Copyright and Permissions
The Choices Program curriculum units and the contents of the electronic
versions are copyrighted—1989-present. These copyright protections
extend to all the various elements of Choices units, including titles, lesson
plans, background readings, and the construction and language of the
“options” or “futures” that are central to each unit. If you would like to use
material from a Choices unit, in whole or in part, in your own work, please
contact us at [email protected] for permission. We are usually happy to
extend permission for most non-commercial educational purposes with
appropriate credit given. Your purchase of a Choices unit includes
permission to make copies of the student text and appropriate student
handouts from the Teacher’s Resource Book for use in your own classroom.
This permission does not extend to copies made for resale.
NOTE: This document is NOT intended for multi-teacher use. Duplication
of this document for the purpose of resale or other distribution is prohibited.
Publishing, posting or providing access to this file on an intranet or
other networked or web based computer system is prohibited.
Please contact us at [email protected] if you are looking for an EText that is appropriate for distribution on a secure intranet site. Our
E-Text format allows you to post individual readings, study guides, and
handouts for students to complete and submit back electronically.
The Choices Program is committed to providing rigorous and scholarly
educational materials to teachers and classrooms. We thank you for your
support.
From the Choices Program
www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
CHOICES
for the 21st Century
Education Program
June 2006
Director
Susan Graseck
Curriculum Developer
Andy Blackadar
Curriculum Writer
Sarah Kreckel
International Education Intern
Daniela Bailey
Office Assistant
Ben Sweeney
Office Manager
Anne Campau Prout
Outreach Coordinator
Bill Bordac
Professional Development Coordinator
Lucy Mueller
Program Coordinator for Capitol Forum
Barbara Shema
Acknowledgments
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism was
developed by the Choices for the 21st Century Education Program
with the assistance of the research staff at the Watson Institute
for International Studies, scholars at Brown University, and other
experts in the field. We wish to thank the following researchers for
their invaluable input:
Andrew Bacevich
The Choices for the 21st Century
Education Program develops curricula on current and historical
international issues and offers
workshops, institutes, and inservice programs for high school
teachers. Course materials place
special emphasis on the importance of educating students in
their participatory role as citizens.
The Choices for the 21st Century
Education Program is a program of
the Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute
for International Studies
at Brown University.
Thomas J. Biersteker
Director, Watson Institute for
International Studies
Professor of International Relations, Boston University
Linda B. Miller
Professor of Political Science, Emerita, Wellesley College
Adjunct Professor of International Studies (Research),
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University
Naoko Shibusawa
Assistant Professor of History, Brown University
We wish to thank Kelly Keogh, a social studies teacher at Normal
Community High School, Normal, Illinois, for his contributions.
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism is part
of a continuing series on public policy issues. New units
are published each academic year and all units are updated
regularly.
Visit us on the World Wide Web — www.choices.edu
Contents
Introduction: The Great Debate
1
Part I: After the Great War (1918-1935)
2
World War I and the Treaty of Versailles
2
The United States in the 1920s
6
Depression Shakes America
7
Europe: Hitler’s Rise to Power
9
Asia: Japanese Militarism Grows
10
Part II: “Isolationism” and Franklin Roosevelt (1935-1941)
13
Isolationism
13
The Neutrality Acts
15
FDR: A Political Navigator
16
World War II Begins 18
America First
22
January 1941: The Moment of Decision
25
Options in Brief
27
Option 1: Support Lend-Lease and Follow Through
28
Option 2: Accept Lend-Lease without Convoys
31
Option 3: Reject Lend-Lease and Stay Out of War
34
Epilogue: The Legacies of FDR and Isolationism
37
Supplementary Documents
44
The Choices for the 21st Century Education Program is a program of the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Choices was established to help citizens think constructively
about foreign policy issues, to improve participatory citizenship skills, and to encourage public
judgement on policy issues.
The Watson Institute for International Studies was established at Brown
University in 1986 to serve as a forum for students, faculty, visiting
scholars, and policy practitioners who are committed to analyzing contemporary global problems and developing initiatives to address them.
© Copyright June 2006. First edition. Choices for the 21st Century Education Program. All rights reserved. ISBN 1-60123-002-8.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Re-printed in cooperation with the Dr. Seuss Collection at the University of California at San Diego.
ii
Americans engaged in a great debate about how to respond to events in Europe and Asia in the 1930s and
early 1940s. The cartoon above by the well-known author Dr. Suess illustrates his belief that the United States
would not be able to isolate itself from troubles overseas.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Introduction: The Great Debate
I
n 1938, Nazi Germany’s actions worried
European leaders. Leaders met in Munich,
Germany in October of that year to discuss
the matter. British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain returned from Munich thinking
he had helped Europe and Britain avoid war.
Chamberlain, French Premier Edouard Daladier, Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini, and
Nazi Germany’s leader Adolf Hitler had signed
an agreement that allowed Germany to occupy
part of Czechoslovakia.
“
My good friends, for the second
time in our history, a British Prime
Minister has returned from Germany
bringing peace with honor. I believe
it is peace for our time. Go home and
get a nice quiet sleep.”
—Neville Chamberlain,
September 30, 1938
Prime Minister Chamberlain was wrong.
Hitler would violate the agreement within
months, occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia,
and launch a war to conquer Europe. Today
history is a harsh judge of Chamberlain’s miscalculation, though historians recognize that
the devastation of World War I made European
leaders anxious to do anything to prevent
war from occurring again. The desire to avoid
another war in Europe was widespread in the
United States as well.
Americans watching from afar had sympathy for the Czechoslovakians, but most were
quite sure that they wanted nothing to do
with Europe’s problems. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt (1933-1945) sent a telegram to Hitler
just before the Munich meeting asking him to
negotiate to avoid war. He concluded his telegram by saying that the United States had “no
political involvements in Europe….” Public
opinion polls showed that after Munich, 95
percent of the American public opposed participation in another war. Two-thirds opposed
www.choices.edu ■ selling war materials to either side.
Events in Asia seemed to point towards
conflict as well. Japan invaded China in 1937.
In November 1938, Japan proclaimed that it
had established a “new order” in Asia. American policy-makers worried about Japanese
expansion into Asia.
Japanese and German aggression led
Roosevelt and his advisors to believe that the
United States needed to begin to prepare to
meet the threats in Europe and Asia. But many
Americans were not so sure. In 1940 and 1941
a great debate took place in the United States
about America’s role in the world and what to
do about events in Europe and Asia.
“
There have been a number of fierce
national quarrels in my lifetime—
over communism in the later Forties,
over McCarthyism in the Fifties, over
Vietnam in the Sixties—but none so
tore apart families and friendships
as the great debate of 1940-1941.”
—Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Historian
The debate raged until the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of
war against the United States on December 11,
1941.
In the following pages you will explore
the debate that occurred in the United States
about how to respond to the gathering storm
in Europe and Asia. You will consider the
following questions: Why did so many Americans want to avoid war? What was Roosevelt’s
view of the issue, why did he believe that war
was coming, and how did he try to convince
the country to prepare? Finally, you and your
classmates will recreate a debate in the U.S.
Congress about whether to supply aid to Great
Britain when it remained the last hold-out to
Hitler’s war of conquest.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Part I: After the Great War (1918-1935)
T
oday, we take for granted that the United
States plays a leading role in events on
the world stage. So it may be a surprise to
learn that in the late 1930s, the United States
shunned that leading role. Although most
Americans viewed Nazi and Japanese expansion with distaste, they wanted to avoid being
drawn into a war.
but at the end, Americans felt that warfare had
not resolved the problems they saw in Europe.
Many Americans thought the war had been a
mistake.
What were the immediate
effects of World War I?
Nine million soldiers and ten million civilThe story of the American desire to stay
ians died in Europe during World War I. While
out of the looming crises in Asia and Europe
the human toll was high, the high financial
has its origins in the earliest days of the recost of the war also devastated the economies
public. The events
of all the major
of World War I, its
European powers.
aftermath, and the
For example, Brit[P]eace, commerce, and honest
Great Depression
ain, Germany, and
friendship with all nations,
also played a sigFrance needed to
entangling alliances with none…”
nificant role. In the
devote about half of
—President Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801
following pages you
their total economic
will explore that
output to fighting
history and why
the war. The econoAmericans wanted to avoid entangling themmies of Austria, Russia, and France shrunk by
selves in another military conflict.
nearly half as a result of the fighting. Towards
the end of the war, food shortages and even
Events in Asia and Europe are in your
hunger and starvation among the civilian
reading as two separate stories for simplicity’s
populations were common.
sake. As you read about the events, remember
“
that they happened at the same time and they
are very closely related. Try to think
about the relationship between the
Selected
events in both regions and how they
might affect the U.S. response.
The United States experienced little of the
Military Casualties of World War I
Country
World War I and the
Treaty of Versailles
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program Wounded
1,375,800
4,266,000
650,000
947,000
300
907
703,000
1,663,000
1,700.000
4,950,000
126,000
234,300
Austria-Hungary
1,200,000
3,620,000
Germany
1,773,000
4,216,000
325,000
400,000
Entente Powers
France
In March 1920, the U.S. Senate rejected participating in what
became known as the League of
Nations, the precursor to the United
Nations. The devastation of World
War I (also known as the Great War)
had made the American public
wary of any obligations to foreign
countries or international organizations. Indeed, the United States had
entered World War I hoping that it
would be “the war to end all wars,”
■ Deaths
Italy
Japan
Great Britain
Russia
United States
Central Powers
Ottoman Empire
■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
physical hardships that Europe did. The United States declared itself neutral at the war’s
beginning in 1914. Yet repeated German violations of U.S. neutrality led the United States
to enter the war in April 1917 on the side of
England and France. Americans suffered far
fewer casualties than Europeans. Americans
also did not suffer the economic hardships and
deprivations that many Europeans did.
In fact, both England and France borrowed
heavily from the United States to pay for the
war. At the end of the war, European nations
owed billions of dollars to the United States.
The United States emerged from the war with
more economic and political power than
ever before. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson
(1913-1921) was determined to use this power
to create an international union that would
prevent war.
What were Wilson’s Fourteen Points?
During the war, President Wilson wrote a
plan for peace that came to be known as the
Fourteen Points. His document called for open
relationships between countries and an end to
secret treaties. It spoke of freedom of the seas,
the development of free trade, disarmament,
and the principle of self-determination (a
people’s right to self-rule).
Wilson’s most radical point proposed a
fundamental change in the international system. In his fourteenth point, Wilson called for
a general association of nations which would
negotiate problems among countries before
they led to war. It also called on member
countries to defend one another militarily if
one came under attack, an idea called “collective security.” In effect, Wilson suggested that
countries put aside their own self-interest to
assist one another in order to prevent aggression and war.
“
The Members of the League
undertake to respect and preserve
as against external aggression the
territorial integrity and existing
political independence of all
Members of the League. In case of
www.choices.edu ■ any such aggression or in case of any
threat or danger of such aggression
the Council shall advise upon the
means by which the obligation shall
be fulfilled.”
—Article X of the Covenant of the
League of Nations
What was the Treaty of Versailles?
The peace treaty developed by the victorious nations at the end of the war held
Germany responsible for the war and set the
terms for peace. The treaty, named after the
Paris suburb where it was written, included
provisions to end the war, and laid out a covenant for Wilson’s association of nations, called
the League of Nations. Initially, the Covenant
of the League of Nations attracted few supporters. Having just fought a devastating war,
many European leaders were not interested
in collective security or open diplomacy. The
European countries put their own security and
economic concerns first.
In the United States, many members of
the U.S. Senate thought that Article X of the
covenant would obligate the United States to
intervene overseas when they did not want to.
They also believed that the covenant would
give Europe greater access to Latin America,
considered U.S. domain since the Monroe
Doctrine of 1823. Wilson and his supporters
lobbied hard.
“
The isolation of the United States is
at an end, not because we chose to
go into the politics of the world, but
because by the sheer genius of this
people and the growth of our power
we have become a determining
factor in the history of mankind and
after you have become a determining
factor you cannot remain isolated,
whether you want to or not.”
—Woodrow Wilson, 1919
Despite European skepticism about some
of Wilson’s ideas, the Treaty of Versailles,
signed in Paris on June 28, 1919, contained
most of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, including
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
the Covenant of the League of Nations. It also
established a League of Nations Council that
would be responsible for seeking peaceful
resolutions to disputes as well as providing assistance to its members in cases of aggression.
What was Europe’s reaction to the treaty?
Because the European victors had received
what they wanted, they were, in the end, willing to sign the treaty even though they did not
wholeheartedly support all of Wilson’s ideas.
England and France had advocated for and
secured heavy punishments for Germany.
Not only was Germany excluded from
the League of Nations initially, but the treaty
would make it pay a heavy price. The treaty
said Germany had to make extensive payments
(called reparations) to all the Allied Powers,
give up 10 percent of its European territory,
give up all of its colonial territory, and disband most of its military. The treaty’s demands
would make economic recovery in Germany,
after years of war, hardship, and hunger for
many Germans, very difficult. While the victorious nations of Europe were satisfied with the
treaty, Germany saw the treaty as an unnecessarily harsh punishment.
What was Japan’s reaction to the treaty?
Japan, which had fought on the side of the
Allies, was at a crossroads at the time of the
Paris Peace Conference. There were some in
Japan who believed that their country should
engage the great powers and support the
international system as means of obtaining
the natural resources and markets its growing economy needed. Others believed that the
great powers, particularly Britain, France, and
the United States, would never treat Japan
fairly or with respect—those countries were
also competing for resources and economic
markets in Asia. In Japan, some worried that
the proposed League of Nations would be used
to keep Japan as a second-tier power.
One source of this worry was the racist
treatment Japanese people experienced around
the world and at the peace conference in Paris.
For example, Britain had insisted that Japan
have five delegates to the Paris Conference,
just as the British did. Nevertheless, the Japanese delegates were treated poorly or ignored.
The racism was overt at times. In one example,
French Premier Clemenceau spoke publicly
about how ugly he thought the Japanese were.
The Japanese also experienced racial
Japan Becomes a Great Power
At the peace conference, Japan’s rapidly growing economy and increasing political and military power had put it in line to give the fifth largest financial contribution to the proposed League
of Nations.
Japan’s emergence as an economic and military power was both recent and rapid. In the late
1860s, Japan, which had been closed to the rest of the world for centuries, decided to open itself
to the world. It began a program with the slogan: “Enrich the nation and strengthen the army.”
Japan modelled its navy on Britain’s, its banking system on the United States’s, and its army and
constitution on Prussia’s. Between 1885 and 1920, its gross domestic product, or all of the goods
and services produced by Japan, increased threefold. Manufacturing and mining increased sixfold. While some in Japan called for a democratic future and warned against relying too much on
the military, others argued that Japan would need to use military force to achieve its goals.
In 1905, Japan defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War and gained access to parts of Manchuria. Japan annexed Korea in 1910. In 1914, Japan had declared war against Germany in order
to “…establish its rights and interests in Asia.” Japan was interested in expanding into China, but
other powers, particularly Britain and the United States, saw Japanese interests in conflict with
their own designs. From Japan’s perspective, the increasing presence in the Pacific of the United
States, which had annexed Hawaii in 1898 and had taken the Philippines and Guam from Spain
in 1899, had begun to pose a threat to Japan’s own plans for expansion.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
discrimination in the British Empire and the
United States. In the United States for example, the Japanese, along with other Asians,
were barred from becoming naturalized
citizens. The Japanese saw the Peace Conference as an opportunity to address the issue of
international racial discrimination. Japan proposed an amendment to the League of Nations
Covenant that would outlaw racial discrimination.
“
The equality of nations being a basic
principle of the League of Nations....
The high contracting parties agree
to accord, as soon as possible, to all
alien nationals of States members of
the League equal and just treatment
in every respect, making no
distinction, either in law or in fact, on
account of their race or nationality.”
—Proposed Japanese Amendment to the
League of Nations Covenant
Acutely aware of racial discrimination
against Japanese emigrants, the Japanese
public strongly felt that the racial equality amendment needed to be included. But
throughout much of the British Empire and in
the United States there were strong feelings
against the amendment. Some politicians on
the West Coast of the United States saw it as a
threat to the “white race.” Although a majority voted for the amendment at the conference,
President Wilson refused to let it carry, citing
strong objections. Wilson knew that he would
need the support of West Coast politicians to
ratify the treaty back home.
Reaction in Japan was one of outrage
against the “so-called civilized world.” A Japanese delegate to the conference warned that, in
the future, Japan might be less inclined to put
its faith in the principles of international cooperation espoused by Wilson and the League.
Indeed, because the amendment did not pass,
many Japanese turned away from the West and
toward a more nationalist stance in the coming
years.
What was the U.S. reaction to the treaty?
While President Wilson was in Europe
negotiating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, it had become increasingly clear to
the American public that the triumphant
Europeans were bent on revenge: they would
not compromise on borders and settlements,
and they wanted excessive reparations from
Germany. For many Americans, this confirmed
their belief in Europe as place of never-ending
conflict.
For Americans, World War I had not been
the war to end all wars—it had been simply
an opportunity for Europe to move its borders
around once again. The war and its aftermath
confirmed for most Americans the view that
Thomas Paine had when he was writing in
1776: “Europe is too thickly planted with
kingdoms to be long at peace.” Many assumed
that instead of healing the wounds of war, the
treaty would only anger the Germans and sow
the seeds of the next crisis.
“
President Wilson is shown trying to explain his
vision to a skeptical Uncle Sam.
www.choices.edu ■ I can predict with absolute certainty
that, within another generation, there
will be another world war if the
nations of the world…if the League
of Nations…does not prevent it by
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
concerted action.”
—Woodrow Wilson, September 1919
Unlike their counterparts in Europe,
policy-makers in the United States were not
willing to accept the terms of the Versailles
Treaty. Although Wilson had total faith in
the League, the Senate did not. A heated and
lengthy debate occurred. In the end, the treaty
did not gain the required two-thirds majority necessary for ratification, and the United
States never joined the League of Nations.
The United States in the 1920s
The 1920s began as an economically
prosperous decade for the United States.
The wealth of the country and of the average
American increased significantly. At this time,
Americans held approximately 40 percent of
the world’s wealth. U.S. exports and investments overseas grew exponentially. At home,
the number of millionaires multiplied from
several hundred in 1914 to eleven thousand
in 1926. Hundreds of new businesses were
created. Construction of homes, hotels, and
factories boomed. Many private U.S. banks
financed Europe’s debt from World War I.
New technological developments boosted
the economy and changed the daily lives of
Americans. For example, electricity could now
reach almost every home; people bought vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, and telephones. The
automobile industry grew in leaps and bounds
and contributed to metropolitan and suburban
development. Another innovation, radio, became widely available and made its way into
American homes. Hundreds of correspondents
were stationed overseas, and Americans could
hear the results of their reporting on their radios and read them in newspapers. Hundreds
of thousands of Americans who had served
overseas in World War I added to a population
with an interest in following events around the
world.
What principles guided U.S. foreign
policy during the 1920s?
During the 1920s, Americans hoped for a
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ long period of peace and prosperity, but they
disagreed about the best means to achieve
those ends. Like their representatives in
Congress, some Americans wanted to protect
themselves from the troubles of the world.
In one example of this desire to protect
the United States, Congress enacted legislation to limit immigration into the country. The
Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 set limits on the number
of Europeans who were eligible to immigrate
and declared that Japanese immigrants were
“aliens ineligible for citizenship.”
Although large parts of the American
public remained determined to keep a distance
from the problems of the world, this did not
mean that the U.S. government was inactive
on the international stage; in fact, it continued
to sign treaties and converse with allies to
protect its own security and economic interests. Two examples of this involvement are the
Washington Naval Conference and the KelloggBriand Pact.
What was the Washington
Naval Conference?
The United States invited nine countries
to the Washington Naval Conference of 19211922. The United States called the conference
because Japan’s growth as a naval power in the
Pacific threatened U.S. interests. Participants
at the conference sought to limit a naval arms
race and to discuss issues related to nations of
the Pacific Ocean and the Far East.
During the conference, the parties agreed
to limit the size of naval ships, placed a moratorium on building new battleships, outlawed
the use of poison gases, and limited the role
of submarines in future wars. All nine nations
also signed an agreement affirming China’s
sovereignty and establishing a policy of open
trade with China. The nations also agreed to
address disputes over issues in the Pacific by
submitting them to a committee for resolution.
What was the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1929?
Named for United States Secretary of State
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Although Secretary of State Kellogg was
initially unenthusiastic about the treaty, public
opinion so strongly favored it that he pushed
to make it the multilateral treaty it became.
The U.S. Senate ratified the Kellogg-Briand
Pact, but added two specific conditions. First, the
U.S. was entitled to act in
self-defense militarily, and
second, that it was not required to enforce the treaty
by taking military action
against those who violated
it.
the stock market collapsed. Because more
people wanted to sell their stocks than there
were buyers to purchase them, the value of
stocks plummeted. Companies, banks, and
individuals lost over $30 billion in less than a
month. Businesses went bankrupt and closed,
and families in the United States lost entire
life savings. The U.S. banks that had been
helping Europe repay its debts collapsed.
Countries around the world were affected. The
Great Depression had begun.
The Senate’s willingness to ratify the
Kellogg-Briand Pact
reflected two strong and
widely held sentiments.
Americans remembered the
carnage of World War I and
wanted strongly to avoid
being dragged into another
European war. In addition,
policy-makers continued
to resist the obligations of
permanent alliances and
wished to preserve the
ability to act when and
where they wanted.
Depression
Shakes America
Towards the end of
the 1920s, troubling signs
emerged about the health
of the U.S. economy. On
October 29, 1929, also
known as “Black Tuesday,”
www.choices.edu ■ Dorothea Lange captured the desperation of the Depression in a series of
photographs. Her caption read, “Migrant agricultural worker’s family. Seven
children without food. Mother aged 32, father is a native Californian.”
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, FSA/OWI Collection v LC-USF34-9095.
Frank B. Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, the Kellogg-Briand Pact
was originally a bilateral treaty between the
U.S. and France that made war between the
two countries illegal. The treaty also required
signers to resolve disputes peacefully. It later
became a multilateral treaty when sixty-two
nations signed it; the pact went into effect on
July 24, 1929.
■ Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
How did the Great Depression
affect Americans?
Americans lost their jobs and banks repossessed their homes because they could no
longer pay mortgage or rent. Unemployment
rates rocketed from 1929 to 1932, such that
close to one-third of the labor force was unemployed.
At this time, there were no social security
benefits for the elderly or disabled, no federal
public welfare programs, and no unemployment insurance. People found themselves
without shelter and without food. Republican
president Herbert Hoover—who had been
popularly elected in 1928, less than a year
before Black Tuesday—struggled to correct
the country’s economic woes, but lost support
quickly as the situation got worse. His political
beliefs made him reluctant to use the federal
government to intervene in the economy.
How did the Great Depression
affect U.S. views of Europe?
Many Americans were aware that the
economic despair they faced was in large part
due to the mismanagement of the economic
boom in their own country and the lack of
public support systems, but they also believed
problems in Europe affected the United States.
In 1930, in an effort to protect the American
economy from foreign competition, Congress
passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which
taxed goods imported into the United States
Competing Ideologies: Fascism, Liberal Democracy, Socialism
In general, conditions in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s continued to reflect the upheaval
that followed World War I. Americans watched as new political ideologies emerged to challenge
international ideas about how societies should be governed. The primary emerging ideologies
were fascism and socialism.
Both socialist and fascist leaders saw their systems as the wave of the future and therefore
as a challenge to liberal democracies of Europe and the United States. Liberal democracies have
a constitution, with elected representatives whose decision-making is regulated by a rule of law
that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Fascism is an authoritarian form of government that emerged in Italy and then was adopted
by the Nazi Party in Germany. Fascism puts the economy under government control, and emphasizes the control of the state over the individual. Most Americans found the authoritarian nature
of fascist regimes in Italy, Germany, and Spain to be brutally repressive and morally repugnant.
