Important debate on Foreign Policy in all of American History. And 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 the American People. So leaders had a much more direct sense of what the people actually thought. You are going to see a lot of polling data in this, in fleshing out exactly what it was that americans thought. I am going to focus quite a bit on Public Opinion and then we will talk about actual policy as a result of that Public Opinion. At the start of the war in europe, my argument is there were two basic positions held almost unanimously by the American People. They wanted britain and france to win the war, to defeat germany. And they did not want the United States to have to fight in that war to make it happen. Over the course of the twoplus years of this debate, nothing that happened really changed fundamentally those two points of view. There will be changes in American Opinion but those two fundamental views remain the same. Each 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. So thats 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 i think there is 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 arguably it had done for the last century . Should it try to do that in a world dominated by hostile dictatorships. Or as the interventionists argue, 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. And behind all the details we will be talking about a fair amount of detailed arguments here, that i think 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 post war emergence as a global super power. But this is the significant part without ever fully convincing most americans that it was americas responsibility to assume global leadership. To understand this debate, i think we have to go back and remind ourselves about how americans reacted to the first world war. I think by the 1930s americans are suffering something of 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 kind of 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. And 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. And nothing good could come out of american involvement in that. What that led to in the 1930s was a he groing 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 had a series of laws which collectively we call the neutrality legislation. And the basic idea here was to make sure, by law, that the United States couldnt make the mistakes it made last time. And it targeted very specifically the things that americans now blamed for american involvement in the previous war. Specifically, if there is another war, there should be an impartial arms embargo on all belligerence, all belligerence. Aggressor, victim, it doesnt matter. Impartial. All belij rents. We dont want to be selling arms to anyone. This only threatens to drag us into the war. A ban on loans. If we loan money to a belligerent, we maybe have an interesting in making sure they win the war. So no loans. A ban on americans traveling on belligerent ships. We dont want americans being killed in this war accidentally because they happened 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. And a retrospective sense that this had been a mistake. The americans had made all of these mistakes last time. Next time, we wont make those mistakes. Now, this is coming from congress, which is one of the things that makes it unusual. Foreign policy is primarily the purview of the president. And here is congress basically saying we are going to limit what the president can do. So it is 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. But 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 1938, 1939, with the czech crisis and then the polish crisis, for most americans it became clear that a war was becoming more and more likely in europe. And not just any general hypothetical war but a specific war potentially between nazi germany on the one hand and britain and france on the other. And it began to change their minds at least a little bit about this neutrality legislation. Americans almost unanimously had a negative opinion of nazi germany and generally not universally, but generally are a positive opinion of Great Britain and france. And so when the idea of a war between those two sides began to become more and more possible, american Public Opinion began to shift, at least a little bit. Six months before the war began, the Gallop Organization asked americans, if there was a war, who would they favor . And 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 the case of war . The majority of americans said yes. Remember, thats against the law at this point. But when faced with the idea that it is england and france that would be on the receiving ends, well, yeah, we do support doing that. This is not a theoretical war. It is a real war. But there are limits. There are limits to that. Americans drew the line at extending credit. Should we lend money to england and france . And now 69 said no. Thats different. We dont want loans out there. What this is really reflecting is american resentment at the fact that a lot of the war debts from world war i were never really fully paid back. We didnt get our money back last time, we are not going to make that mistake again. And it also ereflects the idea that if reflects the idea that if we have as our debtors england and france we have an interest in making sure they win so they can pay us back. We dont want that to drag us into another war. So this part of the neutrality legislation is clearly majority, more than two thirds, favors keeping. Similarly, what about traveling on ships . 82 say the United States should not allow its citizens to travel on the ships of a country now at war. They will be in danger if those ships are shrunk and americans die, that will become a reason to get involved in the next war. What they are remembering in particular is the lusitania, the passenger liner that was sunk by a german u boat in 1915 at the lost of Many American lives. That gives americans 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 in are danger when we are traveling. Now americans are saying no, it is too dangerous. It is okay for the federal government to forbid that so if it happens, et cetera not our responsibility, the government doesnt have to protect people 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. Again, this is the opposite of the first world war. Wilson had argued that americans ships should be free to go wherever they want. We are a neutral country. We are not at war. We should not be endangered just because we are carrying on trade. Now, in the 1930s, again, this is right at the beginning of the war itself, september, 1939. 