Upon the invasion of Poland and outbreak of WWII, Americans lined up to take sides. President Roosevelt addressed the war in his State of the Union in January 1941 and Congress was divided between interventionists and isolationists. There is an excerpt of the speech in your text as well as a video link here. After viewing and reading, visit one of the sites below and support a position: interventionist or isolationist. Remember this is in the beginning of 1941, Pearl Harbor as not been attacked yet. Sites to visit: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1592 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1601 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1593 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1594 For full credit, you must clearly voice one (time-appropriate) position and support it from one of the radio addresses. You should also respond to other student posts. Posts should be completed by Sunday, 12/19.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
"Powerful and militant forces now arrogantly decree the extinction of freedom and democracy..."(Connally). I'm responding to the radio address that regards the opinion as passing the lend-lease bill: and aiding great britain. My stance is this, I feel it was our obligation to become intervetionists in WWII. Aiding Britain, and creating allies allowed the future progression of what we now see today as a "Global" everything. "Global" trade, "Global" friendships, "Global" Voices etc. My mian point of all this is that if we didn't intervene and allowed Germany to run all over Europe, we would lose all the cultural entities that once existed. The article talks about the fact that countries were just lying down to Germany's will, there was no sense of rebellion. In the same line, it is said that the axis' determination was for one goal, to establish "new world order". Without the US, there would be only one order over all the land, a totalitarian world with one race of people, no individuality, no freedoms.
-Mason
Isolationists First radio address link: America should just stay out of the war. First off there is nothing to be gained by going to war. America will not gain land or power. The war is one that is only concerned with European nations. And to go to war would only mean American casualties. Aren't Americans suffering enough without having to deal with stories of death all around them. Right now Americans ares till tyring to recover from this economic depression that has crushed all men. Farmers and businessmen are homeless, and starving for food. It is neccessary for Americans to be safe themselves before we can go help other nations. There is no need at all for America to get involved in a war that doesn't even effect us. Afterall Senator Wheeler even said, "If Hitler’s army can’t cross the narrow English Channel in seven months his bombers won’t fly across the Rockies to bomb Denver tomorrow." If America has no part in a war, won't gain anything from the war, and has bigger issues such as poverty on the homefront then there is no reason for Americans to go to war and neutrality and islationism is neccessary for America.
Hunter French
Class 1
After watching the video and reading an article, I am most definitely an interventionist. We must support our allies because if we do, it will not only benefit the countries we give money and supplies to, but also our country and world as a whole. I agree that there has to be a balance between the attention we give to our country and others, but it is our responsibility as Americans to not, as Roosevelt states, “tell [our allies] to surrender because we won’t give them the weapons they must have.” Besides, as the third article states, “there is nothing altruistic about the determination of the United States to aid those nations now defending themselves against the forces of aggression…if Great Britain falls, the United States will stand practically alone on the brink of the precipice.” This makes sense! Think about it- if we don’t support other countries now, why would they ever help up when we are in need? We must make alliances now that are solid, alliances that will remain strong when adversity is at hand. Also, as said in the article, “we cannot let Great Britain down. If we do Hitler may never let us up.” Our effort to help another country’s warfare supports our country as well. It is for these reasons that I am for the interventionists!
Maria Dutsar
Class 6
I believe that it is a government's responsibility to defend its country and work for the greatest benefits of all it's citizens. It is not the US government's responsibilty to improve the lives of the British or the French, it's not its responsibilty to defend those outside the nation's boarders. However, often these measures (working to defend other nations) are necessary to preserve our own freedom and way of life. Such was the case during World War Two where it became necessary to join forces with the Allies not only to assist them, but to benefit ourselves. It was essential to sell weaponry to the Allies, the money we got and the jobs created from this were beneficial to an economy attepting to recover from oblivion. It was essential to help the aAllies in stopping Hitler; if Hitler had defeated France and Britian it could very well result in a loss of democracy and freedom in America (totalrianism forms of government would begin consuming all nations). As Maria stated, joining with the Allies also provided us with a safety net, someone to help us when we were in trouble and needed a way out. In the thrid article Brynes describes this rational, " The reason we are feverishly working to provide an Army and Navy is to defend ourselves against the Axis powers." In conclusion, it was vital to be interventionist during World War Two. Not only for France or Britian, but for us.
I agree with Charles Lindbergh in that, "it makes no difference to us who wins this war in Europe." America needs to focus on rebuilding it's economy, not entering another war. Charles Lindbergh also says that the American Air Force is far behind the German's, and because of that bombing Berlin could be difficult. Another reason is that America is already in enough financial trouble and creating supplies will cost millions. It will supply a lot of jobs but also will cost thousands of lives. Overall i think that entering World War II is a good cause, but America cannot afford to do so.
Britain is in need of America's help. The article "By Aiding Britain, We Aid Ourselves" shows this. It clearly states "Self preservation, therefore, demands that we now give Britain aid instead of sympathy." If we don't support our allies, not only will Hitler become one step closer to absolute power, but it will turn the United States into a target. As Mason said, without the US, the axis' dream of new world order will become a reality. And Great Britain cannot fight that alone. For these reasons I have taken an interventionist stance on WWII. "We cannot let Great Britain down. If we do Hitler may never let us up."
I agree with Mason that there was no other smart option during WWll than for the U.S to become interventionists. It created a tie with other nations that was strong and powerful. There's no reason why countries shouldn't help each other out during times of war and suffering. I feel that if you give something you will eventually get something in return. If the United States kept to themselves I feel like other nations would get angry that we were being "selfish" or wnat something of ours which could start other problems and conflicts. Overall I think that if we can help theres no reason why we shouldn't. Germany had many enemies because they wanted to control, not help. However, I also feel that if I waas living during this time period I would be an idealist. For the reason that our country was in so much trouble already that helping other nations would be sort of an insult. That time and money would be invested in somewhere else where our own homeland is withering away."We also realize that we have great problems at home, that one-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad, and we have been told repeatedly, upon the highest authority, that unless and until this situation is corrected our democracy is in danger"(Radio Address). I think that if I was starving and out of a job I wouldn't be supportive of my country worrying about creating ties with other countries.
Nicole
Class 6
An isolationist policy in WWII would be downright foolish, and could even be called wussy (a "Pansy Policy"). A significant reason that Hitler was able to establish a foothold in eastern Europe was that the British (or any other Allied nation) did not take military action to stop him (although understandably so, if he had the backing of Stalin and Mussolini). Even then, they tried to parley with him using diplomacy, while the U.S. took no action at all. Such continued ignorance would only allow Hitler to spread throughout Europe, and with European trade partners in turmoil, the crippled American economy would suffer yet another blow. Intervention not only might stop the spread of Hitler's regime, but also encourage the economy, with the creation of tanks and war machines (not just for out own troops, but European troops through the Lend-Lease bill) bringing up new jobs required for making them, and then employment in the army/navy/air force themselves. Moreover, if Hitler takes over most of Europe, he will have the power and resources to fuel his already impressive air force (which, as Lindbergh states, rivals our commercial aviation progress with military aviation progress) might become powerful enough to cross the Atlantic (as Lindbergh himself proved to be achievable) and pose a direct threat to the U.S.
