The Four Freedoms By Franklin D. Roosevelt

When the United States first entered WWII, there was considerable questioning of what benefits would arise from going to war. In contrast to WWI, morale was low and citizens wanted irrefutable knowledge that the war would have a lasting positive effect. By actually going to war rather than simply aiding the allies, the decision solidified the concept that more American lives would be lost, more money would be spent, and more destruction would occur. In response to backlash, Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Four Freedoms, of which were to be achieved post war. Freedom was the worldwide goal: freedom of speech, worship, from want, and from fear. The war aims motivated Americans to fight for what the country stood for and to reestablish a
His focus remained on how the war affected each soldier and his family, though the perspective hardly lined up with Roosevelt’s war aims. In Fraser’s words, “[...] morale, far from being inspired by policy, comes from within, and is nourished by friends, family, and example” (Fraser xix). Rather than fighting for global freedom, Fraser put heavier emphasis on freedom and the survival of the American individual. It was a matter of personal interest that motivated him. In regards to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Fraser’s thoughts highlighted the virtue of family. Were he not willing to accept the bombing as worth the casualties in order to end the war, he would be putting the lives of Japanese over his children and grandchildren, and “If it wasn’t [worth it], what were we fighting for?” (Fraser 221). In his perspective, the focus of the war was to aid America and its people, rather than to achieve Roosevelt’s aim for freedom throughout the world. As well, his views also failed to align with what the war ended up bringing. Half a decade after the war ended, Fraser noted, “How the years go by, and how changed everything is, and how much you see around you today that you didn’t fight for” (Fraser 231). From his experience, he viewed the war’s existence and outcome as far from what had been
Abbott felt the brunt of the war in his personal life. As a designated conscientious objector, he was forcibly excluded from the supposed benefits of the war aims. The promises of the war being for freedoms only held true in regards to certain types of freedoms, of which did not align with Abbott’s lifestyle. For Abbott, he was deemed a conscientious objector due in part to his religious beliefs, though his “[...] religion was like anybody’s else’s, except that [he] worshiped in the woods” (Terkel 166). While the four freedoms asserted freedom of worship was to be globally recognized, it appeared there was a narrow scale of what was acknowledged as acceptable. He reaffirmed the notion that other freedoms were denied as well, by writing “All I was doing is saying I refuse to murder people” (Terkel 171). While freedom from fear was a war aim, physical aggression was seen as somewhat of a necessity to achieve it. The logic was paradoxical, and trying to disregard it only proved to tighten the restrictions. In Abbott’s life, the war lessened his freedoms, and the aftermath saw little change in the