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 poll 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 almost unanimously by the American People. They wanted britain and france to win the war. To defeat germany. They did not want the United States to have to fight in the war to make that 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. Even 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 most 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, theres 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 in the world 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 especially the 1930s really reinforced 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, you have 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 maybe 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 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 basically 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, of course, would bear him out. It does become problematic in the future. In particular, by 19381939, with the czech crisis and 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 almost 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 would sell war materials to england and france 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 . Now 69 said no. Thats different. We dont want loans out there. What this is reflecting is 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 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, this clear majority, 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 involved in 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, no, 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 had argued that american ships should be free to go ever whereever 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, september 1939, 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. It is hitlers behavior that americans are responding to. August of 1939, gallup asked the public, if hitlers 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 when the war did begin, 82 of 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 and win the 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. Still most americans are against involvement in the war even if nazi germany is going to win. 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 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. If the aid threatened to drag the u. S. In as a belligerant, 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 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 interesting and 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 one of his famous fireside chats. 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 and carry it awake themselves, 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. The policy only applies to great written, right . Greatwritten, right britain, right . 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. Is the cash and carry policy like a start of the lend Lease Program . Prof. Byrnes yes and no. We will get to that later. It is a step in that direction. 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. This 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 weak, underdeveloped nations in the nation in 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. And that means every bit of military hardware we produce needs to stay with us in this hemisphere. We are a hemispheric power. We should remain a hemispheric power. The interventionists argue you dont understand the fight were in. Britain is fighting our battle. Britain is our line of defense. Our first line of defense. If they call to naziism, were in danger. We cant just hunker down in this hemisphere. We have to recognize the british are fighting our fight and we have to do Everything Possible to help them win that fight. The antiinterventionists said youre exaggerating the threat. There is no real threat to america here. American interests in europe and asia arent in mortal danger. Were not going to be attacked. Even if, worst case scenario, even if nazi germany wins, even if Imperial Japan wins its war, well be fine. We may not like it. But well be fine. We can trade with those countries. We can survive in that world. The interventionists respond, you dont understand the threat. An axis dominated world will be a threat to the United States. Its a threat to the United States militarily. Maybe not in terms of the United States being invaded and conquered. No, thats not likely going to happen. But its still a military threat. We can be damaged by Imperial Japan and nazi germany and perhaps even more significantly, its an economic threat to our wellbeing. If the nazis dominate europe and control the Natural Resources of europe. If the japanese conquer and control the resources of asia. What will we do . You can say well trade with them but what if they dont trade with us. What if they isolate us economically . How do we grow and prosper . Remember, 1939 and 1940, the Great Depression is not fully over yet. Its gotten better but its still on. Americans are really concerned about their economic wellbeing. This argument says we might be in a state of permanent depression. We may not have any capacity to Economic Growth in a world dominated by nazi germany and Imperial Japan. This is a threat to our interests. We are in danger. Our whole way of life can be destroyed by world dominated by these dictatorships. The interventionists argue, what will destroy american democracy is this war. If we become involved in this war, democracy at home will die. We saw a taste of it in the last war. The centralization of power in the federal government. Unprecedented government control, government regulation. That will be just a tiny portion of what will happen in the next war. The next war will be longer and harder and more deadly for americans. And one of the main casualties will be american democracy. The liberal component of the antiinterventionists also argue that this would mean the end of any kind of reform. If you support roosevelts new deal it will die. Progressivism died during world i, the new deal will die in world war ii. Domestic reform will be over. The war will force us to limit freedom and democracy will die. The antiinterventionists said were concerned about democracy, too, but the thing that will kill democracy is an axis victory. Thats the real threat to us. Our democracy will be impossible in an axisdominated world. Maybe we wont be invaded or attacked, but well have to be on guard for it, wont we . What will that mean . Massive defense spending. High taxes. A permanent state of preparation for war. Economic hardship because of lack of trade. Those are the things that will destroy our democracy. So they are both arguing that the others position will somehow destroy democracy and i think they both sincerely believe that, seeing a fundamental threat to the american way of life if the other side gets its way. Questions . Its just a