I feel that it is necessary for America to help out in the war, therefore I am an interventionist. As Senator James Byrnes said in a radio address, "We know that our own Democracy is menaced by the forces that now seek to destroy those Democracies across the Atlantic...If Great Britain falls, the United States will stand practically alone on the brink of the precipice." There is no doubt that Hitler is out to convert the whole world, so what makes people think if he wins in Europe he won't enter the Western Hemisphere? In Roosevelt's Quarantine Speech, he compares war to a disease. As it spreads, everyone is called to help out to stop the spread before it goes any further. If we help now, we could prevent Hitler from getting further along in his fascist, nazi plans. As Mason said, the axis power's goal was to establish a new world order. That would include the United States, so we are threatened and should help Britain before we are engaged in physical war. In addition, Maria and Mason both talk about allies. If we do not help, we may lose an ally, which could hurt the US in future endeavors when we might need help.
Nicole D
Class 1
I, personally, am an interventionist on this issue. I believe we should have intervened on behalf of the Allies earlier than we had. Like Maria had quoted from the third article, "we cannot let Great Britain down. If we do Hitler may never let us up.” This reminded me of something in the textbook that I had read about how FDR had compared the United States and Britain as neighbors and Germany as a fire. He said that if your neighbor's house was on fire and he asked you for a fire hose, you wouldn't think about how he would pay you for the hose (which was how many Americans felt about aiding Britain because Britain already owed us money and now America wanted to give them more for free), you would give him the hose and help him put out the fire in order to be a good neighbor, but also to prevent the fire from continuing onto your own house. This metaphor is a perfect example of the situation in WWII. In the third article it says, “Assuredly Great Britain is in debt to us, but events are proving that we, too, are indebted to Great Britain for having held at bay the madmen who seek, not only wealth, but the power to dominate the World.” Hitler would have come after the United States had Britain not been able to hold back Germany. This directly relates to the metaphor of the neighbors and the fire, by protecting others, we can protect ourselves. If the United States can stop Germany at Great Britain, Germany cannot attack us, thus, “By aiding Britain, we aid ourselves.”
Colleen Cosgrove
Class 4
America is strength, America is power, America is freedom. Without Great Britain, America will no longer stand for these things. We will "stand practically alone on the brink of the precipice"(Brynes). I agree with Maria and Mason that it's time to intervene, because without Great Britain, what will stop the Axis Powers from invading our country? If we remain dormant, all our problems at home will no longer be pertinent due to the fact that we will be overcome by a totalitarian ruling. "Let us face the facts. The reason we are feverishly working to provide an Army and Navy is to defend ourselves against the Axis powers. If we could be certain that Britain would defeat Hitler we could and would stop appropriating money for military purposes. But we cannot be certain of it. We are certain only that each day Britain holds Hitler we are better able to defend America. If Britain can hold Hitler for a year, we can hold him forever. Self preservation, therefore, demands that we now give Britain aid instead of sympathy" (Bryne). If helping Great Britain allows us to help ourselves, then intervening is our only way to keep America safe so we have the opportunity to fix our problems at home.
Unlike any other war I have read about, I would consider myself an interventionist in regards to World War II due to the destruction of human rights and genocide committed by the Nazi and Fascist regimes. I agree with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his “Four Freedoms” speech. “Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.” We need to stand united as a world on this issue and not tolerate the abuses inflicted by ruthless dictators on innocent people in their own land or anywhere else. Consequently, I agree with Senator Tom Connally ‘s belief that the real danger is with “the cold-blooded dictator, intoxicated by conquest, with their ambitions fanned to fury by the lust for power and mastery of the human race, and backed by the most powerful and relentless military machine…” Not only was Hitler a butcher but he carefully and purposely built an extremely effective military to enforce his prejudices and brutalities. In addition, I also agree with Mr. Connally’s question, “Shall we do nothing?” How could we live with ourselves as a nation and face other nations, if we allowed the continuation of concentration camps and gas chambers to exterminate innocent people? Hitler would have eliminated humanity in order to strengthen Germany and we would, consequently, “lose all the cultural entities,” as Mason stated. Therefore, yes, I do believe we needed to send soldiers to fight in WWII in order to save humanity. Furthermore, I believe Maria Dutsar was right when she said that “if we don’t support other countries now, why would they ever help us when we are in need?” The importance of working together as one world dedicated to human rights and against these brutal regimes was imperative.
Lisa Ferrari
Period 1
I believe that a policy of Isolationism is the best for the United States in WWII. Interventionists believe that Hitler must be stopped and Britain and France need help to do so, I agree with Hunter in saying that it is pointless to join the war if we're not going to gain anything from it. We won't gain any territory. We would only have casualties. I believe it would be better for our nation to focus on rebuilding its economy from the Great Depression and help those who don't have enough to provide for their families. American citizens should come before any European nation. The first radio address stated: "We sympathize with the oppressed and persecuted everywhere. We also realize that we have great problems at home, that one-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad, and we have been told repeatedly, upon the highest authority, that unless and until this situation is corrected our democracy is in danger. I fully subscribe to this view." I agree to it as well.
I agree with mason. By not aiding Great Britian would be allowing Hitler and Mussolini to take over the world. "The dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, and their totalitarian governments, after conquering peaceful and neutral nations in Europe and enslaving their people, have proclaimed their determination to establish a "new world order". Nazism and Fascism have leagued their might to enforce with fire and the sword, their wills upon the existing world. The United States is a part of that world." This qoute came from the article Pass the Lend-Lease Bill: We Must Aid Great Britain. At this time, the axis forces are more powerful than the allies without the help of the United States. The German, Italian, and Japaneese armies are too powerful for Great Britian to defeat. If the U.S. does not join the war, they are making it easier for the axis to take over peaceful and neutral countries.
For the better of the United States, I believe that we should stay out of WWII. Responding to the first radio address, I completely agree with it. In it, Senator Burton says, "My sympathy for the British is both deep and genuine and is exceeded only by the depth and sincerity of my Americanism. No anti-British feeling dictates my opposition to the evasion or repeal of the Johnson and Neutrality Acts. I oppose all these because they lead us down that road with only one ending, total complete and futile war." This dictates my overall opinion. It is not that we do not want to help Britain, our long-time and reliable ally, but as we have just started reforming our country after an extremely detrimental depression, it is of best interest to remain out of the war. Citizens are still recovering from the disastrous effects of the Depression, but it is not only that. As Mason pointed out, becoming and interventionist country would advance our status as a country in global affairs. Yes, that is very important, however it can be achieved at other times, times when our country has the stability to solely focus on those affairs. The radio address also points out that war is expensive. Many citizens are already unemployed and simply put too poor to substantiate enough money to support a war effort. I am not saying we should not involve ourselves in war because we will lose an immense amount of money (although it may be true). I am noting that with a war comes debt. A lot of debt. If our country is just recovering from widespread financial debts, it does not seem logical to immerse ourselves in a situation that would only worsen the effects. So, unlike Mason and Maria, I am an isolationist. I believe that our country would prosper greatly and possibly even gain enough strength once again to intervene in the war, but at this point it time, we are not ready. It is best to stay out of the war, even if it means not supporting our allies. Once our country can handle war debt without deprecating our already miniscule funds, then we can intervene.