84 said stay out of the war zones. So there is some movement on that one point, should we be allowed to sell arms to britain and france. But 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. Changing the arms embargo . Why did they support changing it for britain and france . And i think the answer to that comes down to a universal negative view of nazi germany. It is hitler. Its hitlers behavior that americans are responding to. August of 1939, gallup asked the public if hitlers claims against poland, that we talked about last week, were justified, 86 said no. What hes demanding is wrong. If a war, therefore, comes out of this, it will be his fault. And 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 and germany and france are defending the victim. So we dont feel neutral about that. The two sides are not the same. There is 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 theyre 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. And, in fact, opposition to becoming actively involved in the war grew after the war began. If you look at the interviews dates for this poll, august 30, so a couple of days before the war actually began, a lot of people saw it coming but it was before the war began and then carrying on for the first few days of the war in europe. When asked if the United States should send the army and navy to fight, 80 said no. That is overwhelmingly against fighting. Look at 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 americans were to resolved to stay uninvolved if they really believe one side was right and the other side was wrong. And i think the answer to that is that they were confident that britain and france would win. Americans were asked who they thought was going to win, the allies, 82 . In other words we dont have to fight this thing. Allies will 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 theyll win on their own. They dont need us. Okay, this is important to remember. Theyre overconfident in an allied victory when the war begins. Theyre underestimating germanys ability to fight and win the war. Another interesting shift takes place, though, when you raise the possibility that germany might win the war. If it looks like england and france might be defeated, then should the United States declare a war . 44 suddenly say yes. Still not a majority, most americans are against involvement in the war even if nazi germany is going to win but that is a huge jump in the number of people willing to go to war. And this, i think, is what fleshing out the view of the american Public Opinion. They dont want to fight but they think it might be necessary, at least some americans, think it might be necessary, but only only if it is the only way to keep nazi germany from winning. So, to sum up all of this, the fundamental tension i would argue in American Opinion is that americans overwhelmingly wanted the allies to win and the nazis to lose and most were willing to help the allies to win but only up to a point. If the aid threatened to drag the United States in as an active belligerent, americans got cold feet and majority were against involvement in under any circumstances. A couple more poll numbers i want to show you that i think are really illustrative of the way American Opinion shifts back and forth depending on how their thinking about the issues at any given moment. October, so this is now after the fall of poland, do you think the United States should do Everything Possible to help england and france win the war except to war ourselves, 62 said yes. So that is a powerful majority in favor of aid to Great Britain. Everything possible, no limitations puts on that, except going to war ourselves. 62 . Look at what happens when you put this phrase into it. At the risk of getting into the war ourselves, the numbers flip. So same question, except the risk of getting involved is raised. Suddenly 66 dont want to have anything to do with it. We shouldnt do anything to help britain and france win if it means we might get involved. That is just a difference of framing the question and it produces a huge difference and i think that is telling you something really interesting and important about american Public Opinion. They want the allies to win. But they sure dont want to fight this 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. And that is what hes trying to satisfy when hes forming american policy. And, again, hes very, very acutely aware of this. He follows Public Opinion polls. He has all of this information. He knows where the public is. And so he has to craft a policy that will cr that will that will coincide with what the public thinks and in fact he does a very good job with this. When the war began, he did what he always did. He went on the radio. He gave one of his famous fireside chats. And when he said reflected what americans wants. He said the United States of course wont be a belligerent in this conflict, it will do the best to stay out of it and not get dragged into it. And then he says something really interesting. He refused to ask the public to be neutral in thought as Woodrow Wilson has famously done in 1914. Because he knew they werent. Theyre not neutral. And 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 conscious. There is a right and wrong side in this war and we all know it. We shouldnt 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. So what do you do about that in terms of policy . One thing to just talk about not being neutral in thought. What do you do in terms of policy policy . And the policy closely resembled what weve 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, well sell goods. Yes, we will not under any circumstances give them loans, and we will not put our ships or our people at risk. So if they want to come and pay cash and carry it away themselves, they can do that. It is the safest possible policy. It satisfies the desire to aid england and france by selling them more goods but it does not put americans at risk. Once they take the goods from our ports, that is not our problem any more. If the ships are attacked, it is not our ships. If lives are lost, theyre not american lives. It is beautifully crafted to capture what the american peopling with willing to do. And i dont think that is a coincidence. I think that is fdr understanding what the American Public was willing to tolerate at any given point and that is what well see through the entire debate. Fdr is able to do that over and over again. In the fall of 1939 then it seemed like americans were done, right. They have cash and carry, Congress Approved it. Fdr signed it. We have our policy, were good to go. And you know what happens next . The nazi offensive in the spring of 1940, the fall of france. And that changed everything. Shelby . So the cash and carry policy only applies to Great Britain and france, right . Or was it could it have to applied to germany or another theoretically i suppose. Im not sure about the specific language of the legislation. But everybody knew what the legislation was actually accomplishing. There was no there was no expectation that nazi germany would be buying war materials from the United States. Yeah. So is the cash