CANADA HISTORY - DOCUMENTS WAR

1937 Franklin D. Roosevelt Quarantine Speech

Analysis of the Document - (The Document follows below the Analysis)

In his 1937 Quarantine Speech, Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered a powerful message that reverberated far beyond American borders, influencing global politics and history, including that of Canada. At the time, the world was gripped by rising tensions and aggressive acts by totalitarian regimes, most notably in Europe and Asia. Roosevelt’s speech, given in Chicago on October 5, marked a subtle yet significant shift in U.S. foreign policy from isolationism toward a more active role in curbing international aggression. Though the speech did not explicitly call for military action, it invoked the idea of a “quarantine” to isolate aggressive nations in an effort to maintain global peace and security.

The implications of this speech for Canada were profound. As Roosevelt began moving the United States toward a policy of engagement, Canada, as a close neighbor and ally, found itself increasingly aligned with American perspectives on global security. The speech helped set the stage for greater cooperation between the U.S. and Canada, especially as the world moved closer to the outbreak of World War II. The idea of collective security, underscored by Roosevelt's call to contain aggressive powers, resonated with Canadian leadership, which was already attuned to the growing threat posed by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Canada's own foreign policy was shifting around this time. Although still a member of the British Empire and closely tied to British foreign policy, Canada was also increasingly asserting its own autonomy. Roosevelt's speech indirectly encouraged Canada to think more independently about its role in the international community. As war loomed, Prime Minister Mackenzie King recognized the need for Canada to act as a bridge between the British Empire and the United States, positioning the country as a critical player in North American defense and a voice in international diplomacy.

Moreover, Roosevelt's speech highlighted the moral obligation of nations to confront tyranny and aggression. This message resonated deeply in Canada, which would later commit significant resources and military forces to the Allied war effort in World War II. The speech signaled a departure from the strict non-interventionist policies that had dominated American politics, and it suggested that countries like Canada, closely connected to the U.S. both geographically and politically, might need to rethink their own stance on international involvement.

The Quarantine Speech also had long-lasting effects on the economic and security relationships between Canada and the United States. As the United States moved toward rearmament and economic mobilization in preparation for possible conflict, Canada followed suit, increasing its own defense spending and seeking to modernize its military forces. The speech helped lay the groundwork for what would become a closely coordinated defense partnership between the two countries, exemplified by later agreements such as the Ogdensburg Agreement in 1940 and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) during the Cold War.

In the broader scope of Canadian history, Roosevelt's Quarantine Speech can be seen as part of a larger realignment in North American politics. It signaled the beginning of a more interventionist U.S. policy, which would later lead to closer economic, military, and diplomatic ties between the United States and Canada. This relationship would become even more crucial as both nations entered World War II and later faced the challenges of the Cold War.

In conclusion, Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 Quarantine Speech marked a pivotal moment in North American history, influencing not only U.S. foreign policy but also the trajectory of Canadian international relations. It foreshadowed the deeper cooperation that would develop between the two nations in the face of global threats and underscored the growing role that Canada would play as a middle power in world affairs. Roosevelt's call for a quarantine of aggressor nations became a rallying cry for those advocating collective security and laid the foundation for the international partnerships that would shape the future of both Canada and the United States.


Placeholder image

The President's Address in Chicago, October 5, 1937

I am glad to come once again to Chicago and especially to have the opportunity of taking part in the dedication of this important project of civic betterment.

On my trip across the continent and back I have been shown many evidences of the result of common sense cooperation between municipalities and the Federal government, and I have been greeted by tens of thousands of Americans who have told me in every look and word that their material and spiritual well-being has made great strides forward in the past few years.

And yet, as I have seen with my own eyes, the prosperous farms, the thriving factories and the busy railroads - as I have seen the happiness and security and peace which covers our wide land, almost inevitably I have been compelled to contrast our peace with very different scenes being enacted in other parts of the world.

It is because the people of the United States under modern conditions must, for the sake of their own future, give thought to the rest of the world, that I, as the responsible executive head of the nation, have chosen this great inland city and this gala occasion to speak to you on a subject of definite national importance.

The political situation in the world, which of late has been growing progressively worse, is such as to cause grave concern and anxiety to all the peoples and nations who wish to live in peace and amity with their neighbors.

Some 15 years ago the hopes of mankind for a continuing era of international peace were raised to great heights when more than 60 nations solemnly pledged themselves not to resort to arms in furtherance of their national aims and policies. The high aspirations expressed in the Briand-Kellogg Pact and the hopes for peace thus raised have of late given way to a haunting fear of calamity. The present reign of terror and international lawlessness began a few years ago.

It began through unjustified interference in the internal affairs of other nations or the invasion of alien territory in violation of treaties. It has now reached the stage where the very foundation of civilization are seriously threatened. The landmarks, the traditions which have marked the progress of civilization toward a condition of law and order and justice are being wiped away.

Without a declaration of war and without warning or justification of any kind, civilians, including vast numbers of women and children, are being ruthlessly murdered with bombs from the air. In times of so-called peace, ships are being attacked and sunk by submarines without cause or notice. Nations are fomenting and taking sides in civil warfare in nations that have never done them any harm. Nations claiming freedom for themselves deny it to others.

Innocent peoples, innocent nations are being cruelly sacrificed to a greed for power and supremacy which is devoid of all sense of justice and humane considerations.