-jojo wollman
After reading the radio address from Senator Burton Wheeler I support the interventionists because after studying what led up to the war, I found the statement “The United States is no longer trudging along the road to war. We are running. Some feel that we have gone so fast and so far that there can be no stopping—no return to complete peace except via war” (Wheeler) true. Great Britain and France had passed the Appeasement Acts so they gave Hitler permission to do what he wished to try to keep him from getting aggressive. They failed and eventually he took over Poland angered many countries and that was the beginning of World War II. I feel like it is the obligation of the United States to aid Great Britain in whatever we can to keep the peace. Since the United Nations really doesn’t have the power to fight against communism and Hitler, there has to be someone that has to. Britain and France were the main Allie countries but since France got taken over, that only really leaves Britain standing alone and they need help from someone, and the United States is the only country that has everything that Great Britain is in need of.
I agree with Ishaar when he said that if someone doesn’t stop Hitler, he won’t stop until he exterminates all the Jews and controls the world. In order for someone to stop him and the Nazis, Britain needs the support of everyone that is willing to help and without the help of the United States, Great Britain and the other Allies don’t stand a chance against the Axis Powers.
Edith Campos
Class: 4
I believe that America needs to involve themself in the war, so I am an interventionist. Hitler seemed incredibly threatening in Europe, so what would prevent him from invading the United States if he succeeded in taking over Europe? Roosevelt talks about how war is a sickness and a disease in one of his speeches, because the demand for help increases as the threats and danger increase. Roosevelt also says, "If Great Britain falls, the United States will stand practically alone on the brink of the precipice". If Hitler and the Nazis find a way to destroy, corrupt, and invade Britain, then the United States will stand alone, without Britian as additional help and support. By stepping into the war, we secure an ally with Britain, and create a smaller risk of Hitler's plans becoming even more serious. We cannot afford to stand by and watch, because we could lose serious allies and important forces that can put a stop to Hitler if we act NOW.
Jake T.
After reading all of the radio addresses, I realize there are many different view points the US has on entering the war or not. Also, FDR's opinion on entry in the war is also very important. I have come to the conclusion that I am an interventionist. Great Britain is in need of help from a country like ours. Like Maria said, why should other countries help us when we are in need, if we don't help them? She is correct. We are allies to them, but they are also allies to us. Meaning that the help we give them is interchangeable. It is our country's and other countries' responsibility to make the world work as a whole and not against each other. So why shouldn't we help each other when we can? To say that we are not gaining anything by going into war is selfish and possibly untrue. We may gain respect from other countries in regards to our great deeds, and like FDR said, serving as an arsenal for other countries. Also, the reason we make allies is so we can have strong bonds and connections with certain countries which should help is in hard times in the future. In the article, "Pass the Lend-Lease Bill: We Must Aid Great Britain," Sen. Connally asks, "To those who oppose the bill, I pose the question: If we follow your wishes and defeat this bill, what shall then be our course? Shall we do nothing? Shall we close our eyes to the tide of conquest which has already engulfed peaceful and neutral nations and condemned to enslavement their people?" He has a good point here. If we don't help Great Britain, what are we going to do? Just sit here and shut out the rest of the world. We should not do this. We should do whatever we can to aid Great Britain and make our ties with them stronger.
Jess Sideleau
Class 6
I am responding to the radio adress by Senator Burton Wheeler, who is an isoslationist. I agree with him about World War II. "Believing as I do, in this thesis, I cannot help but feel that we should settle our own problems before we undertake to settle the problems of Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America and Europe. As Americans, interested first in America, what is our present stake? Our stakes are our independence, our democracy and our trade and commerce. Every red-blooded American would fight to preserve them." (Sen. Burton Wheeler). We have many problems in America such as, under fed people and people without homes, people with no where to go and people who can not afford to pay for food, medications or shelter. I feel that we should be taking care of America and all the people in it, before we go off to war and fight other people about problems we're not even involved in.
Danielle Ford
period 4
"We know that our own Democracy is menaced by the forces that now seek to destroy those Democracies across the Atlantic...If Great Britain falls, the United States will stand practically alone on the brink of the precipice." (Sen. James Byrnes). The radio address I am referring to is "By Aiding Britain, We Aid Ourselves: Our Own Democracy is Threatened." Upon reading it I realized that that is is our duty to help Britain, not only for there sake, but for ours as well. If Great Britain were to fall, The United States would be the only large democracy in the world, and we would be immediately targeted by the Nazis. Ishaar and i share this opinion, "If we don't support our allies, not only will Hitler become one step closer to absolute power, but it will turn the United States into a target." Those who think it is safer to stay out of the war are ignorant and don't realize how much helping our fellow democracy could save ourselves in the future. Also, if we don't help britain right now, we will inevitably be forced into the war by Germany later. Why would we want to fight without an Ally in democracy? The United States need to help Great Britain if they want to preserve democracy.
At this point in time, I would side with the isolationists. There is no direct reason to enter this war; no official threats against us or attacks on us. There’s no invasion by Germany and no direct goal, than just to aid England. But we can only aid England so much when our country is in a condition like it is; I mean we just came out of a depression! We shouldn’t be involving ourselves across Europe when we have our own problems to handle first. How can we go over and support the British in a war against Germany when we can’t even support our own people in this country? We don’t have the money or effort to spare. Sen. Burton Wheeler, in a speech discussing this issue, discussed the fact that “we have great problems at home… one-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad, and we have been told repeatedly, upon the highest authority, that unless and until this situation is corrected our democracy is in danger.” It’s not even that we should only think about ourselves, but when our country is so destroyed by this economic disaster, how much of an effect will we truly have on the outcome of this war? I understand Maria’s point about forming alliances so that we have countries there for us in our time of need, but with obsolete weapons and machinery and a lack of patriotism and enthusiasm after a decade long depression, we wouldn’t even be that helpful to the British. We would be diving into a war that could very well destroy all of our troops and resources. A war would put us in more debt than we already are in. If we don’t need to put ourselves in this position, we shouldn’t.
Erin B.
Class 6
By Aiding Britain, We Aid Ourselves: Our Own Democracy is Threatened
With the recent outbreak of WWII, America does not have the luxury of maintaining neutrality. Doing so would be cowardly and would only leave our country vulnerable to fascist aggression. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated in his State of the Union address on January 6, 1941, "at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today." We must assume the responsibility of interventionists.
At the current time, the limited safety that America has is directly connected to Britain's ability to restrict Hitler's expansion and violence in Europe. The radio address specifically addresses this in explaining that, "We are certain only that each day Britain holds Hitler we are better able to defend America." Therefore, the only way to potentially stop Hitler and restore the worldwide value of democracy would be to directly provide military aid to Britain. As Maria said, if Britain were to be incapable of preventing the progress of the Axis powers, the United States would be alone in the effort of defense. It is better to join forces now, than risk a more serious threat in the future.
Furthermore, although finances are evidently an issue as Dylan described that "America is already in enough financial trouble and creating supplies will cost millions," if we do not pay now, the consequential losses associated with losing this war would be much worse. Also, justice cannot be marked by a price. This war involves the importance of defending treasured values, not simply the economic success of individual nations. As stated in the radio address, "Free men do not stamp the dollar mark upon their liberty."
It is our responsibility as Americans and humans on Earth to defend the principles in which we believe.
Hannah M.
