The historical notion that President Franklin D. Roosevelt led the United States into war is a subject that causes heated discussions among historians. The isolationist/internationalist debate has been used as a lens through which to examine Roosevelt’s actions and policies when he was president, notably in the period leading up to America’s engagement in World War II. This ongoing ideological debate centred on whether or not the United States should pursue an isolationist and non-interventionist foreign policy. Critics contend that Roosevelt’s steady pivot from an originally isolationist to a more interventionist posture, reflected in measures like the Lend-Lease Act and diplomatic contacts, indicated a wish to involve the U.S. in the international battle[1]. Defenders of Roosevelt, however, contend that his actions were practical answers to the fast-changing international environment and that, in the end, he sought to uphold world stability and safeguard American interests in the face of growing dangers from all directions. Insights into the complicated choices that defined America’s position in the turbulent years preceding the war can be gained by unravelling this historical perspective’s intricacies. This paper will discuss how might that historical view be rooted in the isolationist/internationalist.
The historical view that blames President Franklin D. Roosevelt for luring the United States into the war may be rooted in the isolationist/internationalist debate that was prevalent during his presidency due to the following reasons[2]. The first is isolationist sentiment. A political and foreign policy attitude known as isolationism encourages a country to stay mainly out of international events and to avoid being heavily involved in foreign alliances or conflicts. It is defined by a tendency to put domestic issues ahead of international commitments because it thinks that taking part in international events could put the nation at unneeded risk and expense. Isolationism has been a reoccurring trend in many nations, including the United States, throughout history. America adopted an isolationist stance in its early years, avoiding entanglements in alliances in favour of concentrating on enlarging its borders and fortifying its infrastructure. Following the devastation of World War I, this view reemerged as many Americans believed that the nation’s involvement in the conflict had been a mistake, giving rise to a surge of isolationists in the interwar period.
When there is a global crisis, pleas for international engagement and cooperation frequently clash with isolationist ism. In the years before World War II, when the emergence of totalitarian regimes and aggression threatened world security, the isolationist/internationalist debate was particularly prominent. While some contended that the United States should preserve its neutrality and refrain from getting involved in international conflicts, others suggested that the United States should take a more proactive stance in assisting the allies. Isolationism has been criticized for potentially impeding the country’s ability to handle global concerns and advance international collaboration, despite its roots in a desire to stay out of foreign wars and preserve national sovereignty[3]. The conflict between isolationism and internationalism has impacted history and continues to have an impact on foreign policy choices in different nations.
Secondly, the isolationist/internationalist debate that was widespread in the United States in the 1930s may be traced back to Roosevelt’s early views. A strong isolationist sentiment existed among Americans who wanted to stay out of overseas involvement when the country was emerging from the Great Depression. The New Deal, which Roosevelt put into place to alleviate the economic crisis, was initially Roosevelt’s primary concern. He sided with isolationist sentiments when he signed the Neutrality Acts in the middle of the 1930s, hoping to keep the United States neutral in world conflicts. He did, however, show that he understood the need for restrained global engagement in fostering commerce by supporting the Reciprocal Commerce Agreements Act. He demonstrated his dedication to collaboration and non-interventionism with the Good Neighbor Policy toward countries in Latin America[4]. Roosevelt’s initial stance reflected a cautious approach, weighing domestic issues with a moderate level of foreign involvement, and it reflected the intricacies of the isolationist/internationalist argument during a turbulent time in world affairs.
The other reason why historians are likely to blame President Roosevelt is the implementation of the Lend-Lease Act. As the European war intensified, Britain and the other Allies faced formidable obstacles in their fight against Nazi Germany. President Roosevelt responded by introducing the Lend-Lease Act in 1940, which made it possible for the U.S. to provide military assistance to those nations that were aiding the Allies. This signalled a dramatic change away from the country’s staunch isolationist policy and toward a more internationalist one. The Lend-Lease Act provoked contentious discussions and garnered condemnation from isolationist parties that were concerned that such action would ultimately draw the U.S. into the conflict. Roosevelt contended, despite the opposition, that aiding the Allies was crucial for preserving international stability and halting the development of dictatorship. The enactment of the Lend-Lease Act served as a prime example of the complexity of the isolationist versus internationalist debate at this pivotal time, ultimately paving the way for America’s expanding involvement in World War II’s developing events.
