Prof. Byrnes last week, we talked about coming to the war in europe. I would like to talk about the american reaction to all of that. Lets call it the great debate over american involvement in world war ii. This is arguably the most important debate on Foreign Policy in all of american history. Public opinion probably more than any previous debate mattered here. In part because for the first time, there was a way of gauging Public Opinion. The Gallup Organization had begun regularly polling American People. Leaders had a more direct sense of what people thought. You will see a lot of polling data in fleshing out what it was that americans thought. I will focus a bit on Public Opinion, and then we will talk about actual policy as a reflection of that Public Opinion. At the start of the war in europe, my argument is that there were two basic positions held unanimously by the American People. They wanted britain and france to win the war. They wanted to defeat germany. They did not want the americans to have to fight in the war to make it happen. Over the course of the two years of this debate, nothing that happened really changed those two points of view. There will be changes in American Opinion, but those two fundamental views remain the same. On the eve of pearl harbor, most Americans Still wanted to avoid direct american involvement as a belligerent in world war ii. The great debate moved the American Public in the direction of risking war, but never fully convinced americans that the United States should declare war against germany. Only germanys declaration of war against the United States after pearl harbor convinced americans to declare war on germany. That is one thing. The debate is about, on the surface, how much aid should the United States give to the allies to help them defeat nazi germany . Below the surface, there a much more important and fundamental debate going on. What role should the United States play in the world Going Forward . Should it, as the antiinterventionists argued, remain a hemispheric power dominating north and south america as it had done for the last century . Should it try to do that in a world dominated by hostile dictatorships . Or, as the interventionists argued, should it recognize that the United States was a global power and be willing to join the fight against those dictators to prevent those dictators from dominating the world . Thats a big question. Behind all the details, we will talk about a fair amount of detailed arguments, that is the fundamental question americans are considering. What role should the United States play Going Forward . The great debate that takes place over the two years between the beginning of the war and pearl harbor gradually moved the public in the direction of a much more active american engagement in the world and set the stage for americas postwar emergence as a global superpower. This is the significant part. But, without ever fully convincing most americans that it was americas responsibility to assume global leadership. To understand this debate, we have to go back and remind ourselves about how americans reacted to the first world war. I think, by the 1930s, americans were suffering a hangover from world war i. It is something they now really regret. After the United States rejected participation in Woodrow Wilsons league of nations, most americans settled back into the much more comfortable idea that the United States could ignore the rest of the world. Europe in particular. It did not need to be engaged. The events of the 1920s and 1830s 1930s really reinforce the idea that involvement in the last war had been a mistake. It was a departure from tradition, and it was one that the United States should not repeat ever again. That mistake showed the wisdom of the founding generations Foreign Policy, of staying out of european quarrels. The old world was corrupt, it was decadent, it was prone to warfare. Nothing good could come out of american involvement in that. What that led to in the 1930s was a growing consensus, particularly in congress, that what we needed to do in the United States was create a legal structure that would prevent that from happening. From 1935 to 1937, a series of laws which we call the neutrality legislation. The basic idea here was to make sure, by law, that the United States could not make the mistakes it made last time. It targeted very specifically the things that americans now blamed for american involvement in the previous war. Specifically. If theres another war, there should be an impartial arms embargo on all belligerents. All belligerents. Aggressor, victim, it doesnt matter. Impartial. All belligerents. We dont want to be selling arms to anyone. The only threatens to drag us into the war. A ban on loans. If we loan money to a belligerent, we may have an interest in making sure that they win the war. No loans. A ban on americans traveling on belligerent ships. We dont want americans being killed in this war accidentally because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That happened last time, it shouldnt happen again. In each of these cases, americans are responding directly to something that happened between 1914 in and 1917. A retrospective sense that this had been a mistake. Americans had made all these mistakes last time, next time we wont make