Class 6
I am an interventionist; I believe that it is essential that America helps out in World War II. Agreeing with what Maria said, if we don't support other countries now, who will ever want to help us in the future? In the Radio Address titled, Pass the Lend-Lease Bill, it states that "powerful and militant forces now arrogantly decree the extinction of freedom and democracy wherever their armies of conquest and plunder can march" which means that if the United States does not enter the war, our two most important basic principles of life (freedom and democracy) are being threatened. Nicole Davis questioned that if Hitler wins in Europe, what would make him not try to do the same in the Western Hemisphere? Winning for Hitler means creating a "new world order" like Mason said. That would be a totalitarian state for all, and that is something that the United States never wants. In the Radio Address, it also states that "Nazism and Fascism have leagued their might to enforce with fire and the sword, their wills upon the existing world. The United States is a part of that world." The United States is a part of the world that is being threatened, and the only way to stop those threats is to fight back and destroy those who are trying to overpower us. Therefore, I believe it is best that we intervene in this war. I know that there are a lot of problems still to face at home, but I believe that an even bigger problem is our freedom and democracy being endangered.
Amanda Stanton
Class 6
Isolationist. I read Senator Wheeler's Radio Address. He recognizes that involving our country into Britain's affairs will soon evolve into our entrance in the war. By repealing two acts, "they lead us down that road with only one ending, total complete and futile war." I think it is best that we just leave ourselves out out of the war because there have been no disputes involving the US yet. By lending artillery, countries will begin to fight alliances. By becoming the source for victory, enemies will begin to attack to try and weaken our armies.
Additionally, war is very costly. Wheeler mentions the statistic that one-third of Americans are ill-fed, housed, and clad. By entering into this war, we will plunge them into more debt because, ultimately, it is coming from American's pockets. Our country should focus on the current issues involving our citizens before attempting to mend those overseas.
Finally, Hunter points out that, "America will not gain land or power," from this war. It is not on our soil or involving our country. It is best we let the others fight their battles while we work to repair the damage that still resides in America.
Jessa M.
Class 1
America has gotten itself into war ever since we gained independence, and some of those could have been avoided. WWI was supported by big businesses that collected millions from the production of war machines and WWI was a reason that leads us into the depression in the first place. If America wasn't involved, then that could have changed everything.
That being said, WWII was a much different scenario. Germany was a much bigger force and was taking over much of Western Europe’s land but also the people’s freedoms which concerned Roosevelt the most. Japan was also attacking China and killed three Americans during these attacks in 1937 which also raised a red flag. Once Lindbergh started broadcasting from London, citizens of America realized it was a war against not the soldiers but ALL of Western Europe’s citizens which could not be tolerated, which then prompted America to become involved with the war which I fully agreed with. Lindbergh said "I concluded that the United States was the only nation in the world capable of equaling or excelling Germany in aviation" after visiting London. Without intervention, Britain would have had too much trouble and not enough man power to control Germany which had control over every nation surrounding England at the time. Without Americas help there might not be an America or England on the world map anymore. I agree with Mason that if we did not intervene then we would lose all the culture entities. Also Roosevelt who was a democrat and thought of what was right for the people signed a neutrality act. He signed a neutrality act and STILL thought we should still fight in the war, that’s how much we needed to help and intervene before it was too late.
-Stefan H. Class 6
After reading the articles, I completely believe with Charles Lindbergh's argument. Lindbergh explains how there may be some positives in siding with England, but the negatives and risks are far greater. Siding with the English not only dragged us into a world war, but it also held us responsible to act in all major European conflicts. Not only is it not financially smart, but why? Why go into this war, when we really don't NEED to. Yea, it might make us stronger with some major powers around the world, but this is a World War we are talking about. Lindbergh feels the same way as I do when America was in this pickle, "It does make a difference to us, a great difference. But I do not believe that it is either possible or desirable for us in America to control the outcome of European wars." Charles says how there are positives like I said before, but if you think about it, it's not worth it nor is it 'desirable' for the people. Going back to the financial factor, I completely agree with Dylan and how we have our own problems to focus on within our own country. After just recovering from The Great Depression, war is the last thing our people or economy needs.
-Will Fletcher
Class 4
I feel in WW11 isolationists had more logical ideas. I agree with Mason Maria and Nicole how we seemed to be obligated to help in the war. However the first article states that it is best to preserve and be careful of our independence. It also states however, that we sympathize with the opressed everywhere. This includes our own country. We see that, as the article states, "one third of the population is ill-fed, ill-housed, and ill-clad."
However, we still noticed the other people in need. This is why this can be such a tough issue or question to answer because there sometimes seems as if both answers are wrong. However, I truly believe in isolationists in this case. They support not only their own country but others and the ideas tied along as well. In another article it is stated," I do not believe that the danger to America lies in an invasion from abroad. I believe it lies here at home in our own midst, and that it is exemplified by the terms of this bill—the placing of our security in the success of foreign armies and the removal of power from the representatives of the people in our own land." Even though we were supposedly in danger by our own country rather than others. I believe that the more logical way to go is isolationists because of the problems our own countries face on a daily basis, believing in fixing our own problems before others. This deals with now a days even with Haiti and other countries having problems.
Katie Shirley
Per.4
It is completely accurate in the Radio Adress article when it states: "we should settle our own problems before we undertake to settle the problems of Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America and Europe." I agree with this because we have many problems of our ow that need to bbe resolved before we get our nation into more trouble across the globe. It would be pointless for us to go into war for a European nation at the moment because it would only hurt us socially, politically, and economically.
Our allies in Europe call out to us for help in defending their homelands and families and it is our duty to support them in their defense. They are running out of money and resources and our country cannot simply stand by and watch. As FDR said in his speech, "we cannot, and will not them them that they must surrender". It is therefore of utmost importance that we intervene and come to their aid. I agree with Nicole in that it is our duty to aid out allies, just as they would help us in our time of need.
-Kevin
I believe that it is our duty and obligation to help our allies, and our friends. After viewing the video and reading the article Pass the Lend-Lease Bill: We must Aid Great Britain,i would definitely side with the interventionists. "The Lease-Lend Bill proposes to furnish supplies and munitions, but not men, to Great Britain, and other free governments who are resisting the aggressors" (Connally). By helping out Britain, we are not giving up our lives, we are just trying to save the lives of millions of Europeans who are being killed everyday. In addition we will be saving and fighting for what we stand for, Democracy. In the article it said "Our democratic institutions and system of free government are opposed to their concept of a "new world order", of totalitarianism and personal tyranny. The dictators speak of Democracy and free government in America with scorn and arrogant contempt" (Connally). I believe that we shouldn't just sit back and watch as the rest of the world is taken over by the totalitarian states. Also by aiding Britain in a time of need, we can assure ourselves that they will help us during a time of need. Furthermore Nicole talked about how in Roosevelt's Quarantine Speech, he compared war to a disease. And how as it spreads, everyone is called to help out to stop the spread before it goes any further. I agree with Roosevelt because if the disease spreads too much it might be too late to save yourself. And if fascism spread too much before we got a handle on it then it might be too late to gain control of it , and save ourselves from a world of dictators and cruelty.
-Eni Musaka
Class 6
I agree with the interventionist policy of Senator James Byrnes. After reading Byrnes radio address I saw why many people thought we should enter the war even before the attack on Pearl Harbor. I thought Byrnes had a valid point when he said "If we could be certain that Britain would defeat Hitler we could and would stop appropriating money for military purposes. But we cannot be certain of it." I agree with Mason when he said that if we had let Germany continue their rule of terror on the world then all the irreplaceable cultural aspects would be a massive loss to the world today.