and carry policy like a start of what would become the lend Lease Program . Yes and no. Well get to that later. But ultimately im going to argue that land lease is a break from this policy. But it is a step in that direction, yes. Cash and carry was okay, 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 this war. Because up until then it was perfectly 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 is britain falls. Bless you. What if the allies lose the war . This is when i would argue the great debate really begins, the summer of 1940. Because now a much tougher question is on the table. Cash and carry might work for some time but what is britain is about to fall . Then what do we do . And two organizations came into being in the summer of 1940. On each side of the question. The antiinterventionist, America First committee and the interventionist group the awkwardly named american first, it was known as the White Committee, named after william white, a kansas news editor. So America First when which said the United States should remain aloof and not take any risk of getting involved in the war. And the committee to defend america by aiding the allies that said 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 theyre making. Those two things are 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. So what id like to do now is talk about some of the major issues, i wouldnt talk about all of them. This is far too many. This is on widespread and varying debateba there are certain key themes that are central to the debate between the two organizations. The antiinterventionists, the America First committee, basically make the argument that staying out of european wars is americas tradition. This goes back to george washington. The United States should not get itself entangled in European Affairs and certainly get involved in european wars and this is a Foreign Policy that 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 and it is a mistake that should not be repeated. Weve learned the wisdom of the founders. They were right to stay out of European Affairs and we should not make that mistake again. The interventionists of the White Committee make a different argument. The policy that served the United States well, in the late 1700s and in the 1800s, is not appropriate in the 20th century. The United States was a weak underdeveloped nation in the late 17 hundreds and the early 1800s. Of course it made sense to stay out of european wars. But that is not true any more. The United States is now the most powerful economic state in the world. It has global interests. 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 the pacific oceans. That was our protection. But that protection is not what it used to be. Military technology is changed. Air power in particular allows countries to project their military power in a way that has never been true before. The world is, for all intents and purposes, 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, well, in that case, we need better hemispheric defenses. That is what we need then. That only reinforces the idea is 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, stay here in this hemisphere. Were 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 first line of defense. If they fall to nazism, were in danger. We cant just hunker down in this hemisphere. We have to recognize that 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 are not in mortal danger. Were not going to be attacked. Even if, worst case scenario, even if nazi germany wins and 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. And 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, that is likely not going to happen. But it is still a military threat. We could be damaged by Imperial Japan and nazi germany. And perhaps more significantly, it is a economic threat to our well being. 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 . And remember 1939, 1940, the Great Depression is not fully over yet. It is gotten better but it is still on. Americans are really concerned about their economic well being. This said we might be in a state of permanent depression 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 a 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 taeft 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 literally component of the antiinterventionist means this is the end of any kind of reform. If you support roosevelts new deal, its going to die. Progressivism died during world war 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. And the antiinterventionists said were worried about democracy too but the thing that will kill democracy a axis. Our democracy will be impossible in an axis dominated 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 theyre both arguing that the others position will somehow destroy democracy. And both i think sincerely believing that, seeing a fundamental threat to the american way of life if the other side gets its way. Questions, comments about that . Summary . And it is just a summary of a wideranging debate. So how are americans hearing this . How are they being exposed to this . And the answer is the radio. Thats another thing that made this debate different. Is that it is taking place when for the first time really in American History there is a National Medium to carry out this debate. By the time the war broke out there are four National Radio networks, nbc red, which was the primary network, carried most of the popular entertainment programs, nbc blue which tended toward news and opinion and cbs and the mutual network. And i think it 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. Theyre getting their news, theyre also getting opinion. Speakers are going on the radio. Making the case to the American People directly. This had never happened before. There had been debated, of course, in american Foreign Policy but 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 the census data from 1940, lots of people have radios. 