Before World War II, the United States involved itself in the conflicts of many countries. It opposed the Haitian revolution (Against France), it had started a war with Mexico, and then taken half of the country. Opposing a Haitian revolution, or any revolution would not be defending “free peoples.” Furthermore, the United States fought a war to conquer the Filipinos, and “opened up” Japan and China, so that the United States would have a fair chance in extracting resources from both countries. A country cannot “defend free peoples” if it is too engaged in exploiting a countries resources. Exploiting a countries’ resources would do the opposite of defending free peoples, in fact, it would actually hurt these citizens. In many countries, the United States would start by “helping” the country, usually by helping it gain independence, then proceed to use the newly independent state for their own uses. A good example of cases like these would be Cuba and Panama. Cuba became almost like a “colony” under the leadership of the United States when the US had “helped” Cuba win freedom for Spain, and then invaded Cuba with a military base, investments, and full rights of intervention. Though some could argue that America invaded Cuba in order to "defend" them, but there is a fine line between "defending" and "controlling," and in this situation, the United States have clearly crossed the line. Similarly, the United States only intervened in the revolution between Panama and Colombia, allowing Panama to become independent, to gain control of the Canal, which proved extremely beneficial for the trade of the US. This is similar to what happened in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia had the largest oil pool, and the US, specifically the ARAMCO oil corporation, knowing that oil would heavily benefit the economy, got Roosevelt to agree to lend lease aid to “help” Saudi Arabia, and in return, would receive oil. While on the surface, the United States seemed like a “defender of free peoples,” in reality, it would only defend and help countries if the US could gain from it.
America claims that it defends all free people, yet it discriminates people from their own country. The United States arms forces were segregated by race, an example being when the troops were put on a ship to go on combat duty, the black men were stowed in the “basement” of the ship, an almost identical reminder of slavery. The Red Cross, approved by the US government, separated the blood of the blacks and whites. And even when there was a shortage of jobs (especially during wartime), blacks were still discriminated, usually only considered for jobs such as janitors. However, discrimination not only happened to blacks, it happened to the Japanese Americans living in the US as well. After the Pearl Harbor bombing, millions of Japanese Americans were taken from their homes and brought into camps. How can a country “defend” other “free peoples” when it cannot even defend their own?
After WWII, the situation in Guatemala also shows how America is not a defender of free peoples. A legally elected government was overthrown by those trained by the CIA (Americans), and in fact, is arguably the most democratic government Guatemala ever had. The reason was because Arbenz, the President, had taken away around 200 thousand acres of land owned by United Fruit, a company that if the land were to be taken away, would pose a slight threat to the United States. The US put into power Colonel Armas, who gave back the land, abolished tax to foreign investors, and did many other things to benefit the Americans, however, he was not a good leader for Guatemala. He abolished the law that facilitated land reforms, created a "death squad" (National Committee of Defense Against Communism) that targeted anyone suspected to be communist, and even removed the voting abilities of the illiterate. Furthermore, the Americans, namely the CIA, applauded the "victory over communism" in Guatemala after all these negative changes. The Americans took away a highly supported leader, and replaced it with a military leader that benefited the Americans, but was anything but beneficial to the citizens. Similarly in Cuba, Fidel Castro overthrew a American-backed dictator. Fidel Castro moved to set up nationwide system of education, of housing, land distribution to landless peasants, and confiscated million acres of land from other American companies, including United Fruit. Cuba need money to fund these programs, in order for Cuba to develop as a country, yet the IMF (US based) refused to lend any money. The Americans refused to “help” the “free people,” because they would not get anything that would benefit themselves. Their main goal in "defending" was to either stop communism, or gain economically from it.
Finally, the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a clear example of how Americans do nearly the opposite of defending free people. It bombed two countries and killed millions, and in an official report, it even stated that the two cities were chosen because of their large population. The US, at this point, were not defending free peoples at all, instead it was killing, injuring, and imperialising the “free peoples,” just to "stop the flow of communism."
The United States believes itself, and imposes its idea that it is the “defender of free peoples,” yet, in reality, its actions in global affairs show that it actually only cares about itself instead of others. The bombing of the two cities, the negative result of US intervention in numerous countries, and the Cuban and Guatemala situation only benefited the United States, and proved that America was in fact not a “defender of free peoples” like it had believed itself to be.