On this specific issue, I believe that intervening is the best choice for America. Britain is in dire need of our assistance, and it's not an unreasonable plea. As FDR put it in his speech in the video, Britain is not in need of our troops or our man power, they are in need of supplies. We don't even need to put our citizens or troops at risk in this situation, we only need to provide weapons, supplies, or just money in this situation. In the third article "By Aiding Britain, We Aid Ourselves: Our Own Democracy is Threatened" stated that: "All democracies made the same error while this storm was gathering. All of us delayed too long in perfecting our defenses. Many nations are paying in bondage for this error. Great Britain was unprepared..." This is very true, and think about if we did aid Great Britain, they would be much more inclined to help our nation in tough times, if tough times were to ensue. In short, the only logical choice here is to intervene, to aid, and to take a stand against these Axis powers!
-Chris Arnone
"We must not wait until the invader sets his footsteps upon our soil or challenges us upon the sea and in the air." This quote was taken from the last URL which was about the pass of the Lead-Lease Bill. I believe that it woudl be best for the US to fight along side Great Britian. Mason had stated that by aiding Britian we would be creating allies and allow future progression. I agree with what he says about how if we didn't step in Germany could have taken over much of Europe. BY passing the Lead-Lease Bill we were able help out our allies with the war and this gave us time to prepare our men for the war. It was said that it doesn't matter who wins the war over in Europe. it doesn't effect us. However, it would. If Germany won then it would be the greastest country and most powerful. With the power that it would obtain it the country would continue to expand and sooner or later the US would get involved, after millions of people could have died. So we should just get involved now and end the worlds suffering sooner than later. We must join forces with Great Britian and lead them the tools they need to take down Hitler and aid them in anyway including sending over troops.
Grace McKinley
Class 1
For years, The United Stated of America has been guided and inspired by the powerful policy of the Monroe Doctrine. As every isolationist knows, this document states that European presence is not welcome in the Western Hemisphere and at the same time, America will stay out of European affairs. However, this war's boundaries have exceeded physical restraints. This war is questioning the core fundamentals of democracy. As an interventionist, I agree with Lisa when she says that America can simply "not tolerate" the aggressive Axis Powers. As Senator James Byrnes said, "We know that our own Democracy is menaced by the forces that now seek to destroy those Democracies across the Atlantic". Every battle we have fought, every life ended for the preservation of our democratic system will be in vain if we simply watch Europe burn. For many years, the United States has taken the role as an international peace-keeper. We helped those we believed to be just during World War One as well. The Depression has left us scarred but America has changed to eliminate the possibility of these events reoccurring. This is not a time to turn our heads. Many argue that our national safety is risked by intervening, but I feel that taking no action is worse. Both courses of action pose a threat to Americans, "...but if we aid Britain, and the theater of war remains in Europe, our own cities will stand intact, stalwart witnesses to the progress recorded by our way of life" (Byrnes). This war is expanding on a scale that is precedented only by World War One. As a nation, we must band together to keep the fight out of our country.
I believe I have to side with the interventionists when the Lend-Lease Bill comes into question. It is Americas duty to help and aid Britain in their sole fight against the Nazi superpower of Hitler's Germany. If we left Britain out to dry against Germany then we would be the only country able to stop Hitler and in our economic struggle it is not possible without aid from another country. As Maria said, if we don't help Britain now in there their time of need, who is going to be willing to help us when we need it? As the third address states, "We are certain only that each day Britain holds Hitler we are better able to defend America." This means if Britain is able fend off Hitler for a little while longer with our help then we are going to be able to get back on feet and properly fight Hitler when the time comes. By providing aid to Britain we are able to provide ourselves with an ally and someone who will be there when we need help.
"If Germany prefers Nazism and Italy embraces Fascism, that is their right. They have no right to impose their systems by force upon us." (Connally). Just as Mason did, I support Tom Connally's radio address on the passing of the Lend-Lease Bill and aiding Great Britain. By becoming interventionists and forging an alliance with Great Britain, we pre-paved a benevolent governmental and economic relationship between the two countries, but more importantly, we seized the opportunity to aid Europe in desperate times. Considering the immense moral issue of how fascism and the reign of leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini were destroying Europe, America's most ethical response would be to fight to dismantle political regimes that put certain peoples in danger. If we adopted isolationism, we would have turned our back on Great Britain and the European societies that were crying out for help. Further on, in Connally's address, he states "that the defense of the country to whom aid may be extended is vital to the defense of the United States." In the long run, by aligning with Great Britain and fighting against the political plagues that struck Europe, we essentially helped in putting an end to the malevolent axis forces in Europe, and forged new alliances in the process.
- Sage Musk
Class 6
Interventionist, Article 3. I agree with Mason West, it is our friends, and keep a " global " friendship. I know that we aren't technically allies with Britain or France, but we have been sending them supplies throughout the whole war. It is also true that we were battling problems on the home front, but what is a better way to raise morale than fighting for a common cause? By uniting the country across the seas, we will unite the country on the homefront. This has been shown during World War 1 when our industry was booming while at war. People were stepping up to get the job done, women, children, men incapabale of fighting. Everyone was doing their job. There is no reason to expect any less during a 2nd world war. Also if democracy in Europe is conquered, it is only a matter of time until it is conquered in the U.S. It is apparent that Germany is winning the war on all fronts, something needs to be done to stop them.
Fratt Class 4
I, like Jojo, believe that the best course of action for the United States is to stay out of the war, and am therefore an isolationist. European affairs and problems are of, at the time, no particular consequence to the US. Let them deal with their problems, seeing as we already have more than we can handle of our own. Before we hope to help others, we must first help ourselves. We're incapable of helping others before ourselves anyway. As Senator Wheeler stated in the first radio address, "Believing as I do, in this thesis, I cannot help but feel that we should settle our own problems before we undertake to settle the problems of Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America and Europe" (Wheeler). If we have problems of our own, how do we plan on solving the problems of others? If we're not functioning, how can we reconstruct a functioning structure for another nation? It just isn't logical. Edith used the quote, "The United States is no longer trudging along the road to war. We are running. Some feel that we have gone so fast and so far that there can be no stopping—no return to complete peace except via war” (Wheeler) stating that we have no choice but to intervene and go to war, but what she failed to include was the continuation of this quote, ". But we are at peace and we can remain at peace if either one of the two lines of action is pursued. First, Americans in greater number must firmly resolve and express themselves that we will fight no offensive war" (Wheeler). If you read the quote in it's entirety, it's clear that what Wheeler was really trying to say is that the United States must NOT intervene in European affairs, and that if we want peace we must at all costs isolate ourselves. Edith also states, in agreement with Ishaar, that if someone doesn't stop Hitler he will exterminate all the Jews and take over the world. However, at the time, the rest of the world was unaware of the extermination camps, so that cannot be a point of persuasion for intervening as it didn't exist. The isolationist point of view at the time seems to be the best. America still had high unemployment rates, homeless people, no money, and was trying to recover itself. How could such a broken-down, unstable nation hoping to recoop itself even think to spend money and time overseas when it's so dearly needed on our own shores?
