Greetings!
Well, whatever a person wants to believe about "Isolationism".
I think the fucking Liberal Internationalist Interventionist philosophy is evil, corrupt bullshit. You can cover all that with self-righteous back-slapping and head-petting all you want--but the fact is, it is routinely used merely as a disguise to dupe the idealistic moron sheep and to cloak the deeper, more cynical and greedy motivations of the governments and corporations involved. Being the "World's Policeman" is a fucking fool's errand. Other nations take advantage and exploit the employment of American forces and the needless sacrifice of American lives and treasure--while they sit back in comfort and security, and rake in the profits.
Fuck that.
As far as the Jews and World War II go, well, demanding that the whole world embrace global war--as tragic and evil as the oppression of Jews by the Nazis during World War II was, there are still larger and legitimate concerns that entire nations seek alternatives to global war. In that regard, Jews are nothing special. There are individual groups of peoples that are oppressed, slaughtered, and exterminated all around the world, all the time. To think that *America* is somehow morally obligated to get involved in every fucking war--and even risk global war--because some group of people somewhere are oppressed--is simply not fair, not reasonable, and not realistic. It also may not even ultimately be ethical. So, NO. America is NOT obligated to offer itself up on the butcher's table itself for every fucking people being oppressed anywhere in the world. Let some other nations--neighbors--get involved. Otherwise, well, that's fucking life. Most other nations and peoples don't give a fuck about people on the other side of the world. That's Anthropology and Psychology 101. Human Nature, circles of relationship priority, and a natural preference for the "In Group". That's also just reality.
Beyond that, as I mentioned, there are all kinds of contexts and variables involved. Whether it is the US in early World War II, or even the other Western Allies, like with Czechoslovakia and Poland--there are very real limitations in regards to finances, resources, psychology, strategy, national security interests, and basic, raw military forces. *Morally* it was terrible for Czechoslovakia, for example, to be offered up in sacrifice to the Nazi beasts. However, the Czechs noble sacrifice was not in vain. Their sacrifice provided political impetus and also crucially, *time*, for the Western Allies to eventually be victorious. Whatever moral grandstanders may like to sniff and peddle to others--the fact is, prior to 1940 and onwards, the Western Allies in particular were genuinely in no condition to seriously challenge Nazi Germany, let alone embrace a global war. Britain and France were crushingly broke financially, exhausted psychologically and politically, confused strategically, and pathetically weak militarily, compared to Nazi Germany.
Furthermore, honestly, it wasn't just the enormous overall weakness of Britain and France--the United States was even weaker than either of the Western Allies were at the time.
There is a whole lot going on during those times, and for any nation at any time--as I mentioned, many contexts, variables, and factors, that are part of hard, absolute reality, and can not simply be waved away by snapping one's fingers and declaring it must be because it is therby moral to do so.
Simplistic, binary thinking in simple, absolute terms makes for a nice moral tale--but modern warfare requires much more than moral certitude.
As for Liberal Inetrnational Interventionism, as I mentioned, that philosophy is bankrupt and riddled with absolute corruption and stupidity. Instead of *one* nation being charged with being the "World's Policeman"--I think it is much more practical to allow local nations in whatever region--handle various issues and crisis that develop in their neighborhood. If they choose not to, then that is their burden to bear. Crisis's are expectedly most imprortant and meaningul to the relevant neighborhood--if they can't be bothered to rise to the challenge of whatever--then it is unreasonable and immoral for them to always expect or demand that America from the other side of the world come in and rescue them and clean their housefull of shit. That is a basic principle observed throughout the world by most every nation--again, rooted in Antropology and Psychology 101 and basic human nature.
If that idea rubs you the wrong way--then you sign the fuck up, or get your hildren to sign the fuck up, to go and fight in Europe; in Chinafor the Uigurs against the Chinese; in the Philippines, fighting against Communist rebels and Muslim insurgents; in Southeast Asia to fight in Burma; in Central America tofight against a range of rebel forces; in Africa, to fight against various rebel forces, revolutionaries, and Muslim fanatics; in Israel, to fight against Muslims; in India, to fight against Pakistani terrorist forces; in Yemen, to fight the various Iranian and Saudi Arabian factions there.
Those are just the current hot-spots of warfare, terrorism, oppression, and slaughter going on right now, currently. Every year, or every couple of years, strife, mayhem, and war breaks out somewhere in the world, usually with a confusing mixture of agendas, history, variables, and problems, typically barrels of more bullshit for everyone involved.
Personally, I don't like it, at all. It is all terrible and tragic. But expecting America to shoulder that burden is simply unrealistic, unfair, and ultimately, unreasonable. America doesn't want to be the fucking "World's Policeman".
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK