B) there's no way for the US to not get involved in WW2 other than pre emptive handover of the Philippines to Japan.
The criticism basically writes itself. These people are very easy to criticise, they were mostly horrible. Just saying, it is easy to see why there are speeches around about how the critics ought be discounted. The track record invites harsh criticism.
What is difficult is being in the position of ultimate responsibility over the lives of many people, making a decision and living with it. Everyone thinks they know what is best or what they would do, I don't think so.
Criticism (IMO) should always have a response on what should have been done instead, given the information at the time. Otherwise it's just playing Monday morning quarterback.
The only reason the US managed to look good coming out of the 1900s is because they were doing a much better job of limiting the government than the Europeans or Asians. Both of whom had significant authoritarian factions that managed to get embedded in the official power structures and refused to see sense for an embarrassing number of decades. Very much critics-don't-count people, the authoritarians. It is amazing looking back at the trials Europe had to go through to see out the monarchies.
"It is not the critic who counts..." was a great speech and there is a kernel of truth there, but it just so happens that there is a reason it is a US president who gave it. The reason the US does so well is it makes it as hard as possible for the president to do anything because the critics are shooting fish in a barrel when they start making legitimate, accurate and important criticisms of US president that certainly do count. It is a dream of the US presidents that the critics would stop reminding everyone that there are better options that said president should be choosing.