For example, Germany’s fascism was rooted in racism and anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, a few
saw fascism as promising order in a chaotic world.
Socialism hoped to create a classless society that would end the exploitation of the workers.
This included dismantling the capitalist economic system by taking the “means of production”
(land, factories, etc.) from the owners and placing them in the hands of the state. In late 1917, a
small group of socialists known as the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, had seized power in
Russia and formed the Soviet Union. People all over the world, including Americans, watched to
see if Russia’s problems could be solved.
For a few Americans, socialism seemed to offer solutions to persistent social problems of the
Great Depression. Norman Thomas was the perennial Socialist candidate for president; in 1932
he gathered some 870,000 votes, compared to Roosevelt’s 28,000,000.
The Soviet brand of socialism, known as Marxism-Leninism, created a police state that relied
on terror to enforce its ideology. Millions of Russians lost their lives. As word of the abuses in
the Soviet Union trickled out in the 1930s, socialism lost much of its appeal in the United States.
Norman Thomas ran for president again in 1936 but received only 170,000 votes.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
at a rate of 60 percent. Rather than helping the
economy, the act deepened the depression in
both the United States and overseas. For many
Americans, the negative impact of the Great
Depression reinforced their desire to insulate
the United States from the problems of the
world.
How did the election of Roosevelt
change the public outlook?
In the presidential election of 1932, the
governor of New York, Democrat Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, won with almost 60 percent
of the popular vote. Roosevelt ran with the
promise of a “new deal” for Americans.
“
I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new
deal for the American people.”
—FDR on the campaign trail
Upon entering office, Roosevelt rolled out
the New Deal, his plan for rejuvenating the
economy. Unlike Hoover, Roosevelt thought
that the federal government should intervene
to help the economy and cushion the impact
of the Great Depression on citizens. Through
a series of federal acts, the establishment of
various welfare and work-relief programs,
and weekly radio addresses to the American
public, Roosevelt slowly began to restore confidence in the American economy. Historians
debate how much the New Deal helped the
U.S. economy, but it inarguably boosted public
morale. Roosevelt’s leadership, and in particular his ability to read and respond to the mood
of the public, was an important factor in later
years. You will read more about his presidency
in Part II.
Europe: Hitler’s Rise to Power
Europe had a difficult recovery after World
War I. The war had destroyed much of the
French and German countryside, and millions
of lives were lost. All nations struggled to rebuild their war-torn economies, but Germany
was in the most difficult position. Germany’s
reparations payments made rebuilding its own
country difficult.
www.choices.edu ■ The depression hurt Europe’s ability to
repay the money it had borrowed from the
United States to finance World War I. England
and France used money from Germany’s reparations payments to pay the United States, but
the world-wide depression prevented Germany from making many of these payments.
The depression pushed the fragile German
economy further into a tailspin. Just as in the
United States, families’ life savings disappeared and people lost their jobs. Germans
became more disgruntled with a government
that seemed unable to alleviate the economic
crisis. In the parliamentary elections of 1932,
a political party called the National Socialist
German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), commonly
known as the Nazi party, ran on a platform
that acknowledged German resentment about
the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles,
called for “German” lands to be returned to
Germany, and promised economic recovery.
The Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, received
the largest percentage of votes in that election.
How did Hitler gain popular
support in Germany?
Soon after the election, there was a fire
in the Reichstag, the German parliamentary
building. Hitler blamed the fire on German
communists, whom he claimed were attempting to overthrow the government and incite
civil war. Today historians are not sure who
started the fire, but many believe that the
Nazis themselves did. Hitler used the fire as an
excuse to suspend the freedoms guaranteed by
the German constitution, including freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of
assembly.
In the parliamentary election of 1933, the
Nazi party gained an even larger percentage
of the vote, giving Hitler more power. He used
this success to pass legislation that enabled
him to enact new laws without approval of the
president or parliament. Hitler now had free
reign. He quickly put the Nazi government
in control of all aspects of German society,
including businesses, schools, churches, and
the military. When President Paul von Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler claimed the title of
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 10
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
President, calling himself the Führer (leader)
of Germany.
Hitler targeted ethnic minorities, including
Jews, blacks, Slavs, Sinti and Roma (gypsies),
whom he thought were weak, evil, and capable
of diluting the strength and superiority of the
“true,” white German race. Within months of
becoming the Führer, he enacted laws that began a systematic effort to rid Germany of these
groups though imprisonment, slave labor, and
extermination.
Hitler enjoyed popular support among
most Germans for much of the 1930s. He
improved the economic situation and reduced
unemployment. He also restored national
pride for Germans still humiliated by the defeat in World War I and by how poor they had
become.
Hitler rejected all aspects of the Treaty of
Versailles—he refused to pay reparations, he
rebuilt the military, and he sent German troops
into the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland (a
region of Germany), which the treaty prohibited. By 1936, Germany was well on its way
to becoming a formidable European military
power. Nazi Germany’s growing military and
its increasingly assertive nationalist ideology
began to worry other nations in Europe. Germany began to look as if it was preparing for
another war.
Asia: Japanese Militarism Grows
Germany was not the only country that
world leaders saw as a threat to peace. Japan,
like Germany, had begun to strengthen its military and assert itself more aggressively with its
neighbors. During the 1920s and 1930s, Japan
experienced surging nationalism, the rise of
a totalitarian government, and a widespread
belief that military power would lead Japan to
achieve its rightful place as the leading power
in Asia. Like Germany, Japan had felt slighted
by the Western powers after World War I.
Why did Japan want to expand into China?
Because it is an island nation, Japan had
come to depend heavily on foreign trade for
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ raw materials and other supplies for its rapidly
growing population and industrial economy.
The Great Depression had reduced foreign
trade around the world, which crippled
Japan’s growing economy. Due to the economic
stagnation and continuing feelings of racial
discrimination against Japanese all over the
world, Japan was increasingly interested in becoming an economically self-sufficient nation.
Japanese military leaders voiced intentions
to invade China as a means of obtaining raw
materials and increasing Japan’s power.
In September 1931, in the Chinese province of Manchuria, someone blew up a section
of railroad owned by Japan’s South Manchuria
Railway. Japan blamed the event on Chinese
dissidents, and the Japanese military invaded.
Much like the explosion in the Reichstag
in Germany, some historians argue that the
Japanese bombed their own railway so they
could blame it on the Chinese and use it as an
excuse to invade. Japan’s leaders considered
the coal and iron ore reserves of Manchuria
vital to their country’s industrialized economy.
By 1932, the Japanese had set up a puppet government in Manchuria, renaming the region
“Manchukuo.”
How did Japan change during the 1930s?
Many in Japan saw the creation of Manchukuo as the first step in the creation of a
Japanese empire throughout Asia. Events
both inside and outside of Japan contributed
to this growing sentiment. The international
depression and the rise of European fascist nations undermined Japanese affinity for liberal
Western democratic institutions. In addition, Japanese interests and Western interests
seemed less and less compatible. For example,
in 1933, Japan walked out of the League of Nations after the League condemned the Japanese
invasion of Manchuria.
These external events had a profound effect inside Japan; Japanese society underwent
a transformation in the 1930s. Western ideas
of democracy and individualism, which did
not have deep roots in Japanese society, were
replaced by a belief in the virtue of an imperial
Japan and a strong need for social harmony
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
How did the United States respond
to Japan’s aggression in China?
Since it had proposed the Open Door policy in 1899, the United States had been active
in China. By the 1930s, American influence
in China was significant. For example, U.S.
companies played a leading role in developing
China’s transportation and communications
systems. Trade with China represented about 1
percent of U.S. foreign trade.
and agreement. Political parties began to play
less of a role in the government. Power shifted
to the bureaucracy in government. The army
became the most powerful bureaucratic institution in the government and became more
influential in the decision-making. Highly
ideological army and navy officers intimidated
more moderate politicians into silence. By the
late 1930s, Japan had become a militarized
state intent on expanding into China and
beyond.
When the Japanese attacked China in
1931, the world was not prepared to stand up
to Japanese aggression. Neither was the United
States.
Japanese Expansion through 1940
U S S R
Am
ur
1875
KU
R.
RIL
SAKHALIN
1905
E IS
Kamchatka
Peninsula
Khabarovsk
Qiqihar
MONGOLIA
MANCHURIA
(MANCHUKUO)
1932
C H I N A
Vladivostok
Mukden
Beiling
1937
Port
Arthur
1905
KOREA
Yellow R.
Yichang
1940
Burma Rd.
.
GUANGZHOU
(Fr.) 1940
R
Irrawa
Shanghai
1937
Hangzou
1937
Nanchang
1879
1939
Hanoi
M ek
R.
ong
THAILAND
(SIAM)
Saigon
A
Canton
1938
1939
Shantou
HONG
KONG (Br.)
HAINAN
1939
Amoy
1938
Marcus I.
1899
IS.
BONIN IS.
1876
YU
Changsha
dy
J
Hankou
1938
Kunming
d
Kaifeng
1938
Nanjing
Chongqing
BURMA
OCEAN
Tokyo
Protectorate, 1905
Annexed, 1910
Yan’an
Lashio
PACIFIC
P
Hohhot
(Kueisui)
1937
A N
Harbin
VOLCANIC
IS.
1891
UK
RY
FORMOSA
(TAIWAN)
PESCADORES 1895
(JAPANESE MANDATE)
Occupied, 1914
1895
MARIANA
ISLANDS
(U.S.) Guam
FRENCH
INDOCHINA
1940
PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS
(U.S.)
CAROLINE
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ ISLANDS
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 11
12
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
The Open Door Policy: The United States in China
In 1899, U.S. Secretary of State John Hay sent a note to the foreign powers in China requesting that they maintain an “open door” in their regions of influence in China. The Open Door
policy held that all countries doing business in China should compete and trade on equal terms.
Although no treaties were actually signed, the United States upheld the Open Door as the foundation of U.S. policy toward China for the next half century. The declaration of the Open Door
policy signaled an increase in the U.S. role in China and coincided with U.S. expansion into the
Pacific. Americans had sought access to China’s market since the late eighteenth century; the
policy was a clear assertion of U.S. economic interests.
U.S. diplomatic efforts to stop the Japanese attack failed. Although President Herbert
Hoover was able to send a few U.S. warships
and troops to China in 1932, the United States
was unable to oppose Japan with a significant
military force. The United States had drastically reduced the size of its military since World
War I. In 1918 the United States had 2,897,000
military personnel, but by 1932 it had only
244,900 troops.
Other world leaders expressed their outrage while also avoiding conflict. The League
of Nations that Wilson hoped would stand up
to aggression turned away from this crucial
challenge. President Franklin D. Roosevelt,
facing the domestic political challenges posed
by the Great Depression, was even less inclined to defend China than Hoover.
In addition, Japan, like Germany, began
to violate the treaties it had signed. In 1932,
a year after the invasion of Manchuria, Japan
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ dropped out of the Washington Naval Treaties
and began to build up its navy.
By the mid-1930s, Germany and Japan’s
assertive nationalist policies and growing
militaries clearly posed a challenge to the
world order. Some in the United States and
Europe could see the gathering clouds of war
on the horizon. Others clung to the hope that
Germany and Japan’s interests could be accommodated and that war could be avoided.
In the United States, a group known as “isolationists” were determined to keep the United
States out of another war and well-insulated
from the problems of the world. The isolationists came from all parts of the political
spectrum and were motivated by various political ideas. In Part II of your reading, you will
explore the ideas of the isolationists and examine how President Roosevelt and the people of
the United States saw the challenges facing the
country.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Part II: “Isolationism” and Franklin Roosevelt
(1935-1941)
A
mericans watched with both fear and
disdain as troubles and conflict escalated
in Europe and Asia. Many Americans thought
that focusing on problems and issues at home
was both easier and more important than
becoming caught up in the power struggles of
others. These Americans became known as
isolationists.
Isolationism
After World War I, much of the American
public felt that the country should isolate
itself from all further war. Americans felt their
interests were different, if not superior to
those of Europe. If a goal of American foreign
policy was to spread democracy and American
values, it would best be done through example
and not by military means.
“
In matters of trade and commerce
we have never been isolationist and
never will be. In matters of finance,
unfortunately, we have not been
isolationist and never will be. When
earthquake and famine, or whatever
bring human suffering, visit any
part of the human race, we have not
been isolationists, and never will
be…. But in all matters political, in
all commitments of any nature or
kind, which encroach in the slightest
upon the free and unembarrassed
action of our people, or which
circumscribe their discretion and
judgment, we have been free, we
have been independent, we have
been isolationist.”
—September 1934, Senator William E.
Borah, Republican of Idaho, ranking
member of Foreign Relations Committee
Isolationists believed there was no need
for Americans to feel threatened by develop-
“Isolationism”—A Misleading Term
“Isolationism” was a blanket term used in the early twentieth century. But the term isolationism is somewhat misleading. The term implies that the United States wanted to isolate itself
completely from other nations. In fact, that was not the case. Most supporters of isolationism
favored international trade and certain bilateral agreements in the 1930s. Most also respected the
international laws that had been put in place since World War I.
First and foremost, isolationists wanted to stay out of war; for them, preserving peace was the
most important goal of American foreign policy. They believed that the best way to do this was
for the United States to have a strict policy of neutrality. They felt that if Americans meddled in
affairs overseas, war was more likely to reach American shores. Progress in technology would
mean that this war would be more horrible than the First World War. Isolationists worried that
the United States, already weakened by the Great Depression, might not be able to weather the
demands that another international conflict would put on the economy. They also worried that
such a war might destroy freedom and liberty for Americans. Finally, the isolationists thought
that the United States should remain a pillar of sanity amidst a quarrelsome and increasingly
divided world.
Above all, isolationists did not want to compromise American interests. This group wanted
to preserve the right of the United States to act when and where it saw fit. Today we would call
this group unilateralists. As you read, keep in mind that the term “isolationism” is used here
because it was the term used at the time, but that it means more than its dictionary definition.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 13
14
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
ments in Europe and Asia. The vast Pacific
and Atlantic Oceans insulated the country
from troubles in those regions, and the United
States had formed friendly alliances with all
the other nations in the Western hemisphere.
“
Providence in its infinite mercy
and wisdom has been very good to
this nation. We have been given a
geographical position far removed
from dangerous neighbors. The
genius of man has not yet created
instruments of aggressive warfare
which can span the oceans which
protect us on either hand, save as
those instruments may move upon the
surface of these oceans.”
—George Fielding Eliot,
The Ramparts We Watch, 1938
Who were the isolationists?
Some politicians and public figures were
outspoken supporters of isolationism. These
isolationists had a variety of motives, some
nobler than others, for lending support.
The most famous was Charles A. Lindbergh, a pioneering aviator and the first man
to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean. His aerial
adventures made him a widely respected
American hero. He spent several years living
in Europe in the early 1930s, visiting Germany
periodically to consult with German military
leaders. He wrote to a friend that Hitler was
“undoubtedly a great man” who “has done
much for the German people,” and he claimed
not to understand the prevalent American
views that dictatorships were evil or wrong.
When Lindbergh returned to the United
States, he became the most famous supporter
of isolationism, traveling around the country to speak to audiences about why the U.S.
government should stay out of war. He also
stated that Jews had too much influence in the
United States and argued that they were the
ones pushing the United States towards war.
Most isolationists did not share Lindbergh’s pro-Nazi sentiments or his anti-Semitic
rhetoric. They held deep-seated convictions
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ about staying out of a war that might threaten
the democracy and freedom in the United
States.
Other famous isolationists included John
L. Lewis, a labor leader and head of the United
Mine Workers; John Bassett Moore, a famous
writer and international law professor; and
Senator William E. Borah, Republican from
Idaho and the ranking member of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations.
What was the Nye Committee?
Another prominent political isolationist
was Senator Gerald P. Nye, a progressive Republican from North Dakota. In 1934, as Hitler
increased his hold on power in Germany and
as tensions on the European continent grew,
Senator Nye decided to head a committee to
investigate the reasons why the United States
had entered World War I. Nye hoped that if
those reasons could be uncovered and the public made aware, then the United States would
stay out of the brewing troubles abroad.
For three years, the Nye Committee investigated both the munitions industry and
the banking industry. The committee found
that during the First World War bankers were
“greedy” and munitions-makers “highly
unethical.” Senator Nye accused these groups
of profiteering—a term that refers to making
excess money from essential goods—in this
case war materials, during times of emergency
or war.
The Nye Committee did not find any evidence of a conspiracy to drag the nation into
the First World War. Nevertheless, the hearings
and the extensive newspaper coverage they
received created the impression among many
that American soldiers had died in World War
I because corporations looking to turn a profit
had convinced President Wilson in 1917 to
go to war. With anger and suspicion about big
business and the banking industry already
high because of the depression, some Americans worried that powerful business interests
would again drag them into war. The Nye
Committee hearings increased the isolationist
mood in the United States.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
“
War and warfare since time
immemorial have been primarily
instituted by a comparatively few of
the high and mighty in the political
and financial structures of the
countries of the world, for political
aggrandizement and commercial
advantage.”
—Chicago Federation of Labor,
official statement, in response
to the Nye committee
The Neutrality Acts
The Nye Committee hearings influenced
not only the general population, but many in
Congress as well. Between 1914 and 1917, the
United States had declared itself a “neutral”
nation. President Wilson was attempting to
preserve the U.S. right to free commerce and
freedom of the seas, but Nye believed the United States had to
be willing to give up “business
as usual” if it wanted to stay
out of war. He believed that the
U.S. entry into the First World
War could be traced to President
Wilson’s failure to prohibit the
sales of materials to the belligerent nations.
tions Board to bring the armament industry
under control of the government. The act,
however, did not bar the trade of other potential war materials like steel and oil. President
Roosevelt sought amendments that would
allow the United States to supply an innocent
country against an aggressor. Congress refused,
and Roosevelt, not wanting to make enemies
because he needed congressional support for
his New Deal programs, signed the bill into
law on August 31, 1935.
What were the consequences of the Act?
On October 3, 1935, Italy, led by its fascist
dictator Benito Mussolini, attacked the African
country of Ethiopia. Because Ethiopia was an
independent country, not a European colony,
and it happened to border the Italian colonies
of Eritrea and Somaliland, Mussolini saw it as
“
Image courtesy Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress, LC-DIG-ppmsc-03396.
Copyright 1935 by Herblock. Used with permission.
Neutrality is to be had if
we are willing to pay the
price of abandonment of
expectation of profits from
the blood of other nations
at war.”
—Senator Gerald P. Nye,
January 6, 1936
Congress, which shared
Nye’s commitment to neutrality, introduced legislation to
prevent the United States from
supplying one side or another
during a war. The Neutrality Act
of 1935 specifically prohibited
shipping or carrying arms to
warring nations. The act also
established a National Muni-
www.choices.edu ■ “No Foreign Entanglements!”
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 15
16
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
a perfect target. The rest of the world saw the
invasion as an unprovoked act of aggression.
President Roosevelt applied the arms
embargo required by the Neutrality Act against
both sides, although Italy did not need U.S.
weapons and Ethiopia could not afford them.
The Neutrality Act did not prohibit the sale
of oil. President Roosevelt urged American
exporters not to sell Italy any oil, which Italy’s
armed forces needed, but the exporters went
ahead with the sale anyway.
Mussolini declared victory in 1936, and
unperturbed by international outcry, withdrew
from the League of Nations that same year.
What was in the Neutrality Act of 1936?
The Neutrality Act of 1936 attempted to
close the loopholes of the 1935 act that the
Italian invasion of Ethiopia had exposed. The
new law extended the 1935 provisions for
fourteen months and prohibited all loans or
credits to belligerents. The act also prohibited
the sale of all war materials, including steel
and oil. But the act had the effect of treating all
parties in a conflict equally and perhaps even
harming a side for which the American people
might be inclined to have sympathy.
“
We have learned that when we
deliberately try to legislate
neutrality, our neutrality laws may
operate unevenly and unfairly—may
actually give aid to an aggressor and
deny it to the victim. The instinct of
self-preservation should warn us
that we ought not to let that happen
anymore.”
—Roosevelt, January 4, 1939, speaking of
1936 Neutrality Act
Americans, though they did not want war
for the United States, certainly had sympathies
for particular sides in various conflicts. In one
remarkable instance, American volunteers
went to fight in another country’s civil war. In
Spain in 1936, the Spanish army, led by fascist
general Francisco Franco, revolted. Mussolini
and Hitler immediately promised to aid him in
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ The Neutrality Acts
1935
No munitions or arms to
belligerents
1936
No potential war materials
(e.g., oil, steel) of any kind to
belligerents
1937
No Americans on belligerent
ships; no American ships in
war zones
fighting the Spanish republican government.
Approximately three thousand American
volunteers traveled to Spain to fight against
Franco and his fascist allies.
How did the “lessons” of World War I
influence the Neutrality Act of 1937?
With the fascist powers on the march
and the threat of conflict looming ever larger,
Congress passed additional neutrality legislation in May 1937 that it hoped would keep the
United States neutral and out of any war. In
response to the Spanish Civil War, Congress
expanded the law to include war within a
state as well as between states. The law also
prohibited American ships from sailing in war
zones and forbade Americans from traveling
on the ships of belligerents. Congress remembered that the deaths of Americans on British
passenger ships at the hands of German submarines during World War I had helped swing
public opinion towards declaring war some
twenty years before.
FDR: A Political Navigator
Throughout the 1930s, President Roosevelt’s focus had been on rejuvenating the U.S.
economy. When elected in 1932, his primary
goal was to implement his New Deal programs
to improve the economic situation for U.S. citizens. But he watched the escalating problems
of Europe closely and with concern. Roosevelt
was a masterful politician who correctly read
the mood of the American public. He continually professed the U.S. intention to stay
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
neutral if any conflict were to erupt overseas.
“
Despite what happens in continents
overseas, the United States of
America shall and must remain, as
long ago the Father of our Country
prayed that it might remain—
unentangled and free.”
had authorized a dramatic increase in spending to increase the size of the navy to meet the
threat posed by a growing Japanese fleet.
“
I hate war. I have passed unnumbered
hours, I shall pass unnumbered
hours, thinking and planning how
war may be kept from this nation.”
—Roosevelt, late 1935
Did Roosevelt agree with neutrality
for the United States?
While Roosevelt professed neutrality, he
also saw the need to increase U.S. military
strength. Throughout the 1920s, the U.S. had
reduced its military personnel and budget. But
with the events in Europe and Asia looking
more and more ominous, Roosevelt thought it
was prudent to order more funding for defense. For example, as early as 1933, Roosevelt
—Roosevelt, August 1936
Despite his frequent spoken commitments
to neutrality and avoiding war, Roosevelt
never subscribed to the fervent isolationism
that swept the nation. German and Japanese
aggression angered Roosevelt, though he was
careful not to express his feelings publicly
until later in the 1930s.
Roosevelt’s Leadership: Determined or Dangerous?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s domestic political programs changed the role of government
in the United States. Convinced that the crisis of a crumbling economy demanded a strong
response, he embarked on an ambitious revision of the role of the federal government in the
American economy. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, including the introduction of social security
and a minimum wage, also increased the role of government in the lives of Americans. Although
Roosevelt enjoyed considerable public support, some considered his ideas and plans radical and
even dangerous. They worried about an intrusive government and an overly powerful presidency.
Roosevelt was a skilled, patient politician and a charming, charismatic man. He was the
first president to understand the power of mass media, and regularly spoke to the nation in his
famous “Fireside Chats” over the radio. In addition, Roosevelt had a great deal of experience in
government. He had served for seven years as assistant secretary of the navy, and four years as
governor of New York. Roosevelt mastered a wealth of details about every policy issue. He was
also careful about how he delegated authority. He made appointments and assigned jobs so that
the power for making decisions remained with him. When dealing with delicate political issues,
Roosevelt was a patient politician. He was a master at balancing and even exploiting the conflicting interests among his advisors, Congress, the political parties, and the public.
