Roosevelt and Wilson on the Issue of Necessity and Inevitability of War - Essay Example

Institute of affiliation: Roosevelt and Wilson on the issue of necessity and inevitability of war Considerably, it is obvious that conflict do happen at all times in this current realm of life. According to the history, in many occasion U.S has been sandwiched in tensions and conflicts, but only a hand full of them resulted to war or battle. Notably, one memorable war and bloodiest was the WWII and the WWI, this is per the U.S history. One of the prime motivators of the war in a nation is the speeches delivered by the presidents governing the country at that time. One of the known war encouragers were presidents Wilson and Roosevelt. This essay will focus on the manner to which presidents Wilson W and Roosevelt have presented inevitability and necessity of conflict to the country by the means of political vocalizations. Both Woodrow Wilson’s message to congress of 1917 and FDR’s infamy speech were based on just war theory because all of the points of that theory could be applied to situation that U.S. was in. It is pertinent that Wilson’s speech incorporated with the current American mindset geared up the result of antagonistic events in Europe, which affected the United States rapidly. Accordingly, his speech primarily outlined the justifications of the reasons for war declaration and further layouts of the basic belief that was a threat to American general security. Some of the factors that Wilson mentions are that, it is up to Germany to ignore the humanity law constraints. He further points out that, Germany had threatened to sank every vessel that subverts any sense regarding the law and approaches the port. However, the humanitarian theme on the war as per the message of Wilson did follow speech in a great manner. Germany government literally proclaimed to put all the vessels that could approach the port to doom despite of those on board (Wilson, 4). Due to the above, Wilson thinks that German’s decision is not only inhumane but also uncivilized. Accordingly, he could make an attack wiling speech with the aim of dehumanizing the Germans. Wilson as a great speaker he purposely puts a string to the heart of the listeners by giving emotional reasons for the necessity of the united state responding to the submarine ships by force. Even though Wilson rationalized the need to enter into war, although to some extend he did not want to jeopardize the peace that the Americans hard. It is pertinent to heed that with all the reasons he had, he plausibly puts forth the reason to why, Americans should enter into total war. To crown it all, the entire message of President Wilson had the following points; he affirms that neutrality was not beneficial as well as possible. He further alludes that, it is s possibility that the US will automatically make the world’s democracy safe and there was a need for the call of the nations. President further announces that the congress should heed that the US was not quarrelling with the Germany natives but with their government. The above are some of the reasons that Wilson passed across to his people prior to the war ahead. In Wilson’s message, patriotic appeal is identified, since the Wilson’s speech is keenly studied alongside his actions and policies. It is pertinent to identify the act of neutrality where the strictly neutral course did not match with the policies; on contrary, it is clear that his policies did favor Allies. The above insinuates that in most cases policymakers and presidents often have gaps between actions and their words. Apart from portraying the necessity of the inevitability of war by presidents towards their nation, this essay also illustrates the rhetoric strategies used by the two personalities. Starting with President Wilson, in his unprepared and unmotivated state he goes ahead to declare war against the Germans despite of the country’s belligerency being heavily in question. In his effort to retain honor and peace of the united state, Wilson was required to choose between two, which he opt for latter. Again, rhetoric approach on the matter is seen when he sits down to sooth his congregation by addressing the conflicting issue. The above is because of him confiding his cabinet member Frank Cobbb. Here he claims that his decision was uncertain and that it was overwhelming him. Wilson is forced to change from foreign policy to the scope of international, which it was not easy for the American people to follow. The above are some of the rhetoric strategies that President Wilson faced during his reign On contrary, with the case of F.D. Roosevelt’s message it rotates to the fact that during the WWII, the US gets a physical attack from the Japan Empire on December 7 1941. Here it is noted that the US government was in a talk with the Japan Empire for the maintenance of peace in the pacific. It is clear as per the experts that the Japan government had deceived the US by useless negotiation of diplomacy. The attack did not contain any threat or hint of fight. It is true that during the WWII, the united state of America was deliberate and suddenly attacked by not only air force but also naval of Japan Empire. The above led FDR to declare war against the Japan. However, both the two-president FDR and Wilson based their argument on constitution and they declared war by the action and considered it a justified and proper route to take. Despite of the fact that immediate response was in need, the two leaders took a long and justified way of war declaration through the approval of the congress. The above portrays the fact that, their decision was balanced and righteously approved by the citizens. Evidently, the above decision is precisely noted in the speech by Wilson where he criticizes the German imperial decision and not to the Germany natives. The differences that arise here is that in Wilson’s case it is arguable that war was the last option unlike in FDR’s case where it is assumable that there is no other way of dealing with hostility from the republic of Japan. Keenly, it can be noticed that in Wilson’s case the US natives were not in danger even though he argued that the president paid attention at the property and the lives of the innocent and peaceful natives (Wilson, 2). Due to the challenge of democracy, which Germany government was abusing, Wilson argues, that the above is one factor necessitating the Americans fight back. Therefore, the spirit to make the world safer as regards to democracy geared Wilson’s fight. On contrary to FDR, where he did not have any other option other than to fight back since he says that his people, Americans interests and territory are in grave danger. After the attack, the president claims that he is ready for the defensive measures, and he says that apart from defending the American territory, he will ensure that the same treachery will never repeat in future. He goes ahead to emphasize that it is unwise to stay back when territory, people and interests of people are in danger. The above message confirms that the president was not happy with the inversion and that he raised the people to fight. In addition, the assurances like the confidence of the armed forces as well as the peoples unbounding determination gives the natives a spirit to fight. President Roosevelt opted to use rhetoric strategies as instrument of not ceremonial duty rather an instrument of policy (President Roosevelts message of April 9, 1906). More so, another rhetoric strategy is that both President Wilson and Roosevelt used the tactic of going to the public in order to keep public’s attention. To add on that, it is evident that the two leaders used news management and mediated rhetoric via press conference in the white house. Summary This essay in general outlines the different ways in which presidents Wilson and Roosevelt have so far represented the necessity or inevitability of war to their nation through the means of political speeches. It is notable that, the leaders used speech to lure their supporters into fight in the claim of defending themselves. Accordingly, the essay has focused two presidents that are Wilson and Roosevelt of the united state. It is pertinent to note that, two different countries attacked the US, which is the Germany and Japan. Retaliation of the US was because of defense where the leaders did opt to fight back by stimulating the natives by the use of speeches. Further, the essay illustrates some bit of rhetoric strategies that the two principles used when addressing the congress as their motivational speeches. By concluding, it is notable that Americans were physically attacked, unfortunately the citizens of the country got hurt. However, the intentions of fighting the Germany and Japan republic were right and the fight itself was just. Both the president affirms that the fight broke out due to the attack of the opposing side. During the action of WWI until April of 1917, US took a neutral stands but the responds was stern after the announcement of the sink ships. They both fought a constitutional war as they claim due to that, they claim their actions are justified and proper. In addition, it is worth noting that the two presidents had the ability to respond to the attack immediately but again they had all the time, so they decided to take it in a justified manner. The difference in the two wars is that, in the Wilson’s case it is evident that the case was evadible since he says that he feels for the German natives and that, he targets the government of the Germany and that war was a last resort. Conversely, in FDR’s case it is reasonable to assume that the only way of dealing with aggression from republic of Japan was by war. Works Cited President Roosevelts message of April 9, 1906: with commissions letter of April 7.. Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1906. Print. Wilson, Woodrow. War speeches and messages of Woodrow Wilson. Girard, Kan.: Appeal to reason, 1920. Print. Read More