Alex Klein
Period 4
I would consider myself and interventionist when it comes to WWII. I think Lisa made a great point in bringing up the fact that human beings were being killed. The only way to stop the fascism was with war and by helping Great Britain, our ultimate allies, we would be doing something helpful while still being able to focus on our own needs and issues. Also, before the US can intervene and help Britain they must "find that the defense of the country to whom aid may be extended, is vital to the defense of the United States". So if the US does intervene, it will be for good reason and will be beneficial to our own nation as well.
-Troy
In my opinion I believe the best thing for America to do is remain neutral. We have our own problems to worry about (depression, dust bowl, etc.) I agree with Hunter because there really is no need at this time to go into a war that doesn't effect us. Although there are many people in need over seas, we have to look at America first. This is why it is best to remain an isolationist. There are still people in America with no home, money, or food and our first priority should be our selves. I agree with the words of Charles Lindbergh “I do not believe that it is either possible or desirable for us in America to control the outcome of European wars”. Putting the strain of war and conflict on our country in one of our weakest times could potentially be a fatal mistake, and an unnecessary one at that. Ally. Period 4
I agree with Maddie that during World War II the United States should have chosen to be isolationists. In the first article, it states that, "One-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad." Americans need to focus on the problems in our own country before we try to help out other countries. It would be wrong to provide aid to other countries when our own people are suffering at home. Also, if America enters the war, poor Americans will have to pay for the costs and debt. This would only cause poor Americans to struggle even more, consequently hurting our economy. The fact that the United States just got out of the Great Depression should convince Americans to stay isolated. Don't Americans want to recover completely before becoming involded with more possible problems? In addition to this, if America becomes involved in the war, it would result in many American soldier casualties. I agree with Maddie that protecting American citizens should come before helping European nations. In the first article, it says, "Remember, if we lend or lease war materials today, we will lend or lease American boys tomorrow." After suffering through World War I and the Great Depression, Americans can't emotionally handle the loss of loved ones. Because of these reasons, America should become isolationists.
Jess Haitz
class 1
I agree with Kyle that we have a priority to solve our problems at home before becoming involved with problems abroad. Senator Burton Wheeler states: "one-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad...unless and until this situation is corrected our democracy is in danger." I believe that Britain and France are very strong allies of ours and that we should help them but at our countries current states thers is not much help we can provide without putting our country into greater danger.
Alex Kelly
Class 4
While we can sympathize with Great Britain in its time of crisis, it is far too risky for the United States to get involved. Isolationism is the most secure option for the American people. Entering the war would most likely do more harm than good, as Charles Lindbergh has so clearly pointed out.
Air combat proves to be an impossible action against Germany, for while we match their planes in number, we fail to match them in strength. As Lindbergh noted, the planes that Germany uses have been constructed for the purpose of military combat, as opposed to ours which have been designed for "commercial purposes". This alone should stifle any hope that we would have in terms of our aid being beneficial to Britain. In addition, Germany basically has Great Britain surrounded with bases, so that the mass of its air power can strike directly. We must also take into account that Great Britain is limited in its ability to move freely, considering just how much land Germany has occupied.
Cory Fisher mentions that the Allied powers are weak in comparison to the Axis powers. However, U.S. intervention would only make matters worse. By intervening in this affair, the United States may in fact be prolonging the war as opposed to shortening it. Considering England's situation and our meager air force, we would only be delaying the inevitable, losing both resources and soldiers along the way. Plus, with Germany's sea and air power, transfer of these resources would be far too risky. America has all it needs to defend itself, but not another country.
Charles Pryor
Class-6
I agree with Maddie, Hunter and Dylan on the fact that America should not get involved in the war and should not aid Britain and France. I understand that it is good to help out your friends, but this is just one war that it is better to stay out of. For one, like Hunter said, we would have numerous casualties if we went to war with no true benefit. And like Senator Burton Wheeler said in his radio address, "Just as I love the United States so do I dislike Hitler and all that he symbolizes. My sympathy for the British is both deep and genuine and is exceeded only by the depth and sincerity of my Americanism. No anti-British feeling dictates my opposition to the evasion or repeal of the Johnson and Neutrality Acts. I oppose all these because they lead us down that road with only one ending, total complete and futile war." Although I do feel bad for the British and French, I do not feel that this is our war to fight. We should just stay focused on the economic issue we have at home. What is happening in our own backyards is more important than what is happening thousands of miles away. And besides, the war does not impose any threat on us at the moment. By staying neutral, we can keep ourselves from endangering any American lives.
"Every Red-Blooded American would fight to preserve them(our freedoms and country)" (Burton). I am responding to the Radio Address by Sen. Burton Wheeler. My stance is that it was our obligation to become interventionists in WWII. Coming from a country of freedom and liberty, we sympathize and feel badly for the oppressed and persecuted everywhere. Aiding Britain and creating alliances will greatly help us in the future with global trade and friendship. America was considered the heroes that finally put an end to WWI. Why not be the heroes again? The Japanese are on our doorstep, it may not be long before they come crashing down on us. As Ishaar said "If we don't support our allies, not only will Hitler become one step closer to absolute power, but it will turn the United States into a target". We can not use England as out safety in between us and the Germans and we don't even have a safety between us and the Japanese. If we don't act now we will be the only target left for them to conquer.
I believe that it is in our countries best interest to become interventionists and aid our allies. As Morgan, and many other people have noted, if we do not intervene, there will be nothing holding Hitler back from absolute power. Not only does aiding our allies help Britain,but it also helps our country . in "by aiding Britain,we aid ourselves" James Byrnes states, "If Britain can hold Hitler for a year, we can hold him forever. Self preservation, therefore, demands that we now give Britain aid instead of sympathy." Without our help, the axis' plan to create a "new world order" would be possible.As Nicole said, we are obviously included in this plan,and therefore,are threatened too. Britain needs us in order to stand against the axis power.By helping them, not only are we helping to protect our country from becoming a target,but we are also creating a strong alliance. If we aid the allies now, they will most likely be willing to aid us in the future.
Overall, without the U.S. aid in WWII, Hitler may have defeated France and Britain. This could have resulted in a loss of democracy in the U.S. For these reasons, i am definitely an interventionist.
After reading the first article "Radio Address" i agree with the isolationists. The war has nothing to do with us. We wont benefit anything by entering the war. Americans are already in hard economic times and asking them to go fight others battles would not be right. Men are out of work and families are starving because there is no money to buy food. Burton Wheeler stated "Believing as I do, in this thesis, I cannot help but feel that we should settle our own problems before we undertake to settle the problems of Asia, I agree with maddie, it is more important for our nation to help itself before helping others, and the only thing we will gain from war is American casualties.Africa, Australasia, South America and Europe." Also, entering the war would be costly. The Untied States is already in tough economic times and most americans cant afford to help support the war. All money for the war would come from Americans pockets when theres no extra money to give.
Like Hunter French, I too am an Isolationist in the particular time period and war. What would really help our country is preparing our own defense, rather than sending our troops elsewhere. Not to mention, Germany is much closer to England than Germany is to America. Thus, according to Lindbergh, they will have the advantage to carry more bombs while American planes will have to carry fuel. Likewise, Germany would have a much longer warning time than would America in England, should an attack happen. Germany’s geographical factors as well as strong air force make them much more powerful than England and America combined (Lindbergh). Although I sympathize for the British, going to war would put our democracy and independence at risk (Wheeler). Although we would be sending men and women to protect others, there is no guarantee that all of our troops will come back alive. That’s to top off the already struggling society that America has been dealing with. Currently, “One-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad” (Wheeler). It would be more beneficial to England if we corrected the issues at home. Then, and only then, could we expand our generosity to others.