those mistakes. This is coming from congress, which is one of the things that makes it unusual. Foreign policy is primarily the purview of the president. Here is congress saying, we will limit what the president can do. Its probably not surprising to you that the president was not crazy about these ideas. Fdr did not like his flexibility in Foreign Policy being limited. He also recognized that this is popular. The people are behind this. So he signed these pieces of legislation, but at the same time warned that they could be problematic in the future. And events would bear him out. It does become problematic in the future. In particular, by 19381939, with the polish crisis, for most americans, it became clear that a war was becoming more and more likely in europe. Not just any general hypothetical war, but a specific war between nazi germany on the one hand and britain and france on the other. It began to change their minds a little bit about this neutrality legislation. Americans most unanimously had a negative opinion of nazi germany and generally had a positive opinion of Great Britain and france. When the idea of a war between those two sides began to become more and more possible, American Public opinion began to shift a little bit. Six months before the war began, the Gallup Organization asked americans, if there was a war, who would they favor . Would they be favoring changing the law . Do you think the law should be changed so that we could sell war materials in case of war . A solid majority said yes. That is against the law at this point. When faced with the idea that england and france would be on the receiving end, we do support doing that. This is not a theoretical war. It is a real war. There are limits. There are limits to that. Americans drew the line at extending credit. Should we lend money to england and france . 69 said no. Thats different. We dont want loans out there. What this is reflecting his american resentment of the fact that a lot of the war debts from world war i were never paid back. We didnt get our money back last time, we will not make that mistake again. It also reflects the idea that if we have as our debtors england and france, we have an interest in making sure that they win so that they can pay us back. We dont want that to drag us into another war. So this part of the neutrality legislation, more than two thirds, favors keeping. Similarly, what about traveling on ships . 82 say the United States should not allow citizens to travel on the ships of countries that are at war. They will be in danger if those ships are sunk and americans die. That will become a reason to get into the next war. They are remembering the lusitania. The british passenger liner sunk by a german uboat in 1915 at the loss of Many American lives. That gives america a stake in the war. We will get dragged in if americans die. During world war i, Woodrow Wilson asserted this as a basic american right. We should not have to worry that our lives are in danger when we are traveling. Now americans say, it is too dangerous. It is ok for the government to forbid that, so that if it happens, it is not our responsibility. The government doesnt have to protect or avenge people who have been hurt in this way. Again, should the United States allow american ships to go anywhere, or should they stay out of war zones . 84 , stay out of war zones. This is the opposite of the first world war. Wilson argued that american ships should be free to go ever they want. We are a neutral country, we are not at war, we should not be in danger just because we are carrying on trade. Now in the 1930s, right at the beginning of the war itself, 84 said stay out of the war zones. There is some movement on that one point. Should we be allowed to sell arms to britain and france . On all the other proposals, americans stayed where they were. Keep the neutrality legislation. Dont change it to allow these pitfalls from becoming possible pitfalls in the next war. Why did americans support changing the arms embargo . Why did they support changing it for britain and france . The answer to that comes down to an almost universally negative view of nazi germany. It is hitler that americans are behaviorit is hitlers that americans are responding to. Asked the public, if his claims against poland were justified. 86 said no. What hes demanding is wrong. If a war comes out of this, it will be his fault. Then, a couple of weeks later 82 ofe war did begin, the American People said it was germanys fault. Virtually no one blamed england or france or poland. It was germanys fault. They are the ones who started this. There is a clearcut aggressor in this war. This is not a case of both sides. Germany is at fault. Germany is the aggressor. Britain and france are defending the victim. So we dont actually feel neutral about that. These two sides are not the same. There is a significant difference here. Once it was an actual war instead of a theoretical war, American Opinion shifted a little bit. They still dont want to be involved in the war. They still want to avoid most of the mistakes that took place in the first world war. But they are not completely neutral. Not really. They favor britain and france. They oppose nazi germany. But they dont want to fight. They dont want to be actively involved in the war. In fact, opposition to becoming actively involved in the war grew after the war began. If you look at the interviewing dates for this poll, august 30. A couple days before the war actually began. A lot of people saw it coming. Carrying on for the first few days of the war in europe. When asked if the United States should send an army to fight, 84 said no. That is overwhelmingly against fighting. Look what happens weeks later. 