and was very much aware of what was going down


Well as someone who lived through the times, how do you see it having gone?

Also, as someone who lived through the time - I have a related question - I have read that part of the reason The Beatles became SO big in 1964 was that they provided (at first) American youth with a happy distraction to deal with their grief and sense of instability after JFK was murdered. Would you say this was the case? And if so, can you see a scenario where Kennedy is alive in '64 and The Beatles attract attention, but don't become as massive as they became? I ask because JFK was America's most beloved celebrity in his own way.

Also, as someone who lived through the time - I have a related question - I have read that part of the reason The Beatles became SO big in 1964 was that they provided (at first) American youth with a happy distraction to deal with their grief and sense of instability after JFK was murdered. Would you say this was the case? And if so, can you see a scenario where Kennedy is alive in '64 and The Beatles attract attention, but don't become as massive as they became? I ask because JFK was America's most beloved celebrity in his own way.


The Beatles came along at absolutely the PERFECT time to become what they became, and, in a larger sense, what the 60s became. The cultural 60s absolutely began with the death of JFK and the arrival of The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show three months later. There is no question that the phenomenon of the Beatles filled some void left by JFK, but it was bigger than that as well. Would The Beatles have been as big if JFK were still alive? Whose to say? perhaps. But there is no question the assassination of JFK and the arrival of the Beatles, along with other factors, created the perfect storm for the explosion of "The Sixties".

We have to remember that The Beatles at first were turned down by Decca Records, who knows which direction the Beatles would take, probably still be as big as, but recording at a different recording studios, would have had a different producer, producing different songs.

And besides, IF the bullet did ricochet, Oswald was so far away that there would be no way it would have hit him.



Cat


So it would've hit other people?

So it would've hit other people?
Not if the bullet was absorbed.

So it would've hit other people?

THAT. IS. NOT. HOW. BULLET. CARS. WORK. HOWARD.

Well as someone who lived through the times, how do you see it having gone?

Also, as someone who lived through the time - I have a related question - I have read that part of the reason The Beatles became SO big in 1964 was that they provided (at first) American youth with a happy distraction to deal with their grief and sense of instability after JFK was murdered. Would you say this was the case? And if so, can you see a scenario where Kennedy is alive in '64 and The Beatles attract attention, but don't become as massive as they became? I ask because JFK was America's most beloved celebrity in his own way.


I'm not sure what you mean by "having gone", if you explain I will try to answer.
I don't remember any lasting, or major, sense of grief or of instability.  Sure, when JFK was shot there was shock and fear, but the transition to LBJ was smooth and reassuring, so the initial shock dissipated fairly quickly.  I attribute the Beatles success to the fact that they were something of a new sound compared to say Elvis, the Big Booper and the like, kind of replacing Buddy Holly.  And the growth of their appeal was due to their evolution from a bubble gum group into much more sophisticated and relevant performers 

Thank you very much.

How's this one:

Art schools rejecting Hitler led him to turn to politics instead. The decision to turn down Hitler's admission to art school, probably in the hands of a very few men, unknowingly made possible the deaths of millions and the entirety of the future to come. One little decision effected millions upon millions of people, from the victims of the Holocaust, to the POWs tortured and beaten, to the boys drowned and shot to death and blown up at Pearl Harbor, to the Polish women raped and murdered by the Soviets, to the millions of innocent Germans who were killed in the crossfire of war, and finally the deaths of thousands of Japanese who died by the atom bombs, both during their detonations and in the decades after. All that horror because someone decided Hitler's paintings weren't good enough for art school.

Thank you very much.

How's this one:

Art schools rejecting Hitler led him to turn to politics instead. The decision to turn down Hitler's admission to art school, probably in the hands of a very few men, unknowingly made possible the deaths of millions and the entirety of the future to come. One little decision effected millions upon millions of people, from the victims of the Holocaust, to the POWs tortured and beaten, to the boys drowned and shot to death and blown up at Pearl Harbor, to the Polish women raped and murdered by the Soviets, to the millions of innocent Germans who were killed in the crossfire of war, and finally the deaths of thousands of Japanese who died by the atom bombs, both during their detonations and in the decades after. All that horror because someone decided Hitler's paintings weren't good enough for art school.

As much as I hate Hitler, him being "the Fuhrer" of Nazi Germany is probably the most important thing to happen in the 20th century and potentially all of human history.

If Hitler never came the power, then the world as we know it today would not exist at all.

To be honest, most of Europe owns a lot to the US (Not Bulgaria, we were on the wrong side and we paid by Sofia civilians being bombed. It's sad, but I don't hate Americans, that's war, wars are bad. Thankfully Sofia was mostly evacuated so less than 2000 people died).

Where would the French be today were it not for the US army? Yet every French person I've ever met, and believe me I've met loads of them, is dismissive or even dislikes the US and Americans. With such ungratefulness I guess it's better for the US to mind its own business and not help Europe. Germans seem to be slightly more positive towards the USA for the help they got for rebuilding their country. The Dutch are a mixed bag.

I wonder what would happen if the USA didn't care? Yet, most Europeans dislike America for whatever imagined reasons. I think it has to do with their own cultures no longer being relevant abroad. Most people in Europe do not watch the movies of their neighbouring countries even, only American and local ones. French and German culture rarely get exported abroad anymore. Only the UK has some relevance at least in pop music. But still the USA has a much larger influence. Apart from visitng castles and old cobblestone streets I don't see Europe ever regaining any global cultural influence or relevance. IT and tech are developped mostly in the US or East Asia for example.

