Free World: Difference between revisions

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Free World" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (November 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The Free World is a Cold War–era term for the non-communist countries of the world. The concept included countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Canada, West Germany, Australia, and countries belonging to organizations such as the European Community and NATO. In addition, the "Free World" occasionally includes the Commonwealth realms, Japan, Israel, and India.

During World War II, the Allied powers viewed themselves as opposing the oppression and fascism of the Axis powers, thus making them "free". Following the end of World War II, the Cold War conception of the "Free World" included only capitalist particularly anti-communist states as being "free" and having such freedoms as free speech, free press, free to protest and freedom of association.

In World War II, the term free world was used to refer to the nations fighting against the Axis Powers.^[1] Such use would have included the Soviet Union, contrary to the later, "Cold War" definition of the term. During World War II the term free countries was used to identify the western allies. During the Cold War, the term referred to the allies of the United States.^{[citation needed]} In both cases, the term was used for propaganda purposes.

During the Cold War, many neutral countries, namely those in what is considered the Third World, or those having no formal alliance with either the United States or the Soviet Union, viewed the claim of "Free World" leadership by the United States as somewhat grandiose and illegitimate.^[2] The phrase has also been used in a negative manner, usually in an anti-American context, by those who do not approve of either United States foreign policy, or the United States as a whole.

One of the earliest uses of the term Free World as a politically significant term occurs in Frank Capra's World War II propaganda film series Why We Fight. In Prelude to War, the first film of that series, the "free world" is portrayed as a white planet, directly contrasted with the black planet called the "slave world". The film depicts the free world as the Western Hemisphere, led by the United States and Western Europe, and the slave world as the Eastern Hemisphere, dominated by Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire.

Although the "Free World" had its origins in the Cold War, the phrase is still occasionally used after the end of the Cold War.^[3] According to Samuel P. Huntington the term has been replaced by the concept of the World community, which, he argues, "has become the euphemistic collective noun (replacing "the Free World") to give global legitimacy to actions reflecting the interests of the United States and other Western powers."^[4]

The "Leader of the Free World" is a colloquialism, first used during the Cold War, to describe either the United States or, more commonly, the President of the United States. The term when used in this context suggests that the United States is the principal democratic superpower, and the U.S. President is by extension the leader of the world's democratic states, i.e. the "Free World". The phrase had its origin in the late 1940s, and has become more widely used since the early 1950s. It was heavily referenced in American foreign policy up until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, and has since fallen out of use, in part due to its usage in anti-American rhetoric.^[5]