95 . Americans did not want to fight this war. They were not neutral. They took sides. But they did not want to fight. It is not our fight. I think its worth asking, why were americans so resolved to stay uninvolved if they really believed one side was right and the other side was wrong . The answer to that is that they were confident that britain and france would win. Americans were asked who they thought would win. The allies, 82 . In other words, we dont have to fight this thing. The allies are going to take care of it. They will win it. We can be on their side, we can sell them goods, we can root for them. But they will win on their own. They dont need us. This is important to remember. They are overconfident in an allied victory when the war begins. They are underestimating germanys ability to fight a germanys ability to fight a world war. Another interesting shift takes place when you raise the possibility that germany might win the war. If it looks like england and france might be defeated, should the United States declare war . 44 suddenly say yes. Still not a majority. Most americans are against involvement in the war. Thats a huge jump in the number of people who would be willing to go to war. This is fleshing out this view of American Public opinion. They dont want to fight, but they think it might be necessary, at least some think it might be necessary. But only if its the only way to keep nazi germany from winning. So, to sum up all of this. The fundamental tension in American Opinion is that americans overwhelmingly want to wanted the allies to win and nazis to lose and most are willing to help the allies to win, but only up to a point. Many americans got cold feet and a majority were against involvement under any circumstances. A couple more poll numbers i want to show you that are really illustrative of the way American Opinion shifts back and forth depending on how they are thinking about these issues at any given moment. October, after the fall of poland. Do you think the United States should do Everything Possible to help england and france help the war except going to war ourselves . 62 say yes. Everything possible, no limitations on that except going to war ourselves. Look what happens when you put this phrase into it. At the risk of getting into the war ourselves, the numbers flip. The same question, except the risk of getting involved is raised. Suddenly, 66 dont want anything to do with it. We should not do everything to help britain and france when if it means we might get involved. That is a difference of framing the question, and it produces a huge difference. That tells you something very important about American Public opinion. They want the allies to win, but they dont want to fight the war themselves. This is what Franklin Roosevelt has to deal with as president. A public that wants a british and french victory, but doesnt want to fight. That is what hes trying to satisfy when hes forming american policy. Hes very acutely aware of this. He follows Public Opinion polls. He has all of this information. He knows where the public is. He has to craft a policy that will coincide with what the public thinks. He does a very good job of this. When the war began, fdr did what he almost always did. He went on the radio. He gave a famous fireside chat. What he said reflected what americans wanted. He says, the United States will do its best to stay out of it and not get dragged into it. And then he said something really interesting. He refused to ask the public to be neutral in thought, as Woodrow Wilson had done in 1914. He knew they werent. They are not neutral. Im not going to ask you to be neutral. This nation will remain a neutral nation, but i cannot ask that every american remain neutral in thought as well. Even a neutral has a right to take account of facts. Even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or close his conscience. Prof. Byrnes there is a right and wrong side in this war and we all know it. We should not be neutral about this. And im not asking you to be neutral about this. He knew where the public was, and he expressed where the public was. What do you do about that in terms of policy . Its one thing to talk about not being neutral in thought. What do you do in terms of policy . The policy he crafted closely resembled what we have seen in American Public opinion. He comes up with something called cash and carry. Americans should be allowed to sell goods to Great Britain, but the british have to come and get it, they have to pay cash, and they have to take it away on their own ships. That fits exactly in that polling data i was just showing you. Yes, we will sell goods. Yes, we will not under any circumstances give them loans. And we will not put our ships or our people at risk. If they want to come and pay cash, they can do that. It is the safest possible policy. It satisfies the desire to eight to