summary of a pretty wideranging debate. How are americans hearing this . Are they being exposed to this . The answer is the radio. One of the things that made this debate different is its taking place for the first time, really, in American History, a National Medium to carry out this debate. By the time the war broke out, there are four National Radio networks, nbc red, which is its primary network, carried most of their popular entertainment programs, nbc blue, which tended more toward news and opinions. Cbs and the mutual network. And i think this point is incredibly important. As early as 1940, more than half of the American People got their news from the radio primarily. Newspapers have already been displaced by radio. They are getting their news and they are also getting opinions. Speakers are going on the radio. Making the case to the American People, directly. This had never happened before. There had been debates, of course, in american Foreign Policy, but they were mostly carried out in newspapers and among elites. This is available to virtually everybody in america. Almost the entire country is covered by radio networks. And significantly, according to census data in 1940, lots of people have radios. 90 of the people are in urban areas outside the south, somewhat smaller percentage in southern urban areas, about 79 . Among urban whites, radio ownership is almost universal. 94. 4 . What this means is that the overwhelming majority of the American People have access to the radio. They either own one themselves. They know somebody, a neighbor, a family member, and when important events happen like a president ial address, they can gather at that persons house and listen to it. Nothing like this had ever happened before. We, of course, take this for granted. We instantly know everything. We have access to hear anything at any time. This was new. This had never happened before. You could reach in one speech virtually everyone in america. At least in theory. And so this is going to shape the debate as well. It 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. If we affect the 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 the average person. And so both sides went out of their way to try to appeal to the average person. In general they started out with traditional speeches the way politicians had always done. Ill give you a couple of clips to illustrate the sort of things americans were hearing on their radio. This is a man, he had been acting secretary of war. Hes an antiinterventionist. Listen in this clip for those themes that i was just talking about. I have heard no accredited military authority who thinks that were in imminent danger of invasion from anywhere. Whats more, if we can depend upon the statement of the undersecretary of war, and i think he knows what hes talking about, we soon shall have the necessary men trained and under arms to turn any hostile approach to our shores into a first class disaster for whomever tries it. Two, im unalterably opposed to any attempt on our part to further demand a place in the old worlds everlasting quarrels. Europe and asia have been in constant battle over the balances of power for thousands of years. And they will be at it long after all of us here are gone. Our fathers came to this land to leave all that behind them. If we put ourselves back into it now, we shall lose this republic. You can see some of those themes. We cant really be attacked. It would be a disaster if someone tried. Europe and asia, the old world, quarrel some, warlike, they are like this, they have always been like this. Its not our problem. Our fathers left that behind. We shouldnt voluntarily return to it. The next clip will be if an interventionist. Wendell wilke, the republican nomination for president in 1940. Wilke echoes a lot of the White Committee arguments. We must band every effort to keep britain afloat, and let us be very clear as to this fact, we cannot keep britain afloat with mere words. [applause] we cant keep britain afloat with no risk of undelivered goods, any such policy spells destruction. Its the most dangerous course that america could possibly pursue. We cannot defend freedom that way. S the danger you say its dangerous to britain, our freedom is at stake. Thats the dangerous thing. Not helping Great Britain fight his fight. Its fight. Fight its fight. Fight its right. The airwaves in 1940 and 1941 were filled with speeches like this. Basically, a major public figure to go to the networks, request time and probably be granted a good 15, maybe 20 minutes to speak on one of the major networks. They didnt always speak in 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 around this concept. It was americas meeting of the air, the university of chicago roundtable, and virtually every one of these debates that went around american Foreign Policy had a representative of either America First, the White Committee, or very often both. So it wasnt just that they were giving speeches. They were actively debating with one another on the air. Usually live although not always for the American People , to listen to them. This is these are still experts, these are still Foreign Policy people one of the really interesting things about this debate is that both sides recognizes that wasnt good enough. They had to do more than that. If youre trying to reach the average person, you want them to hear the average person. It is not enough to just have politicians and senators and representatives, the elites. What about the average person . So you had an innovation that took place and foreshadows a lot of what we now see in advertising and making political arguments in the media. Interviewing average americans. Now to the east coast, new york city. And heres fred automobile machinist, 33 years old. Married. How 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. Byrnes just an average guy in new york. But speaking common sense. What the average person thinks. This is basically a man on the street kind of interview thing. You dont have to be a Foreign Policy expert to have an opinion on the war. And if this is what you think its a valid opinion. , other people hold that. The America First committee has brought you the opinions of seven patriotic american citizens from different parts of the country and different walks of life. These seven represent the feelings and beliefs of a vast majority of our people. they are froms places, different walks of life. Somewhere out there you heard something at least a little bit like you. This is a different way by changing Public Opinion. Not by telling them what they should think heres what you already think, from someone like you. Another technique thats really fascinating was introduced again by America First. A representative from pennsylvania, james van zandt. He thought the most important thing was to hear from the veterans of the last war. Who better to tell us about the dangers of war than those who