Roosevelt won reelection in 1936 by an overwhelming landslide. Bolstered by this result and
annoyed by Supreme Court rulings that some of his New Deal legislation was unconstitutional,
Roosevelt made a radical proposal. He wrote to Congress that the Supreme Court was overworked, and proposed appointing an additional justice for each justice over the age of seventy. In
truth, Roosevelt was looking for a way to “pack” the court with appointees he thought would be
more sympathetic to his legislation, which he thought was essential to fighting the depression.
Congress refused to go along. His decision to run for a third term in 1940, something no president
had ever attempted, further infuriated those who were sure Roosevelt was an overly powerful,
and therefore, dangerous president.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 17
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
What were Roosevelt’s primary
views on international affairs?
By 1940, Roosevelt viewed the world as
highly interconnected. He felt the United
States would be a factor in any war involving a
major world power, because the United States
was a major world power as well. To ignore
the events and decisions of others around the
globe would eventually be detrimental to the
peace that Americans valued, he thought.
Roosevelt also believed that the United
States should shape its own foreign relations.
In this regard, he and many isolationists were
on the same page: no laws made in the world
were superior to those set down in the Constitution. He felt that the United States was
entitled to make decisions that served itself
first. Unlike the isolationists, Roosevelt did
not believe that supporting the Allies, making
treaties, and peacefully persuading countries
to comply with certain agreements would
compromise U.S. sovereignty and security.
Finally, Roosevelt believed the United States
could not depend on its geographic isolation
from Europe and Asia for protection from the
new technologies and military ambitions of
the Japanese and the Nazis.
“
What worries me especially is that
public opinion over here is patting
itself on the back every morning and
thanking God for the Atlantic Ocean
(and the Pacific Ocean)…. Things
move with such terrific speed, these
days, that it really is essential to us to
think in broader terms and, in effect,
to warn the American people that
they, too, should think of possible
ultimate results in Europe and the
Far East.”
—Roosevelt, in a letter to Kansas editor
William Allen White, end of 1939
World War II Begins
While Roosevelt and his advisors worried about the threats from across the oceans,
the mood in the country remained strongly
anti-war. The Neutrality Acts remained in effect and limited U.S. action. But the military
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Reg Manning in The Arizona Republic.
18
Japan drives through Manchuria to reach the
center of China.
agenda of the Japanese and the Nazis began to
force a rethinking of U.S. policies.
In 1937, Japan’s armies moved deeper into
China. By the end of the year, Japanese forces
had taken Nanking, the capital of Chiang Kaishek’s government. As hundreds of foreign
residents watched, the Japanese unleashed a
campaign of murder, rape, and looting against
the civilian population. The Japanese massacred more than 200,000 Chinese and burned
much of the city to the ground.
The massacre at Nanking (re-labeled four
years later as the “Rape of Nanking”) turned
the American public against Japan. Public
opinion polls showed support for banning the
sale of war-related materials to Japan. Racial
attitudes against Japan also hardened in the
United States. For example, the press commonly portrayed the Japanese as vicious and
devious little yellow men.
Roosevelt refused to recognize the conflict
between Japan and China as war. His reason
for this was to avoid invoking the Neutrality
Acts, which would not permit sending any
military aid to China. Public pressure from
anti-war groups forced Roosevelt to back off
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Europe soon overshadowed developments in
Asia.
from using U.S. government ships to transport
aid, but he allowed private ships to carry materials at their own risk to aid the Chinese.
On September 1, 1939, Hitler’s troops
marched into Poland. Two days later, England
Over the next few years, the Japanese
and France, in
tightened their hold
defense of Poland,
over much of coastdeclared war on
al China. American
Close your hearts to pity. Act
Germany. The
officials worried
brutally. Eighty million people
Second World War
that Japan and its
must
obtain
what
is
their
right.
Their
had begun and the
military would conexistence must be made secure. The
debate about the
tinue to seek new
strongest man is right....”
U.S. role reached a
conquests. Some
deafening clamor
in Congress called
Adolf Hitler, August 22, 1939, to his generals
before they invaded Poland
in the United
for an economic
States. As the U.S.
quarantine against
public increasJapan.
ingly sympathized
with the Allies, politicians in Congress argued
Why did Japan seek an alliance
over the appropriate steps to take.
with Nazi Germany?
When Japan suffered a military setback in
How did the German invasion of
a border clash with the Soviet Army in 1938,
Poland affect public opinion?
it decided that an alliance with Nazi Germany
When war broke out, 82 percent of Ameriwould provide protection against the Soviet
cans questioned thought Germany was to
Union. An alliance would also limit the influence of Britain and France,
which would allow Japan
Axis Expansion in Europe through 1939
to continue to expand in
N
Axis powers
FINLAND
Asia. Hitler saw that the
Areas of Axis conquest
threat of a potential attack
NORWAY
Axis thrusts
SWEDEN
from Japan would preocStockholm
(1937 boundaries)
ESTONIA
cupy Britain and France
NORTH
Moscow
with defending their coloSEA
LATVIA
DENMARK
IRELAND
A
nies in Asia, which would
LITHUANIA
allow him to pursue his
BRITAIN
SOVIET
NETHERLANDS
plans in Europe. Japan
London
Berlin
UNION
Warsaw
held out for concessions
GERMANY
BELGIUM
POLAND
ATLANTIC
from Nazi Germany that
Dnie
pe r R
LUX.
Prague
Paris
.
OCEAN
would keep Japan out of
FRANCE
Vienna
a European war. Hitler
AUSTRIA
SWITZERLAND
Z
HUNGARY
grew impatient and made
RUMANIA
a pact with the Soviet
R.
BLACK SEA
Danube
PORTUGAL
YUGOSLAVIA
Union instead. The NaziMadrid
BULGARIA
ITALY
Soviet pact of August 23,
SPAIN
A
Rome
ALBANIA
1939, also known as the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,
KEY
GREECE
MEDIT
TUR
ERR
AN
shocked the Japanese.
EA
N
BA
LT
IC
SEA
“
Memel
(Mar 1939)
Polish Danzig (Sep 1939)
Corridor
Sudentenland
(Sep 1938)
Rhineland
(Oct 1936)
(Sep 1939)
CZE
CHOS
(Mar LOVAKIA
1939)
(Mar 1938)
TIC
RIA
AD
SE
(Apr 1939)
The pact shocked the
rest of the world as well,
but dramatic events in
www.choices.edu ■ SE
MOROCCO
ALGERIA
TUNISIA
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University A
0
0
■ 200
200
400
400 miles
600 kilometers
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 19
20
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
blame for what happened. In October of the
same year, Fortune magazine took a poll and
found that 83.1 percent of Americans wanted
England and France to win the war. But while
Americans were willing to send supplies and
money, they were not willing to send American soldiers.
Despite the growing consensus in support
of the Allies, there was still much disagreement as to how to “aid” Europe without
getting directly involved. Although Americans
were reluctant to send soldiers, some began to
think that as Hitler marched through Europe,
two oceans might no longer be enough to protect the United States.
Who were the interventionists?
Although anti-war feeling remained strong,
a different group began to gather strength in
the United States. Known as the interventionists, they saw that U.S. intervention in the
ongoing conflict was likely and even necessary
to protect the United States. They believed
that neutrality and isolationism would not
keep Japan and Germany at bay for long. Many
of Roosevelt’s advisors favored taking strong
action against the Japanese and helping Britain
and France, even if it meant that this would
eventually lead to war. Roosevelt himself
thought it would be possible to prepare the
people for the possibility of war without suggesting that the United States would actually
join in the fighting. He turned his considerable
political and oratorical skills to the task of
convincing the people of this seeming contradiction.
How did President Roosevelt react
to the invasion of Poland?
After Hitler claimed Europe as a “greater
Germany,” Roosevelt professed that it was the
responsibility of the United States to counter
the Nazi juggernaut by being the “arsenal of
democracy.” Roosevelt said the United States
would not commit troops, but proclaimed
that the struggles in Europe were American
struggles.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ “
When peace has been broken
anywhere, the peace of all countries
everywhere is in danger. [It is
easy] for you and for me to shrug
our shoulders and to say that
conflicts taking place thousands of
miles…from the whole American
hemisphere do not seriously affect
the Americas – and that all the
United States has to do is to ignore
them and go about its own business.
Passionately though we may desire
detachment, we are forced to realize
that every word that comes through
the air, every ship that sails the sea,
every battle that is fought does affect
the American future.”
—Roosevelt, fireside chat of
September 3, 1939
Germany’s defeat of Poland in just twentyseven days also fueled the interventionists’
argument. Many in the Senate and House
even worried about a German invasion of the
United States, although that was well beyond
Nazi Germany’s capabilities. With a growing
tide of support from the American public, they
pushed through legislation called the Neutrality Act of 1939.
“Cash and carry” was the main thrust of
the act, passed in November, 1939. This new
Neutrality Act allowed the United States to
continue trading with belligerents, but required that the warring nations pay cash for
what they wanted and that they carry the
goods themselves. This meant they had to
travel to U.S. shores, pick up what they had
bought, and transport it back on their own
ships. Unlike the previous Neutrality Acts,
it allowed the sale of arms and ammunition. Congress, still intent on avoiding being
dragged into war, believed that American businesses would be able to sell their goods abroad
without running the risk of submarine attack.
Although the Act applied to all belligerents, the “cash and carry” clause helped the
Allies more than the Axis powers, because it
required that ships travel across the Atlantic
Ocean, which Britain’s navy controlled.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
How did the fall of France
further imperil the Allies?
By June of 1940, Nazi Germany had
conquered Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the
Netherlands, and France. This was a tremendous blow to the Allies. Hitler controlled
most of continental Europe. Great Britain was
entirely on her own. Britain’s new leader, Winston Churchill, spoke about what was likely to
come.
“
The Battle of France is over. I expect
that the Battle of Britain is about to
begin…. Hitler knows that he will
have to break us in this island or lose
the war. If we can stand up to him,
all of Europe may be free and the life
of the world may move forward into
broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail,
then the whole world, including the
United States, including all that we
have known and cared for, will sink
into the abyss of a new Dark Age….”
—British Prime Minister,
Winston Churchill, June 1940
In addition, on June 10th, Italy, which had
previously declared itself a non-belligerent,
joined with Germany and entered the war.
“
Some indeed still hold to the now
somewhat obvious delusion that
we of the United States can safely
permit the United States to become
a lone island, a lone island in a
world dominated by the philosophy
of force. Such an island may be
the dream of those who still talk
and vote as isolationists. Such an
island represents to me and to the
overwhelming majority of Americans
today a helpless nightmare of
a people without freedom—the
nightmare of a people lodged in
prison, handcuffed, hungry, and fed
through the bars from day to day by
the contemptuous, unpitying masters
of other continents.”
—Roosevelt, June 10, 1940
www.choices.edu ■ How did events in Europe
affect events in Asia?
Germany’s victories in Europe had a
profound effect on Japan’s leaders. Japan had
invaded China in hopes of a quick victory.
Instead they found themselves bogged down
in an unwinnable war. The fall of France and
the Netherlands meant that those countries’
colonies in Southeast Asia were unprotected.
Japan saw this as an opportunity to obtain
the resources it thought it needed to win in
China. Japan particularly coveted the oil-rich
Netherlands East Indies and French Indochina. Britain alone remained in Europe and its
survival was hardly certain. British colonies
in Hong Kong, Burma, Singapore, and even
Australia and India were also temptations to
Japan.
Japan’s military planners found Hitler’s
rapid military successes inspirational. They
were convinced that it was the proper time
to expand into Southeast Asia as a means of
achieving economic self-sufficiency.
In July 1940, Fumimaro Konoe returned
to power as prime minister with wide support
from all political factions in Japan. Konoe,
who had been part of Japan’s delegation at
the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, thought that
events in Europe had created the situation
that would allow Japan to assume its rightful place as a leading power in Asia. Konoe
appointed like-minded ministers and began
to implement his plan to dominate Asia. The
government increased its control over the media and dissolved all political parties. The new
government proposed the Greater East Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere, which would eject the
western nations from the region and establish
Japan as the regional leader.
In July 1940, President Roosevelt thought
that the United States could stop the Japanese
from further aggression by prohibiting the
sale of aviation fuel and scrap metal to them.
This move in fact had the opposite effect. The
Japanese felt they were being “strangled,” and
at the end of September 1940, Japanese troops
moved into Northern French Indochina with
the permission of Germany’s puppet government in France, known as Vichy. This area
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 21
22
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
of Indochina was a good source of oil, which
Japan sorely needed for its military occupation
in China, as well as for general maintenance of
its empire.
This move was the last straw for Roosevelt.
When Japan occupied Indochina, Roosevelt
immediately froze Japan’s assets, meaning the
Japanese could no longer use investments or
money they had in the United States. Japan responded by freezing American assets in Japan.
As tensions with the United States increased, Japan sought an alliance with
Germany and Italy. Hitler was now ready to
deal with Japan. He was anxious to turn his
armies on his supposed ally, the Soviet Union,
and needed the British and the Americans
pre-occupied in Asia. Japan, Italy, and Germany signed the Tri-partite Pact on September
22, 1940. The pact said that the three nations
would come to each other’s aid if attacked by
another not already involved in the war in Europe. More and more, it appeared to Roosevelt
and his advisors that the United States would
be pushed into war.
America First
Roosevelt took what he saw as the necessary precautions to protect the United States.
He arranged to send fifty World-War-I-era
destroyers to Great Britain in return for eight
British naval bases in the Caribbean. On
September 16, 1940, Congress passed an act
instituting the first peacetime draft in American history, registering all men between the
ages of twenty-one and thirty-six. This was
a bold move, for the presidential election of
1940 was in full swing and Roosevelt had
opted to run for a third term, another unprecedented act in American history.
The looming threat posed by Germany
and Japan contributed to Roosevelt’s decision
to run. The Republican candidate running
against him was Wendell Wilkie. Although
Wilkie was not an isolationist, he accused
Roosevelt of leading the country towards war.
With much of the public still anxious to avoid
entanglements overseas, Wilkie’s political
strategy forced Roosevelt on the defensive.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Keeping the United States out of war became a
central issue of the election. While he prepared for war, Roosevelt simultaneously said
the United States would not go to war.
“
We will not participate in foreign
wars and will not need our army,
naval or air forces to fight in foreign
wars outside of the Americas except
in case of attack.”
—Roosevelt, October 29, 1940
Roosevelt won the election decisively.
After resuming office, he moved away from
the rhetoric of the final weeks of his campaign.
Roosevelt had little doubt that a confrontation
with Nazi Germany was on the horizon. Ever
mindful of public opinion, he began to prepare
the public for the possibility that the United
States would have to assert itself outside of its
borders.
“
The experience of the past two years
has proven beyond doubt that no
nation can appease the Nazis. No
man can turn a tiger into a kitten
by stroking it. There can be no
appeasement with ruthlessness….
We know now that a nation can have
peace with the Nazis only at the price
of total surrender.... The history of
recent years proves that shootings
and chains and concentration
camps are not simply the transient
tools but the very altars of modern
dictatorships. They may talk of a
‘new order’ in the world, but what
they have in mind is but a revival of
the oldest and the worst tyranny. In
that there is no liberty, no religion,
no hope. The proposed ‘new order’
is the very opposite of a United
States of Europe or a United States
of Asia. It is not a government based
upon the consent of the governed.
It is not a union of ordinary, selfrespecting men and women to protect
themselves and their freedom and
their dignity from oppression. It is
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
an unholy alliance of power and pelf
to dominate and enslave the human
race.”
—Roosevelt, December 29, 1940
What was the America First Committee?
Despite Germany and Japan’s growing
power, the isolationists increased their fight to
stay out of war. The America First Committee
(AFC), formed in September of 1940, devoted
itself to keeping the United States out of war.
At one point, it had close to 800,000 members. Charles Lindbergh was its most famous
spokesperson, but it also boasted the membership of poet E.E. Cummings, Senator Gerald
Nye, and actress Lillian Gish.
More than two-thirds of the AFC membership came from the midwest.
For many in this area of the
country, the problems overseas seemed even farther
away than for those who
lived on the coasts. There
was also a greater mistrust of
banking and industry, which
midwesterners saw as eastern institutions motivated to
go to war in order to make a
profit.
The AFC claimed that FDR had been twofaced. AFC members pointed out that on the
one hand, FDR had made numerous public
promises during the 1930s and the 1940 election that the United States would absolutely
not go to war. On the other hand, the AFC
argued that he pushed Congress continually to
pass legislation that would support the Allies and that would incite German or Japanese
anger.
Members of the America First Committee also believed that it was not necessary for
the United States to aid Britain, because the
United States could survive a Nazi victory and
even have prosperous economic relations with
Germany. They also argued that Nazi power
was overestimated and that three thousand
Re-printed in cooperation with the Dr. Seuss Collection at the University of California at San Diego.
In its first public statement the AFC advocated
four ideas:
“1. The United States
must build an impregnable
defense for America;
2. No foreign powers,
nor group of powers, can
successfully attack a prepared America;
3. American democracy
can be preserved only by
keeping out of the European
war;
4. ‘Aid short of war’
weakens national defense
at home and threatens to
involve America in war
abroad.”
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 23
Re-printed in cooperation with the Dr. Seuss Collection at the University of California at San Diego.
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
www.CharlesLindbergh.com. Used with permission.
24
These political cartoons illustrate the debate between the America First Committee and the interventionists.
miles of ocean would help protect the United
States. Finally, they asserted that although the
Nazi ideology was repugnant, this was not
a reason to go to war. After all, they argued,
many in the United States also found the
ideology of the Soviet Union offensive, but the
United States and the Soviet Union remained
at peace.
“
War is not inevitable for this country.
Such a claim is defeatism in the
true sense. No one can make us fight
abroad unless we ourselves are
willing to do so. No one will attempt
to fight us here if we arm ourselves
as a great nation should be armed.
Over a hundred million people in this
nation are opposed to entering the
war. If the principles of Democracy
mean anything at all, that is reason
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ enough for us to stay out. If we are
forced into a war against the wishes
of an overwhelming majority of
our people, we will have proved
Democracy such a failure at home
that there will be little use fighting
for it abroad.”
—Charles Lindbergh, April 23, 1941
The emergence of the America First Committee, Roosevelt’s war preparations, and the
news of events in Europe and Asia combined
to heighten tension in the American public.
Families struggled to remain optimistic that
world events would stay away from America’s
shores, yet many were concerned war might be
close at hand. In the coming months, decisions
about how to respond, if at all, to the world
crisis would become increasingly contentious.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
January 1941: The Moment of Decision
O
Britain was left alone in Europe, and China
fought alone against Japan.
Earlier that year the British had fought the
Battle of Britain against the Nazi Luftwaffe
[airforce], and their Royal Air Force (RAF)
and Navy were weakened. The British were
exhausted, and they were running out of supplies.
The Lend-Lease Bill proposed to be the
principal means for providing military aid to
foreign nations at war. Unlike the earlier Neutrality Acts materials would not be provided
to any belligerent who could pay. If the bill
passed, it would authorize President Roosevelt
to give arms and other defense materials to any
nation that he considered to be instrumental
in protecting the democracy and safety of the
United States. The United States would help
defend, with materials and information, those
countries that were important to U.S. security.
The bill placed no limits on the quantity of
weapons loaned or sums of money, and those
belligerents deemed “friendly” were free to
use American ports.
n December 8, 1940, Winston Churchill,
prime minister of England, sent a message
to President Roosevelt formally requesting
aid. Britain would soon run out of cash to buy
American arms, but still needed more weaponry. The British were fighting against German
military might, and they were fighting alone.
Churchill’s plea did not fall on deaf ears.
Nine days later President Roosevelt and his
advisers laid out a plan for “lending and leasing” to Britain. The interventionists, led by
Roosevelt, were now looking to increase aid to
the Allies beyond that offered in the Neutrality
Act of 1939. Many remembered that the money
loaned during WWI had never been paid back.
Roosevelt’s plan offered an alternative to simply loaning Britain money. Instead, the United
States would lend Britain the equipment and
supplies that it needed. Unused supplies
could be returned or paid for after the war.
Roosevelt argued that if your neighbor’s house
is on fire, you should not haggle over the price
of your garden hose.
“
What do I do in such a crisis? I don’t
say, Neighbor, my garden hose cost
me $15; you have to pay me $15 for
it.… I don’t want $15—I want my
garden hose back after the fire is
over.”
—Roosevelt, December 1940
The Lend-Lease Bill was presented to
Congress in December of 1940, and was also
known as House Resolution 1776. The House
name trumpeted the bill’s patriotism by
purposely referring to the U.S. date of independence. At this point, Germany, Italy, and
Japan (known as the Axis powers), controlled
vast amounts of territory in Europe and Asia.
www.choices.edu ■ What was convoying and
why was it important?
The Lend-Lease Bill would allow for supplies to go to Britain, but it did not address
how those supplies would be transported
across the Atlantic. The Atlantic Ocean had
been the setting of numerous clashes between
German submarines (known as U-boats)
and the British navy. If the supplies were
transported on British ships, they could be
destroyed by U-boat attack.
An alternative would be to send U.S. naval
vessels along as part of a convoy to protect
the supplies. This solution would put the
U.S. ships and sailors at considerable risk.
Many were concerned that convoying greatly
increased the chance of the United States
entering the war. They argued that a U-Boat
attack on a U.S. ship would force the United
States to respond.
“
This legislation, cloaked in the robes
of peace, is in its naked form, a
cowardly declaration of war.”
—Representative Hugh Peterson, Democrat
from Georgia
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 25
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Some in Congress
argued that convoying
was absolutely necessary. Why bother to lend
supplies to Britain if
the Germans were just
going to destroy them on
the way there? Others
argued that the problem
of transportation was
Britain’s, not the United
States’s. Still others
thought the whole issue
could be avoided if the
bill was simply rejected.
Image courtesy Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress, LC-DIG-ppmsc-03396.
Copyright 1941 by Herblock. Used with permission.
26
As talk of LendLease buzzed, the
influential America
First Committee wrote a
petition to support the
enforcement of the Neutrality Act of 1939 and
to request that Roosevelt
promise to keep the
United States out of war.
The petition said that
U.S. involvement should
go no further than it had
already. And most importantly, the AFC was
against convoying.
How did concerns of presidential power
enter the debate about Lend-Lease?
Finally, another hotly contested issue was
presidential power. A president’s power to
act in foreign affairs was a question that had
puzzled lawmakers since George Washington’s
day. The founding fathers had attempted to
find a balance between the president and Congress’ role in controlling the outcome of U.S.
involvement in foreign nations, specifically
during wartime. The Lend-Lease legislation
would allow Roosevelt alone to decide who
got what, and how much of it they got.
Many opponents of the legislation emphasized that the Constitution explicitly says
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ that only Congress has the ability to declare
war, but since the Lend-Lease Act gave Roosevelt so much power to decide with whom the
United States allied itself, he could deliberately antagonize Germany such that war would
be inevitable. Such an bill would not only
threaten the United States, but would open
the door for increased presidential power and
could lead down a path toward dictatorship.
Why should the United States stick its neck
out to fight fascism if its own government was
headed that way itself?
In the coming days, you and your classmates will recreate the debate in the U.S.
Congress over the Lend-Lease Bill.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Options in Brief
Option 1: Support LendLease and Follow Through
Option 3: Reject Lend-Lease
and Stay Out of War
We must support the Allies however possible, and the Lend-Lease Bill is an excellent
start. We cannot stand idly by while the Axis
powers quickly take control of the continent of
Europe. Their armies will soon be close to the
Atlantic coast of Europe, thus increasing the
threat to our shores. Since the fall of France
last year, Britain has been fighting a war entirely on its own, and will is running very low on
supplies and weapons. It is our duty, as a fellow democratic nation, to help Britain combat
Hitler’s tyranny, even if it eventually means
that we as a nation might go to war to defend
our democracy and freedom, as well as the
democracy and freedom of those worldwide.
