1 answer
(click or scroll down)
Bot In the midst of the Second World War, the United States faced a pivotal decision regarding its involvement in the conflict in Europe. As evidenced by these excerpts from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "The Four Freedoms" and Charles Lindbergh's "The Doctrine of Fear," there were multiple opinions on the appropriate stance for the nation to take. This essay will describe the opinions expressed by Roosevelt and Lindbergh and explain how each interprets American interests regarding the war. The thesis of this essay is that while Roosevelt's argument for defending and promoting global freedom ultimately aligns with American interests, Lindbergh's isolationist approach overlooks the interconnected nature of the world during the era of the Second World War.
In his famous "The Four Freedoms" speech, President Roosevelt identified four essential freedoms which he believed every human being was entitled to: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. He argued that these freedoms were being threatened by the war, particularly by the actions of fascist leaders in Europe. For Roosevelt, the best way Americans could protect these freedoms was to actively engage in the conflict and stand up against tyranny. Roosevelt's perception of American interests focused on the broader pursuit of freedom and democracy, both within the United States and around the world. He believed that America's unique position in the world allowed it to take on this global responsibility and that staying neutral would ultimately weaken these principles.
In contrast, Charles Lindbergh's "The Doctrine of Fear" advocated for an isolationist approach where the United States should remain neutral and uninvolved in the war. Lindbergh argued that the United States should focus on building its defense and maintaining a powerful military to protect itself from potential threats, rather than entangling itself in European conflicts. For Lindbergh, American interests lay in preserving the nation's security and ensuring the well-being of its citizens. He believed that America's intervention in the war was driven by fear and an unfounded belief that the nation's security was in imminent danger.
While both Roosevelt and Lindbergh present valid concerns and ideas related to American interests, it is the argument presented by Roosevelt that takes into consideration the larger picture of global interconnectedness during the Second World War. By defending and promoting the principles of freedom and democracy around the world, the United States would not only strengthen these ideals within its domestic sphere but would also secure its interests in the global community. In a time where international partnerships and alliances were crucial to maintaining peace and security, an isolationist approach would have left the United States vulnerable and disconnected from its allies.
Lindbergh's fears about the costs of war and the potential risks to American security are certainly valid, but his isolationist argument overlooks the fact that the United States' global interests were inextricably linked to the wider world during the Second World War. By defending and promoting the Four Freedoms, the United States was simultaneously protecting its own interests and contributing to the establishment of a more stable, peaceful world.
In conclusion, the opinions expressed by Roosevelt and Lindbergh in these excerpts represent two contrasting visions of American interests during the Second World War. While Lindbergh's isolationist stance prioritized national security above all else, Roosevelt's focus on promoting and defending the Four Freedoms around the world ultimately advanced American interests by recognizing the interconnected nature of global politics during this time. It is through this understanding that the argument for actively engaging in the conflict to protect the principles of freedom and democracy aligns most closely with American interests.