suffered from the cost of war themselves. So they set up a broadcast from a Veterans Hospital outside of washington. He said we need to listen to these people. The cost of war, not in dollars and sent alone but in shattered bodies, suffocated lungs and shattered minds. These men understand war and its devastating effects on mankind. They professor byrnes know it firsthand. They arent the politicians. They fought the last war. They are the ones we should listen to. What do you think of the United States entering another european war . We dont want to go over there but if they come here, were ready to fight. Thank you for your frank opinion. That expression, ladies and gentlemen, is from the lips of a real world veteran. World war veteran. Notice a byrnes couple of things there. First of all, there is an audience. Applauding. Like in a regular Radio Program that they were used to hearing. He actually brought an audience in. Very straightforward simple opinion. If we are attacked well fight , back. But we dont want to go over there. Nothing complicated, very straightforward. Well defend ourselves but we arent going to interject ourselves and then in the end, remember its radio so hes painting a picture. Now im going to talk to this veteran in a wheelchair and immediately that picture is in the mind of the listener. This is a really sophisticated, at least for the time, way of trying to get across a political opinion. As far as i know, nothing like this had ever happened before and 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 but maybe if you hear from a veteran directly if his own words. So, what does this produce . What does all of this debate, all of these various techniques, what does do it to American Public opinion . Thats ultimately the important thing . I think the best illustration to finally get back to your question earlier is the lend , lease act. Thats what shows the extent to which Public Opinion did change and the extent to which did it not change. At the end of 1940, churchill informed roosevelt that cash and carry wasnt going to work anymore. The british were basically running out of cash. It still needed aid from the United States but it couldnt afford to pay cash anymore. It was going to be unable to do that much longer. This created a dilemma obviously for fdr. The cash and carry policy had at least in theory, perfectly fit American Public opinion but now it wont work. What do you do instead . How dow compensate for this problem . Fdr came up with something called the lend lease bill that would allow him, as president , to provide 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 . Think about the neutrality legislation which was basically meant to control what the president was allowed to do. Restrict what the president was allowed to do. This is going in the exact opposite direction. Now the president gets to decide for himself what vital, vital interests are and who deserves american aid as a result of that. The idea was that the United States would lend or lease arms to britain with the understanding that after the war, the United States would be paid back in kind somehow. Fdr came up with a really clever analogy to sell this to people, and again, hes always trying to sell this to the public. We just talked about appealing to the average person. So how do you take this idea of lending or leasing military equipment and make it a matter of common sense to the people . Fdr was a master at this and so he called reporters into his office. Thats how they 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 eliminate the dollar sign. Get rid of the silly foolish ole dollar sign. Suppose my neighbors home catches fire and i have a garden hose. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant i may help him to put , out his fire. I dont say to him before that, me your, my hose cost 15, have to pay me 15 for it. I dont want 15. I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. Thats all this is. Youre lending a neighbor a hose. Who wouldnt do that . Who would ask for payment before lending the hose . Nobody would do that. After all, its in your interest that your neighbors house doesnt burn down because yours might catch fire, too. Its a beautiful attempt at capturing the common sense mindset of the average person. Putting it in terms that they can understand. The other side didnt much go for this analogy. Republican senator and interventionist robert taft of ohio responded by saying, its a good deal like lending chewing gum. You dont want it back. Also a good line, fdr had the better line, but he had the better line because the public was with him on this. Ultimately, public was behind him. Again, go to polling data, as of the end of 1940, if americas future safety depended on england winning the war, 68 said yes, it does. Americans were convinced britain had to win war. To win the war. And significantly, americans were also convinced that britain would not win 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 continue to get aid from the United States. And americas safety depends on england winning the war. Our interests are engaged here. It is essential that britain win. It is essential that we give them aid. So what happens when they cant pay for it . Fdr said they will be willing to give it to them. Lend it or lease it, like they would a garden hose. The American People will go along with that. And he was right. Americans still want to stay out of the war, but they think its more important that england win the war. Even at the risk, now, remember, even at the risk of war, in the earlier poll it flipped Public Opinion. Now 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 not just cash and carry anymore, were actually giving them war material, the risk is higher but its worth it. Winning the war is that important. So its probably not surprising that when fdr put this proposal before congress the public is behind that, too. This question basically asks about the lendlease act, should our government lendlease war materials to the british to be paid in same materials or goods when the war is over, 6 yes. 68 said yes. Once again, fdr found that Public Opinion sweet spot. This is what the public believes and this is what the public was willing to go along with. Its a big change because what the United States is now doing is much different from cash and carry. The antiinterventionist made a point of emphasizing how much of a change this was. This is basically the America First people said a declaration of war against germany. Were not calling it that. Thats basically what were doing. Were siding unequivocally with Great Britain by giving them, not selling them, which you could just sort of say, well, thats business, right . That is just a commercial transaction. Were giving them weapons of war. Thats for all intents and purposes joining this war. Were not sending our soldiers but were sending our material , and if we send our material today, well