World War I and the Great Depression
taught us how damaging international entanglements can be. Involving ourselves in
another war to protect “democracy” is a fool’s
errand. President Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Bill
is a blatant violation of neutrality, and will
only bring us closer to a conflict that is not
our concern. We should avoid any foreign
entanglements or alliances and focus on our
own problems. Greedy bankers and munitionsmakers tricked us into joining World War I,
and WWI was supposed to be a “war to end all
wars.” Clearly that was not the case. Democracy is best defended by ensuring that it is well
practiced within one’s own borders. We must
not let President Roosevelt lead us down the
path to war with this bill. Only Congress has
the right to declare war. We must defeat this
bill and stay out of war.
Option 2: Accept LendLease Without Convoys
We should support the Lend-Lease Bill,
but with strict stipulations. For example, we
can lend and lease Britain military supplies,
but we must not allow American convoys,
which would compromise the safety of our
ships and our men. This bill cannot purport
to be neutral, but it is the next best thing to
keep us out of war. We will aid Britain and
give them military supplies, but if we use our
own ships and men to help transport these
materials we will be subject to attack by German U-boats. Aiding England is not worth
American lives; the bill should only be passed
if U.S. convoying of lend-lease supplies is not
allowed.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 27
28
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Option 1:
Support Lend-Lease and Follow Through
W
e must support the Allies however possible, and the Lend-Lease Bill is an
excellent start. We cannot stand idly by while the Axis powers take over the
continent of Europe. Their armies control a large part of the Atlantic coast of Europe,
increasing the threat against our shores. Since the fall of France last year, Britain is
fighting a violent war entirely on its own, and is running very low on supplies and
weapons. It is our duty, as a fellow democratic nation, to help Britain combat Hitler’s
tyranny, even if it eventually means that we as a nation must go to war to defend our
democracy and freedom, as well as the democracy and freedom of those worldwide.
Today’s technology is advanced—a plane can fly from Africa to Brazil and back, or from
England to New England, without refueling. This means our eastern seaboard is well
within reach of Germany’s impressive airforce. German U-boats are patrolling the Atlantic
Ocean. These facts, paired with Great Britain’s status as the sole combatant against the Axis
powers, means the United States is in high danger of being attacked. We can no longer
depend on geographic distance for protection. We are not safe from Hitler and the Axis
powers, and this means we must be proactive in stopping their advances. The fascism
of Germany, Italy, and Japan is spreading, and it has become quite clear that their fascist
leaders have every intention of spreading this tyranny as far and as wide as possible.
Supporting the bill means that Britain will receive much needed supplies to keep up its fight,
and we should do everything in our power to ensure they receive those needed supplies.
This means that naval convoys will be necessary—it would be pointless to provide them
with supplies if they were then carried by unprotected British ships that German U-boats
could attack. We must demonstrate our commitment to Britain’s survival. If we provide them
with materials, we are investing in this survival and we must commit to it wholeheartedly.
Most importantly, the great ideal of democracy is at risk here. We cannot simply wait,
hoping that Germany and Japan will not take action against us. If we claim to be a beacon of
democracy we must defend that principle as well as defend other democracies. By supporting
the Lend-Lease Bill, we will be aiding an Ally, and thereby ensuring our own defense.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Beliefs and Assumptions Underlying Option 1
1. The twentieth-century world is
greatly interconnected, and requires
that the United States be actively
involved in the world’s affairs.
U.S. values be defended at home and abroad.
3. Fascism and tyranny must be
checked because they are spreading
rapidly across Europe and Asia.
2. Democracy is a principle the United
States values highly, and it is important that
Supporting Arguments for Option 1
1. Aiding Britain in its fight against the
Nazis is the best way to ensure our safety
and the preservation of democracy.
3. If we do not aid Britain now, we
may have to fight the Nazis alone later.
2. We will not be entering the war; we
will simply be helping an ally in need.
From the Historical Record
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Editorial from The Progressive
“There is far less chance of the United
States getting into war, if we do all we can
now to support the nations defending themselves against attack by the Axis than if we
acquiesce in their defeat, submit tamely to an
Axis victory and wait our turn to be the object
of attack in another war later on.”
“Doesn’t it seem silly and unwise for the
United States to deny munitions to the nations
that are fighting Hitler and his totalitarian
concept of government and then to spend billions of dollars for the fight on Hitler after he
destroyed the British Empire and is stronger
than ever? If Hitler defeats England and the
British fleet is destroyed, what becomes of our
splendid isolation…?”
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The people of Europe who are defending
themselves do not ask us to do their fighting. They ask us for the implements of war,
the planes, the tanks, the guns, the freighters which will enable them to fight for their
liberty and for our security.... We must be the
great arsenal of democracy.”
Editor of The New York World, Frank J. Cobb, April 7,
1917
“The old isolation is finished. We are no
longer aloof from Europe, we are no longer
aloof from the rest of the world. For weal or
woe, whatever happens now concerns us, and
from none of it can be withheld the force of
our influence.”
www.choices.edu ■ President Franklin D. Roosevelt
“To those peoples who are gallantly shedding their blood in the lines of this struggle,
we must offer not only a shield but a sword,
not merely the means to permit the stalemate
of protracted defense, but the tools of a final
and total victory.”
Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox
“We need time to build ships and to train
their crews. We need time to build our outlying bases so that we can operate our fleets as a
screen for our continent. We need time to train
our armies, to accumulate war stores, to gear
our industry for defense. Only Great Britain
can give us that time. And they need our help
to survive.”
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 29
30
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
U.S. Ambassador to France William C. Bullitt
Representative W.R. Poage, Texas
“We are not prepared today to meet an attack by the totalitarian states that are leagued
against us. We must buy time in which to
prepare. We can buy time only by making
certain that the British fleet will continue to
hold the totalitarian forces in Europe while
our fleet watches in the Pacific…. We set two
limits on our support of Great Britain: First,
we will not declare war; second, we will not
initiate military or naval hostilities. We can
diminish the danger to ourselves only by supplying promptly to the British and the other
states that are now holding the totalitarian war
machine away from our shores every material,
munition, and arm that they need….
“Let it not be said that we were unwilling
to use American money and American munitions now as a means of saving American lives
later on. Let us pass H.R. 1776 as the only effective method of protecting the liberty that we
gained in the year 1776, and of preserving the
peace that we enjoy in 1941.”
Representative John W. McCormack, Massachusetts
“The purpose of the pending bill is to keep
our country out of war, and to keep war from
coming to our shores later on, that can only be
done by preventing an Axis victory. It is unfortunate that the present world situation exists
that requires us to consider legislation of this
kind…. The argument has also been advanced
that this bill will lead us into war. I cannot
agree with that view. It is my opinion that this
bill is the safest course that we can take to
keep us out of war and to lessen the change of
war coming to our shores later on.”
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Senator Tom Connally, Texas
“This bill, I submit, is not intended to
get the nation into war, but it is intended to
keep it out of war. It is the purpose of the bill
by aiding Great Britain and by giving succor,
aid, and assistance to those who are struggling against the aggressor, to keep the war in
Europe, and keep the invaders away from our
own land.”
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
“The Battle of France is over. I expect that
the Battle of Britain is about to begin…. Hitler
knows that he will have to break us in this
island or lose the war. If we can stand up to
him, all of Europe may be free and the life of
the world may move forward into broad, sunlit
uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world,
including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into
the abyss of a new Dark Age….”
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Option 2:
Accept Lend-Lease without Convoys
W
In terms of protecting our democracy, providing aid to Britain makes sense, but we must
monitor exactly what we promise. It is not necessary to go to war to protect our democracy at
this point. Many of those who seek to increase the war hysteria in this country are claiming
that fascism is an unstoppable, evil idea that is penetrating all aspects of European society,
and that it will only be a matter of
time before it arrives at our shores.
This is a greatly exaggerated claim—
fascism is indeed an undesirable
form of government, but there is no
evidence yet that the fascists can
achieve world domination. Hitler’s
actions in Europe are ones of which
we do not approve, but he has made
no direct attack on us. We cannot
justify a conversation about entering
a war that is not our affair as of now.
Some say we are discussing a bill that
indirectly commits us to war. If this
is so, one of the strict stipulations
must be no convoys. We will aid
Britain and give them military
supplies, but to use our own ships
and men to help transport these
materials means we will be subject
to attack by German U-boats. Aiding
England is not worth American lives;
the bill should only be passed if U.S. convoying of lend-lease supplies is not allowed.
www.CharlesLindbergh.com. Used with permission.
e should support the Lend-Lease Bill, but with strict stipulations. First and foremost,
it is vitally important that the United States have a unilateral say on its own
international role both economically and politically. We cannot make any alliances that
compromise our national interests. For example, we can lend and lease military supplies
to Britain, but we must not allow American naval convoys to accompany these supplies.
This would compromise the safety of our ships and our men. We value democracy,
but we want to avoid being dragged into a war in Europe. Only when it is absolutely
clear that tyranny and lawlessness is replacing freedom and order should the United
States think about formally entering the war, and it has not come to that point yet. This
bill cannot purport to be neutral, but it is the next best thing to keep us out of war.
Furthermore, the bill should ensure that we will in no way commit to actual combat.
Fighting another costly overseas war will do nothing but deplete our financial coffers, our
resources, and our population. It remains crucial that we avoid actual military engagement.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 31
32
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Beliefs and Assumptions Underlying Option 2
1. The United States should support
Great Britain only if U.S. sovereignty
remains strictly protected.
2. It is important that the United
States stay out of war at all costs.
3. There is little evidence that
supporters of fascism and tyranny
can dominate the world.
Supporting Arguments for Option 2
1. Democracy is a defendable principle,
but at this point is best protected by sending
supplies to Britain and that is all.
endanger American men and ships.
3. War in Europe should be fought
by the Europeans, not Americans.
2. Convoys will unnecessarily
From the Historical Record
Robert Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago,
Member of the America First Committee
“I am for aid to Britain. I am against naval
or military intervention in this war…”
Common Sense Magazine
“Looked at dispassionately, this talk of
world conquest by the Fascist powers is dream
stuff, the kind of dream stuff used by propaganda agencies to whip up war fever.”
Senator Tom Connally, Texas
“The cold-blooded dictators, intoxicated
by conquest…await only the moment of their
choice to strike down free government and
democracy wherever it lives. This bill is America’s answer to their challenge. We propose
to keep the war away from our shores. We
propose to preserve our own freedom and that
of the western world.”
Senator Charles W. Tobey, New Hampshire
Representative John W. McCormack, Massachusetts
“Suppose in the papers of tomorrow or
later on, the people of America should read
of the defeat of Britain, what do you suppose
will be their feeling? Will it be one of calmness, of safety and security, or will it be one of
alarm, or with the feeling of fear, or impending
danger? Would not their feelings be properly
summed up in the words ‘we are next’? That is
the reason why this is a defense measure and a
peace measure so that ‘we will not be next.’”
Representative Anton F. Maciejewski, Illinois
“The Lend-Lease bill seeks to insure us
against involvement in the wars now taking place in foreign lands by authorizing the
President to give material aid to those friendly
nations whose continued independent existence is necessary for our vital defense.”
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ “Let us measure up to their great trust in
us, a trust that we shall keep faith with them
and keep them out of war and in the paths of
peace, if it is humanly possible, and that we
will not resort secretly to a policy of convoys…. Convoys mean shooting, and shooting
means war….”
The New York Times
“Sources close to the White House said it
is obvious that if the United States Navy convoys ships, either under an American or other
flag, into a combat zone, shooting is pretty sure
to result, and shooting comes awfully close to
war.”
Senator Walter F. George, Georgia
“As plainly as I can, I have always stood
against convoying vessels by the American
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
fleet, and will stand against convoying vessels
by any unit of the American Fleet until and
unless the point shall come when I shall be
willing to vote for war, because in my judgment, convoying would lead us into actual
war.”
Senator Charles W. Tobey, New Hampshire
“…If it is our conviction that convoys
mean war…we of the Congress having assured
the American people that we will keep them
out of war, as has the President and as has the
distinguished candidate who opposed him in
the recent election, then it logically follows
that we of the Congress should take every step
possible to keep us out of the war as a participant, and should use the powers vested in us
by the Constitution to prohibit the use of our
ships as convoys.”
abroad. Yes; we will always protect our own,
but I cannot but feel that H.R, 1776, backed
up by the glaring headlines of the war minded
eastern press and the propaganda ground out
in the movies, owned in large part by the same
group who dominate this press; I cannot help
but feel that all of this, together with the wrapping our flag about this so-called Lend-Lease
Bill, is but a prelude once more to brass bands
again accompanying our brothers and perhaps
our sons on a march to a war of destruction
in a foreign county, a war which we had no
part in starting. No; neither were we consulted
with by Britain at Versailles nor at Munich. I
sympathize with the poor people in Europe
today. …but the clammy, cold hand of death
accompanies the convoying by our warships of
supplies going to their aid.”
Representative H. Carl Anderson, Minnesota
“Our job as Congressmen is to prevent
a recurrence of our troops again being used
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 33
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Option 3:
Reject Lend-Lease and Stay Out of War
W
orld War I and the Great Depression taught us how damaging international
entanglements can be. Involving ourselves in another war to protect “democracy”
is a fool’s errand. Germany’s re-emergence as a totalitarian military power demonstrates
that the first fight for democracy during World War I failed. Europe is a continent full of
squabbling and vengeful countries. Furthermore, the failure of Wilson’s League of Nations
exhibits Europe’s inability to cooperate. Given this historical evidence, it is clear that
we should stay out of this conflict at all costs by adhering to a policy of strict neutrality.
President Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Bill is a blatant violation of this neutrality, and will only
bring us closer to a conflict that is not our concern, needlessly endangering American lives.
We should avoid any foreign entanglements or alliances and focus on our own problems.
The United States is still recovering from a staggering economic depression. Millions of
U.S. citizens went without adequate shelter and food. It is hard to believe that with barely
a decade since Black Tuesday sent our
economy into a tailspin, we would deem
it necessary to go out into the world
to try and fix other people’s problems.
Greedy bankers and munitions-makers
tricked us into joining World War I, and
it was supposed to be a “war to end all
wars.” Clearly that was not the case.
The Allies were too harsh on Germany
after World War I, and now a fascist
dictator is in charge. This underlines
the never-ending problem of European
countries being unable to get along
with one another. Why insert ourselves
into this fray that will not end?
Some claim that it is only a matter
of time before Hitler looks to attack
the United States. There has been no
indication that he wants to do that.
It would be an incredibly difficult
undertaking; Hitler knows the width
of the ocean and the strength of our navy. Even if he were to conquer all of Europe, he
would have little need to attack the United States. But if we favor the Allies through LendLease, he will have incentive to attack because we will have violated our neutrality.
Furthermore, in aiding Britain we will be provoking all Axis powers, and this would
jeopardize any chance of reaching a compromise in ongoing negotiations with Japan.
Democracy is best defended by ensuring that it is well practiced within one’s
own borders. We must not let President Roosevelt lead us down the path to
war with this bill. Only Congress has the right to declare war. We must defeat
this bill, protect the power of the legislative branch, and stay out of war.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
www.CharlesLindbergh.com. Used with permission.
34
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Beliefs and Assumptions Underlying Option 3
1. Lend-Lease will lead us to war, which
should be avoided at all costs. It is a grossly
unnecessary sacrifice of men and resources.
2. Europe is a volatile region that does
not share our interests or values. We should
not become entangled in its troubles.
3. The United States is still recovering
from The Great Depression. We have
too many problems here at home and
should not commit resources and time
to solving the problems of others.
Supporting Arguments for Option 3
1. Supporting Lend-Lease will only
give Hitler more incentive to attack and
bring us much closer to actual war.
2. World War I and the Treaty of Versailles
were clear examples of European countries’
inability to reconcile. Supporting one side
will only get the United States involved
in Europe’s endless political quarrels.
3. By rejecting Lend-Lease, the United
States can remain a neutral country without
official allies, thus allowing us full freedom
to govern ourselves and remain unentangled.
From the Historical Record
Chairman of U.S. Maritime Commission Admiral Emory
Land
“If we don’t watch our step, we shall find
the White House en route to England with the
Washington monument as a steering oar.”
Wisconsin Governor Philip La Follette
“Mark this. If we go to war to save democracy in Europe, we shall wind up by losing
democracy at home.”
in controversy, may it not be better that we set
some example to the world and make some
sacrifice of that ancient doctrine or right in
order to promote a better doctrine and a higher
civilization that the world has yet known?”
New York Times Military Correspondent, Hanson Baldwin,
“We must steel ourselves to forego the
unholy profit that comes from dealing in blood
traffic. We must treat war as a contagious
disease. We must isolate those who have it and
refrain from all intercourse with them.”
“No military tidal wave could prevail
against our continental and hemispherical
impregnability…. If we go far beyond our
borders, into distant seas, we face an end in
treasure, human life, and national destiny
which no man living can foresee. By frittering
away our great strength, we may well destroy
that impregnability which means certain security for the American castle.”
Novelist Ernest Hemingway
Representative Louis Ludlow, Indiana
Senator Donald W. Stewart, Alabama
“Never again should this country be put
into a European war through mistaken idealism.”
Representative Arthur H. Greenwood, Indiana
“There is the old doctrine of freedom of
the seas and we all revere it, but if the experience of that freedom is to carry our people or
products into a war zone that will involve us
www.choices.edu ■ “We cannot be both neutral and accessory to war at the same time. The only way to
protect America’s neutral position is to cut off
all trade and all financial transactions with
warring nations.”
Representative Hamilton Fish III, New York
“…If this bill is passed unamended we
will be in this war within six months time,
and with it the doom of our free institutions,
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 35
36
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
and tying from now on the destiny of America
with the eternal wars in Europe and Asia.”
Excerpts from the testimony of Prof. Charles Beard before Congress, debating the Lend-Lease Bill, 1941
“Europe is old, Asia is old, the peoples
and nations of Europe and Asia have their
respective traditions, institutions, forms of
government, and systems of economy.... Europe and Asia have been torn by wars, waged
under various symbols and slogans, since the
dawn of recorded history. The history of Europe and Asia is long and violent. Tenacious
emotions and habits are associated with it.
Can the American people, great and ingenious
though they be, transform those traditions,
institutions, systems, emotions, and habits by
employing treasure, arms, propaganda, and
diplomatic lectures? Can they, by any means
at their disposal, make over Europe and Asia,
provide democracy, a bill of rights, and economic security for everybody, everywhere in
the world?”
Representative Bartel Jonkman, Michigan
“…This bill not only undertakes to bring
order our of chaos in Europe, including the
Russia, Poland, and Latvia tangle, but its order
is to set the whole world in order for our
defense and safety….this will mean war, bankruptcy, dictatorship, and, I may add, failure.”
Representative Usher Burdick, North Dakota
“All out aid to Britain may mean anything.
…if we grant these dictatorial powers to the
President war is inevitable. As war for what?
The last war was fought ‘to make the world
safe for democracy.’ Did it make it safe? Is
democracy safe now anywhere in the world,
even including our country? What will we
enter this war for?”
Representative Hugh Peterson, Georgia
“This is no defense measure. It is a measure of aggressive warfare.”
Representative Vito Marcantonio, New York
“I am opposed to this bill because I am
opposed to converting this country into an
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ arsenal, not an arsenal for democracy, if you
please, but an arsenal in pursuance of a policy
which would catapult the American people
into a war which is not a war for democracy
but a war for the maintenance of the present
British imperialist interests, a war between
two gangs of imperialistic bandits, one gang
who stole yesterday and one gang who is trying to steal today.”
Senator Burton K. Wheeler, Montana
“The momentum forcing us along the
primrose path to our fatal rendezvous with
war will dictate sheep-like approval of each
appropriation requested and meekly obedient extension of the time line, just as Hitler’s
powers and Mussolini’s powers were extended
by the docile representatives of the people.
Are we again to be just marionettes to dance
when our ruler pulls the strings?...There is no
fairer test of democracy that the right of the
people, through their chosen representatives
to determine between peace and war….To the
extent that the people, through the chosen
representatives, have surrendered this choice
to one man, to that extent they have sacrificed
democracy.”
Senator Robert M. LaFollette, Wisconsin
“I will not give my vote for any bill which
is one step nearer another blood bath for our
youth, one step nearer totalitarianism for the
United States. I am not willing to add my vote
to help in any way a course of action which I
am convinced can end only in the same bitter
disillusionment and futile disaster of the last
war.”
Senator Robert A. Taft, Ohio
“The important thing about this bill, it
seems to me, is that its provisions in effect
give the President power to carry on a kind of
undeclared war all over the world, in which
America would do everything except actually
put soldiers in the front-line trenches where
the fighting is…. I do not see how we can long
conduct such a war without actually being in
the shooting end of the war as well as in the
service-of-supply end which this bill justifies.”
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Epilogue: The Legacies of FDR and Isolationism
T
undermines the Constitutional
he Lend-Lease Bill passed on March 11,
provision which gives the power to
1941, with large majorities in both the
Congress alone.”
House and Senate. The Act, titled “An Act to
Promote the Defense of the United States,”
—America First Committee,
September 1941
contained an amendment preventing the
United States from sending U.S. convoys with
Roosevelt continued to praise the merits
the supplies sent to the British. The amendof the Lend-Lease Act, and a few months after
ment was the resolution of the most heated
Germany attacked its own ally, the Soviet
argument concerning Lend-Lease, and RoosUnion, he lobbied Congress to extend the bill
evelt, who had fervently supported convoys,
to include aid for the Soviets.
had to concede defeat on this particular issue.
In the end, Congress decided that the United
States should not risk its own ships and men,
The lend-lease
or the possibility of war,
program is no
for the sake of transportmere side issue
ing aid to Great Britain.
At no time in our history
to our program of
The majority of Senators
have these processes
arming for defense.
and Congressmen, and
of democratic discussion
It is an integral
more than 60 percent of
had freer reign than in the
part, a keystone, in
the public, supported
debate on lend-lease. It was
our great national
the bill.
effort to preserve
as if the whole American
In addition to
our national security
people were thinking out
legislative action,
for generations to
loud.”
Roosevelt took military
come, by crushing
— U.S. Undersecretary of State
precautions. In May
the disturbers of our
Edward Stettinius, 1943
1941 a German U-boat
peace.”
sank the Robin Moor,
—Roosevelt, November
11, 1941
an American vessel
carrying supplies to
Roosevelt wanted to make it clear to the
South Africa. This angered many Americans.
American public that the Axis powers were
As tensions increased in the Atlantic, Roosthe ultimate enemy. Roosevelt believed that
evelt ordered U.S. troops to occupy Iceland
the war centered around Hitler’s drive for
on July 7, 1941. This strategic move extended
world domination.
American military power out further into the
Atlantic and closer to Britain. Roosevelt also
authorized U.S. naval vessels to shoot German
“‘Liberty and freedom and democracy
submarines on sight. Roosevelt’s critics comare prizes awarded only to those
plained that he had bypassed the Constitution
people who fight to win them and
and wanted to provoke an incident that would
then keep fighting eternally to hold
lead to war.
them.’ ...This duty we owe, not to
ourselves alone, but to the many
dead who died to gain our freedom
The President has decreed that
for us—to make the world a place
shooting shall begin. His edict is
where freedom can live and grow
supported neither by Congressional
into the ages.”
sanction nor by the popular will.
—Roosevelt, November 11, 1941
It is authorized by no statute and
“
“
“
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 37
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
On October 9, 1941,
President Roosevelt asked
Congress to revise the Neutrality Act to allow American
merchant ships to be armed
and to enter a war zone.
Congress approved his request. Many in the America
First Committee believed
that Roosevelt hoped to create a situation in which the
Germans would fire the first
shot and give the United
States a reason to enter the
war. Historians still debate
Roosevelt’s true intent.
The America First Committee began a campaign to
get Congress to vote yes or
no on a declaration of war
because they believed that
Congress would not vote for
war. Although some of Roosevelt’s advisor’s
wanted him to pursue a vote on a declaration
of war, Roosevelt was not sure that Congress
would pass one at this point.
