Question

1. (a) define in paragraph 6, roosevelt refers to “a dictator’s peace.” what does he mean by that phrase? (b) take a position do you think it is ever worth it to accept the “temporary safety” (see paragraph 7) of such a peace? why, or why not?

Explanation:

Part (a)

To define "a dictator’s peace" in Roosevelt's context, we analyze the historical and rhetorical meaning. A dictator’s peace likely refers to a peace imposed by a dictator (or authoritarian ruler) through force, coercion, or oppression. It’s not a just or democratic peace but one that serves the dictator’s interests, suppressing freedoms, human rights, and the will of the people. It’s a peace that maintains the dictator’s power, often at the expense of the populace’s well - being and self - determination.

To answer if it's ever worth accepting the "temporary safety" of such a peace, we consider moral, long - term, and practical aspects. Morally, accepting a dictator’s peace means endorsing oppression and the violation of human rights, which goes against principles of justice and freedom. Long - term, dictatorships are often unstable, and the "temporary safety" is illusory—eventually, the oppression may lead to greater conflict (e.g., internal uprisings, international tensions). Practically, true peace and security come from just systems, not from submitting to tyranny. So, it's not worth it.

Answer:

"A dictator’s peace" means a peace imposed by an authoritarian ruler (dictator) through force, coercion, or oppression. It serves the dictator’s interests, suppresses freedoms, human rights, and the will of the people, and is not a just or democratic peace.

Part (b)