aid england and france by selling them goods, but it does not put americans at risk. Once they take the goods from our ports, it is not our problem anymore. If ships get attacked, they are not our ships. If lives are lost, they are not american lives. It is beautifully crafted to perfectly capture what the American People were willing to do. I dont think thats a coincidence. Thats fdr understanding what the public is willing to tolerate at any given point. That is what we will see throughout the entire debate. Fdr is able to do that over and over again. In the fall of 1939, it seems like americans were done. They have cash and carry, congress proved it, fdr signed it. We have our policy, we are good to go. You know what happens next. The nazi offensive in the spring of 1940, the fall of france. That changed everything. [inaudible] could it have applied to germany . Prof. Byrnes theoretically, i suppose. Im not sure of the specific language of the legislation. Everybody knew what the legislation was actually accomplishing. There was no expectation that nazi germany would be buying war materials from the United States. Carry policyh and start of the lend Lease Program . Prof. Byrnes yes and no. We will get to that later. Cash and carry was ok. As long as it looked like england and france were likely to win. That is what changed in the spring and summer of 1940. The fall of france completely changed americas opinion of the war. Up until then, it was plausible to believe that Great Britain and france would win the war against nazi germany. Once france surrendered, that was a lot harder to imagine. What now . What if britain falls . What if the allies lose the war . This is when the great debate really begins, the summer of 1940. Now a much tougher question is on the table. Cash and carry might work for some time. What if britain is about to fall . Then what do we do . The two organizations came into being the summer of 1940. One on each side of the question. The antiinterventionist America First committee, and the interventionist group, the awkwardly named committee to defend america by aiding the allies. Nobody ever said that because it was too long. It was known as the White Committee, named after a kansas newspaper editor. You have America First, which says the United States should remain aloof, should not take any risk of getting involved in the war, and the committee to defend america by aiding the allies says the United States should do Everything Possible to make sure that england wins because aiding the allies is defending america. That is the equation that they are making. Those two things are the same. If you want to defend america, defend the allies. America first is saying if you want to defend america, defend america. Hoard americas resources for America First. Dont give them to the allies. What i would like to do is talk about the major issues. I wont talk about all of them. There are far too many. It is a widespread and varying debate. There are certain key themes that are central to the debate between these two organizations. The antiinterventionists, the America First committee, make the argument that staying out of european wars is americas tradition. This goes all the way back to george washington. The United States should not get itself entangled in european affairs. It should not get involved in european wars. This is a Foreign Policy that has served america well. It did so for over 100 years until the United States broke from that tradition in 1917 and went to war in europe. That was a mistake that should not be repeated. We have learned the wisdom of the founders, they were right to stay out of european affairs. We should not make that mistake again. The interventionists make a different argument. The policy that served the United States well in the late 1700s and 1800s is not appropriate in the 20th century. The United States was a nations indeveloped the early 1700s. Of course it made sense to stay out of european wars. But thats not true anymore. The United States is now the most powerful economic state in the world. It has global interest. It is not weak and underdeveloped. It is a continental nation with global interests. And technology has made the world smaller. The old tradition made sense when the United States had the two greatest natural defenses in the world, the atlantic and pacific ocean. That was our protection. That protection is not what it used to be. Military technology has changed. Air power in particular allows countries to project their military power in a way that had never been true before. The world is smaller than it used to be. We are in greater danger from a foreign power than we ever were in the past. The world has changed. The antiinterventionists argue in that case, we need better hemispheric defenses. Thats what we need. That only reinforces the idea that what we need is fortress america. We need to build up our hemispheric defenses. Become so strong that no one will dare attack us. Bit oft means every military hardware we produce needs to stay with us in this hemisphere. We are a hemispheric. The interventionists argue you dont understand the fight were in. Battle. Is fighting our defense. S our line of naziism, were in danger. Hunker down in this hemisphere. The britishecognize are fighting our fight and we to do