Asia: The Tipping Point
Japan continued to maneuver to gain more
power in Asia, and it did so despite ardent
U.S. opposition. For the average American,
events in Europe continued to overshadow
events in Asia, but for Roosevelt and members
of the government, the crisis in Asia continued to loom large. The principal fear was that
Japan would attack the British colonies in the
Pacific and the Netherlands East Indies, but as
negotiations between the United States and Japan stalled, there was the possibility that U.S.
territories in the region would be in danger as
well.
How did events escalate in Asia?
In March 1941, the United States and
Japan began diplomatic negotiations in which
Japan asked the United States to unfreeze its
assets, trade in oil, and stop helping China.
The United States refused and negotiations
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Re-printed in cooperation with the Dr. Seuss Collection at the University of California at San Diego.
38
seemed at a standstill.
During this time, the United States broke
Japan’s secret diplomatic code, and discovered
that Japan had plans to attack U.S. territory.
The U.S. embargo had left Japan in desperate
need of supplies and oil. American officials assumed the Japanese would attack somewhere
in southeast Asia, perhaps in the Philippines.
The attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii on the morning of December 7,
1941 proved them wrong.
The Japanese attack destroyed over half of
the U.S. Navy’s Pacific fleet (which Japan saw
as an obstacle to its plans for expansion), and
killed over two thousand soldiers and hundreds of civilians. The United States declared
war on Japan. A day later, Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the United States, who
answered in kind. The United States was now
involved in the second worldwide struggle in
less than twenty-five years. The debate over
the Lend-Lease Act and staying out of war was
quickly forgotten.
The Japanese attack shocked Americans.
The public had not followed events in Asia
with as much scrutiny as they gave to problems in Europe, thus the attack seemed to
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
come out of the blue. Americans saw Pearl
Harbor as entirely unprovoked. Most importantly, the event shattered the illusion that the
United States was physically safe from attack.
“
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division LC-17109-ZD.
Those Americans who believed that
we could live under the illusion of
isolationism wanted the American
eagle to imitate the tactics of the
ostrich. Now, many of those same
people, afraid that we may be
sticking our necks out, want our
national bird to be turned into
a turtle. But we prefer to retain
the eagle as it is—flying high and
striking hard.”
—Roosevelt, February 22, 1942
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had
disproved the isolationist argument that the
United States was safe from Axis aggression.
Any hope of avoiding war ended on December
7, 1941.
“
…My convictions regarding
international cooperation and
collective security for peace took
firm form on the afternoon of the
Pearl Harbor attack. That day ended
isolationism for any realist.”
—Senator Arthur Vandenberg,
Republican from Michigan
After Pearl Harbor, the America First Committee stopped all of its anti-interventionist
activities and urged its members to support the
President as commander in chief of the U.S.
armed forces. With the attack on Pearl Harbor,
it had become clear that powerful countries
could no longer ignore the events beyond their
borders. The isolationism the America First
Committee espoused no longer seemed possible after Pearl Harbor.
The Effects of World War II
The Second World War lasted until 1945,
and brought extensive destruction to much
of Europe and Asia. The war destroyed basic
www.choices.edu ■ President Roosevelt signing the declaration of war
against Japan.
infrastructure in many countries, including
agriculture, transportation systems, factories,
and many towns and major cities. Roughly
sixty-two million perished in the war, whether
as combatants or civilians, Axis or Ally.
The United States emerged from the war
as a leading world power. It had lost approximately 420,000 citizens, mostly combatants.
The war touched very little of its territory and,
most importantly, its economy had boomed
throughout the war. President Roosevelt’s New
Deal had begun to pull the United States out
of the Great Depression, but it was not until
World War II, when industry and agriculture
were used to support the war effort, that the
economy regained its strength.
After the war, the United States initiated steps to build both a solid international
economic framework, and a strong international political framework. Harry S. Truman,
Roosevelt’s vice president, was now in charge
of the massive rebuilding effort, as Roosevelt
had died in 1945 soon after being elected to a
fourth term.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 39
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
What international economic steps
did the global community take?
Although the Soviet Union was anxious
to extract economic reparations from a defeated Germany, the Western Allies, led by
the United States, wanted to prevent a repeat
of the economic problems of the post-WWI
era. The Allies knew that despite Germany’s
actions, the country was a major contributor to
the European economy, and could not be punished without adversely affecting the others on
the continent.
In addition, the United States was determined to set up a more stable economic
framework to counter the appeal of Soviet
communism and so that the European countries could systematically pay back their
war-time loans to the United States. President
Truman, with his Secretary of State, George
Marshall, developed an
economic strategy known
as the Marshall Plan. The
plan aimed to bolster
the European economy
through promotion of
European production,
support for European currency, and encouragement
of international trade,
especially with the United
States. This plan was the
first of many comprehensive economic networks
that set up systems of
trade.
States was more than ready to take on a leadership role in organizing international politics.
Roosevelt had left a blueprint for international
cooperation.
What international political steps
did the global community take?
Roosevelt’s efforts to create cohesive and
friendly international alliances began well
before the war was even over. In July 1941,
before the attack on Pearl Harbor, President
Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill met secretly on a ship off the coast
of Newfoundland, Canada, and signed the Atlantic Charter, a comprehensive vision of the
post-WWII world. One of its elements, an idea
that Roosevelt firmly pushed to be included in
the Charter, called for an association of nations
that would serve as an arbiter of international
Re-printed in cooperation with the Dr. Seuss Collection at the University of California at San Diego.
40
But many countries
acknowledged that addressing economic
concerns alone would not
guarantee the prevention of
future wars. The Allies, in
assessing the damage of the
long struggle, decided that
international organizations
should have their place in
the world. They wanted to
create a body that could
regulate international relations fairly. The United
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
The Cold War—A Nail in Isolationism’s Coffin
Following the defeat of Hitler in 1945, Soviet-U.S. relations began to deteriorate. By 1947, the
United States had adopted a policy of containing the spread of Soviet communism. In the U.S.
view, communism was evil. Americans thought the Soviet Union’s goal was to crush capitalism
around the globe and replace it with communism. Because both the Soviet Union and the United
States had nuclear weapons and were in competition around the world, nearly every foreign
policy decision was carefully examined for its potential impact on U.S.-Soviet relations.
The conflict, known as the Cold War, made U.S. isolationism obsolete. For example, in
response to the Soviet threat, the United States found itself in what many would call an “entangling alliance.” In 1949, the United States formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
for protection against the Soviet military threat. Under the provisions of NATO, the United
States, Canada, and ten countries of Western Europe pledged to come to one another’s defense if
any member were attacked. NATO was the first international military alliance since the United
States’ alliance with France during the U.S. War of Independence. During the Cold War, the
United States was involved in many ideologically-based conflicts around the globe in places like
Korea, Vietnam, and multiple countries in Latin America and Africa. The Cold War ended in
1989; two years later the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
disputes and an advocate of peace. In essence,
he was calling for the creation of the United
Nations, a name he actually coined to refer
to the Allies. Roosevelt strongly supported
President Wilson’s idea of international cooperation, but he was determined to avoid the
failures of the League of Nations by garnering
support both within and outside of the United
States.
The Allied leaders met several times
throughout the war to solidify the aims of this
organization. The UN, Roosevelt’s idea, came
into being on October 24, 1945, less than a
year after his death, with over fifty member
countries.
With the founding of the United Nations,
President Roosevelt had left an indelible mark
on the world. In part because of World War II,
but also because of his determination, Franklin
D. Roosevelt had thrust the United States onto
the global stage, a stage whose other players
looked to it for guidance.
The Legacy of Roosevelt
The progress Roosevelt made internationally did not overshadow his accomplishments
in the domestic realm. He created two important government programs that still exist
www.choices.edu ■ today: the welfare system, instated to aid the
unemployed, and social security, which provides income and benefits to retired people.
However, the effects Roosevelt’s presidency
had on the role of the executive branch are not
always viewed as positive.
How did Roosevelt influence
the role of the president?
Roosevelt served his terms as president
during difficult times for the United States,
and some say he exploited these difficulties by
attempting to give himself more power. He had
attempted to pack the Supreme Court when
it ruled New Deal legislation as unconstitutional, but with little success. Some believed
his powers in making decisions about international relations and war seemed to go virtually
unchecked.
The various legislation passed before the
war, including the Neutrality Acts, but especially the Lend-Lease Act, placed a large
amount of power in Roosevelt’s hands. LendLease was perhaps the best example, because
it explicitly stated that Roosevelt, and only
Roosevelt, could decide to whom the United
States would give aid. In other words, he alone
decided that Britain and other Allies were the
ones who deserved U.S. help. This aspect of
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 41
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
the act angered many in Congress, but especially the isolationists. They argued that it was
hypocritical for a president who was urging
Americans to fight the evils of fascism and
dictatorships to then turn around and usurp
decision-making power that could potentially
lead to war. Many objected to the Lend-Lease
Act because it was seen as a precursor to war,
and as it granted Roosevelt these additional
powers, he could enter the United States into a
conflict with no prior approval from Congress.
ods by which subsequent presidents conduct
themselves during times of conflict. The Constitution states that it is the legislative branch’s
role to declare war, not the executive’s, but it
is noteworthy that not a single war since 1945
has begun with a formal declaration by Congress. Instead, the U.S. military has been sent
overseas by executive order, or sole order of
the president, or with Congress authorizing the
president to “use force.”
The power Roosevelt enjoyed as a result
of the Lend-Lease Act has affected the meth-
Echoes from The Great Debate
of 1940-1941
The questions that
the country was asking in
1940 are questions that
are familiar to present-day
Americans. First, how
should the United States
address the problems of
the world? If it must get
involved overseas, how
should it do so, and for
what reason? Second, in
these times of international
uncertainty, how much
power should the president have?
The Authentic History Center. www.authentichistory.com. Used with permission.
42
This cartoon portrays Roosevelt’s actions as leading to dictatorship in the
United States.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ How should the
United States address
international problems?
Debates about the U.S.
government’s international role are strikingly
similar to those during
Roosevelt’s presidency.
There are those who think
the United States should
take an active, but unilateral, approach to foreign
affairs. They are advocates
of zero entangling alliances
that might compromise
U.S. interests. Others
believe the U.S. approach
should be strictly multilateral, meaning the United
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
States should be involved in events around the
world, but only by having formal alliances and
agreements with other nations through international institutions like the United Nations.
Finally, some believe that relative isolation
is the answer. This group has never regained
the prominence it had in the 1930s, but as the
United States encounters difficulty or hostility
overseas, the idea has gained some popularity
again.
How much power should the U.S.
president have in foreign affairs?
The Constitutional role of the executive
branch remains open to debate. The Constitution says one of the president’s many tasks is
to “conduct the foreign relations of the state.”
This vague statement does not define the
www.choices.edu ■ president’s role explicitly. The president can
negotiate treaties with other countries, but the
Congress has to ratify them. The president is
the commander of the armed forces, yet he
cannot send them to war without Congress’
approval.
The limits of presidential power have been
a source of political tension and debate from
Roosevelt to Johnson to Reagan and George W.
Bush. The blurry lines between executive and
legislative are also still hotly debated. How
much latitude do presidents have when conducting the foreign relations of the state, and
what role does Congress play in this conduct?
In a world of changing and new threats to
U.S. security, the question remains as pressing
today as it was in Roosevelt’s time.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 43
44
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Supplementary Documents
Senator Gerald P. Nye, Radio
Address, January 6, 1936
N
eutrality is to be had if we are willing to
pay the price of abandonment of expectation of profits from the blood of other nations
at war. But it defies any man to write a neutrality program that would long endure and
succeed in keeping us neutral if the policy
contemplated a business boom or even ‘business as usual’ in America while other nations
are at war and wanting supplies from our
mines, fields and factories....
We saw the last European war until
1917 as one in no degree our business....
We rejoiced at the moment that leadership
of our Government was showing greatest
determination to keep America out of that
war, a leadership affording a policy that was
presumed to be a guarantee of our neutrality. That neutrality policy is now known as a
permissive or a discretionary policy, with its
administration in no degree mandatory upon
the President. That the policy failed, and that
miserably, is record....
Ah business continues good; prosperity
remains on every hand! War isn’t such a bad
thing when we don’t have to be in it! ‘But,’ we
said, ‘look at those Germans; they are destroying American cargoes going to England and
France and sinking English passenger vessels
with Americans on board! Maybe something
ought to be done about it! But, whatever we
do, let’s not get into that war!’ That was our
reasoning at the hour. How childish it all
was—this expectation of success in staying
out of a war politically while economically
we stayed in it; how childish this permissive flip-flop neutrality policy of ours and our
belief that we could go on and on supplying
the sinews of war to one or even both sides
and avoid ourselves being ultimately drawn
into the engagement with our lives and our
fortunes at stake.
Well, to make a long story short, our
prosperity, which at the moment was our commerce with the Allies, demanded a more and
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ more warlike attitude on our part. Our rights
on the high seas, our commerce is declared in
jeopardy!...
After we had started stretching our
permissive American neutrality policy to
accommodate our commercial interests the
Allied powers were never in doubt as to what
America would ultimately do. They saw what
we didn’t seem to realize, namely, that where
our pocketbook was there would we and our
hearts ultimately be....
Insistence now upon establishment of a
mandatory policy of neutrality is no reflection
upon any one man. It is only fair to say that
the present [Franklin D.] Roosevelt determination to keep us out of war is no higher than
was that expressed by Wilson. Yet...while the
Wilson administration was declaring itself
neutral, parts of that administration were actually contemplating the hour when we would
ultimately get into the war without a doubt as
to which side we would enter on....
Based upon such facts and such experience Senator [Bennet Champ] Clark [D-Mo.]
and I today introduced in the Senate a bill
proposing a strict policy of neutrality, the
enforcement of which shall at once be not permissive or at the discretion of the President,
but mandatory upon him. The bill presents
requirements and advantages roughly stated as
follows:
First, at the outbreak of war between other
nations the President shall by proclamation
forbid the exportation of arms, ammunition
and implements of war for the use of those
nations, and that the President shall, not ‘may’
but shall, extend this embargo to other nations
if and when they may become engaged in war.
Second, the bill proposes an embargo
on other items of commerce which may be
considered essential war materials, such as oil,
and provides that the President shall forbid
exportation to nations at war of these materials
beyond what was the average annual exportation of these materials to those nations during
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
the five-year period preceding the outbreak of
war.
Third, the bill requires that the President
shall upon the outbreak of war between foreign states proclaim that the buyer of any and
all articles to or through the field of operations
of belligerent states shall be at the risk solely
of the buyer and the bill provides that the
buyers shall be without redress in any court of
the United States. Thus, it will be seen, there
is provided a strict ‘cash and carry’ basis with
buyers taking their own risk in accomplishing
delivery of supplies they buy from us in time
of war.
Fourth, the bill requires that the President
shall require American passengers to refrain
from traveling on the vessels of belligerent
states, and provides that passengers who ignore this requirement at once forfeit their right
to protection of the United States. Thus we can
avoid a repetition of the Lusitania experience.
Fifth, the bill introduced today does with
loans and credits to time of war precisely what
it does with war materials—it embargoes and
limits them....
There are those who will insist that this
measure is too severe. We, who sponsor it, feel
that in the light of experience, nothing short
of those provisions is deserving of the title of
a neutrality policy and we beg the confidence
of the people of the land in it not as an instrument that will completely prevent war, but as
one that will make it extremely difficult for the
United States to be drawn into another foreign
war that becomes our war only because of selfish interests that profit from the blood spilled
in the wars of other lands.”
Japan Envisions a “New
Order” in Asia, 1938
W
hat Japan seeks is the establishment
of a new order which will insure the
permanent stability of East Asia. In this lies
the ultimate purpose of our present military
campaign.
co-ordination between Japan, Manchoukuo
[the name Japan gave to Manchuria in February 1932], and China in political, economic,
cultural and other fields. Its object is to secure
international justice, to perfect the joint defence against Communism, and to create a new
culture and realize a close economic cohesion
throughout East Asia. This indeed is the way
to contribute toward the stabilization of East
Asia and the progress of the world.
What Japan desires of China is that that
country will share in the task of bringing
about this new order in East Asia. She confidently expects that the people of China will
fully comprehend her true intentions and that
they will respond to the call of Japan for their
co-operation. Even the participation of the
Kuomintang Government would not be rejected, if, repudiating the policy which has guided
it in the past and remolding its personnel, so
as to translate its re-birth into fact, it were to
come forward to join in the establishment of
the new order.
Japan is confident that other Powers will
on their part correctly appreciate her aims
and policy and adapt their attitude to the new
conditions prevailing in East Asia. For the
cordiality hitherto manifested by the nations
which are in sympathy with us, Japan wishes
to express her profound gratitude.
The establishment of a new order in East
Asia is in complete conformity with the very
spirit in which the Empire was founded; to
achieve such a task is the exalted responsibility with which our present generation is
entrusted. It is, therefore, imperative to carry
out all necessary internal reforms, and with
a full development of the aggregate national
strength, material as well as moral, fulfill at all
costs this duty incumbent upon our nation.
Such the Government declares to be the
immutable policy and determination of Japan.
This new order has for its foundation
a tripartite relationship of mutual aid and
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 45
46
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
President Roosevelt’s Fireside
Chat, December 29, 1940:
“We must be the great
arsenal of democracy.”
T
his is not a fireside chat on war. It is a talk
on national security; because the nub of
the whole purpose of your President is to keep
you now; and your children later, and your
grandchildren much later, out of a last-ditch
war for the preservation of American independence and all of the things that American
independence means to you and to me and to
ours.
Tonight, in the presence of a world crisis, my mind goes back eight years ago to a
night in the midst of a domestic crisis. It was
a time when the wheels of American industry
were grinding to a full stop, when the whole
banking system of our country had ceased to
function.
I well remember that while I sat in my
study in the White House, preparing to talk
with the people of the United States, I had before my eyes the picture of all those Americans
with whom I was talking. I saw the workmen
in the mills, the mines, the factories; the girl
behind the counter; the small shopkeeper; the
farmer doing his spring plowing; the widows
and the old men wondering about their life’s
savings.
I tried to convey to the great mass of American people what the banking crisis meant to
them in their daily lives.
Tonight, I want to do the same thing, with
the same people, in this new crisis which faces
America.
We met the issue of 1933 with courage and
realism.
We face this new crisis—this new threat
to the security of our Nation—with the same
courage and realism.
Never before since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock has our American civilization been
in such danger as now.
For, on September 27, 1940, by an agreement signed in Berlin, three powerful nations,
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ two in Europe and one in Asia, joined
themselves together in the threat that if the
United States interfered with or blocked the
expansion program of these three nations—a
program aimed at world control—they would
unite in ultimate action against the United
States.
The Nazi masters of Germany have made
it clear that they intend not only to dominate
all life and thought in their own country, but
also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then
to use the resources of Europe to dominate the
rest of the world.
Three weeks ago their leader stated,
“There are two worlds that stand opposed to
each other.” Then in defiant reply to his opponents, he said this: “Others are correct when
they say: ‘With this world we cannot ever reconcile ourselves.’...I can beat any other power
in the world.” So said the leader of the Nazis.
In other words, the Axis not merely admits
but proclaims that there can be no ultimate
peace between their philosophy of government
and our philosophy of government.
In view of the nature of this undeniable
threat, it can be asserted, properly and categorically, that the United States has no right
or reason to encourage talk of peace until the
day shall come when there is a clear intention
on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon
all thought of dominating or conquering the
world.
At this moment, the forces of the states
that are leagued against all peoples who live in
freedom are being held away from our shores.
The Germans and Italians are being blocked
on the other side of the Atlantic by the British,
and by the Greeks, and by thousands of soldiers and sailors who were able to escape from
subjugated countries. The Japanese are being
engaged in Asia by the Chinese in another
great defense.
In the Pacific is our fleet.
Some of our people like to believe that
wars in Europe and in Asia are of no concern
to us. But it is a matter of most vital concern
to us that European and Asiatic war-makers
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
should not gain control of the oceans which
lead to this hemisphere.
One hundred and seventeen years ago the
Monroe Doctrine was conceived by our Government as a measure of defense in the face of
a threat against this hemisphere by an alliance
in continental Europe. Thereafter, we stood
on guard in the Atlantic, with the British as
neighbors. There was no treaty. There was no
“unwritten agreement.”
Yet, there was the feeling, proven correct
by history, that we as neighbors could settle
any disputes in peaceful fashion. The fact is
that during the whole of this time the Western
Hemisphere has remained free from aggression
from Europe or from Asia.
Does anyone seriously believe that we
need to fear attack while a free Britain remains
our most powerful naval neighbor in the Atlantic? Does any one seriously believe, on the
other hand, that we could rest easy if the Axis
powers were our neighbor there?
If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the continents of Europe, Asia,
Africa, Australasia, and the high seas-—and
they will be in a position to bring enormous
military and naval resources against this
hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that
all of us in the Americas would be living at the
point of a gun—a gun loaded with explosive
bullets, economic as well as military.
We should enter upon a new and terrible
era in which the whole world, our hemisphere
included, would be run by threats of brute
force. To survive in such a world, we would
have to convert ourselves permanently into a
militaristic power on the basis of war economy.
Some of us like to believe that, even if
Great Britain falls, we are still safe, because of
the broad expanse of the Atlantic and of the
Pacific.
But the width of these oceans is not what
it was in the days of clipper ships. At one
point between Africa and Brazil the distance
is less than from Washington to Denver—five
hours for the latest type of bomber. And at the
www.choices.edu ■ north of the Pacific Ocean, America and Asia
almost touch each other. Even today we have
planes which could fly from the British Isles to
New England and back without refueling. And
the range of the modern bomber is ever being
increased.
During the past week many people in all
parts of the Nation have told me what they
wanted me to say tonight. Almost all of them
expressed a courageous desire to hear the
plain truth about the gravity of the situation.
One telegram, however, expressed the attitude
of the small minority who want to see no evil
and hear no evil, even though they know in
their hearts that evil exists. That telegram
begged me not to tell again of the ease with
which our American cities could be bombed
by any hostile power which had gained bases
in this Western Hemisphere. The gist of that
telegram was: “Please, Mr. President, don’t
frighten us by telling us the facts.”
Frankly and definitely there is danger
ahead—danger against which we must prepare. But we well know that we cannot escape
danger, or the fear of it, by crawling into bed
and pulling the covers over our heads.
Some nations of Europe were bound by
solemn non-intervention pacts with Germany.
Other nations were assured by Germany that
they need never fear invasion. Non-intervention pact or not, the fact remains that they
were attacked, overrun, and thrown into the
modern form of slavery at an hour’s notice or
even without any notice at all. As an exiled
leader of one of these nations said to me the
other day: “The notice was a minus quantity.
It was given to my government two hours after
German troops had poured into my country in
a hundred places.”
The fate of these nations tells us what it
means to live at the point of a Nazi gun.
The Nazis have justified such actions by
various pious frauds. One of these frauds is the
claim that they are occupying a nation for the
purpose of “restoring order.” Another is that
they are occupying or controlling a nation on
the excuse that they are “protecting it” against
the aggression of somebody else.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 47
48
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
For example, Germany has said that she
was occupying Belgium to save the Belgians
from the British. Would she hesitate to say to
any South American country, “We are occupying you to protect you from aggression by the
United States”?
intolerance. They exploit for their own ends
our natural abhorrence of war. These troublebreeders have but one purpose. It is to divide
our people into hostile groups and to destroy
our unity and shatter our will to defend ourselves.
Belgium today is being used as an invasion
base against Britain, now fighting for its life.
Any South American country, in Nazi hands,
would always constitute a jumping-off place
for German attack on any one of the other
republics of this hemisphere.
There are also American citizens, many of
them in high places, who, unwittingly in most
cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these
agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge
them with doing exactly the kind of work that
the dictators want done in the United States.