90 of people in urban areas outside of 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, or know someone, a neighbor or Family Member and when important events happen, like a radio address, they could gather at somebodys house and listen to it. Nothing like this had happened before. We take this for granted. We have access to anything at any time. This is new. This had never happened before. You could reach in one speech virtually everyone in america. At least in theory. And so thats going to shape the debate as well. Started off by talking about how important Public Opinion is going to be to shaping policy. This is going to factor in how american Public Opinion is shaped. If we want to affect the public, we have to address the public. In other words, this debate cant just be along 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. Now in general they started out with traditional speeches the way politicians had always done. Im going to give you a couple of clips to illustrate the sort of things that americans were hearing on their radios. This is a man named hanford igniter, the acting secretary of war. Hes an antiinterventionist so listen in the clip for the themes i was just talking about. I have heard no accredited military authority who thinks that we are in imminent danger of invasion from anywhere. What is more, if we can depend upon the statement of the undersecretary of war and i think he knows what he is 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 whom ever tries it. Two, i am opposed by 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 theyll 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. So you could see some of the themes. We cant really be attacked. It would be a disaster if someone tried. Europe and asia, the old world, quarrelsome, warlike. They were always like this, this is not our problem and our people and our fathers left that behind. We shouldnt voluntarily return to it. The next clip is from an interventionist, a man named wendle willky, a nominee for president in 1940. He echoes a lot of the White Committee arguments. We must bend every effort to keep britain afloat and let us be very clear as to this fact, we cannot keep britain afloat with their words. [ applause ] we cannot keep britain afloat with no risk and undelivered goods. Any such policy as that spells destruction. It is the most dangerous course that america could possibly pursue. We cannot defend freedom that way. The danger is not aiding britain. You say it is dangerous to aid britain. It is dangerous not to. Our freedom is at stake. Thats the dangerous thing. Not helping Great Britain fight its fight. The airways in 1940, 1941, were filled with speeches like this. Basically a major public figure could go to the Radio Networks and request time and probably be granted a good 15, maybe 20 minutes to speak on one of the major network. They didnt always speak in the set pieces. Sometimes they actually have debates, facetoface debates. There were a number of programs on the air on the various networks that were designed around this concept. It americas town meeting of the air. American form of the our, the university of chicago round table and virtually every one of the debates that went around american Foreign Policy had a representative of the America First or 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. But again this is still a leaf opinion. These are still experts and Foreign Policy people. And one of the really interesting things about this debate is that both sides recognize that that wasnt good enough. You had to do more than that. If youre trying to reach the average person, you want them to hear the average person. Not enough to just have politicians, senators, representatives. The elites. What about the average person. And so you had an innovation that took place that really foreshadows a lot of what we now see in political advertising and making political arguments in the media. Interviewing average americans. Now to the east coast, new york city and here is fred reedon, automobile machinist, 33 years old, married. How about it, mr. Reedon, is the british fleet one of our first lines of defense. Defense from what. Hitler is not so crazy as to take us on unless we deliberately push him into it. 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, it is 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. Different places, different walks of life. Somewhere out there you heard somebody who is at least a little bit like you. Who represents you and your opinion. This is a really different way of trying to shape Public Opinion. Not by telling people what they should think but telling them here is what you already think from someone just like you. Another technique that i think is really fascinating was introduced by again America First, a representative from pennsylvania named James Van Zandt and 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 the people who suffered the cost of war themselves. So he actually set up a broadcast from a Veterans Hospital outside of washington. He said we need to listen to people because they are the ones who are not in dollars or cents alone, but in suffocated lungs and shadowed minds, these men understand war and its devastating effect on mankind. They know it. Firsthand. Theyre not the politicians. Theyre the people who actually fought the last war. Theyre the ones we should listen to. And so he interviewed them. In your own words, what do you think of the United States entering another european war . We dont want to go over there but if they come over here we are ready to fight. Thank you for your frank opinion. [ applause ] that expression, ladies and gentlemen, is from the lips of a real world war veteran. Now lets visit with this veteran in the wheelchair. So you notice a couple of things there. First of all, there is an audience applausing, like in a regular radio audience. Very trait forward simple opinion. If were attacked, well fight back but we dont want to go over there. Nothing complicated. Very straightforward. Well defend ourselves but were not going to interject ourselves. And then at the end, remember it is 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 showed how important the debate was,enoy vating and thinking of new ways to speak to people and they recognize that if you hear from a veteran directly in his own words. So what does this produce . What does all of this debate over the various techniques what, does it do to american Public Opinion . That is ultimately the important thing. I think the best illustration to finally get back to your question earlier, joey, is the lend lease act. That is what shows the extent to which Public Opinion did change and the extent to which it did not change. The end of 1940, Winston Churchill informed roosevelt that cash and carry wasnt going to work any more. The british were basically running out of cash. It still needed aid from the United States but it couldnt afford to pay cash any more. It was going to be unable to do that much longer. This created a dilemma obviously for fdr. The cash and carry policy had perfectly fit american Public Opinion but now it wont work. What do you do instead . How do you compensate for this problem . So fdr came up with something called the lend lease bill. That would allow him as president to provide military aid to any countries defense he determined was vital to u. S. Security. The president gets to decide this. What is vital to u. S. Security. Think about the neutrality legislation which is 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 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 clever analogy to sell this to the public. So how do you take the 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, that is how they used to do press conferences, they would 