Lauren Bauer
Class 4
During this period of time I feel that I would be an interventionist. Hitler has just made the first move by invading Poland. We need to recognize how quickly he has risen to power and what he is willing to do to advance said power. Clearly he is a much bigger threat than he was originally pegged as. If left unattended it could be predicted that he will eventually make his way to the United States and by that time he may have gained enough momentum to best us. Now, I do see Miss. Begg’s point that our country was in a depression, however when the war begins a plethora of jobs in manufacturing are opened up which quickly brings us out of the depression as well as provides Britain with recourses needed for their fighting. Without us supplying them with recourses Germany would have easily taken over Great Britain. Now along with these points, millions of lives could have been spared. At the time of course we didn’t know what a toll this war would take on the world, but a war is a war and we had already seen lives lost when the Germans began bombing the UK. Now imagine if we had entered the war earlier we could have saved lives from being lost from the conquests in Russia, Africa and China. As Roosevelt states, “Just as I love the United States so do I dislike Hitler and all that he symbolizes. My sympathy for the British is both deep and genuine and is exceeded only by the depth and sincerity of my Americanism.” (Wheeler). He too saw the destruction Germany was wreaking and stands by the belief that America is a nation that upholds ideals of Liberty and Freedom for all not just for our own nation.
-Sean Fahey
"We sympathize with the oppressed and persecuted everywhere. We also realize that we have great problems at home, that one-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed and ill-clad, and we have been told repeatedly, upon the highest authority, that unless and until this situation is corrected our democracy is in danger. I fully subscribe to this view. Believing as I do, in this thesis, I cannot help but feel that we should settle our own problems before we undertake to settle the problems of Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America and Europe. As Americans, interested first in America, what is our present stake? Our stakes are our independence, our democracy and our trade and commerce. Every red-blooded American would fight to preserve them." (Radio Address: Senator Burton Wheeler). I strongly agree with this statement. I believe that the United States should remain an isolationist. Everyone always wants to rush out and help other countries so that they can be a hero. Yet all they have to do is look at our own country. We have just as many problems as others do and we should work more on fixing those before we help others. As Mikaela said "I believe that it is a government's responsibility to defend its country and work for the greatest benefits of all its citizens. It is not the US government's responsibility to improve the lives of the British or the French; it's not its responsibility to defend those outside the nation's borders." The United States should solve their own problems such as homelessness and poverty, pollution, etc. and then we can worry about others. This war has nothing to do with us; it is not affecting us in any way. Like Switzerland we should remain neutral and not get involved in it. It is not our war to fight and we shouldn’t be expected to sacrifice Americans lives because the British and French can't hold their own against Germany.
Erin Cunningham
Period 4
Think about what would have changed if the US decided not to intervene and remain neutral in WWII. Entry served advantageous for Allied countries fighting on against the Axis powers. Without involvement, there is a higher chance of the Axis power winning the war, if anything at all. Even if Japan never attacked those two places, it would still be highly likely that the United States would have entered the war due to countless of other provocations. Ultimately, while resistance movements occurred history as well as current situations have clearly shown that resistance toward the United States joining WWII is entirely egocentric. Like the article stated, “there is nothing altruistic about the determination of the United States to aid those nations now defending themselves against the forces of aggression." I agree with what Maria said when concerning giving and getting help. At the time, America had its own issues to deal with but we have put ourselves in similar circumstances through by madness and destruction. People help people because we are ALL people. no matter where the border is.
Julie Ficks
Class 4
After reading the second radio address by Charles Lindbergh, I do not believe the United States should get involved in WW11. I agree with Hunter, that first off we don't even have anything to gain by going to a war being fought miles overseas. While we have our own problems at home, we shouldn't be dealing with those of other nations such as Great Britain and France. It's only causing more of a threat to our own country. We won't even be able to gain anything as an outcome of this war. "I advocate building strength in America because I believe we can be successful in this hemisphere. I oppose placing our security in an English victory because I believe that such a victory is extremely doubtful."(Lindbergh). I agree with the statement that Lindbergh makes here because, while Britain needs our help, it's not guaranteed they will win even if we do chose to support them. If they were to lose and we were to aid them this whole time, it would end up being a lost cause and leaving us in much unneeded debt. Also, if we were to focus on ourselves instead of the war in Europe, we could quietly strengthen our country while the others are fighting overseas in order to make us even stronger in the end. In all, I believe it is a much better choice for the United States to remain isolationists and to focus on ourselves at home rather than the war in Europe.
I personally agree with Colleen I am an interventionist on this issue. In a devastating event such as the holocaust for a country to turn away from everything because it doesn't suit them to go into to war seems very unfair especially with the great power and force of the U.S army. In this situation I think it would be much harder to stay out of the war then it would be to intervene so I wonder why the government would choose the harder route. Also there would be no stopping a man like Hitler, once he conquered Europe there was no stopping him expanding over to the U.S and others so there would have to been a point of the U.S intervening.
Personally, after reviewing the articles, comments and arguments I stand with the interventionists. I stand beside Mason and Greg when they argue about having global relationships. If we did not intervene we could have lost strong powers that hypothetically would be there for us during a crisis of our own. One particular quote from the third artical says, "Let us face the facts. The reason we are feverishly working to provide an Army and Navy is to defend ourselves against the Axis powers. If we could be certain that Britain would defeat Hitler we could and would stop appropriating money for military purposes. But we cannot be certain of it. We are certain only that each day Britain holds Hitler we are better able to defend America. If Britain can hold Hitler for a year, we can hold him forever. Self preservation, therefore, demands that we now give Britain aid instead of sympathy." The gist of this quote by Senator James Byrnes is that we would be doing ourselves a favor by assisting England with their fight against Hitler. Number one, we would have increased military power, number two we would have Englands backing in the future and thirdly we would be seen as more of a world power.
T. Hough
Per. 6
In the years leading up to the United States joining the second world war, Hitler made only poor attempts to disguise his true ambitions in his rise to power with the Third Reich. Sen James Byrne observed in his radio address on January 17th 1941 that "There is another group of people who believe that we can rely upon the statement of Hitler that he has no dreams of world conquest. But we cannot forget a long and gory list of broken pledges." He then went on to detail this specific list of promises broken by Hitler. Time and time again, he had asserted that his relationship with a certain country would remain friendly, then months later would invade that country.
Due to this obvious pattern of deception, the United States was certainly justified in presuming that Hitler would only continue to seek to conquer the world country by country, including our own. Our liberty was in grave and evident danger by 1941 and any further delay in entering the war would have only served to allow Hitler to strengthen his position to such a point that his defeat may have become almost impossible.
Furthermore, being the foothold of freedom in the world, we possess a moral responsibility to not stand silently while injustices are committed wholesale against masses of our fellow men around the world. A wise British man once said "The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." America, being created from and preserved by good men, could not stand by and allow such evil to be propagated.