Analyze for yourselves the future of two
other places even nearer to Germany if the
Nazis won. Could Ireland hold out? Would
Irish freedom be permitted as an amazing
exception in an unfree world? Or the islands
of the Azores which still fly the flag of Portugal after five centuries? We think of Hawaii as
an outpost of defense in the Pacific. Yet, the
Azores are closer to our shores in the Atlantic
than Hawaii is on the other side.
There are those who say that the Axis
powers would never have any desire to attack
the Western Hemisphere. This is the same
dangerous form of wishful thinking which has
destroyed the powers of resistance of so many
conquered peoples. The plain facts are that the
Nazis have proclaimed, time and again, that
all other races are their inferiors and therefore
subject to their orders. And most important
of all, the vast resources and wealth of this
hemisphere constitute the most tempting loot
in all the world.
The experience of the past two years has
proven beyond doubt that no nation can appease the Nazis. No man can tame a tiger into
a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no
reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We know
now that a nation can have peace with the
Nazis only at the price of total surrender. Even
the people of Italy have been forced to become
accomplices of the Nazis; but at this moment
they do not know how soon they will be embraced to death by their allies.
Let us no longer blind ourselves to the
undeniable fact that the evil forces which have
crushed and undermined and corrupted so
many others are already within our own gates.
Your Government knows much about them
and every day is ferreting them out.
The American appeasers ignore the
warning to be found in the fate of Austria,
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Denmark, and France. They tell
you that the Axis powers are going to win anyway; that all this bloodshed in the world could
be saved; and that the United States might just
as well throw its influence into the scale of a
dictated peace, and get the best out of it that
we can.
Their secret emissaries are active in our
own and neighboring countries. They seek
to stir up suspicion and dissension to cause
internal strife. They try to turn capital against
labor and vice versa. They try to reawaken
long slumbering racial and religious enmities
which should have no place in this country.
They are active in every group that promotes
■ These people not only believe that we can
save our own skins by shutting our eyes to the
fate of other nations. Some of them go much
further than that. They say that we can and
should become the friends and even the partners of the Axis powers. Some of them even
suggest that we should imitate the methods of
the dictatorships. Americans never can and
never will do that.
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ They call it a “negotiated peace.” Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of
outlaws surrounds your community and on
threat of extermination makes you pay tribute
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
to save your own skins?
Such a dictated peace would be no peace
at all. It would be only another armistice, leading to the most gigantic armament race and the
most devastating trade wars in history. And in
these contests the Americas would offer the
only real resistance to the Axis powers.
With all their vaunted efficiency and parade of pious purpose in his war, there are still
in their background the concentration camp
and the servants of God in chains.
The history of recent years proves that
shootings and chains and concentration camps
are not simply the transient tools but the very
altars of modern dictatorships. They may talk
of a “new order” in the world, but what they
have in mind is but a revival of the oldest and
the worst tyranny. In that there is no liberty,
no religion, no hope.
The people of Europe who are defending
themselves do not ask us to do their fighting. They ask us for the implements of war,
the planes, the tanks, the guns, the freighters, which will enable them to fight for their
liberty and our security. Emphatically we must
get these weapons to them in sufficient volume and quickly enough, so that we and our
children will be saved the agony and suffering
of war which others have had to endure.
Let not defeatists tell us that it is too late.
It will never be earlier. Tomorrow will be later
than today.
Certain facts are self-evident.
In a military sense Great Britain and the
British Empire are today the spearhead of
resistance to world conquest. They are putting
up a fight which will live forever in the story
of human gallantry.
The proposed “new order” is the very opposite of a United States of Europe or a United
States of Asia. It is not a government based
upon the consent of the governed. It is not a
union of ordinary, self-respecting men and
women to protect themselves and their freedom and their dignity from oppression. It is an
unholy alliance of power and pelf to dominate
and enslave the human race.
There is no demand for sending an American Expeditionary Force outside our own
borders. There is no intention by any member
of your Government to send such a force. You
can, therefore, nail any talk about sending
armies to Europe as deliberate untruth.
The British people are conducting an active war against this unholy alliance. Our own
future security is greatly dependent on the outcome of that fight. Our ability to “keep out of
war” is going to be affected by that outcome.
Democracy’s fight against world conquest
is being greatly aided, and must be more
greatly aided, by the rearmament of the United
States and by sending every ounce and every
ton of munitions and supplies that we can possibly spare to help the defenders who are in
the front lines. It is no more unneutral for us to
do that than it is for Sweden, Russia, and other
nations near Germany to send steel and ore
and oil and other war materials into Germany
every day. We are planning our own defense
with the utmost urgency; and in its vast scale
we must integrate the war needs of Britain and
the other free nations resisting aggression.
Thinking in terms of today and tomorrow,
I make the direct statement to the American
people that there is far less chance of the
United States getting into war if we do all we
can now to support the nations defending
themselves against attack by the Axis than if
we acquiesce in their defeat, submit tamely
to an Axis victory, and wait our turn to be the
object of attack in another war later on. If we
are to be completely honest with ourselves, we
must admit there is risk in any course we may
take. But I deeply believe that the great majority of our people agree that the course that I
advocate involves the least risk now and the
greatest hope for world peace in the future.
www.choices.edu ■ Our national policy is not directed toward
war. Its sole purpose is to keep war away from
our country and our people.
This is not a matter of sentiment or of
controversial personal opinion. It is a matter
of realistic military policy, based on the advice
of our military experts who are in close touch
with existing warfare. These military and
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 49
50
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
naval experts and the members of the Congress
and the administration have a single-minded
purpose—the defense of the United States.
This Nation is making a great effort to
produce everything that is necessary in this
emergency—and with all possible speed. This
great effort requires great sacrifice. I would
ask no one to defend a democracy which in
turn would not defend everyone in the Nation
against want and privation. The strength of
this Nation shall not be diluted by the failure
of the Government to protect the economic
well-being of all citizens.
If our capacity to produce is limited by
machines, it must ever be remembered that
these machines are operated by the skill and
the stamina of the workers. As the Government
is determined to protect the rights of workers, so the Nation has a right to expect that the
men who man the machines will discharge
their full responsibilities to the urgent needs
of defense.
The worker possesses the same human
dignity and is entitled to the same security of
position as the engineer or manager or owner.
For the workers provide the human power that
turns out the destroyers, the airplanes, and the
tanks.
The Nation expects our defense industries
to continue operation without interruption
by strikes or lock-outs. It expects and insists
that management and workers will reconcile
their differences by voluntary or legal means,
to continue to produce the supplies that are so
sorely needed.
And on the economic side of our great defense program, we are, as you know, bending
every effort to maintain stability of prices and
with that the stability of the cost of living.
Nine days ago I announced the setting up
of a more effective organization to direct our
gigantic efforts to increase the production of
munitions. The appropriation of vast sums
of money and a well-coordinated executive
direction of our defense efforts are not in
themselves enough. Guns, planes, and ships
have to be built in the factories and arsenals of
America. They have to be produced by work■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ ers and managers and engineers with the aid
of machines, which in turn have to be built by
hundreds of thousands of workers throughout
the land.
In this great work there has been splendid
cooperation between the Government and
industry and labor.
American industrial genius, unmatched
throughout the world in the solution of production problems, has been called upon to
bring its resources and talents into action.
Manufacturers of watches, of farm implements, linotypes, cash registers, automobiles,
sewing machines, lawn mowers, and locomotives are now making fuses, bomb-packing
crates, telescope mounts, shells, pistols, and
tanks.
But all our present efforts are not enough.
We must have more ships, more guns, more
planes—more of everything. This can only
be accomplished if we discard the notion of
“business as usual.” This job cannot be done
merely by superimposing on the existing productive facilities the added requirements for
defense.
Our defense efforts must not be blocked by
those who fear the future consequences of surplus plant capacity. The possible consequence
of failure of our defense efforts now are much
more to be feared.
After the present needs of our defense
are past, a proper handling of the country’s
peacetime needs will require all of the new
productive capacity—if not more.
No pessimistic policy about the future of
America shall delay the immediate expansion
of those industries essential to defense.
I want to make it clear that it is the purpose of the Nation to build now with all
possible speed every machine and arsenal
and factory that we need to manufacture our
defense material. We have the men, the skill,
the wealth, and above all, the will.
I am confident that if and when production of consumer or luxury goods in certain
industries requires the use of machines and
raw materials essential for defense purposes,
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
then such production must yield to our primary and compelling purpose.
I appeal to the owners of plants, to the
managers, to the workers, to our own Government employees, to put every ounce of effort
into producing these munitions swiftly and
without stint. And with this appeal I give you
the pledge that all of us who are officers of
your Government will devote ourselves to the
same whole-hearted extent to the great task
which lies ahead.
As planes and ships and guns and shells
are produced, your Government, with its
defense experts, can then determine how best
to use them to defend this hemisphere. The
decision as to how much shall be sent abroad
and how much shall remain at home must
be made on the basis of our over-all military
necessities.
We must be the great arsenal of democracy. For us this is an emergency as serious
as war itself. We must apply ourselves to our
task with the same resolution, the same sense
of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and
sacrifice, as we would show were we at war.
We have furnished the British great material support and we will furnish far more in
the future.
There will be no “bottlenecks” in our
determination to aid Great Britain. No dictator, no combination of dictators, will weaken
that determination by threats of how they will
construe that determination.
The British have received invaluable military support from the heroic Greek Army and
from the forces of all the governments in exile.
Their strength is growing. It is the strength
of men and women who value their freedom
more highly than they value their lives. I believe that the Axis powers are not going to win
this war. I base that belief on the latest and
best information.
We have no excuse for defeatism. We have
every good reason for hope—hope for peace,
hope for the defense of our civilization and
for the building of a better civilization in the
future.
www.choices.edu ■ I have the profound conviction that the
American people are now determined to put
forth a mightier effort than they have ever yet
made to increase our production of all the
implements of defense, to meet the threat to
our democratic faith.
As President of the United States I call for
that national effort. I call for it in the name
of this Nation which we love and honor and
which we are privileged and proud to serve. I
call upon our people with absolute confidence
that our common cause will greatly succeed.
The Lend-Lease Act
AN ACT
Further to promote the defense of the
United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may
be cited as “An Act to Promote the Defense of
the United States”.
SEC. 2. As used in this Act—
(a) The term “defense article” means—
(1) Any weapon, munition, aircraft, vessel,
or boat;
(2) Any machinery, facility, tool, material, or supply necessary for the manufacture,
production, processing, repair, servicing, or
operation of any article described in this subsection;
(3) Any component material or part of or
equipment for any article described in this
subsection;
(4) Any agricultural, industrial or other
commodity or article for defense.
Such term “defense article” includes any
article described in this subsection: Manufactured or procured pursuant to section 3,
or to which the United States or any foreign
government has or hereafter acquires title, possession, or control.
(b) The term “defense information” means
any plan, specification, design, prototype, or
information pertaining to any defense article.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 51
52
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
SEC. 3. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions
of any other law, the President may, from time
to time, when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary Of War,
the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any
other department or agency of the Government
(1) To manufacture in arsenals, factories,
and shipyards under their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, to the extent to which funds
are made available therefor, or contracts are
authorized from time to time by the Congress,
or both, any defense article for the government
of any country whose defense the President
deems vital to the defense of the United States.
(2) To sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease,
lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such
government any defense article, but no defense
article not manufactured or procured under
paragraph (1) shall in any way be disposed of
under this paragraph, except after consultation
with the Chief of Staff of the Army or the Chief
of Naval Operations of the Navy, or both. The
value of defense articles disposed of in any
way under authority of this paragraph, and
procured from funds heretofore appropriated,
shall not exceed $1,300,000,000. The value of
such defense articles shall be determined by
the head of the department or agency concerned or such other department, agency or
officer as shall be designated in the manner
provided in the rules and regulations issued
hereunder. Defense articles procured from
funds hereafter appropriated to any department or agency of the Government, other than
from funds authorized to be appropriated
under this Act. shall not be disposed of in any
way under authority of this paragraph except
to the extent hereafter authorized by the Congress in the Acts appropriating such funds or
otherwise.
(3) To test, inspect, prove, repair, outfit,
recondition, or otherwise to place in good
working order, to the extent to which funds
are made available therefore, or contracts are
authorized from time to time by the Congress,
or both, any defense article for any such government, or to procure any or all such services
by private contract.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ (4) To communicate to any such government any defense information pertaining to
any defense article furnished to such government under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(5) To release for export any defense article
disposed of in any way under this subsection
to any such government.
(b) The terms and conditions upon which
any such foreign government receives any aid
authorized under subsection (a) shall be those
which the President deems satisfactory, and
the benefit to the United States may be payment or repayment in kind or property, or any
other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.
(c) After June 30, 1943, or after the passage
of a concurrent resolution by the two Houses
before June 30, 1943, which declares that the
powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) are no longer necessary to promote the
defense of the United States, neither the President nor the head of any department or agency
shall exercise any of the powers conferred
by or pursuant to subsection (a) except that
until July 1, 1946, any of such powers may be
exercised to the extent necessary to carry out
a contract or agreement with such a foreign
government made before July 1,1943, or before
the passage of such concurrent resolution,
whichever is the earlier.
(d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to authorize or to permit the authorization
of convoying vessels by naval vessels of the
United States.
(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to authorize or to permit the authorization of
the entry of any American vessel into a combat
area in violation of section 3 of the neutrality
Act of 1939.
SEC. 4 All contracts or agreements made
for the disposition of any defense article or defense information pursuant to section 3 shall
contain a clause by which the foreign government undertakes that it will not, without the
consent of the President, transfer title to or
possession of such defense article or defense
information by gift, sale, or otherwise, or permit its use by anyone not an officer, employee,
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
or agent of such foreign government.
June 30, 1946.
SEC. 5. (a) The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other
department or agency of the Government involved shall when any such defense article or
defense information is exported, immediately
inform the department or agency designated
by the President to administer section 6 of the
Act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat. 714) of the quantities, character, value, terms of disposition and
destination of the article and information so
exported.
SEC. 7. The Secretary of War, the Secretary
of the Navy, and the head of the department
or agency shall in all contracts or agreements
for the disposition of any defense article or defense information fully protect the rights of all
citizens of the United States who have patent
rights in and to any such article or information
which is hereby authorized to be disposed of
and the payments collected for royalties on
such patents shall be paid to the owners and
holders of such patents.
(b) The President from time to time, but
not less frequently than once every ninety
days, shall transmit to the Congress a report of
operations under this Act except such information as he deems incompatible with the
public interest to disclose. Reports provided
for under this subsection shall be transmitted
to the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of
the House of representatives, as the case may
be, if the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, is not in session.
SEC. 8. The Secretaries of War and of the
Navy are hereby authorized to purchase or
otherwise acquire arms, ammunition, and
implements of war produced within the jurisdiction of any country to which section 3
is applicable, whenever the President deems
such purchase or acquisition to be necessary
in the interests of the defense of the United
States.
SEC. 6. (a) There is hereby authorized to
be appropriated from time to time, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions and accomplish the
purposes of this Act.
(b) All money and all property which is
converted into money received under section 3
from any government shall, with the approval
of the Director of the Budget, revert to the
respective appropriation or appropriations out
of which funds were expended with respect
to the defense article or defense information
for which such consideration is received,
and shall be available for expenditure for the
purpose for which such expended funds were
appropriated by law, during the fiscal year in
which such funds are received and the ensuing fiscal year; but in no event shall any funds
so received be available for expenditure after
www.choices.edu ■ SEC. 9. The President may, from time to
time, promulgate such rules and regulations as
may be necessary and proper to carry out any
of the provisions of this Act; and he may exercise any power or authority conferred on him
by this Act through such department, agency,
or officer as he shall direct.
SEC. 10. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to change existing law relating to the
use of the land and naval forces of the United
States, except insofar as such use relates to
the manufacture, procurement, and repair of
defense articles, the communication of information and other noncombatant purposes
enumerated in this Act.
SEC 11. If any provision of this Act or the
application of such provision to any circumstance shall be held invalid, the validity of the
remainder of the Act and the applicability of
such provision to other circumstances shall
not be affected thereby.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 53
54
Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Supplementary Resources
Books
World Wide Web
Beard, Charles. President Roosevelt and the
Coming of War, 1941: Appearance and
Realities. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers, 2003). 614 pages.
The Miller Center
<http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/
diglibrary/prezspeeches/roosevelt/>
A collection of FDR’s speeches in text and
audio format.
Jonas, Manfred. Isolationism in America,
1935-1941. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1966). 315 pages.
Langer, William L. and S. Everett Gleason. The
Challenge to Isolation, 1937-1940. (New
York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1952).
794 pages.
Minear, Richard. Dr. Suess Goes to War: The
World War II Editorial Cartoons of Theodor
Suess Geisel. (New York: New Press,
1999). 272 pages.
Neu, Charles. The Troubled Encounter: The
United States and Japan. (New York:
Wiley, 1975). 257 pages.
The Library of Congress
<http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/
afcphhtml/afcphhome.html>
Twelve hours of interviews and the
reactions of ordinary Americans to the
attack on Pearl Harbor.
<http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/
fsowhome.html>
A collection of 160,000 images from the
Great Depression through World War II.
Charles Lindbergh and America First
<http://www.charleslindbergh.com/
americanfirst/index.asp>
Information on America First that includes
some of Lindbergh’s speeches in audio and
text format.
The Choices Program
<www.choices.edu/isolationism.cfm>
Powerpoint of maps used in the unit and
additional maps, audio excerpt of FDR’s
“Four Freedoms” speech.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Our units are
always up to date.
Are yours?
Our world is constantly changing.
So CHOICES continually reviews and updates our
classroom units to keep pace with the changes in our
world; and as new challenges and questions arise, we’re
developing new units to address them.
And while history may never change, our knowledge
and understanding of it are constantly changing. So even
our units addressing “moments” in history undergo a
continual process of revision and reinterpretation.
If you’ve been using the same CHOICES units for two or
more years, now is the time to visit our website - learn
whether your units have been updated and see what new
units have been added to our catalog.
CHOICES currently has units addressing the following:
U.S. Role in a Changing World ■ Immigration ■ Terrorism
Genocide ■ Foreign Aid ■ Trade ■ Environment
Nuclear Weapons ■ UN Reform
Middle East ■ Russia ■ South Africa
India & Pakistan ■ Brazil’s Transition ■ Mexico
Colonialism in Africa ■ Weimar Germany ■ China
U.S. Constitutional Convention ■ New England Slavery
War of 1812 ■ Spanish American War
League of Nations ■ FDR and Isolationism
Hiroshima ■ Origins of the Cold War
Cuban Missile Crisis ■ Vietnam War
And watch for new units coming soon:
Westward Expansion ■ Freedom Summer
Teacher sets (consisting of a student text and a teacher resource book) are
available for $18 each. Permission is granted to duplicate and distribute the
student text and handouts for classroom use with appropriate credit given.
Duplicates may not be resold. Classroom sets (15 or more student texts) may
be ordered at $9 per copy. A teacher resource book is included free with each
classroom set. Orders should be addressed to:
Choices Education Program
Watson Institute for International Studies
Box 1948, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
Please visit our website at <www.choices.edu>.
BetweenWorldWars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism offers students background on the effects of the Treaty
of Versailles, the Great Depression, and rising militarism in
Europe and Asia on the American public. Students explore
the isolationist movement, the Neutrality Acts, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s leadership before recreating the great
debate that took place in the United States over the LendLease Act.
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism is part of a continuing series on current and historical
international issues published by the Choices for the 21st
Century Education Program at Brown University. Choices
materials place special emphasis on the importance of educating students in their participatory role as citizens.
R e s o u r c e
B o o k
Between World Wars: FDr and the
B o o k
T e a c h e r
R e s o u r c e
R e s o u r c e
T e a c h e r
B o o k
B o o k
T e a c h e r
R e s o u r c e
R e s o u r c e
Age of Isolationism
T e a c h e r
B o o k
T e a c h e r
T e a c h e r
R e s o u r c e
B o o k
CHOICES
for the 21st Century
Education Program
June 2006
Director
Susan Graseck
Curriculum Developer
Andy Blackadar
Curriculum Writer
Sarah Kreckel
International Education Intern
Daniela Bailey
Office Assistant
Ben Sweeney
Office Manager
Anne Campau Prout
Outreach Coordinator
Bill Bordac
Professional Development Coordinator
Lucy Mueller
Program Coordinator for Capitol Forum
Barbara Shema
Acknowledgments
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism was
developed by the Choices for the 21st Century Education Program
with the assistance of the research staff at the Watson Institute
for International Studies, scholars at Brown University, and other
experts in the field. We wish to thank the following researchers for
their invaluable input:
Andrew Bacevich
The Choices for the 21st Century
Education Program develops curricula on current and historical
international issues and offers
workshops, institutes, and inservice programs for high school
teachers. Course materials place
special emphasis on the importance of educating students in
their participatory role as citizens.
The Choices for the 21st Century
Education Program is a program of
the Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute
for International Studies
at Brown University.
Thomas J. Biersteker
Director, Watson Institute for
International Studies
Professor of International Relations, Boston University
Linda B. Miller
Professor of Political Science, Emerita, Wellesley College
Adjunct Professor of International Studies (Research),
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University
Naoko Shibusawa
Assistant Professor of History, Brown University
We wish to thank Kelly Keogh, a social studies teacher at Normal
Community High School, Normal, Illinois, for his contributions.
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism is part
of a continuing series on public policy issues. New units
are published each academic year and all units are updated
regularly.
Visit us on the World Wide Web — www.choices.edu
Contents
The Choices Approach to Historical Turning Points
ii
Note To Teachers
1
Integrating this Unit into Your Curriculum
2
Day One: The Great Depression
3
Optional Lesson: Political Geography of Interwar Period
15
Day Two: Between World Wars
18
Day Three: Role-Playing the Three Options: Organization and Preparation
26
Day Four: Role-Playing the Three Options: Debate and Discussion
29
Day Five: Listening to FDR
31
Key Terms
36
Toolbox: Understanding the Political Spectrum
37
Making Choices Work in Your Classroom
38
Assessment Guide for Oral Presentations
40
Alternative Three Day Lesson Plan
41
The Choices for the 21st Century Education Program is a program of the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Choices was established to help citizens think constructively
about foreign policy issues, to improve participatory citizenship skills, and to encourage public
judgement on policy issues.
The Watson Institute for International Studies was established at Brown
University in 1986 to serve as a forum for students, faculty, visiting
scholars, and policy practitioners who are committed to analyzing contemporary global problems and developing initiatives to address them.
© Copyright June 2006. First edition. Choices for the 21st Century Education Program. All rights reserved. ISBN 1-60123-002-08 TRB.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
ii
The Choices Approach to Historical Turning Points
Choices curricula are designed to make complex international issues understandable and meaningful for students. Using a student-centered approach, Choices units develop critical thinking and an
understanding of the significance of history in our lives today—essential ingredients of responsible
citizenship.
Teachers say the collaboration and interaction in Choices units are highly motivating for students. Studies consistently demonstrate that students of all abilities learn best when they are actively
engaged with the material. Cooperative learning invites students to take pride in their own contributions and in the group product, enhancing students’ confidence as learners. Research demonstrates
that students using the Choices approach learn the factual information presented as well as or better
than those using a lecture-discussion format. Choices units offer students with diverse abilities and
learning styles the opportunity to contribute, collaborate, and achieve.
Choices units on historical turning points include student readings, a framework of policy options, primary sources, suggested lesson plans, and resources for structuring cooperative learning,
role plays, and simulations. Students are challenged to:
•understand historical context
•recreate historical debate
•analyze and evaluate multiple perspectives at a turning point in history
•analyze primary sources that provide a grounded understanding of the moment
•understand the internal logic of a viewpoint
•identify the conflicting values represented by different points of view
•develop and articulate original viewpoints
•recognize relationships between history and current issues
•communicate in written and oral presentations
•collaborate with peers
Choices curricula offer teachers a flexible resource for covering course material while actively
engaging students and developing skills in critical thinking, persuasive writing, and informed citizenship. The instructional activities that are central to Choices units can be valuable components in any
teacher’s repertoire of effective teaching strategies.
