Was the U.S. justified in getting involved in World War II? To what extent was the United States responsible for its own involvement in being brought into World War II? FDR avoided the war, at least in terms of formal policy for a couple of years. Still, as the issues got heated in Europe, FDR felt compelled to change the nature of the Neutrality Acts prior to becoming involved. Stockpiling, trading on "cash and carry" basis and avoiding the initial clauses of the Neutrality Acts (and supply resources to China in its war against Japan)enable FDR to become involved in Japan and Europe without becoming involved. Was FDR motivated by war or was the German threat to democracy real enough in FDR's mind to consider becoming involved (well before Pearl Harbor)?
It is clear that whatever the motivation, we have read that FDR took deliberate action to antagonize the Axis Powers before our involvement, but perhaps the stockpiling and industrialization of the U.S. also served as a way out of the Great Depression. Was the loss of life deliberately conceived of before our involvement in the war? While the answer to that is complicated (to say the least) it is a question to ponder.
Another theme to consider while analyzing this era, is that of the leader and the history s/he has at hand. Mr. Roosevelt had non-other to look at than Woodrow Wilson. At first he seemed to follow some of the same policies: directly keeping the United States out of War but indirectly putting her on the scene by supplying "colleague" nations. What does it take for a leader, with the fate of the country in her/his hands, to make the "correct decision?
ReplyDeleteSo far what I've read this week has shown another prospective to how people were so called "United" during the WWII time frame. Yes to some point the country did band together, either by joining the military or by supporting the war financially. However, all this baning together didnt include everyone infact it excluded and made a mockery of these certain people. Im talking about the African Americans who lived during the war. They tried to do their part by contributing but were only harassed and in many cases killed when they were only trying to help their country during its time of need. The reasoning FDR uses to justify this war was to fight for and preserve democracy. This had many African Americans asking questions like "If the U.S. is fighting for the democracy that allows its own people to be treated this way then why should I fight?" This started a seperate non-violent war in the U.S. the war for true democracy and equal oportunitty in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteGood Manny. Something that I find interesting is that it seems minorities in the United States have never really fought for democracy rather they have been fighting for the rights granted under constitutional republicanism--the masses rule for the common interest. Consider Aristotle's ideas concerning his differentiation between democracy and constitutional democracy...
ReplyDeleteSo here's my question: Is it necessary that we consider everyone as we fight toward a greater cause? Utalitarianism tells us that sometimes we must sacrifice some for the greater good. Perhaps this was the case in World War II. Perhaps it was important to present, at least initially, a united front in order to achieve the greater freedoms that we now cherish. We will discuss how this changes in Vietnam, but for at least the first two World Wars it seems that we were highly successful (as a country) mainly because we demonstrated a united front.
ReplyDelete