To be honest, most of Europe owns a lot to the US (Not Bulgaria, we were on the wrong side and we paid by Sofia civilians being bombed. It's sad, but I don't hate Americans, that's war, wars are bad. Thankfully Sofia was mostly evacuated so less than 2000 people died).

Where would the French be today were it not for the US army? Yet every French person I've ever met, and believe me I've met loads of them, is dismissive or even dislikes the US and Americans. With such ungratefulness I guess it's better for the US to mind its own business and not help Europe. Germans seem to be slightly more positive towards the USA for the help they got for rebuilding their country. The Dutch are a mixed bag.

I wonder what would happen if the USA didn't care? Yet, most Europeans dislike America for whatever imagined reasons. I think it has to do with their own cultures no longer being relevant abroad. Most people in Europe do not watch the movies of their neighbouring countries even, only American and local ones. French and German culture rarely get exported abroad anymore. Only the UK has some relevance at least in pop music. But still the USA has a much larger influence. Apart from visitng castles and old cobblestone streets I don't see Europe ever regaining any global cultural influence or relevance. IT and tech are developped mostly in the US or East Asia for example.

If it wasn't for the French, the US would be a British commonwealth right now. Also, I believe you're generalizing Europeans way too much.

In addition, America tried isolationism for a long time in the past and it didn't work. America wouldn't be where it is today if we remained isolationist. I don't like the fact that some presidents have meddled in other countries affairs but without a doubt "being America first"/isolationist in everything is not a good thing.

America shouldn't ever gotten involved in the Middle East. The British and America (and other powers to lesser extents) helped to destroy what was once a vibrant region of the world. Without Britain and America's involvement I doubt ISIL would exist, you wouldn't have the refugee crisis in Europe, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Just couldn't leave well enough alone. In terms of long term effect, FDR involving us with the Saudi dynasty a month before he died is probably his worst act. We agreed to prop up a regime that probably would've died out on its own, making a lot of the Arab world hate us, for cheap oil because we spent most of our reserves in WWII.

America shouldn't ever gotten involved in the Middle East. The British and America (and other powers to lesser extents) helped to destroy what was once a vibrant region of the world. Without Britain and America's involvement I doubt ISIL would exist, you wouldn't have the refugee crisis in Europe, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Just couldn't leave well enough alone. In terms of long term effect, FDR involving us with the Saudi dynasty a month before he died is probably his worst act. We agreed to prop up a regime that probably would've died out on its own, making a lot of the Arab world hate us, for cheap oil because we spent most of our reserves in WWII.



I agree with you on this.


Cat

When was the US isolationist? If in the 30s and early 40s/50s, I think most Ameicans I've met think lots of things were done for improvement in the 30s after the Great depression. And after the war, the 50s were kinda isolationist, right? Most American people I know online consider them the golden era of America. I wonder if the 70s or the 80s or 90s were more isolationist?

I think sometime in 1914, somebody was supposed to turn left and instead turned right. Maybe that’s the wrong turn of 1914 that changed the world forever.

When was the US isolationist? If in the 30s and early 40s/50s, I think most Ameicans I've met think lots of things were done for improvement in the 30s after the Great depression. And after the war, the 50s were kinda isolationist, right? Most American people I know online consider them the golden era of America. I wonder if the 70s or the 80s or 90s were more isolationist?

Um, America was very isolationist until around WWI.

Then, we tried to be isolationist again during the 1920s and 1930s but then Pearl Harbor and WWII happened. The US has never gone back to being isolationist since then.

In fact, the US has become TOO interventionist and this has had a lot of negative effects. However, Trump style (and even Libertarian style) isolationism is NOT good thing for the United States.

The United States CAN and SHOULD be involved in the global community but at the same time not getting our noses into situations and conflicts that we shouldn't be in.

I'm sorry but the US hasn't ever been really isolationist beginning with the Monroe Doctrine.  We have avoided "entangling alliances" with the big powers, but when it came to the Americas we were all over the place.  General Smedley Butler, once Marine Commandant, said that he was a "hired gun for Wall Street" because of his "activities" in Central America.

Here's a quote:

Major General Smedley Butler
Major General US Marine Corps, Antiwar Activist : 1881-1940
"I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of the racket all the time. Now I am sure of it."

    Received 16 military medals, 5 for valor. Is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice.
    Wrote the 1935 exposé that linked business and the military titled "War Is A Racket."
    Ran for Senate as a Republican in 1932.

So unless your definition of isolationism is totally Eurocentric you need to rethink this.  Even during the period between the big wars the US was mucking about in Central America, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and South America.  Isolationist?  Horse hockey

Please, for the good of all, start focusing on the USA. Many of the Middle East revolutuons made things worse. And made America even more enemies. You don't need any more! ;)
I think the USA is great with relatively short but amazing history, I'd say the same for every New World nation, but from all I love the USA, Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia the most. Too bad the my DV 2019 green card lottery submission was not approved. :\'( I prefer American cultures to most European ones. :)

And yes, without the USA now France could be much worse.