Historical Understanding
■ Each Choices curriculum resource provides students with extensive information
about an historical issue. By providing students only the information available at the
time, Choices units help students to understand that historical events often involved
competing and highly contested views. The
Choices approach emphasizes that historical outcomes were hardly inevitable. This
approach helps students to develop a more
sophisticated understanding of history.
In each unit the setting is the same as it was
during the actual event. Students may be role
playing a meeting of the National Security
Council, a town gathering, or a Senate debate.
Student groups defend their assigned policy
options and, in turn, are challenged with questions from their classmates playing the role
of “decisionmakers” at the time. The ensuing
debate demands analysis and evaluation of
the conflicting values, interests, and priorities
reflected in the options.
Each Choices unit presents the range of
options that were considered at a turning point
in history. Students understand and analyze
these options through a role play activity.
The final reading in a Choices historical
unit presents the outcome of the debate and
reviews subsequent events. The final lesson
encourages students to make connections between past and present.
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Note To Teachers
Today it is difficult for many students to
imagine the tremendous debate in the United
States about how the country should respond
to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The debate lasted until the attack on Pearl Harbor and
divided Congress, families, and neighbors.
The discussion came to a boil over the
Lend-Lease Act of January 1941. There were
countless speeches made and numerous
editorials and articles written. Organizations
sprung up overnight and held rallies. On one
side were those who supported aiding Britain
and the Allies. On the other, there were groups
who opposed the aid because they believed
it would lead to war for the United States.
One government official noted that during
the debate over lend-lease, it seemed as if all
Americans were thinking out loud.
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age
of Isolationism puts students at the center of
this discussion in a role-play of the debate in
Congress over Lend-Lease. The background
reading gives students the information to
understand the competing ideas at play in the
United States leading up to its entry into the
Second World War. Part I examines the domestic and international legacies of World War
I and the Treaty of Versailles. Students also
explore the impact of the Great Depression.
Part II of the reading explores the leadership
of Franklin Roosevelt and the U.S. response
to the gathering storm in Asia and Europe.
An epilogue examines the legacy of Franklin
Roosevelt and the end of isolationism.
Suggested Five-Day Lesson Plan: The
Teacher Resource Book accompanying this
unit contains a day-by-day lesson plan and
student activities. The lesson plan begins with
a multi-disciplinary look at the Great Depression. On the second day students work in
groups to track the chronology of the separate
but related events in Asia, Europe, and the
United States. An optional lesson examines
the political geography of the period. The third
and fourth days feature a simulation in which
students assume the role of advocates for the
www.choices.edu ■ three options or of undecided members of
the Senate, discussing the merits of the LendLease Bill. Finally, on the fifth day, students
analyze Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms”
speech.
You may also find the “Alternative ThreeDay Lesson Plan” useful.
•Alternative Study Guides: Each section
of background reading is accompanied by
two distinct study guides. The standard study
guide is designed to help students harvest the
information in the background readings in
preparation for tackling analysis and synthesis during classroom activities. The advanced
study guide requires the student to tackle
analysis and synthesis prior to class activities.
•Vocabulary and Concepts: The background reading in Between World Wars: FDR
and the Age of Isolationism addresses subjects
that are complex and challenging. To help
your students get the most out of the text,
you may want to review with them the “Key
Terms” found in the Teacher Resource Book
(TRB) on page TRB-36 before they begin their
assignment. An “Toolbox” is also included
on page TRB-37. This provides additional
information on key concepts of particular
importance.
•Primary Source Documents: Materials
are included in the supplementary documents
section in the student text (pages 44-53).
•Additional Resources: Further resources
and links can be found at <http://www.
choices.edu/isolationism.cfm>
The lesson plans offered in Between World
Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism are
provided as a guide. They are designed for
traditional class periods of approximately 50
minutes. Those on block schedules will need
to make adaptations. Many teachers choose to
devote additional time to certain activities. We
hope that these suggestions help you in tailoring the unit to fit the needs of your classroom.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Integrating this Unit into Your Curriculum
Units produced by the Choices for the 21st
Century Education Program are designed to
be integrated into a variety of social studies
courses. Below are a few ideas about where
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism might fit into your curriculum.
United States History: The period between
world wars reveals the conflicting impulses
and forces that shape the United States to this
day. The debate that took place over how to
respond to the gathering storm in Asia and
Europe is often forgotten, but the questions
of presidential power in conducting foreign
affairs, and what role the United States should
play in the world remain important. The readings and role-plays in the unit allow students
to consider the impact of the Great Depression
and the disillusionment after the First World
War. Students explore the competing values
present in American society and the impact of
this turning point in the history of American
foreign policy.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ World History: During the period between
world wars competing political ideologies vied
for supremacy. These materials allow students
to consider the issues that had brought the
world to war for the second time in less than
a quarter of a century: colonial holdings and
access to raw materials, economic instability,
the perceived need for increased security, and
fervent nationalist ideologies and militarism.
Political Science and Government: Many
of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s critics believed
he overstepped the bounds of the Constitution during his presidency. One of the strong
arguments against the Lend-Lease Act was
that it put too much power in the hands of
the president. The question of presidential
power has been a central theme throughout
American history. Through this unit, students
will gain a better understanding of this recurring argument and be able to make meaningful
connections to historical and contemporary
debates about presidential power.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day One
The Great Depression
Objectives:
Students will: Examine the effects of the
Great Depression using a variety of sources.
Explore the connection between domestic
and international events.
Assess the value of multiple contemporary
sources to analyze an historical issue.
Required Reading:
Before beginning the lesson, students
should have read the Introduction and Part I
of the background reading (pages 1-12) and
completed the “Study Guide—Part I” in the
Teacher Resource Book (TRB 4-5) or the “Advanced Study Guide—Part I” (TRB-6).
Handouts:
“Photographs of the Great Depression”
(TRB-7)
“Robert Frost Poem” (TRB-10)
“FDR’s Fireside Chat, September 6, 1936”
(TRB-11)
“Graph Analysis” (TRB-13)
Note:
A collection of 160,000 images from the
Great Depression through World War II is
available online at <http://memory.loc.gov/
ammem/fsowhome.html>
In the Classroom:
1. Focus Question: Write the question
“Was the Great Depression a threat to American democracy?” on the board or overhead.
www.choices.edu ■ 2. Examining the Great Depression: Divide
the class into groups of two or three students
and give a handout to each group. Tell students that each group will examine the Great
Depression from different perspectives. Ask
students to read the directions on each handout and answer the questions provided.
3. Group Responses—After small groups
have completed the questions, have everyone
come together in a large group. Call on small
groups to share their responses to the questions. Are there recurring themes and ideas
that appear? Record them on the board.
4. Making Connections: Ask students to
recall their background reading and American
attitudes toward Europe. Some Americans put
some of the blame for the depression on Europe. What other events in overseas concerned
Americans? How might the Great Depression
have affected American attitudes toward international issues?
Ask students to consider Roosevelt’s worry
about the “... class dissension which in other
countries has led to dictatorship and the establishment of fear and hatred as the dominant
emotions in human life.” What was Roosevelt
worried about? Did the Great Depression
threaten the foundations of American society?
Homework:
Students should read Part II of the background reading in the student text (pages
13-24) and complete “Study Guide—Part II”
(TRB 19-20) or the “Advanced Study Guide—
Part II” (TRB-21).
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day One
Name:______________________________________________
Study Guide—Part I
1. In 1940 and 1941 a _______________ ________________ took place in the _______________________
about America’s role in the world and what to do about events in ___________________________
and ____________________.
2. Give two reasons why the United States entered World War I.
a.
b.
3. What was Wilson’s fourteenth point?
4. The Senate’s willingness to ratify the Kellogg-Briand Pact reflected two strong and widely held
sentiments. What were they?
a.
b.
5. List two ways the Great Depression affected Americans.
a.
b.
6. What was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930?
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day One
Name:______________________________________________
7. What was the New Deal?
8. List three ways that President Roosevelt began to restore confidence in the economy.
a.
b.
c.
9. Why did Hitler enjoy popular support in Germany for most of the 1930’s? Give three reasons.
a.
b.
c.
10. Japan voiced its intentions to invade China for what two reasons?
a.
b.
11. How did the United States respond to Japan’s attack of China in 1931?
12. Why was the United States unable to oppose Japan in the early 1930s with a significant military
force?
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day One
Name:______________________________________________
Advanced Study Guide—Part I
1. How did Japan react to the Treaty of Versailles?
2. How did the Great Depression affect events in Germany?
3. Compare the Reichstag fire and the explosion on the Japanese railway in Manchuria. What did they
accomplish?
4. Describe the major similarities and differences among liberal democracy, fascism, and socialism.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day One
Name:______________________________________________
Photographs of the Great Depression
Instructions: Historians often use photographs to gain an impression about an event or era.
Nevertheless, it is important to be careful about drawing conclusions from photographs. One cannot
be certain that what is in the photograph is an accurate or complete reflection of reality. During the
Great Depression, the federal government sponsored photographers to document the Depression. The
complete collection of more than 100,000 photographs is available online at the Library of Congress.
Examine the following photographs and answer the the questions that follow each. The photo’s captions were written by the photgraphers.
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, FSA/OWI Collection LC-USF34-T01-009058-C Photographer: Dorothea Lange.
1. Who and what do you see?
2. When and where was it taken?
3. What does the caption tell you about
the photo?
4. Does the photo have a political point of
view? Explain.
Destitute peapickers in California; a 32 year old mother of
seven children. February 1936.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day One
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, FSA/OWI Collection LC-USF34- 009667-E Photographer: Dorothea Lange.
Name:______________________________________________
Drought refugees from Abilene, Texas, following the crops of California as
migratory workers. “The finest people in this world live in Texas but I just can’t
seem to accomplish nothin’ there. Two year drought, then a crop, then two years
drought and so on. I got two brothers still trying to make it back there and there
they’re sitting,” said the father. 1936.
1. Who and what do you see?
2. When and where was it taken?
3. What does the caption tell you about the photo?
4. Does the photo have a political point of view? Explain.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day One
Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, FSA/OWI Collection LC-USF342- 008147-A,
Photographer: Walker Evans.
Name:______________________________________________
Sharecropper Bud Fields and his family at home. Hale County, Alabama, 1935.
1. Who and what do you see?
2. When and where was the photo taken?
3. What does the caption tell you about the photo?
4. Does the photo have a political point of view? Explain.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day One
10
Name:______________________________________________
Robert Frost Poem
Instructions: Read the poem to yourself and then out loud in your group. Answer the questions
below.
In Dives’ Dive*
by Robert Frost,1936
It is late at night and still I am losing,
But still I am steady and unaccusing.
As long as the Declaration guards
My right to be equal in number of cards,
It is nothing to me who runs the Dive.
Let’s have a look at another five.
Questions:
1. What activity is the narrator of the poem describing?
2. How would you describe the mood of the narrator of the poem? Explain.
3. Why might the word “Declaration” be capitalized?
4. Robert Frost published this poem in 1936. List at least three events from your background reading
that are taking place either then or the years immediately before 1936. Do any of them relate to
the poem? Explain.
a.
b.
c.
5. Extra Challenge: Briefly explain the title of the poem.
*Note: “Dives” is a biblical allusion to a rich man.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day One
11
Name:______________________________________________
FDR’s Fireside Chat, September 6, 1936
Instructions: Read the conclusion of Roosevelt’s Fireside Chat below. You may want to listen to
a recording of the speech at <http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/roosevelt/fdr_1936_0906.html>. In the first part of the speech Roosevelt focuses on the severe drought in
the farm states. In the excerpt below he worries about the Labor Day holiday. Underline the five most
important sentences below then answer the questions that follow.
“Tomorrow is Labor Day. Labor Day in this country has never been a class holiday. It has always
been a national holiday. It has never had more significance as a national holiday than it has now. In
other countries the relationship of employer and employee has more or less been accepted as a class
relationship not readily to be broken through. In this country we insist, as an essential of the American way of life, that the employer-employee relationship should be one between free men and equals.
We refuse to regard those who work with hand or brain as different from or inferior to those who live
from their property. We insist that labor is entitled to as much respect as property. But our workers
with hand and brain deserve more than respect for their labor. They deserve practical protection in
the opportunity to use their labor at a return adequate to support them at a decent and constantly
rising standard of living, and to accumulate a margin of security against the inevitable vicissitudes of
life.
“The average man must have that twofold opportunity if we are to avoid the growth of a class
conscious society in this country.
“There are those who fail to read both the signs of the times and American history. They would
try to refuse the worker any effective power to bargain collectively, to earn a decent livelihood and
to acquire security. It is those short-sighted ones, not labor, who threaten this country with that class
dissension which in other countries has led to dictatorship and the establishment of fear and hatred
as the dominant emotions in human life.
“All American workers, brain workers and manual workers alike, and all the rest of us whose
well-being depends on theirs, know that our needs are one in building an orderly economic democracy in which all can profit and in which all can be secure from the kind of faulty economic direction
which brought us to the brink of common ruin seven years ago.
“There is no cleavage between white collar workers and manual workers, between artists and
artisans, musicians and mechanics, lawyers and accountants and architects and miners.
“Tomorrow, Labor Day, belongs to all of us. Tomorrow, Labor Day, symbolizes the hope of all
Americans. Anyone who calls it a class holiday challenges the whole concept of American democracy.
“The Fourth of July commemorates our political freedom—a freedom which without economic
freedom is meaningless indeed. Labor Day symbolizes our determination to achieve an economic
freedom for the average man which will give his political freedom reality.”
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day One
12
Name:______________________________________________
Questions:
1. Roosevelt refers to “class” five times in the excerpt. What does he mean by “class”?
2. What values does Roosevelt emphasize in this Fireside Chat? List at least four.
a.
b.
c.
d.
3. Roosevelt refers to “...that class dissension which in other countries has led to dictatorship and the
establishment of fear and hatred as the dominant emotions in human life.” What other countries
might he be referring to? What systems of government do these countries have?
4. What international and domestic events might have led Roosevelt to say that calling Labor Day a
“...class holiday challenges the concept of American democracy”?
Domestic events:
International events:
5. Extra Challenge: Was American democracy under threat during the Great Depression? Explain.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day One
13
Name:______________________________________________
Graph Analysis
Instructions: Examine the graphs below and then answer the questions that follow. (Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the value of all goods and services produced in a country.)
110
Graph 1: U.S. Gross Domestic Product
and Unemployment Rate
100
90
80
70
60
50
GDP in billions of dollars
40
Unemployment as a percentage of workforce
30
20
10
0
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1. What years does Graph 1 cover?
2. In what year is unemployment highest? What is the approximate rate of unemployment in that
year?
3. What year had the largest change in GDP and unemployment?
4. Write in the following events in the year they occurred on Graph 1: Black Tuesday, Roosevelt elected to first term, New Deal policies first enacted, Roosevelt elected to second term, Japan invades
China, Germany invades Poland. Refer to your reading if necessary.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day One
14
Name:______________________________________________
Graph 2: Total Imports of 75 Countries
in Millions of U.S. Dollars
3000
Data from The World in Depression, 1929-1939, by Charles Kindleberger
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1. What years does Graph 2 cover?
2. Write in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the year it occurred on Graph 2.
3. What year had the greatest decline in world trade?
4. If the line in Graph 2 follows the same trend as the lines in Graph 1, what direction will the line in
Graph 2 go after 1933?
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Optional Lesson
15
Political Geography of Interwar Period
Objectives:
Students will: Identify major geographical
landmarks from the background reading on a
map.
Connect geography and historical events.
Note:
This simple exercise is designed to acquaint students with the basic political
geography covered in the background reading. Students should use whatever resources
are available to them including maps in their
classroom, the library, textbooks, or the internet.
Colored pencils might be helpful for each
group as students fill in their maps. Have students read all the directions carefully before
beginning the exercise.
Teachers may want students to refer to
their maps as they continue reading. Some students may find it helpful to record the date of
significant events on the map where they took
place, for example, December 7, 1941.
Required Reading:
Students should have read the Introduction and Part I of the background reading in
the student text (pages 1-12) and completed
www.choices.edu ■ “Study Guide—Part I” (TRB 4-5) or “Advanced
Study Guide—Part I” (TRB 6-7).
Handouts:
“Political Geography 1918-1940” (TRB
16-17)
(A Powerpoint of this map is available for
download at <www.choices.edu/isolationism.
cfm>.)
In the Classroom:
1. Focus Question—Write the question
“How does geography affect history?” on the
board.
2. Forming Small Groups—Give each
student a handout and break them into small
groups of two or three. Ask students to recall
the background reading and the many countries and places mentioned. Students should
then follow the directions on the handout.
3. Sharing Conclusions—After about
twenty minutes, call on students to share their
findings.
Ask students to connect geography to
events between 1918-1940. Do the maps offer
any insights into the growing international
tensions or the “isolationist” mood in the
United States?
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Optional Lesson
16
Map 1: Political Geography 1918-1940
Name:______________________________________________
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Optional Lesson
17
Name:______________________________________________
Instructions: Follow the directions below and fill in the maps “Political Geography 1918-1940”
and “Europe 1918-1940.” Use the maps in the background reading and any other resources you may
have available in your classroom. You may want to use the internet, maps on the wall, or other textbooks. You may want to use different colored pencils.
1. Mark and label the countries that were allies of the United States during World War I. (Map 1)
2. Draw the approximate borders of France. Identify and mark the location of where nations negotiated the Treaty of Versailles. (Map 2)
3. Identify and label the countries with fascist governments. (Map 1)
4, Identify and label the country with a socialist government. (Map 1)
5. Draw a line between Italy and the country in Africa it invaded in 1936. Roughly sketch the boundries of that country. (Map 1)
6. Identify the major oceans. (Map 1)
7. Draw the approximate borders of the United States. (Map 1)
8. Circle and label Hawaii. (Map 1)
9. Circle and label French Indochina, the Netherlands East Indies, and the Philippines. (Map 1)
10. Draw the borders of Germany. Identify as many countries that border Germany as you can. (Map
2)
11. Circle and label Japan. (Map 1)
12. Draw the border of China. Identify and label Manchuria and Nanking. (Map 1)
13. Mark the boundaries of the peak of Nazi expansion and Japanese expansion. (You will need to
consult another source.) (Map 1 and Map 2)
14. Draw lines that mark the route of a ship traveling from ports on the East Coast of the United States
to Britain. (Map 1)
15. After Lend-Lease passed and Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, there were numerous convoys of
supplies sent to the
Soviet Union. Mark
Map 2: Europe 1918-1940
and label the city of
Murmansk in the Soviet
Union. Draw a line that
would mark the route of
a ship traveling between
Murmansk and the East
Coast of the United
States. (Map 1)
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Two
18
Between World Wars
Objectives:
Students will: Review and create a timeline of the significant historical events of the
interwar period.
Explore cause and effect relationships
between historical events of the period.
Understand the relationship between
events in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
Consider the relative importance and influence of events that led to the Second World
War.
Handouts:
“Timeline of World Events 1918-1941”
(TRB 24-25)
Required Reading:
Before beginning the lesson, students
should have read Part II of the background
reading (pages 13-24) and completed the
“Study Guide—Part II” in the Teacher Resource Book (TRB 19-20) or the “Advanced
Study Guide—Part I” (TRB-21).
In the Classroom:
1. Focus Question: Write the question,
“What makes an historical event important?”
on the board or overhead.
■ they missed. Call on small groups to share
their responses to the answers to the first three
questions.
4. Making Connections: Ask groups to
share their answers for question four on the
worksheet: which do they believe was the
most significant year during the interwar period? Which events during their year do they
believe were significant?
Tell students that historians debate and
disagree about the importance of events often.
Ask students to consider the standards they
used to arrive at their answers. Challenge
them to apply the following questions to their
answers.
Did the event affect a single country or
many? Did the event produce a change in the
economic or political system of a single country or many countries? Did the event change
relations between countries? Did the event
change the daily life of people? Did the event
influence or cause other events? How many?
Ask students if any of the questions caused
them to change their answer to question four.
Extra Challenges:
1. Challenge students to add events to the
timeline using sources other than their reading.
2. Examining the Interwar Period: Divide
the class into groups of three students and give
a handout to each group. Tell students that
each group should fill in the dates on the timelines. Suggest that individual students in each
group tackle one of the geographic areas on the
timeline. Ask students to read the directions
on each handout and answer the questions
provided.
2. Ask students to consider the relative importance of individuals versus the importance
of political and economic structures on the
course of history. For example, did the Great
Depression or Franklin D. Roosevelt have a
greater impact on the course of history? Or:
Would there have been a World War Two in
Europe without Hitler?
3. Group Responses—After small groups
have completed the questions, have everyone
come together in a large group. You may want
to review the timeline with students. Give
students the opportunity to fill in events that
Homework:
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Students should read the “January 1941:
The Moment of Decision” in the student text
(pages 25-26) and “Options in Brief” (page 27).
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Two
19
Name:______________________________________________
Study Guide—Part II
1. What was the primary goal of American “isolationists”?
2. Why did some isolationists feel that there was no need for Americans to feel threatened by developments in Europe and Asia?
3. What were the purposes of the Nye Committee hearings?
4. List two impressions that the Nye Committee hearings created.
a.
b.
5. What were the purposes of the Neutrality Acts?
6. List two reasons that some Americans considered Roosevelt’s leadership radical and dangerous.
a.
b.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Two
20
Name:______________________________________________
7. What was the massacre at Nanking?
8. On ______________________ 1939, ___________ troops marched into Poland. Two days later,
___________________ and ________________ ,in defense of Poland, declared war on Germany. The
_____________________ War had begun and the debate about the U.S. role reached a deafening
clamor in the United States.
9. What was “Cash and Carry”?
10. Why did President Roosevelt freeze Japanese assets in the United States?
11. What was the purpose of the America First Committee?
12. Why did the America First Committee think that Roosevelt was two-faced?
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Two
21
Name:______________________________________________
Advanced Study Guide—Part II
1. What were the goals of the isolationists? Why is “isolationism” a misleading term?
2. How did the Nye Committee hearings contribute to the isolationist mood in the United States?
3. Summarize Roosevelt’s views on international affairs in 1940.
4. What factors contributed to Japan’s decision to occupy French Indochina? How did the United
States respond?
5. Do you believe that Roosevelt was sincere when he stated on October 29, 1940 that “We will not
participate in foreign wars....”? Explain.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ ■ 1918
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program 1921-1922
■ er
1920
1929
1930
1932
1932
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University 1933
■ www.choices.edu
H
Co
ea mm
ri
ng itte
s
e
ye
1932
N
d
te
ec
1931
el
ct
A
1929
R
FD
y
le
aw
t-H
oo
Sm
1921-1922
The Great Depression Begins in the U.S.
