To what extent was the reversal of neutrality in the best interest of the United States?

Neutrality was aimed at preventing expenses and war casualties that did not translate to the benefit of the U.S. and its citizens

Explanation:  After World War I, the United States passed the Neutrality Act to prevent the U.S. from getting involved in any war. The U.S. regretted its involvement in World War I and when it was clear that there would be another war in Europe, Roosevelt pushed for the passing of the Neutrality Acts. The Acts banned the sales of arms to any country involved in a war.

However, the Acts were later amended so as to be able to help countries fighting fascism. When Pearl Habor was bombed, America could no longer avoid the war. It was necessary but it was expensive for the nation and its citizens.

question is unclear.

i can't sorry.

post the full question so i can .

no options provided, here,but the answer to this question is often: a historian cites a japanese newspaper article published a year after the end of world war ii in order to draw conclusions about the effect of the war on the japanese economy.

clearly from the answer, the historian alludes to historical sources,and records to aid in analyzing and drawing conclusion on the effect of the war on the economy of japan.