Simply stated: the only way to stop Hitler was to make available to the allied forces the full power and resources of the American Military as well as our industrial resources, and for that reason I firmly believe Americans had the obligation to be interventionists.
-Justina
I believe I agree with many of my classmates when I stand on the interventionist side. Ignoring drastic suffering is not only irrogant and inhumane, but I believe consequential in the end. The isolationist texts of course support incredibly valid arguements, however in this specific case, if the US had ignored the war, the world might be a very different place. Bulding on what James Byrnes said, I believe we need to not only protect people, but ideas, and ways of life.
I could not agree with Hunter anymore, the United States should have stayed out of the war. There was no gain for us but since we feel that we are the best super power we always feel the need to intervene and go to war. The following quote comes from the first link, "We also realize that we have great problems at home...". If there are problems at home then why should we be going off spending more money in an already tough time to get involved in something that does not effect us. It seems to me as we like to throw money away for the sake of going to war. The quote that Hunter used to describe Hitler's army coming to the Rockies is a perfect example why we should have stayed out of this war. Are country's safety had not been threatened yet.
I believe that Dana could not have responded better to the Isolationists vs. Interventionists better. I completley agree with what she is saying. Not only do we have to protect people, but we also have to protect ideas. Its really easy to say "We should all just worry about our own problems. America should have stayed out of the war" is extreamly easy to do in the comfort of our home. These ideas would change drastically if we were the ones who needed help from our allies. Hunter said "Nothing is gained from involving American in this war" I will be the first to say that I think war is wrong. There is no sense in murdering eachother to try to get things done. But America did gain something from joining the war in europe. We gained respect and global friendships. Ones that will reflect upon us when we need them. War is no time to be selfish.
I strongly agree with Maria, after watching the video and reading a few articles I am an interventionist for WWII. I feel that we should all be helping out our surrounding countries to the best of our ability, even in our bad conditions as a country with the high poverty levels and poorness is found throughout. In addition, Hitler was a universal world threat that could soon reach America itself. Furthermore, as it is stated in the article, "By Aiding Britain, We Aid Ourselves:Our Own Democracy is Threatened," how our democracy is made to not only withstand such democracies but to but an end to those democracies across the Atlantic. It would also further hurt us if Great Britain ends up falling and we will end up being alone. Not only will it be because others wont feel the need to help us out next time we're in trouble because we didn't help them out, but there will be no real Great Britain. Instead it'll be run by Hitler, therefore exceeding the fact that we wouldn't get any help from them also because Hitler would be ruling. Either way if we don't stop the wars over seas, or at least help out by selling them weapons then soon we might become the next victim of Hitlers wars. Like in the article, you can't always avoid war, even if everyone doesn't want war, sometimes you just have no choice in the matter.
Cassie Fallon
class 1
Sorry i completely forgot about to blog so i hope i can get half credit for it.
“there is nothing altruistic about the determination of the United States to aid those nations now defending themselves against the forces of aggression…if Great Britain falls, the United States will stand practically alone on the brink of the precipice.” I for one know i am an interventionist. the fact is that the entire would is somehow involved in the war and if we did not step in most likely the Germans and Hitler would have won the war and i as well as i believe everyone in the world can agree that Hitler must be stopped. but once Hitler (as the quote i used said) if her took down Great Britain then we would pretty much stand alone against Germany and all of the axis powers. waiting to see the outcome of something is never a good idea when you have the ability to control the outcome.
-Brendan McNamara class 4
"The dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, and their totalitarian governments, after conquering peaceful and neutral nations in Europe and enslaving their people, have proclaimed their determination to establish a "new world order". Nazism and Fascism have leagued their might to enforce with fire and the sword, their wills upon the existing world. The United States is a part of that world." - This quote shows that the Facist and Nazi powers of Italy, Germany and Japan are ready for a takeover. As many of my classmates have said, those 3 countries are too strong for the rest of Europe because the only real other military power in Europe is England. Without the US's help, the war without a doubt would have ended in a different way and our whole world would have been changed. Being interventionists was the right choice for the US to make in WWII, otherwise the world would have turned upside down.
Andy Kelley
With this debacle, I personally believe that we should intervene in this war. Though as of yet, there has been no attack to us personally, I think that Germany is an ever increasing threat to us and our safety. As Dana previously stated, “Ignoring drastic suffering is not only arrogant and inhumane, but I believe consequential in the end.” Germany has invaded multiple innocent countries as well as our allies. This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated. They have gone against the Treaty of Versailles, so we should act upon this before it gets out of hand. “Our independence can only be lost of compromised if Germany invades the Western Hemisphere north of the equator” (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1592).
Nathan
I disagree that the country is obligated to become interventionists during World War II. I believe that introducing our country to the war will not give us more power, but instead weaken us even more. Having a war be present is draining enough, but to actually be involved in it would put our country on a much lower level. As the second article states,"This bill even authorizes the transfer of the equipment that our air forces now possess. From the standpoint of aviation, at least, I believe this policy weakens our security in America." I have to agree that intervening with other countries in the area of weaponry, even if they are our ally, will starve our country of power. The United States during this time period were trying to attain powerful military forces, weaponry, as well as create world peace. I would just consider isolation the better choice for the U.S., in order to remain as powerful as possible. Because being neutral will cause less harm then jumping into something as detrimental as the second world war.
As a second statement, I completely agree with what Hunter stated about the United States still recovering, "To go to war would only mean American casualties. Aren't Americans suffering enough without having to deal with stories of death all around them. Right now Americans ares till trying to recover from this economic depression that has crushed all men."
I agree with Hunter in that we should just stay out of the war. In the radio address, Senator Wheeler talks about how if Hitler couldn't take Britain in months when it is only a few miles away. America is under no direct threat from Nazi Germany, and have so far not shown any signs of aggression toward our nation. Senator Wheeler also talked about how if we joined it would only mean American casualties that would be unnecessary. Right now, it is in our best interests to stay out of this war in Europe.
After reading the Four Freedoms speech I have determined that I'm an Isolationest. When I think back to what it would have been lick back in the 1940's, I think about the fact that the United States was just recovering from the great depression, If I was alive back then I would be alot more focused on myself rather then a war that doesn't concern me. In FDR's speech he after he mentions each of the four freedoms he says "everywhere in the world" to tell you the truth I bet you someone working 8 hour days on minimun wage 5 to 6 days a week could care less about freedom "everywhere in the world". Back then people were more focused on their own agendas not the worlds.
I completely agree with Senator Donally’s belief that we should intervene in the European War. While I do believe we should take time to mobilize, the combined powers of Hitler and Stalin will eventually conquer not only Europe, but maybe the whole world as well. In the speech, Donally asks, “Shall we do nothing?” which I think harkens back to our late arrival in the Great War, where our prolonged neutrality also helped prolong a devastating war. While I can feel sympathy in Senator Byrnes’ thoughts to stay neutral, I feel it will lead to disastrous consequences.
Hitler has already talked of eliminating minorities in his speeches, such as Jews and gypsies. While some are having doubts about his seriousness, he has proven that he is willing to carry out his plans. The year before his invasion of Poland, he carried out Kristallnacht, a program that targeted several Jews and even resulted in a few deaths. This reminds me of the persecution of the Puritans in 18th century, which resulted in them coming to America. Also, I completely agree with Lisa in that we shouldn’t bow down to dictators
Post a Comment