Excerpt from Lafollette's "The Doctrine of Fear", 1941
Out of that turbulent Germany that I saw in 1933 has come a new kind of human strength—distorted and evil—but tremendously effective strength, as we have seen in the last year. We may hate it and curse it and spit on it but we can't talk it away. And the thing we have to remember most of all is that we can't lick it in the easy, inexpensive way. We can't buy our freedom with somebody else's blood. We can't hire Hessians to fight and die for us. The freedom of every inch of America was decided not by battles in Europe, but by the courageous pioneering of men and women who left Europe because they wanted no more of the endless bloodshed and interminable wars of the old world.
. . .
Nobody gave us our liberty. We fought and won it. Nobody guarded it for us this century and a half—we did it ourselves. Nobody is going to protect it for us in the years ahead. There will be a free America only so long as we, and we alone, have the stuff it takes to keep us free.
Mark this, if we go to war to save democracy in Europe, we shall wind up by losing democracy at home. Worse than financial bankruptcy, worse even than the loss of life, is the fact that such a war would be followed by the worst era of demogogues the world has known. Every scoundrel, sowing the seeds of racial, religious and class hatred, would find a thousand-fold increase, in the fields he can till, if we make hatred respectable, by joining in war.
Use the excerpts from "The Four Freedoms" and "The Doctrine of Fear" to answer the question.
As these two excerpt demonstrate, there were multiple opinions as to the stance the United States should take regarding the conflict in Europe and its relationship to the interests of the United States. Write an essay in which you describe the opinions expressed in these excerpts and explain how each interprets American interests regarding the war. Formulate your essay around a thesis statement that supports or refutes one or both of the arguments provided in the excerpts.
The excerpts from "The Four Freedoms" and "The Doctrine of Fear" demonstrate differing opinions on the involvement of the United States in the conflict in Europe and its relationship to American interests. Franklin D. Roosevelt's "The Four Freedoms" speech issued a call to arms to defend democracy and freedom around the world. Conversely, Lafollette's "The Doctrine of Fear" argued against entering the war in Europe, stating that it would lead to the loss of democracy at home.
In "The Four Freedoms," Roosevelt argues for the protection of four fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. He expressed his belief that these freedoms should be enjoyed by people everywhere, and that America had a responsibility to protect them around the world, even if it meant going to war.
On the other hand, Lafollette in "The Doctrine of Fear" argues that America cannot win the war by hiring others to fight and die for it. He demonstrated his belief that Americans had won their freedom by fighting for it themselves, and that the same must be done to protect it. He argued that entering the war would lead to an era of demagogues in America promoting racial, religious, and class hatred.
In my opinion, the argument presented by Roosevelt in "The Four Freedoms" is more compelling as it supports universal values for all humanity. Roosevelt called for the protection of fundamental human rights around the world, and that America had a duty to promote democracy and freedom elsewhere. Roosevelt advocated for the empowerment of all people around the world, believing that this would ultimately safeguard America's own interests. It is particularly relevant today in a globalized world where the security and prosperity of the U.S. largely depend upon the developments abroad. In conclusion, the American interests must go beyond the domestic realm and encompass preserving democracy and peace around the world.
Excerpt from the Preamble to the United Nations Charter, 1945
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
Use the preamble to the United Nations Charter to answer the question.
Using the preamble to the United Nations Charter, answer (a), (b), and (c).
In 1–2 sentences, identify the primary purpose of the United Nations.
In 2–3 sentences, provide at least two reasons the preamble provides for the establishment of the U.N.
In 2–3 sentences, explain the significance of the U.N. in the postwar period.
Thesis Statement: The excerpts from "The Four Freedoms" and "The Doctrine of Fear" present contrasting opinions on the stance the United States should take regarding the conflict in Europe and its relationship to American interests. While "The Four Freedoms" argues for American intervention to protect democracy and human rights, "The Doctrine of Fear" emphasizes the importance of preserving American freedom through non-intervention.
In the excerpt from "The Four Freedoms," President Franklin D. Roosevelt advocates for American intervention in Europe to safeguard democracy and human rights. He highlights the four essential freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Roosevelt argues that these freedoms are universal and should not be limited to American citizens but extended to people around the world. His speech implies that the United States has a moral obligation to protect these freedoms everywhere, including Europe.
