Should the US have entered WW2 Earlier?

[Dr. Cynic]

Would it have been the right thing to do morally? Yes.

But how would you justify it to a skeptical and provincial electorate? How do we justify fighting? We know now the hindsight just what kind of situation the world was going to face, but at the time, why would Americans think Hitler was a danger to us? Roosevelt did the right thing in sending aid. What more could he have done until Pearl Harbor?

[Dr. Cynic]

Yes, of course (cares about human lives)

What possible justification would we have had? We were not part of the Anglo-French ultimatum to defend Poland, we were not allied with Britain, France, or Poland, nor were we allied with the Republic of China, despite our very warm relations with Britain, France, and China. The United States had an armed force in 1939 rivaling titans like Spain, and it would take two years of buildup between 1939 and 1941 before we were even on paper a serious military force again. Outside of economic pressure like the earlier embargoes I advocated, what position would we have been in to do anything whatsoever on the European front without over a year's worth of preparation?

The Pacific theater is a different beast due to the US Navy's still-considerable power, but then again, war with Japan not involving war with Germany and Italy is not exactly what this question is about. I could actually see that as a more plausible option, especially given America's massive financial and humanitarian and personal interests in China in the 1930s and Japan's naked coveting of the Philippines.

EDIT: War between the United States and Japan over dominance of the Pacific Rim was coming, coupled with WWII or not.

Well, obviously the US was in an isolationist mood back then and we didn't have formal treaty obligations, so to a certain extent this is 20/20 hindsight, but uh... what justification?  Defending the oppressed Poles is justification enough, to say nothing of the other atrocities and genocides that would come to light later (and, if we were better, more observant people back then, would have probably been able to bring to light).  Do they not count as victims to you?

I'm not saying that we necessarily could have jumped in immediately.  If we needed some months to ramp-up, then okay, fine.  We should have been in by the Battle of Britain, though.

I agree entirely with your sentiments and I probably would have wanted the U.S. to join the war around the time France fell, myself. However, Roosevelt was in the middle of an election campaign. If he had gone further, the isolationist public would've been more likely to kick him out.

Emotionally and with hindsight, I think most of us agree that we should've been in earlier, but pragmatically, it's hard to see the American public of that time willing to go any earlier.

I'm lucky enough to have letters from that time period exchanged between my family here and in England (From soon to be devastated Plymouth, no less). This was right before the Battle of Britain began. Isolationism among Americans and even in my previously British family was quite high.

It was the right thing to do, but the timing was just bad. If it wasn't on the eve of an election, FDR may have felt more secure about aid to the Allies.