Everything Possible to help them win that fight. Antiinterventionists said youre exaggerating the threat. No real threat to america here. American interests in europe and mortal danger. Attacked. Going to be even if, worst case scenario, even f nazi germany wins, if Imperial Japan wins its war, well be fine. We may not like it. But well be fine. Those trade with countries. We can survive in that world. The interventionists respond, you dont understand the threat. An axis dominated world will be states. T to the united its a threat to the United States militarily. Maybe not in terms of the united invaded and conquered. No, thats not likely going to happen. But its still a military threat. Imperial damaged by japan and nazi germany and perhaps even more significantly, its an economic threat to our wellbeing. If the nazis dominate europe and resources ofatural europe. If the japanese conquer and resources of asia. Do . Will we you can say well trade with them but what if they dont trade with us. They isolate us economically . Prosper . E grow and remember, 1939 and 1940, the Great Depression is not fully over yet. Better but its still on. Americans are really concerned about their economic wellbeing. Says we might be in a state of permanent depression. Have any capacity to Economic Growth in a world dominated by nazi germany and japan. L this is a threat to our interests. Danger. In our whole way of life can be dominated by orld these dictatorships. Argue, whattionists will destroy american democracy is this war. If we become involved in this at home will die. We saw a taste of it in the last war. Centralization of power in the federal government. Government d control. Government regulation. Just a tiny portion of what will happen in the next war. War will be longer and deadly for ore americans. Casualties he main will be american democracy. The liberal component of the antiinterventionists also argue that this would mean the end of any kind of reform. New u support roosevelts deal it will die. During world died war i the new deal will die in world war ii. Reform will be over. Limit will force us to freedom and democracy will die. He antiinterventionists said were concerned about democracy, too, but the thing that will ill democracy is an axis victory. Thats the real threat to us. Impossiblecy will be in an axisdominated world. Invaded or t be attacked but well have to be on guard for it, wont we . Will that mean . Massive defense spending. Taxes. A permanent state of preparation war. Economic hardship because of lack of trade. Will are the things that destroy our democracy. So they are both arguing that others position will somehow destroy democracy and i think they both sincerely seeing a at, fundamental threat to the merican way of life if the other side gets its way. Questions . Ts just a summary of a pretty debate. Nging how are americans hearing this . Exposed to this . The answer is the radio. One of the things that made this taking ifferent is its place for the first time, really, in american history, a carry out dium to this debate. Out, e time the war broke there are four National Radio networks, nbc red, which is its network, carried most of their popular entertainment tendeds, nbc blue, which more toward news and opinions. Mutual network. And i think this point is incredibly important. 1940, more than half of the American People got their from the radio primarily. Ewspapers have already been displaced by radio. They are getting their news and opinions. Lso getting speakers are going on the radio. To the American People, directly. This had never happened before. Debates, of n course, in american Foreign Policy, but they were mostly newspapers and among elites. This is available to virtually in america. Almost the entire country is covered by radio networks. And significantly, according to of us data in 1940, lots people have radios. 90 of the people are in urban outside the south, somewhat smaller percentage in 79 . Ern urban areas, about among urban whites, radio universal. Is almost 94. 4 . What this means is that the overwhelming majority of the American People have access to radio. They either own one themselves. They know somebody, a neighbor, family member, and when important events happen like a president ial address, they can house at that persons and listen to it. Nothing like this had ever happened before. Take this for granted. We instantly know everything. We have access to hear anything time. Y this was new. This had never happened before. You could reach in one speech virtually everyone in america. Least in theory. And so this is going to shape the debate as well. Started off by talking about how important Public Opinion will be in shaping Foreign Policy. This will factor into how American Public opinion is shaped. Public we have to address the public. In other words, this debate cant just be among elites. Foreign policy experts. It has to be made accessible to average person. And so both sides went out of their way to try to appeal to average person. In general they started out with traditional speeches the way always done. Ad ill give you a couple of clips of thingsate the sort americans were hearing on their radio. Had been man, he acting secretary of war. Es an all time interventionist. Listen in this clip for those themes that i was just