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 old dollar sign. Suppose my neighbors home catches fire and i have a length of garden hose and if he could take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, i may help him put out the fire. I dont say to him before the fire that my garden hose cost me 15. You have to pay me 15. I dont want the 15. I want the hose back after the fire. Who wouldnt do that and ask for payment before lending the hose . Nobody would do that. After all it is in your interest that your neighbors house doesnt burn down because yours might catch fire too. It is a beautiful attempt at capturing the common sense mindset of the average person. Pitting it in terms that they could understand. The other side didnt much go for this analogy. Republican senator and antiinterventionist robert taft of ohio responded by saying, lending war equipment is 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 the public was behind him. Again, to 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 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, theyll 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 glaunds win that england win the war. Even the risk in the earlier poll flipped the Public Opinion and now 61 said even at the risk of war we should continue to help britain. This is a risk. If we change our policy and it is not just cash and carry any more, were actually giving them war material, the risk is higher. But it is worth it. Winning the war is that important. So it is probably not surprising that when fdr put this proposal before congress, the public is behind that too. This question basically asked about the land lease act. Should our Government Land or lease war materials to the british to be paid back in same materials or goods after the war is over. 68 said yes. Once again fdr found the Public Opinion sweet spot. This is what the public believed, 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. And the antiinterventionists made a point of emphasizing how much of a change this was. This was basically the America First people said a declaration of war against germany. Were not calling it that. That is basically what were doing. We are siding unequivocally with Great Britain by giving them, not selling them, which you could just sort of say that is business, 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 we will send our soldiers tomorrow. Thats the next logical step. Were going to get into this war. Roosevelt and his supporters said, no, this is the best way to make sure that doesnt happen. If england falls, we will 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 margins. But again, 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 is the great debate accomplished . What has it done between the beginning of the war and now the spring of 1941. I think you could argue the interventionists had convinced the American People to do Everything Possible short of war to help Great Britain and 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 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. Well, well continue to help Great Britain. But we dont want to actually fight. Well assist but we wont lead. So in that sense i think you could argue that the antiinterventionists also have succeeded to a certain extent. Most americans were convinced it is best to stay out. They did not want to go to war. And even after the land lease act was approved, that is what americans wanted. Asked directly if they should declare war in april, 81 said stay out. Theyre happy with land lease. Willing to do land lease. And they still want to stay out. Overwhelmingly want to stay out of the war. But, and this is also really interesting, they dont think its going to happen. They dont think the United States will stay out. Asked if ultimately america would get involved, 82 said, yeah, its going to happen. We will go in. We dont want to. It will be 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, and 82 say, yeah, were going to go in. It is inevitable, in all likelihood. But we dont want to. This is not something we are going to do unless we absolutely have to. So is Public Opinion changed . Somewhat. Somewhat. 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 that is a significant shift. That is a 20 shift of people who think a declaration of war makes 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 and 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 be declaring war on the United States on december 11th, 1941, did 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 it is worth wondering, if germany hadnt done that, would the American People have supported going to war against germany after pearl harbor . Well never know. It is a hypothetical but i think it is a question worth considering. This suggests maybe not. In fact, 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 interventionist ultimately succeeded in doing is convincing the public that it was worth risking war, but not convincing them that the United States should enter the war and take on world war leadership. Now that idea was being advocated by a group i hadnt mentioned before. It is called the fight for Freedom Committee which is the most radical faction of the White Committee. The ones who thought we should just go ahead and declare war. This is our fight, we should fight it ourselves. And they made that case after the land lease act in the spring and summer of 1941. They were openly making the argument we should declare war. And the public didnt buy it. Public did not want to declare war. It did not convince the public to adopt their view. The Political Class, 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 then especially after the war. Pearl harbor convinced them the United States needed to lead. After pearl harbor it was impossible to have a National 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 because of munich. Nobody wants to be known as an out and out isolationist. 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 that, i think, is 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 have 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 civil war weaponry and how guns changed during the war to become more deadly. And then we take you on the road to rochester, minnesota, for a tour through the history of the mayo clinic. Were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of what is available every weekend on cspan 3. Tonight from our reel america series, a look at the film silent invader, going back to 1957 in the influenza virus emerging from asia which led to a pandemic that killed more than 1 Million Worldwide and 1,000 in the United States. American history tv tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan 3. Civil war weaponry, like muskets, cashines and revolvers are the subject of a class taught by jeff kinard. He looked at Technology Advances of the that allowedso