On the other hand, "The Doctrine of Fear" by Lafollette takes a starkly different viewpoint. Lafollette argues against American intervention in Europe, cautioning that the United States should focus on preserving its own freedom. He acknowledges the strength and effectiveness of the evil forces that have risen in Germany but warns against the easy temptation of relying on other nations or shedding someone else's blood to secure freedom. Lafollette emphasizes that American liberty was not granted by others but was fought for and won by Americans themselves. He asserts that America's freedom should be guarded by its own citizens, without reliance on external assistance.
The excerpts reveal contrasting interpretations of American interests regarding the war in Europe. "The Four Freedoms" argues that the United States has a responsibility to protect democracy and human rights globally. It suggests that American intervention is necessary to ensure the preservation of these fundamental freedoms. Roosevelt implies that by not taking action, the United States risks compromising its own values and potentially facing external threats from dictators and totalitarian regimes.
In contrast, "The Doctrine of Fear" asserts that American interests lie in preserving its own freedom. Lafollette warns against entering the war, arguing that it would lead to domestic instability and increase the influence of demagogues spreading hatred among different races, religions, and classes. He claims that America's strength lies in its independence and self-reliance, and engaging in a foreign war would undermine these values.
In conclusion, the excerpts from "The Four Freedoms" and "The Doctrine of Fear" present opposing viewpoints on American interests regarding the war in Europe. While "The Four Freedoms" argues for American intervention to protect democracy and human rights globally, "The Doctrine of Fear" emphasizes the importance of preserving American freedom through non-intervention. Despite their differences, both viewpoints reflect concerns about the potential consequences of their respective positions. Ultimately, the interpretation of American interests in the war depends on one's perspective on the role of the United States in global affairs.
Title: Multiple Opinions on American Interests during WWII: A Comparative Analysis
Introduction:
During World War II, the United States encountered a divergent range of opinions regarding its stance on the conflict in Europe and its impact on American interests. This essay will analyze two contrasting perspectives expressed in the excerpts from "The Four Freedoms" and "The Doctrine of Fear" to shed light on differing interpretations of American interests during the war. Drawing upon these excerpts, the essay will formulate a thesis statement that either supports or refutes one or both of the arguments presented.
Body:
1. Opinion 1: "The Four Freedoms" by Franklin D. Roosevelt
a. Argues for the importance of protecting and promoting the four essential freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
b. Interprets American interests as aligned with the defense of democracy and the establishment of a just global order.
c. Asserts that America's commitment to these values necessitates active involvement in the European conflict to secure freedom for all nations.
2. Opinion 2: "The Doctrine of Fear" by Lafollette
a. Highlights the emergence of a distorted and evil strength in Germany, acknowledging its effectiveness despite moral condemnation.
b. Advocates a cautious approach, emphasizing that America cannot buy its freedom with others' blood or hire mercenaries to fight for its cause.
c. Believes that maintaining American liberty requires self-reliance and avoiding involvement in Europe's wars, as previous generations achieved freedom through pioneering rather than violence.
Thesis Statement: Both "The Four Freedoms" and "The Doctrine of Fear" capture distinct perspectives on American interests during WWII, with Roosevelt's argument supporting a proactive stance for democracy's defense, while Lafollette urges self-preservation through non-intervention.
3. Analysis of Opinion 1
a. "The Four Freedoms" emphasizes the importance of defending democracy globally, understanding American interests as intertwined with the principles of liberty and justice.
b. Roosevelt believed American freedom necessitated the spread of these values, insisting on active participation in the war to protect and ensure such liberties not only domestically but for nations worldwide.
c. This perspective saw American interests aligned with a proactive stance that aimed to create an enduring global order based on democratic principles.
4. Analysis of Opinion 2
a. "The Doctrine of Fear" offers a contrasting viewpoint, warning against becoming ensnared in European conflicts.
b. Lafollette cautions that excessive involvement would risk America losing its hard-won liberties and potentially fuel demagoguery and hatred.
c. This perspective perceives American interests as self-preservation and a commitment to avoiding the entanglements that had plagued Europe, advocating the maintenance of domestic freedom through self-reliance.
Conclusion:
These excerpts illustrate the divergent opinions surrounding American interests during WWII. Roosevelt's speech on "The Four Freedoms" argues for active engagement, highlighting the need to uphold democratic values globally. In contrast, Lafollette's "The Doctrine of Fear" emphasizes self-reliance and non-intervention as means of preserving American liberties. The thesis statement supports the notion that both arguments provide valid interpretations of American interests, but each promotes a different approach to the war. Understanding these differing perspectives enhances our comprehension of the complexities surrounding America's role and priorities during this critical period in history.