talking about. Heard no accredited military authority who thinks danger of in imminent invasion from anywhere. We can depend upon the statement of the undersecretary of war, and i knows what hes talking about, we soon shall have the under ry men trained and arms to turn any hostile a roach to our shores into first class disaster for it. Ever tries two, im unalterably opposed to on our part to further demand a place in the worlds everlasting quarrels. Europe and asia have been in constant battle over the of power for thousands of years. And they will be at it long of us here are gone. Land toers came to this leave all that behind them. If we put ourselves back into it now, we shall lose this republic. See some of those themes. We cant really be attacked. T would be a disaster if someone tried. Europe and asia, the old world, some, warlike, they are like this, they have always been this. Its not our problem. Our fathers left that behind. Voluntarily return to it. He next clip will be if an interventionist. Wendell wilke, the republican nomination for president in 1940. A lot of the White Committee arguments. We must band every effort to keep britain afloat, and let us as to this fact, afloat t keep britain mere words. [applause] afloat nt keep britain ith no risk of undelivered goods, any such policy spells destruction. The most dangerous course that america could possibly pursue. Defend freedom that way. The danger you say its dangerous to britain, our freedom is at stake. Thing. The dangerous not helping Great Britain fight his fight. The airwaves in 1940 and 1941 were filled with speeches like this. Basically, a major public figure to go to the networks, request probably be granted a good 15, maybe 20 minutes to one of the major networks. Speak in t always these set pieces. Sometimes they actually had debates, facetoface debates. There were a number of programs on the air on the various networks that were designed concept. Is it was americas meeting of the the university of chicago roundtable, and virtually every ne of these debates that went around american Foreign Policy had a representative of either or very often both. That they werest giving speeches. They were actively debating with one another on the air. Sually live although not always. For the American People to listen to them. These are still experts, these are still Foreign Policy people one of the really things about this debate is that both sides recognizes that wasnt good enough. More than that. If youre trying to reach the person, you want them to hear the average person. Making political arguments in media. Interviewing average americans. New w to the east coast, york city. And heres fred automobile machinist, 33 years old. Married. Ow about it, is the british fleet one of our first lines of defense. Defense from what . Hitler may be crazy but hes not so crazy to take us on unless we deliberately push him into it. In new an average guy york. But speaking common sense. The average person thinks. This is basically a man on the thing. Kind of interview you dont have to be a Foreign Policy expert to have an opinion on the war. What you think. Its a valid opinion. Other people hold that. America First Committee has brought you the opinions of seven patriotic american from different parts of the country and different walks of life. Seven represent the feelings and beliefs of a vast people. Y of our places, are from different walks of life. Somewhere out there you heard something at least a little bit you. His is a different way by changing Public Opinion. Heres what you think from someone just like you. Technique thats really fascinating was introduced again by America First. Representative from pennsylvania, james van zant. Important the most from the to hear veterans of the last war. Who better to tell us about the those who war than suffered from the cost of war themselves. O they set up a broadcast from a Veterans Hospital outside of washington. She said we need to listen to people. The cost of war, not in dollars and sent alone but in suffocated dies, lungs and shattered minds. These men understand war and its mankind. Ing effects on they know it. First hand. They arent the politicians. Last war. T the they are the ones we should listen to. What do you think of the entering another european war. You dont want to go over there ut if they come here, were ready to fight. Thank you for your frank opinion. That expression, ladies and lips of a is from the real world veteran. Couple of things there. First of all, there is an audience. Applauding. Like in a regular Radio Program that they were used to hearing. Actually brought an audience in. Very straightforward simple opinion. Were attacked well fight back. But we dont want to go over there. Complicated, very straightforward. Well defend ourselves but we arent going to interject and then in the end, remember its radio so hes painting a picture. To this oing to talk veteran in a wheelchair and immediately that picture is in listener. Of the this is a really sophisticated, at least for the ime, way of trying to get across a political opinion. As far as i know nothing like this had ever happened before nd it shows how important this debate was, that they are thinking of new ways to convince people. They recognize the same old speeches from the same old political