The Problem with Neutrality

During the years leading up to World War II, the United States, influenced by voices like Charles Lindbergh, embraced a policy of staunch isolationism. Lindbergh and the America First Committee argued fervently that America should keep a fortress mentality—oceans away from Europe’s troubles, focusing solely on its own prosperity and security.

"We can best serve our own country by resolutely remaining neutral. Our civilization depends on peace,” Lindbergh argued. “War would bring chaos and destruction which could not be repaired in the lifetime of our generation, or possibly of our children's generation."

This viewpoint was popular and pervasive, shaping American policies and public sentiment.

Across the Atlantic, another approach to neutrality, appeasement, took shape under British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In his infamous pursuit of peace at any cost, Chamberlain’s strategy with Adolph Hitler culminated in the Munich Agreement of 1938, where he conceded the Sudetenland, hoping to avoid war. Returning home, he triumphantly declared that he’d secured “peace for our time,” a statement that would soon reveal the full scale of its naiveté.

The outcomes of these policies were soon clear on a global scale. The U.S. found itself unprepared for war, while Britain’s appeasement only emboldened Hitler, accelerating the march toward worldwide conflict.

Lindbergh’s approach is just as flawed now as it was then. Today, we are seeing conflicts that stretch from the plains of Ukraine to the cities of Israel, and into the vast, lawless expanses of cyberspace. Anti-Semitism is running rampant. In this global environment, the idea of standing aside, of maintaining a stance of pure neutrality in the face of global and complex threats, is not only impractical; it's an anachronism. The notion that we can isolate ourselves from global conflicts and remain untouched by their consequences is a dangerous fallacy that some still cling to today.

Our shared critical past teaches us important lessons about the dangers of neutrality when faced with aggression, and the risks associated with trying to avoid conflict through isolation or concession. These lessons remind us that true leadership and genuine moral courage are foundational for peace and stability.

?Today, conflicts stretch across continents from the battlefields of Ukraine and Syria, and from Yemen to Israel, presenting challenges that are not altogether unprecedented—if we understand history and apply its lessons. Each conflict and each war, with their own unique complexities, show us how a stance of neutrality might inadvertently appear as silent consent to ongoing atrocities, affecting countless innocent lives.

With the rise of new technologies, such as drones and cyber warfare, we’ve witnessed a radical transformation of warfare. Drones, flying unseen, bring the battle deep any territory without a soldier in sight. Similarly, cyber warfare allows states and non-state actors to disrupt societies from afar, targeting critical infrastructure and spreading disinformation without firing a single shot.

Countries that have chosen to remain neutral in these conflicts face both criticism and consequences. Nations that avoid taking sides in the Syrian conflict might succeed in preserving diplomatic relations but at the cost of being seen as indifferent to the suffering and destruction that has engulfed the region—leading to a loss of international credibility and influence.

While non-engagement may be intended as a principled stand, it can ultimately become an act of turning a blind eye in crises that call for moral judgment and decisive action. History demonstrates that neutrality can even become a vulnerability, making these nations targets for manipulation or coercion by more aggressive powers.? Not choosing a side often proves to be as significant as the decision to choose.

History may not repeat itself, but it does echo—and if we listen closely, it tells us something important: diplomacy and stepping up to the plate tend to work out better than sitting on our collective hands.? Addressing antisemitism and hate early, can prevent its spread to something catastrophic and horrific.

During World War II, the policy of appeasement and the initial neutrality of many Western nations allowed Nazi Germany to aggressively expand its territory across Europe. This inaction and reluctance to confront Hitler's ambitions early on contributed to the outbreak of a devastating war and led to the Holocaust, where six million Jews and millions of others were systematically murdered. The failure to act sooner remains one of the most tragic examples of how neutrality and inaction can lead to catastrophic human suffering and genocide.

In the early 1990s, the world's inaction and neutrality toward the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia, allowed horrific massacres and the displacement of millions to unfold. Similarly, the global community's failure to intervene during the 1994 Rwandan genocide resulted in the rapid and brutal slaughter of about 800,000 people in just 100 days. In both cases, international hesitance and a lack of decisive action permitted atrocities to escalate.

Neutrality, while an attractive concept, can have dire consequences. Through an impartial, thoughtful approach we can navigate these complex scenarios.? General John Shalikashvili once said,

"Impartiality does not imply neutrality."

It's a reminder for us all: to be fair doesn't mean we stand still.

?

Colonel John Fenzel (USA Ret.) is the CEO of The World War II Foundation.

?