Fourthly, the historical view might be rooted in the isolationist/internationalist due to the Naval Clashes and the Atlantic Charter. Before the United States formally entered World War II, there were naval encounters between American ships and German submarines in the Atlantic region. Isolationists were alarmed by these occurrences, such as the sinking of American cargo ships by German U-boats, who believed that the U.S. might become involved in the war as a result. The sinking of the USS Reuben James in October 1941, which cost American lives, heightened the anxiety and calls for non-intervention in the conflict. Additionally, the Atlantic Charter was announced by President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August 1941 at a meeting on the USS Augusta off the coast of Newfoundland[5]. The Charter defined the guiding principles of the Allies’ post-war agenda with a focus on self-determination, disarmament, and free trade. While the Atlantic Charter demonstrated a commitment to a democratically based global order, some isolationists saw it as a move toward deeper involvement in European matters and questioned its bearing on American freedom.
Isolationists’ concerns about Roosevelt’s plans to gradually drag the United States into the war increased after the Atlantic Charter was signed, and these naval battles fueled their suspicions. It’s crucial to realize that Roosevelt’s objectives, meanwhile, were part of a larger plan to stand up for the Allied nations and defend democracy against aggressive tyranny. In spite of this, these incidents had a big impact on the isolationist vs internationalist debate, swaying public opinion and determining how the country would approach its participation in World War II.
Additionally, Pearl Harbor might be playing a significant role in rooting isolationists/internationalists. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, marked the key turning moment in the United States’ involvement in World War II. The unexpected attack on the American naval base in Hawaii resulted in catastrophic losses for the U.S. Pacific Fleet and resulted in the deaths of almost 2,400 Americans. President Roosevelt addressed Congress on the “Day of Infamy” and demanded a declaration of war against Japan in reaction to this unwarranted aggression. The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the American people together and stoked public support for military action, which ultimately resulted in the country’s formal entry into the international battle.
However, some have claimed that Roosevelt’s internationalist stance and policies previous to the attack had positioned the U.S. in a situation where a war with Japan was unavoidable. They claim that Roosevelt’s efforts to support Britain and China in their resistance against the Axis powers and his support for the Allies, as seen in measures like the Lend-Lease Act and the Atlantic Charter, stoked tensions and hostilities that ultimately prompted the Japanese to carry out the surprise attack[6]. Despite these critics, a lot of historians contend that although Roosevelt’s actions may have contributed to the rise in tensions, the Japanese government’s choices directly led to the assault. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor unmistakably signified the second America finally embraced its role in World War II and established itself as a significant actor in the battle.
In conclusion, the isolationist/internationalist argument that dominated the country’s foreign policy landscape throughout President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s term is closely related to the historical view that holds that he lured the United States into the war. Roosevelt’s first stance represented a cautious approach, combining home issues with limited international involvement and coinciding with an isolationist attitude pervasive in the wake of World War I and the Great Depression. But as world events progressed and the threat posed by totalitarian governments increased, Roosevelt’s views moved in favour of a more internationalist outlook, as evidenced by the Lend-Lease Act and other steps meant to aid the Allies. Critics contend that these acts led to rising tensions and raised the possibility of violence, ultimately resulting in the nation’s engagement in World War II. Roosevelt’s actions clearly navigated the complexities of the isolationist/internationalist debate, significantly influencing America’s position on the world stage and having a long-lasting impact on the development of history, even though historians continue to debate his responsibility for bringing the United States into the war.
Bibliography
Espasa, A. (2018). ‘Suppose They were to Do It in Mexico’: The Spanish Embargo and Its Influence on Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy. The International History Review, 40(4), 774-791.
McCulloch, Tony. Tacit Alliance: Franklin Roosevelt and the Anglo-American’Special Relationship’Before Churchill, 1933-1940. Edinburgh University Press, 2021.
Roosevelt, T. (2020). The World War: Its Tragedies and Its Lessons. Good Press.
Szarejko, A. A. Bringing the Rise of the United States into “Introduction to International Relations”.
[1] Roosevelt, T. (2020). The World War: Its Tragedies and Its Lessons. Good Press.
[2] Ibid
[3] Roosevelt, T. (2020). The World War: Its Tragedies and Its Lessons. Good Press.
[4] Espasa, A. (2018). ‘Suppose They were to Do It in Mexico’: The Spanish Embargo and Its Influence on Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy. The International History Review, 40(4), 774-791.
[5] McCulloch, Tony. Tacit Alliance: Franklin Roosevelt and the Anglo-American’Special Relationship’Before Churchill, 1933-1940. Edinburgh University Press, 2021.
[6] Szarejko, A. A. Bringing the Rise of the United States into “Introduction to International Relations”.
write