figures may not do it a maybe if you hear from veteran directly if his own words. So, what does this produce . What does all of this debate, techniques,e various what does do it to American Public opinion . Important mately the thing . I think best illustration illustration to finally get back question earlier, is the lend lease act. Thats what shows the extent to change blic opinion did and the extent to which did it not change. Of 1940, churchill informed roosevelt that kash karry wasnt going to work anymore. The british were basically running out of cash. T still needed aid from the United States but it couldnt afford to pay cash anymore. Unable to do o be that much longer. This created a dilemma obviously fdr. He cash and carry policy had fit American Public opinion but now it wont work. What do you do instead . This w compensate for problem . Fdr came up with something bill that lend lease would allow him as president to rovide military aid to any country whose defense he determined was vital to u. S. Security. The president gets to decide this. Whats vital to u. S. Security . The neutrality legislation which was basically the to control what president was allowed to do. Restrict what the president was allowed to do. This is going in the exact opposite direction. Gets to decident for himself what vital, vital are and who deserves american aid as a result of that. The idea was that the United States would lend or lease arms the itain with understanding that after the ar, the United States would be paid back in kind somehow. Clever analogy to sell this to people, and again, sell this trying to to the public. We just talked about appealing to the average person. Of ow do you take this idea lending or leasing military it a matter make of common sense to the people . Master at this and so he called reporters into his office. Used to do press conferences. They would just crowd around his desk in the oval office. And he said this to them. Now what im trying to do is sign. Ate the dollar get rid of the silly foolish ole dollar sign. Neighbors home catches fire and i have a garden hose. If he can take my garden hose connect it up with his put nt i may help him to out his fire. I dont say, my hose cost me 15 15 for it. Pay me i dont want 15. I want my garden hose back after is over. Thats all this is. Youre lending a neighbor a hose. Wouldnt do that . Who would ask for payment before lending the hose . That. Y would do after all, its in your interest that your neighbors house down because yours night catch fire, too. Ts a beautiful attempt at capturing the common sense mindset of the average person. In terms that they can understand. Go other side didnt much for this analogy. Epublican senator and interventionist robert taft of ohio responded by saying, its a lending chewing gum. You dont want it back. Fdr had the line, better line, but he had the better line because the public with him on this. Ltimately, public was behind him. Again, go to polling data, as of of 1940, if americas future safety depended on 68 and winning the war, said yes, it does. Britains were convinced had to win war. Significantly, americans were also convinced that britain the war without american aid. If the United States stopped sending war materials to england do you think england would lose the war . 85 said yes. We know how important this is. We know it is essential to britains survival that they ontinue to get aid from the United States. And americas safety depends on winning the war. Our interests are engaged here. T is essential that britain win. It is essential that we give them aid. They cant ens when pay for it . Fdr said they will be willing to them. T lend it or lease it, like they would a garden hose. People will go that. With and he was right. Outicans still want to stay of the war but they think its ore important that england win the war. Even at the risk, now, remember, war, in the isk of earlier poll it flipped Public Opinion. 61 say even at the risk of war we should continue to help Great Britain so yeah, this is a risk. If we change our policy and its anymore, kash nkarry were actually giving them war higher buthe risk is its worth it. War is that e important. So its probably not surprising proposal fdr put this before congress the public is behind that, too. Asks uestion basically about the lendlease act, should our government lendlease war to the british to be paid in same materials or goods 6 yes. E war is over, once again fdr found that Public Opinion sweet spot. This is what the public believes and this is what the public was ith. Ing to go along w. Its because what nge they are doing is different from cash and carry. Made a pint of emphasizing how much of a change this was. This is basically the america a declaration id of war against germany. Were not calling it that. Basically what were doing. Unequivocally with Great Britain by giving them, not selling them, which you well, just sort of say, thats business, right . A transaction. Giving them weapons of war. Thats for all intents and war. Oses joining this were not sending our soldiers our material ing today and if we send our material today well send our soldiers tomorrow. The next logical step. Were going to get into this war. His supporters say no, this is the best way to make doesnt happen. If england falls, well have