send our soldiers tomorrow. Thats the next logical step. Were going to get into this war. Roosevelt and his supporters say said, no, this is the best way to make sure that doesnt happen. If england falls, well have to go to war. If england survives, we may not. Our best chance of staying out of this thing is keeping britain afloat, making sure Great Britain doesnt fall. Ultimately congress agreed with , roosevelt. Strong margin but not unanimous. There is still division in the United States. Public opinion and in congress. But those are comfortable margins. The members of the house and members of the senate were overwhelmingly in favor of roosevelts proposal. As was the public in general. So ultimately, what did the great debate accomplish . What has it done between the beginning of the were and now the spring of 1941 . I think you can argue the interventionists had convinced the American People to do Everything Possible short of war to help Great Britain even now at the risk of war. Americans are willing to take that chance. But they had not convinced americans to go to war. That was still a step too far for most americans. They had sort of nudged the public in the direction of a more active role for the United States in world affairs, but had not convinced americans to take the lead in world affairs. We want to help Great Britain , but we dont want to actually fight. Well assist but we wont lead. So you can argue that the antiinterventionists have succeeded to a certain extent. Most americans remained convinced it was best to stay out. They did not want to go to were and even after the lendlease act was approved, thats what america wanted. If they declared war in april, 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. But, and this is also really interesting, they dont think it is going to happen. They dont think the United States will stay out. Asked if ultimately america would get involved, 82 said yes. We will go in. We dont want to. It is against our will. Its going to happen. Its going to happen. And, again, these are almost mirror 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 going to do unless we absolutely have to. So has Public Opinion changed, so what. Remember, 1939, 95 said the United States should stay out. In the weeks before pearl harbor in november 1941, 26 said the United States should probably just go ahead and declare war. So thats a significant shift. A 20 shift of people who felt like a declaration of war made sense, so the previous two years had changed something, but still, most people are against it. And this is, again, just weeks before pearl harbor. The antiinterventionist argument against war was still a powerful one in the minds of most americans. Americans kind of want to have it both ways. They want the nazis vanquished, they are willing to send material aid to Great Britain to make that happen but they dont want to sacrifice and fight the war themselves. Only when germany took that decision out of the hands of americans by declaring war on the United States on december 11, 1941, does the United States go ahead and declare war on germany. Even after pearl harbor, the United States did not immediately declare war on germany. Germany hadnt attacked. Germany declared war first. Took the decision out of american hands. I think its worth wondering, if germany hadnt done that, would the American People have supported going to war against germany after pearl harbor . Well never know. Its a hypothetical, but its a question worth considering. Maybe not, especially given the fact that japan had attacked the United States. Maybe the focus should be on japan and not on germany. What the interventionists ultimately succeeded in doing is convincing the public that it was worth risking war but not convincing them that they should enter the war and take on world leadership. That idea was being advocated by a group i havent mentioned before, fight for freedom committee, basically the most radical faction of the White Committee, the ones who thought we should 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 1941, they were openly making the argument we should declare war and the public didnt buy it. The public did not want to declare war. It did not convince the public to adopt their view. The political press, though, is different. The Political Leadership is different. They largely were convinced by the events of world war ii that the United States should assume the leading role in world affairs. Both in the war and especially after the war. Pearl harbor convinced them that the United States needed to lead. After pearl 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 became a negative term. We wanted to be known as out and out isolationist. If you wanted national leadership, you had to be in favor of an interventionist Foreign Policy, one where the United States would lead in international affairs. That was the consensus in the Political Class. But it never was the consensus in the public and thats an interesting and important point. The gap between the public on the one hand and the Political Class on the other, i would argue that never fully disappeared. There has always been a large number of americans uncomfortable, at least with the idea that the United States should try to run the world. Should try to be the worlds great leader. I think that is white today, 80 years after the great debate first began, were still debating the value of, and again, i dont think this is a coincidence, an american first Foreign Policy. Questions, comments . I will see you guys next time. Well talk about the war in asia. Listen to lectures in history on the go, by streaming our podcast anywhere, anytime. You are watching American History tv, only on cspan3. Tonight, on q a, a professor of medicine at Columbia University talks about her book open the first cell in the human cost of pursuing cancer to the last. Claiming victory from the rooftops right now, that we have gone from basically having a universal death sentence to curing 68 of cancers today and only 32 of people die, but both groups, the treatable and nontradable, i asked a very fundamental question. , 68 ,ople we are curing my frustration is why are we approaches ofese flash, poison, and burn . Where have 200 billion of research gone . Why are we not finding better ways of treating cancer . Cspans q a. 8 00 eastern on artifactsek american has its museums, archives, and historic places. In 2014, 5 former secretaries of state and john kerry took place in a groundbreaking ceremony for a Diplomacy Center, a museum scheduled to open in 2019. Up next, we visit the artifact storage area and learn about the history of diplomacy. The curator and a historian selected key items from the 7000 artifacts to help tell the story. The Diplomacy Center is the museum and Education Center currently under development at the department of state. It will be a multimedia,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.