Verified answer

FDR was one of the few people in government who actually WANTED the US to get involved in WWII before Pearl Harbor. But in a poll done in summer 1941, over 90% of Americans wanted to stay out of it. So FDR was respecting the will of the people by keeping the US out of the war (something Bush would never do). But FDR did everything he could to help the Allies with military aid - he repealed the neutrality acts to allow the US to sell arms to the Allies, and later signed the Lend Lease Act which greatly increased the supply of arms. He also ordered US Navy ships to attack German submarines on sight by September 1941 (BEFORE Pearl Harbor!)

FDR also cut off trade with Japan and sent military aid to the Chinese after Japan's invasion of China in 1937. He greatly increased the size of the US Navy in the 1930s, in preparation for possible war with Japan. He increased the number of troops as US outposts in the Pacific. He was not reluctant to antagonize the Japanese at all - in fact, many historians have criticized him for being too aggressive with Japan and for not negotiating a peaceful settlement with them before Pearl Harbor!

So I think the question is flawed. FDR was NOT reluctant to get the US into WWII. He WANTED the US to get involved. But the President does not have the power to declare war - Congress does. And as I mentioned, before Pearl Harbor the American people were overwhelmingly against joining the war, even though we knew Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were doing bad things.

After checking out the website below, I would say that Zinn's perspective was that Roosevelt (or more accurately the American government in general) just didn't care all that much about it as long as it didn't threaten American commercial interests and wasn't directed against White westerners. Not enough, at least, to put American lives on the line to stop it.

He was not reluctant, merely impotent before a Congress full of isolationist Republicans. Rather like Obama and the Tea Party which currently frustrates any financial initatives on the President's part.

Yea Laurence, that is an accurate view of history. No slant there.

As for Roosevelt, as we do not have your textbook then we have no way of knowing its answer.

However, I can speculate that it was because America was just flexing its international muscle.

"It is none of our business" was the word of the day.

Sort of like Obama getting involved with Libya becasue it was of great national importance, but ignoring Syria becasue it is none of our business, right Laurence?