to war. If england survives we may not. Our best chance of staying out keeping britain afloat. Making sure Great Britain doesnt fall. Agreed ately congress with roosevelt. Strong margin but not unanimous. Here is still division in the United States. Public opinion and in congress. Are comfortable margins. The members of the house and were s of the Senate Overwhelmingly in favor of roosevelts proposal. Was the public in general. Soult nationally what did the debate accomplish . What has it done between the beginning of the were and now spring of 1941 . I think you can argue the nterventionists had convinced the American People to do Everything Possible short of war now lp Great Britain even at the risk of war. Americans are willing to take chance. But they had not convinced to war. S to go that was still a step too far americans. They had sort of nudged the public in the direction of a more active role for the united world affairs, but had not convinced americans to take lead in world affairs. We want to help Great Britain dont want to actually fight. We wont lead. T so you can argue that the have exceededists to a certain extent. Most americans remained to stay it was best out. They did not want to go to were and even after the lendlease approved thats what america wanted. War in april, d 81 said stay out. They are happy with lendlease. They are willing to do lendlease. They still want to stay out. Overwhelmingly want to stay out of the war. This is also really think itng, they dont will happen. They dont think the United States will stay out. Ultimately america would get involved, 82 said yes. Happen. Ing to well go in. We dont want to. Will. Ll be against our its going to happen. To happen. And again, you get these weird images of each other, right . 81 say stay out. 82 say, yeah, were going to go in. Its inevitable, in all likelihood. But we dont want to. This is not something were we absolutelyless have to. So if Public Opinion changed, so what. Remember, 1939, 95 said the out. Ed states should stay in the weeks before pearl harbor in november 1941, 26 said the should probably just go ahead and declare war. So thats a significant shift. 20 shift of people who felt like a declaration of war made years o the previous two had changed something, but still, most people are against it. Again, just weeks before pearl harbor. Antiinterventionist argument against war was still a minds of ne in the most americans. Americans kind of want to have it both ways. They want the nazis vanquished, they are willing to send Great Britain to make that happen but they dont ant to sacrifice and fight the war themselves. Only when germany took that decision out of the hands of declaring war on the United States on december 1941, does the United States go ahead and declare war on germany. After pearl harbor the United States did not immediately declare war on germany. Attacked. Dnt germany declared war first. Of the decision out american hands. Ifhink its worth wondering, germany hadnt done that, would the American People have upported going to war against germany after pearl harbor . Well never know. But its a hetical question worth considering. Maybe not. N fact, maybe not especially given the fact that japan had United States. Maybe the focus should be on germany. D not on what the interventionists isimately succeeded in doing convincing the public that it as worth risking war but not convincing them that they should enter the war and take on world leadership that. Advocated by a group i havent mentioned before, fight for freedom basically the most radical faction of the White Committee, the once who thought just go ahead and declare war. This is our fight and we should fight it ourselves and they made that case after the lendlease act in the springsummer of making ey were openly the argument we should declare the public didnt buy it. The public did not want to declare war. Convince the public to adopt their view. Press, though, is different. He Political Leadership is different. By largely were convinced the events of world war ii that the United States should assume role in world affairs. Both in the war and especially after the war. Appear harbor convinced them needed tonited states lead. Fter harbor it was almost impossible to have a political career and be known as an isolationist. That was now a negative term in the same way that an appeaser term. A negative we watted to be known as out and out isolationist. F you wanted National Leadership you had to be in favor of an interventionist one where the United States would lead in international affairs. Consensus in the political class. Consensus r was the in the public and thats an interesting and important point. Between the public on the one hand and the political on the other, i would argue that never fully disappeared. Been a large ys number of americans uncomfortable at least with the idea that the United States try to run the world. To be the worlds great leader. I think thats why today 80 great debate e first began were still debating the value of, and again, i dont coincidence, an policy. First foreign questions, comments . Talk about the war in asia. You can watch lectures. We take you inside College Classrooms to learn about topics ranging from the American Revolution to did the d. Saturday at 8 00 p. M. And on cspan 3. Ern