To paraphrase a recent author, "perhaps we foresee a time when men, exultant in the technique of homicide, will rage hotly over the world that every precious thing will be in danger, every book, every picture, every harmony, every treasure garnered through two millenniums, the small, the delicate, the defenseless - all will be lost or wrecked or utterly destroyed."

If those things come to pass in other parts of the world, let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy, that this Western hemisphere will not be attacked and that it will continue tranquilly and peacefully to carry on the ethics and the arts of civilization.

No, if those days come, "there will be no safety by arms, no help from authority, no answer in science. The storm will rage until every flower of culture is trampled and all human beings are leveled in a vast chaos."

If those days are not to come to pass - if we are to have a world in which we can breathe freely and live in amity without fear - then the peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort to uphold laws and principles on which alone peace can rest secure.

The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignorings of human instincts which today are creating a state of international anarchy and instability from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality.

Those who cherish their freedom and recognize and respect the equal right of their neighbors to be free and live in peace, must work together for the triumph of law and moral principles in order that peace, justice, and confidence may prevail throughout the world. There must be a return to a belief in the pledged word, in the value of a signed treaty. There must be recognition of the fact that national morality is as vital as private morality.

A bishop wrote me the other day: "It seems to me that something greatly needs to be said in behalf of ordinary humanity against the present practice of carrying the horrors of war to helpless civilians, especially women and children. It may be that such a protest might be regarded by many, who claim to be realists, as futile, but may it not be that the heart of mankind is so filled with horror at the present needless suffering that that force could be mobilized in sufficient volume to lessen such cruelty in the days ahead. Even though it may take 20 years, which God forbid, for civilization to make effective its corporate protest against this barbarism, surely strong voices may hasten the day."

There is a solidarity and interdependence about the modern world, both technically and morally, which makes it impossible for any nation completely to isolate itself from economic and political upheavals in the rest of the world, especially when such upheavals appear to be spreading and not declining. There can be no stability or peace either within nations or between nations except under laws and moral standards adhered to by all. International anarchy destroys every foundation for peace. It jeopardizes either the immediate or the future security of every nation, large or small. It is, therefore, a matter of vital interest and concern to the people of the United States that the sanctity of international treaties and the maintenance of international morality be restored.

The overwhelming majority of the peoples and nations of the world today want to live in peace. They seek the removal of barriers against trade. They want to exert themselves in industry, in agriculture and in business, that they may increase their wealth through the production of wealth-producing goods rather than striving to produce military planes and bombs and machine guns and cannon for the destruction of human lives and useful property.

In those nations of the world which seem to be piling armament on armament for purposes of aggression, and those other nations which fear acts of aggression against them and their security, a very high proportion of their national income is being spent directly for armaments. It runs from 30 to as high as 50 per cent. The proportion that we in the United States spend is far less - 11 or 12 per cent.

How happy we are that the circumstances of the moment permit us to put our money into bridges and boulevards, dams and reforestation, the conservation of our soil, and many other kinds of useful works rather than into huge standing armies and vast supplies of implements of war.

Nevertheless, my friends, I am compelled, as you are compelled, to look ahead. The peace, the freedom, and the security of 90 per cent of the population of the world is being jeopardized by the remaining 10 per cent who are threatening a breakdown of all international order and law. Surely the 90 per cent who want to live in peace under law and in accordance with moral standards that have received almost universal acceptance through the centuries, can and must find some way to make their will prevail.

The situation is definitely of universal concern. The questions involved relate not merely to violations of specific provisions of particular treaties; they are questions of war and of peace, of international law and especially of principles of humanity. It is true that they involve definite violations of agreements, and especially of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Briand-Kellogg Pact and the Nine Power Treaty. But they also involve problems of world economy, world security and world humanity.

It is true that the moral consciousness of the world must recognize the importance of removing injustices and well-founded grievances; but at the same time it must be aroused to the cardinal necessity of honoring sanctity of treaties, of respecting the rights and liberties of others and of putting an end to acts of international aggression.

It seems to be unfortunately true that the epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading.

AND MARK THIS WELL: When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.

It is my determination to pursue a policy of peace and to adopt every practicable measure to avoid involvement in war. It ought to be inconceivable that in this modern era, and in the face of Experience, any nation could be so foolish and ruthless as to run the risk of plunging the whole world into war by invading and violating, in contravention of solemn treaties, the territory of other nations that have done them no real harm and are too weak to protect themselves adequately. Yet the peace of the world and the welfare and security of every nation are today being threatened by that very thing.

No nation which refuses to exercise forbearance and to respect the freedom and rights of others can long remain strong and retain the confidence and respect of other nations. No nation every loses its dignity or its good standing by conciliating its differences, and by exercising great patience with, and consideration for, the rights of other nations.

War is a contagion, whether it be declared or undeclared. It can engulf states and peoples remote from the original scene of hostilities. We are determined to keep out of war, yet we cannot insure ourselves against the disastrous effects of war and the dangers of involvement. We are adopting such measures as will minimize our risk of involvement, but we cannot have complete protection in a world of disorder in which confidence and security have broken down.

If civilization is to survive, the principles of the Prince of Peace must be restored. Shattered trust between nations must be revived.

Most important of all, the will for peace on the part of peace-loving nations must express itself to the end that nations that may be tempted to violate their agreements and the rights of others will desist from such a course. There must be positive endeavors to preserve peace.


Cite Article : www.canadahistory.com/sections/documents/war/war.html

Source:



Placeholder image
Placeholder image