A. Inquiry Plan Question: How did the attack on Pearl Harbor catalyze the transition in American foreign policy from isolationist to interventionist? Scope: I will focus on how the attack on Pearl Harbor can be seen as the catalyst for a shift from a hands-off approach to foreign policy (we don't get involved) towards more direct involvement in foreign affairs. My opposing argument is that, as many historians argue, isolationism has never been an American approach to foreign policy. Additionally, there was an attack on the destroyer Greer before Pearl Harbor, which could also be seen as a catalyst for the transition. I look at the 1920s until the late 1940s - after the war - as well as briefly the current situation to show how change has affected the country until today.B. Summary of Evidence America, in the intervening period between the two world wars, was characterized by many orthodox historians as an isolationist society (Braumoeller 349). Historians such as Sidney Bradshaw Fay, Harry Elmer Barnes, and Walter Millis promoted their rhetoric that there was nothing useful or glorious about the war (Doeneke 202). The United States had rejected membership in the League of Nations (Fleming). The Treaty of Versailles was killed in the Senate by a vote of 49 to 35, or 7 votes short of ratifying it (Braumoeller 355). America also failed to respond to Nazi aggression in Europe (Divine 24-5). Indicators at the time, however, showed that Germany did not pose such a threat until the fall of France (Braumoeller 349). In the interim period, America used a method of negotiation that Bear Braumoeller called "financial power" (Braumoeller 356). . America established the Washington Naval Conference of 1921-1922 (Braum...... middle of paper ...... ended before Pearl Harbor because the sinking of the American destroyer Greer led to FDR's "shoot on sight" orders regarding German warships in October 1941 (Canham). The United States, these historians would argue, was already moving toward a more interventionist stance due to Germany's increasing aggression, and Pearl Harbor occurred just during this gradual change It may be that Pearl Harbor contributed to this transition and allowed it to conclude more quickly than it otherwise would have, but the change in policy. American foreign would have happened one way or the other – with or without Pearl Harbor the debate takes the form of post-revisionist historians They have found validity in the arguments of both orthodox and revisionist historians and, therefore, are. supporters of a compromise between the two positions..