Kellogg-Briand Pact (June 1929)
Washington Naval Conference
1920
i
Re s e
ic lec
hs te
ta d
g to
th
H
e
itl
er
co
m
es
to
po
w
az
Europe
N
United
States
ng
Tr res
ea s
ty re
of fus
Ve es
rs to
ai ra
lle ti
s fy
1918
Co
in
va
de
s
Ja
M
pa
an
N nd
ch
av ro
ur
al ps
ia
Tr o
ea ut
tie of
Ja
pa
W
s
as
N n le
hi
at
a
ng
io ve
ns s
to
n
Le
ag
ue
of
Ja
pa
n
Ja
pa
ra n a
ci ng
a
e
of l e red
N qu
at al by
io ity re
ns c je
Co lau cti
ve se on
na in of
nt L
ea
gu
e
Asia
End of World War I
TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Two
22
Timeline of World Events 1918-1941 (Teacher’s Key)
1933
1934
1935
1936
s
Et
h
a-
www.choices.edu 1937
■ er
m
ai an
n
a y
on nd inv
G Fra ade
er
m nce s P
an d ol
y ec an
G
er
la d;
m
re Br
Co an
w itar
un y i
G tri nva
er es d
m
e
be an (ea s D
tw y; rly en
(Ju een and 19 ma
ne G T 40) rk
19 erm ripa ; F and
40 a rt ran th
) ny ite ce e
,I P
ta ac fal Low
ly t ls
, a fo to
nd rm
Ja ed
pa
n
1936
G
1935
io
pi
tio wi
t
a
h
ns d
; F ra
ra ws
nc f
o rom
ta
ke th
s
ov e Le
er ag
Sp ue
ai of
n
N
ly
Ita
de
nv
a
lin
ii
so
us
M
R
FD
ed
ct
le
-e
re
ity
al
tr
eu
tN
rs
Fi
ct
A
d
an
y”
rr
Ca
1937
1939
1939
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ pe for
ac m
th eti ed;
ir m C
d e
o
as te dr ng
se rm af re
ts ; t; F ss
U
.S DR pas
.f
s
re re- es
ez el fir
es ec st
Ja ted
LE
pa f
n’ or
N
s
D D-L
eb E
at A
e SE
FC
A
h
as
y
lit
ra n
t
u a
ne Jap
e
th en
y we
l
p t
ap r be
o
a
t
s
w
e
a
e
s
fu o th hin
e
r t
R ts d C
D
F ac an
“C
Ja
pa
Fu n m
m ov
Pr ina es
im ro in
e Ko t o
M n In
in oe do
is
te be chi
co n
r
m a;
es
M
as
s
Ja acr
pa e
a
of n o t N
Ch ccu an
in pi kin
a es g
m ;
or
e
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Two
23
1940
1940
1941
1940
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Two
24
Name:______________________________________________
Timeline of World Events 1918-1941
Instructions: Fill in the timelines. Write down events from the reading for each of the dates listed
below. Some of the dates have more than one event. The timeline is divided into three separate geographic areas. After you have completed the timeline, answer the questions that follow. Be prepared
to share your answers with your classmates.
Asia
1918
United
States
Europe
■ 1920
1929
1921-1922
1920
1918
1931
1930
1929
1921-1922
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ 1932
1933
1932
1932
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University 1934
1933
■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Two
25
Name:______________________________________________
1. List the events that affected Europe, Asia and the United States simultaneously.
2. Name two events in Asia that provoked a direct response in the United States to those events. Draw
lines that connect the events.
3. Name two events in Europe that provoked a direct response in the United States to those events.
Draw lines that connect the events.
4. What year between 1918-1940 is the most significant? Explain. Be prepared to defend your answer.
1937
1935
1936
1935
1936
www.choices.edu 1937
■ 1940
1939
1940
1939
1940
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ 1941
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Three
26
Role-Playing the Three Options:
Organization and Preparation
Objectives:
Students will: Analyze the issues that
framed the debate over the Lend-Lease Bill.
Identify the core underlying values of the
options.
Integrate the arguments and beliefs of the
options and the background reading into a
persuasive, coherent presentation.
Work cooperatively within groups to organize effective presentations.
Required Reading:
Students should have read “January 1941:
The Moment of Decision” in the student text
(pages 25-26) and “Options in Brief” (page 27).
Handouts:
“Presenting Your Option” (TRB-27) for option groups
“Undecided Members of the Senate” (TRB28) for remaining students
In the Classroom:
1. Planning for Group Work—In order
to save time in the classroom, form student
groups before beginning Day Three. During
the class period, students will be preparing
for the Day Four simulation. Remind them to
incorporate the background reading into their
presentations and questions.
2a. Option Groups—Form three groups of
four to five students each. Assign an option
to each group. Inform students that each option group will be called upon on Day Four to
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ present the case for its assigned option to the
Senate. Explain that the option groups should
follow the instructions in “Presenting Your
Option.” Note that the option groups should
begin by assigning each member a role (students may double up).
2b. Undecided Senators—Distribute
“Undecided Members of the Senate” to the
remaining students. While the options groups
are preparing their presentations, these students should develop cross-examination
questions for Day Four. Remind these students
that they are expected to turn in their questions at the end of the simulation.
Note:
Remind students when they prepare for
the role-play not to use information from after
March 1941. Challenge them to forget about
what they know about the U.S. entrance into
World War II. If they are able to do this it
will be easier to understand the “isolationist”
options. Looked at with knowledge of Pearl
Harbor, Options 2 and 3 can seem less than
credible or even foolish. Remind students that
they were taken quite seriously at the time.
Suggestion: Ask the option groups to design a poster
illustrating the best case for their options.
Homework:
Students should complete preparations for
the simulation.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Three
27
Name:______________________________________________
Presenting Your Option
The Setting: It is January 1941, and as a
member of the U.S. Senate you will vote on
the Lend-Lease Bill. At the heart of the debate
is the question whether to end the U.S. policy
of neutrality and provide military aid to Britain. The American public has expressed strong
emotions over this debate.
Your Assignment: Your group represents
one of three factions that has evolved during
the debates about the Lend-Lease Bill. Your
assignment is to persuade the undecided senators that your option should become the basis
for Senate action. On Day Four, your group
will be called upon to present a persuasive
three-to-five minute summary of your option
to the senators. You will be judged on how
well you present your option. This worksheet
will help you prepare.
Organizing Your Group: Each member
of your group will take a specific role. Below
is a brief explanation of the responsibility of
each role. Before preparing your sections of
the presentation, work together to address the
questions below. The group director is responsible for organizing the presentation of your
group’s option to the senators. The domestic
political expert is responsible for explaining
why your option is most appropriate in light of
the current domestic climate. The international political expert is responsible for explaining
why your option takes the United States in the
most appropriate foreign policy direction. The
military expert is responsible for explaining
why your group’s option offers the best route
in terms of security and military preparedness.
Questions to consider:
1. How would you summarize your option?
2. What will be the impact of your option on the citizens of the United States?
3. What will be the impact of your option on U.S. foreign policy?
4. What concern does your option have about presidential powers?
5. On what values does your option believe the United States was founded? How are those values
expressed in your option?
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Three
28
Name:______________________________________________
Undecided Members of the Senate
Your Role: As an undecided member of
the Senate your vote is crucial to the outcome
of the Lend-Lease debate. Feelings are running
very high in the American public about this
issue.
The presentations by the options groups
will introduce you to three distinct approaches for U.S. aid in 1941. You are expected to
evaluate each of the options and complete
an evaluation form at the conclusion of the
debate.
Your Assignment: While the three option
groups are organizing their presentations, each
of you should prepare two questions regarding
each of the options. The questions should reflect the values, concerns, and interests of the
citizens of the United States. Your teacher will
collect these questions at the end of Day Four.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Your questions should be challenging and
critical. For example, a good question for Option 1 might be:
Wouldn’t providing aid to Britain make
our ships and sailors targets for German Uboats?
On Day Four, the three option groups will
present their positions. After their presentations are completed, your teacher will call on
you and the other Senators to ask questions.
The “Evaluation Form” you will receive is
designed for you to record your impressions
of the options. After this activity is concluded,
you and your classmates may be called upon
to vote on the Lend-Lease Bill.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Four
29
Role-Playing the Three Options: Debate and Discussion
Objectives:
Students will: Analyze the issues that
framed the Senate debate on the Lend-Lease
Act.
Sharpen rhetorical skills through debate
and discussion.
Cooperate with classmates in staging a
persuasive presentation.
Handouts:
“Evaluation Form: Undecided Members of
the Senate” (TRB-30)
In the Classroom:
1. Setting the Stage—Organize the room
so that the three option groups face a row of
desks reserved for the undecided Senators.
2. Managing the Simulation—Explain that
the simulation will begin with three-to-five
minute presentations by each option group.
www.choices.edu ■ Encourage all to speak clearly and convincingly.
3. Guiding Discussion—Following the
presentations, invite undecided Senators to
ask questions. Make sure that each member of
this group has an opportunity to ask at least
one question. The questions should be evenly
distributed among all three option groups. If
time permits, encourage members of the option groups to challenge the positions of the
other groups. During cross-examination, allow
any member of the option group to respond.
(As an alternative approach, permit cross-examination following the presentation of each
option.)
Homework:
Students should read the Epilogue in the
student text (pages 37-43) and complete the
“Study Guide—Epilogue” (TRB-32) or the
“Advanced Study Guide—Epilogue” (TRB-33).
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Four
30
Name:______________________________________________
Evaluation Form: Undecided Members of the Senate
Instructions: Answer the questions below following the simulation.
1. According to each option, what should the U.S. Senate do?
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
2. According to each option, what should be the role of the United States in world affairs?
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
3. According to each option, what effect would approval of Lend-Lease have on U.S. citizens?
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
4. Which of the three options would you support most strongly? Explain your reasoning.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Five
31
Listening to FDR
Objectives:
Students will: Listen to and examine an
excerpt of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1941 State of
the Union speech, when he introduces the
“Four Freedoms.”
Consider how different characters from
history and the present-day would respond to
Roosevelt’s message.
Assess the meaning and the impact of
Roosevelt’s speech then and today.
Required Reading: Students should have read the “Epilogue”
in the student text (pages 37-43) and completed “Study Guide—Epilogue” (TRB-32) or
“Advanced Study Guide—Epilogue” (TRB-33).
excerpt of the speech again to themselves and
then have them answer the character questions
together as a group. Ask them to use what they
have learned from the background reading to
answer the questions. Emphasize that groups
don’t have to reach consensus in their answers
but should be prepared to explain their reasoning to the whole class when asked to report.
3. Large Group Discussion—Come together as a class and discuss the answers to
the character questions. What did students
come up with and why? After reviewing those
answers, pose a final question to the class.
Roosevelt claimed that achievement of these
four freedoms could happen within his generation: was he right? If not, why?
Suggestion: Handouts:
“Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, January 6,
1941” (TRB 34-35).
In the Classroom:
1. Listen to Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms—
Play Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech for
the class. The exact clip is available at <www.
choices.edu/isolationism.cfm> Instruct the
students to listen to which phrases he stresses
or repeats and to the tone and inflection of his
voice.
The full text and audio of the speech is
available at the Miller Center website: <http://
millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/
prezspeeches/r oosevelt/fdr_1941_0106.html>.
Extra Challenges:
Ask the students what rhetoric from the
speech they recognize. In other words, what
words and/or phrases are they still hearing
today from politicians and in the media? What
sounds outdated?
2. Group Responses—Divide the class into
groups of three or four. Have them read the
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Five
32
Name:______________________________________________
Study Guide—Epilogue
1. The Lend-Lease Bill passed on March 11, ___________, with large _________________ in both the
House and Senate. It contained an ______________ preventing the United States from sending
U.S. ________________with the supplies sent to the British. In the end, Congress decided that
the United States should not risk its own ships and men, or the possibility of war, for the sake of
transporting __________ to Great Britain.
2. Why did Japan and the United States begin diplomatic negotiations in March 1941? Were they successful? Explain.
3. What happened on December 7, 1941? How did it affect the America First Committee?
4. Who emerged from World War II as a leading world power? Why?
5. What economic and political steps did the global community take after World War II to avoid future wars?
■ economic:
political:
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Five
33
Name:______________________________________________
Advanced Study Guide—Epilogue
1. Why did many Americans feel that the attack on Pearl Harbor came out of the blue? Did it?
2. What affect did the Cold War have on isolationism?
3. What steps did Roosevelt take to ensure that the aftermath of World War II was unlike the aftermath of World War I?
4. What parallels are there between The Great Debate of 1941 and those that are taking place today?
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Day Five
34
Name:______________________________________________
Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms:” January 6, 1941
The following is an excerpt from Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech to the U.S. Congress.
He gave this speech at the same time the Lend-Lease Debate was beginning. Read the excerpt and
answer the questions below.
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four
essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere
in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position
to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in
our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of
tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
To that new order we oppose the greater conception—the moral order. A good society is able to
face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change—in a perpetual
peaceful revolution—a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions, without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek
is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men
and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of
human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them.
Our strength is our unity of purpose.
To that high concept there can be no end save victory.
Questions:
1. What are Roosevelt’s four freedoms?
2. What phrases and/or words does he repeat? Why are they significant?
3. What events would lead Roosevelt to suggest these four freedoms? Consult the background reading
to help you answer this question.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
Day Five
35
Name:______________________________________________
Now consider how the people below would react to Roosevelt’s speech. Keep in mind what you
learned from the background reading. How would isolationists respond? Supporters of FDR? Foreigners? Politicians today? Be prepared to defend your answer.
1. Charles Lindbergh
2. Senator Gerald P. Nye
3. The 32-year-old mother in Dorothea Lange’s photo (page 7 of the background reading).
4. A citizen of occupied China in 1941.
5. A British soldier in 1941.
Extra Challenge:
6. President George W. Bush.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
36
Key Terms
Introduction and Part I
Part II
aid
isolationism
economy
international law
economic output
foreign policy
neutral
unilateralists
freedom of the seas
dictatorship
free trade
belligerent
self-determination
armament industry
treaty
economic quarantine
international system
colonies
economic markets
interventionist
expansion
arsenal
amendment
economic embargo
sovereignty
puppet government
bilateral
appease
multilateral
convoy
alliances
tariff
Epilogue
signatories
political ideologies
fascism
liberal democracy
socialism
reparations
nationalist
totalitarian
raw materials
industrial economy
bureaucracy
ideological
militarized
individualism
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
37
Toolbox: Understanding the Political Spectrum
The political spectrum is a term used to show how different political perspectives relate to one
another. Political scientists frequently illustrate that relationship by locating the various labels for
these perspectives on a line extending from left to right. The center segment of the line is made up of
individuals and groups who are strong supporters of democratic principles. As one moves outward
toward the ends of the spectrum, one encounters individuals and groups who believe democracy is
not an effective form of government and, in practice even if not in theory, they see powerful individuals as the most effective controls in a society. Traditionally, the spectrum is outlined in the following
way:
sts
ni
mu
als
adic
R
Com
Non-democratic
L
als
iber
The Nazis are found on the extreme right.
Hitler patterned his Nazi Party on Mussolini’s
Fascist Party in Italy. As a result, the extreme
right is usually labeled fascist. In general,
fascists are extremely nationalistic; believe
the individuals should serve the state, not the
reverse; believe in racism and inequality, and
want to maintain a social class system; support
a capitalist economy with close government
supervision; and believe in total government
control over virtually all aspects of life, including family life, religion, and the arts. They
are violently anti-communist.
The communists of the Soviet Union
are found on the extreme left. They promote
an international revolution where national
governments no longer matter; advocate a
classless society; and support a socialist economy in which the government owns all large
enterprises and lays out a master plan for the
■ s
tive
a
serv
M
Con
Democratic
The origins of the two most basic terms,
left and right, can be traced back to the French
Assembly in the period right after the French
Revolution, where the more liberal thinkers
gathered on the left side of the chamber and
the more conservative ones sat on the right.
There is no simple explanation for what is a
liberal or a conservative. The explanation here
will focus on the extremes of the left and right.
These extremes weigh heavily in the international politics of the 1930s and were seen as a
challenge to democratic forms of government.
www.choices.edu tes
ra
ode
s
ts
arie
n
o
scis
i
a
t
F
c
Rea
Non-democratic
whole economy. The slogan by which all are
to live is: “From each according to his ability,
to each according to his needs.” Support for
communism comes primarily from the working class and the underprivileged. However, in
their attempts to carry out their programs, they
too resort to a dictatorship that exercises total
control over all aspects of life. Communists are
violently anti-fascist.
Because communism and fascism both end
up with totalitarian rule (a twentieth century phenomenon), the spectrum is clearer if
drawn as a circle. In totalitarian rule the state
assumes control of all aspects of public and
private life.
Moderates
Libe
rals
Con
Rea
ctio
nar
Non-democratic
ies
s
ical
Rad
sts
ni
mu
Com
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University Democratic
ives
at
serv
Fas
cist
s
Totalitarian
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
38
Making Choices Work in Your Classroom
This section of the Teacher Resource Book
offers suggestions for teachers as they adapt
Choices curricula on historical turning point
to their classrooms. They are drawn from the
experiences of teachers who have used Choices curricula successfully in their classrooms
and from educational research on student-centered instruction.
Managing the Choices Simulation
A central activity of every Choices unit
is the role play simulation in which students
advocate different options and question each
other. Just as thoughtful preparation is necessary to set the stage for cooperative group
learning, careful planning for the presentations
can increase the effectiveness of the simulation. Time is the essential ingredient to keep
in mind. A minimum of 45 to 50 minutes is
necessary for the presentations. Teachers who
have been able to schedule a double period or
extend the length of class to one hour report
that the extra time is beneficial. When necessary, the role play simulation can be run over
two days, but this disrupts momentum. The
best strategy for managing the role play is to
establish and enforce strict time limits, such as
five minutes for each option presentation, ten
minutes for questions and challenges, and the
final five minutes of class for wrapping up. It
is crucial to make students aware of strict time
limits as they prepare their presentations.
Adjusting for Students of Differing
Abilities
Teachers of students at all levels—from
middle school to AP—have used Choices
materials successfully. Many teachers make
adjustments to the materials for their students.
Here are some suggestions:
•Go over vocabulary and concepts with
visual tools such as concept maps and word
pictures.
•Require students to answer guiding questions in the text as checks for understanding.
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ •Shorten reading assignments; cut and
paste sections.
•Combine reading with political cartoon
analysis, map analysis, or movie-watching.
•Read some sections of the readings out
loud.
•Ask students to create graphic organizers
for sections of the reading, or fill in ones you
have partially completed.
•Supplement with different types of readings, such as from trade books or text books.
•Ask student groups to create a bumper
sticker, PowerPoint presentation, or collage
representing their option.
•Do only some activities and readings
from the unit rather than all of them.
Adjusting for Large and Small Classes
Choices units are designed for an average
class of twenty-five students. In larger classes,
additional roles, such as those of newspaper
reporter or member of a special interest group,
can be assigned to increase student participation in the simulation. With larger option
groups, additional tasks might be to create a
poster, political cartoon, or public service announcement that represents the viewpoint of
an option. In smaller classes, the teacher can
serve as the moderator of the debate, and administrators, parents, or faculty can be invited
to play the roles of congressional leaders. Another option is to combine two small classes.
Assessing Student Achievement
Grading Group Assignments: Students
and teachers both know that group grades
can be motivating for students, while at the
same time they can create controversy. Telling
students in advance that the group will receive
one grade often motivates group members to
hold each other accountable. This can foster group cohesion and lead to better group
results. It is also important to give individual
grades for groupwork assignments in order to
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
39
recognize an individual’s contribution to the
group. The “Assessment Guide for Oral Presentations” on the following page is designed
to help teachers evaluate group presentations.
Requiring Self-Evaluation: Having students complete self-evaluations is an effective
way to encourage them to think about their
own learning. Self-evaluations can take many
forms and are useful in a variety of circumstances. They are particularly helpful in
getting students to think constructively about
group collaboration. In developing a self-evaluation tool for students, teachers need to pose
clear and direct questions to students. Two key
benefits of student self-evaluation are that it
involves students in the assessment process,
and that it provides teachers with valuable
insights into the contributions of individual
students and the dynamics of different groups.
These insights can help teachers to organize
groups for future cooperative assignments.
www.choices.edu ■ Testing: Research demonstrates that students using the Choices approach learn the
factual information presented as well as or
better than from lecture-discussion format.
Students using Choices curricula demonstrate
a greater ability to think critically, analyze
multiple perspectives, and articulate original
viewpoints. Teachers should hold students
accountable for learning historical information and concepts presented in Choices units.
A variety of types of testing questions and
assessment devices can require students to
demonstrate critical thinking and historical
understanding.
For Further Reading
Daniels, Harvey, and Marilyn Bizar.
Teaching the Best Practice Way: Methods That
Matter, K-12. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers, 2005.
Holt, Tom. Thinking Historically: Narrative, Imagination, and Understanding. The
College Board, 1990.
Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ TRB Between World Wars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
40
Assessment Guide for Oral Presentations
Group assignment:
Group members:
Group Assessment
1. The group made good use of its
preparation time
Excellent
Good
Average Needs
Unsatisfactory Improvement
5
4
3
2
1
2. The presentation reflected
analysis of the issues under
consideration
5
4
3
2
1
3. The presentation was coherent
and persuasive
5
4
3
2
1
4. The group incorporated relevant
sections of the background reading into its presentation
5
4
3
2
1
5. The group’s presenters spoke
clearly, maintained eye contact,
and made an effort to hold the
attention of their audience
5
4
3
2
1
6. The presentation incorporated
contributions from all the members of the group
5
4
3
2
1
1. The student cooperated with
other group members
5
4
3
2
1
2. The student was well-prepared to
meet his or her responsibilities
5
4
3
2
1
3. The student made a significant
contribution to the group’s presentation
5
4
3
2
1
Individual Assessment
■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Between World Wars: FDR and the TRB
Age of Isolationism
41
Alternative Three Day Lesson Plan
Day 1:
See Day One of the Suggested Five-Day
Lesson Plan. (Students should have read the
Introduction and Part I and completed “Study
Guide—Part I” before beginning the unit.)
Homework: Students should read Part
II and complete “Study Guide—Part II,” the
“Moment of Decision,” and “Options in Brief.”
Day 2:
Assign each student one of the three options, and allow a few minutes for students
to familiarize themselves with the mindsets
of the options. Call on students to evaluate
the benefits and trade-offs of their assigned
options. How do the options differ in their
overall philosophies? How do they assess the
impact of Lend-Lease on the direction of U.S.
foreign policy? What are the dangers inherent
in each set of policy recommendations?
Homework: Students should read the
“Epilogue” and complete “Study Guide—Epilogue.”
Day 3:
See Day Five of the Suggested Five-Day
Lesson Plan.
www.choices.edu ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ ■ Choices for the 21st Century Education Program ■ Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University ■ www.choices.edu
Our units are
always up to date.
Are yours?
Our world is constantly changing.
So CHOICES continually reviews and updates our
classroom units to keep pace with the changes in our
world; and as new challenges and questions arise, we’re
developing new units to address them.
And while history may never change, our knowledge
and understanding of it are constantly changing. So even
our units addressing “moments” in history undergo a
continual process of revision and reinterpretation.
If you’ve been using the same CHOICES units for two or
more years, now is the time to visit our website - learn
whether your units have been updated and see what new
units have been added to our catalog.
CHOICES currently has units addressing the following:
U.S. Role in a Changing World ■ Immigration ■ Terrorism
Genocide ■ Foreign Aid ■ Trade ■ Environment
Nuclear Weapons ■ UN Reform
Middle East ■ Russia ■ South Africa
India & Pakistan ■ Brazil’s Transition ■ Mexico
Colonialism in Africa ■ Weimar Germany ■ China
U.S. Constitutional Convention ■ New England Slavery
War of 1812 ■ Spanish American War
League of Nations ■ FDR and Isolationism
Hiroshima ■ Origins of the Cold War
Cuban Missile Crisis ■ Vietnam War
And watch for new units coming soon:
Westward Expansion ■ Freedom Summer
Teacher sets (consisting of a student text and a teacher resource book) are
available for $18 each. Permission is granted to duplicate and distribute the
student text and handouts for classroom use with appropriate credit given.
Duplicates may not be resold. Classroom sets (15 or more student texts) may
be ordered at $9 per copy. A teacher resource book is included free with each
classroom set. Orders should be addressed to:
Choices Education Program
Watson Institute for International Studies
Box 1948, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
Please visit our website at <www.choices.edu>.
BetweenWorldWars: FDR and the
Age of Isolationism
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism offers students background on the effects of the Treaty
of Versailles, the Great Depression, and rising militarism in
Europe and Asia on the American public. Students explore
the isolationist movement, the Neutrality Acts, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s leadership before recreating the great
debate that took place in the United States over the LendLease Act.
Between World Wars: FDR and the Age of Isolationism is part of a continuing series on current and historical
international issues published by the Choices for the 21st
Century Education Program at Brown University. Choices
materials place special emphasis on the importance of educating students in their participatory role as citizens.