Fictional Journal Entry: R.E.A. Liste muses about an alternative-history United States 'baiting and bleeding' the Allies and the Axis in World War II

R. E. A. Liste mused in his journal:

"Just as an interesting speculative game--what would have happened had FDR tried to maintain the balance of powers among all the states during World War II? When the Allies were losing, the US would help them, and when the Axis was losing, the US would help them. I could see at the time France had been knocked out of the war that the US might rush in on the side of the UK, in 1940, rather than joining the war in late 1941. Then, as the Axis started to lose the war in 1941 or 1942, the US would step off the gas and stop pushing so hard against the Axis. Maybe the US wouldn't push so hard against the Italians in North Africa. And then as the Soviets and the Brits pushed back against the Axis, the US might even start to support the Axis, stemming the advances of the Allies.

"It seems pretty much impossible though for the US to do such a thing. It just doesn't seem very easy to change sides in a war. I suppose in order for the US to balance powers it might use its economic might to support one side or the other, to varying degrees. That would seem easier. When the Brits were on the ropes after France was knocked out of the war, the US would throw lots of economic and material support to the Brits. When the Italians were on the ropes against Britain in North Africa the US would throw more support to them in money and material and start taking it away from the Brits. Something like that.

"The end result would be what? The war would maybe go on longer and all the great powers involved would be weakened except I suppose the United States. There would be more death and destruction I suppose. Or maybe because the powers involved would feel themselves to be stuck in a deadlock, they would treat with each other and end the war more or less status quo antebellum--I've heard the idea proposed by I think it was Harry Browne and Murray Rothbard, and Patrick Buchanan--noninterventionists basically--that such an outcome would have happened in World War I--I don't recall if they applied the same lesson to World War II.

"So the negative probability from a humane perspective would be more war, more death, but from a political realist perspective, perhaps the US would have 'bled their enemies white' as John Mearsheimer roughly said, and I think others have used that phrase too. The positive possibility from the humane perspective is perhaps the nations would have seen they were stuck in an inescapable equilibrium and would have ended the war quicker and with fewer deaths. I am a bit skeptical since it seems like it would take a while for people to catch on to the US's game of playing both sides. The most likely-seeming result is the US becomes more powerful while the other great powers weaken progressively. The war ends in a stalemate and the US is left the world's sole superpower.

"But who knows! It also occurs to me that the approach I ascribe the US isn't power balancing I don't think, but 'bait and bleed' which John Mearsheimer, Wikipedia tells me, writes about."