So leaders had a much Better Direct sense of what the people actually thought. You can see a lot of polling data in this and in flushing out exactly what it was americans thought. I will focus a lot on Public Opinion and then we will talk about policy as a reflection of 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 two plus years of this debate, nothing that happened really change fundamentally, 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 convincing 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 age the United States give to the allies to help them defeat nazi germany. But below the surface, i think there is a much more important than fundamental debate going on. What role should the United States play in the world Going Forward . Should, it has the anti interventionists argued, remain a hemispheric power . Dominating north and south america, has 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 argued, shouldnt 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 . Thats a big question. And behind all the details, and we will talk about a fair amount of detailed arguments, here that is the fundamental question we have to consider. 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 war, in the world, and set the stage for americas post war emergence as a global superpower. But, and 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 Wilson 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 1930s and especially 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 qualms. The old world was corrupt. It was decadent. It was prone to warfare. And nothing good could come out of american involvement. What that led to in the 1930s was a growing consensus in congress that what we needed to do in the United States was create a legal structure that would prevent that from happening. In 1935 through 1937, you have a series of laws which we collectively called the neutrality legislation. And 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 there is 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. That only threatens to drag us into the war. A ban on loans. If we loan money to a european country, we may have an interest in making sure they win the war. So no loans. A ban on americans traveling on belligerent trips. 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, america is responding directly to something that happened between 1914 and 1917. In a retrospective sense, this is been a mistake. Americans had made all of 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 , and here is congress saying we are going to limit what the president can do. So its probably not surprising to you that the president was not crazy about these ideas. Fdr did not like his flexibility and Foreign Policy being limited. But he also recognized that this is popular. 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 in 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 warp, 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. Generally, not universally, but 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, at least a little bit. Six months before the war began, a Gallup 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 that we would sell more materials to england or france in the case of war . And a solid majority said yes. Remember, that is against the law at this point. But when faced with the idea that its england and france that would be on the receiving end, then yes, we do support them. This is not a theoretical war. Its a real war. But there are limits. There are limits to that. Americans drew the line. Should we lend money to england and france . Now, 69 said no. That is different. We dont want loans out there. And what this is really reflecting is american resentment at the fact that a lot of the war debts from world war i were never fully paid back. We didnt get our money back last time. We wont make that mistake again. And it also reflects the idea that if we have as our deters, england and france, we have an interest in making sure they win, so that they can pass back. We dont want that to drag us into another war. So this part of the neutrality legislation is a clear majority, more than two thirds in favor of 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 the ships are sunk and americans die. That could become a reason to get involved in the next war. But they are remembering in particular was the elusive tanya, the british passenger liner that was sunk by a german uboat in 1915 at the loss of Many American lives. That gives america a stake in the war. You will get dragged enough americans die. During world war i, Woodrow Wilson asserted this as a basic american right. We should not have to worry that our lives are in danger when we are traveling. Now, americans say it is too dangerous. Its okay for the government to forbid that, so that if it happens, its not our responsibility and 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 say 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 wherever they want. We are a neutral country. We are not at war. We should not be in danger just because we are carrying on with trade. Now, in the 1930s, this is right at the beginning of the war itself, september 1939. 84 said stay out of war zones. So there is some movement on that one point. We 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. So why did americans support changing the policy for britain and france . I think that comes down to an almost universally bigoted view of nazi germany. It is hitler. Its hitlers behavior that americans are responding to. I august of 1939, gallup ask the public if hitlers claims against the polish corridor that we talked about were justified. 86 said no. What he is demanding is wrong. If a war therefore comes out of this, it will be his fault. And, then a couple weeks later, when the war did begin, 82 of the American People said it was germanys fault. Virtually no one blamed britain or france or poland. It was germanys fault. They are the ones who started this. There is a clear cut aggressor in this. 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 it. These 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 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. And in fact, opposition to becoming actively involved in the war grew after the war began. If you look at the interviewing dates from this poll, august 30, so a couple of days before the war actually began. A lot of peoples not coming, but this was before the war began. Then carrying on for the first few days of the war in europe. When asked of the United States should send their army and navy to fight, 84 said no. So that is overwhelming against fighting. But 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 on involved if they really believed one side was right and the other was wrong . I think the answer to that is that they were confident that britain and france would win. Americans were asked today thought was going to win, the allies, 82 . In other words, we dont have to fight this thing. The allies will take care of. It they will win it. We can be on their side. We can selfindulge. 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 fact, in an allied victory when the war begins. They are underestimating germanys ability to fight and win the war. Another interesting shift takes place when you raised the possibility that germany might win the war. If it looks like england and france might be defeated, then, should the United States declare war . 44 suddenly say yes. Thats still not a majority. Most americans are still against involvement in the, or even if nazi germany will in. But that is a huge jump in the number of people who would be willing to go to war. And this, i think, is what is flushing out this view of 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 if its 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 want the allies to win and the 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 United States in as an active belligerent, Many Americans got cold feet, and a majority were against involvement under any circumstances. A couple more poll numbers i want to show you our illustrated love the way American Opinion shifts back and forth, depending on how the thinking is going on about these issues that any given point. October, this is now after the fall of poland. Do you think the United States should do Everything Possible to help england and france when the, where except go to war ourselves . 62 say yes. That is a powerful majority in favor of Great Britain. Everything possible, no limitations put on, that except going to war ourselves, 62 . Look what happens when you put this phrase into it. At the risk of getting into the war ourselves, the numbers flip. Its the same question, except the risk of getting involved is raised. Suddenly, 66 dont want to have anything to do. We shouldnt do everything to help britain and france win if it means we might get involved. Thats 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 french british victory, but doesnt want to fight. And thats what he is trying to satisfy when he is forming american policy. And he is very, very acutely aware as he follows Public Opinion polls. He has all of this information. He knows where the public is. So he has to craft a policy that will coincide with what the public thinks. And in fact, he does a very good job of this. When the war began, fdr did what he almost always did. He went on the radio and gave one of his famous fireside chats. And what he said reflected what americans wanted. He says the United States will of course not be a belligerent in this conflict. It will do its best to stay out and not get dragged. And then he says something interesting. He refused to ask the public to be neutral in thought, as Woodrow Wilson had famously done in 1914. Because he knew they werent. They are not neutral. And i am 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 fact. Even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind, or close his conscience. There is a right and wrong side in this war. 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 . It is one thing to just talk about not being neutral in thought. What do you do in terms of policy . And the policy that he crafted, again, closely resembling what we saw an 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 shifts. That fits in the polling data that i just showed 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 them away themselves, they can do that. It is the safest possible policy. It satisfies the desired aide of england and france, but it doesnt put americans at risk. Once they take the goods from all ports, its not our problem anymore. If those ships get attacked, they are not our ships. If lives are lost, they are not american lives. Its beautifully crafted to perfectly capture what the American People would be willing to do. I dont think thats a coincidence. That is fdr understanding exactly what the public was willing to tolerate at any given point. Thats what we will see throughout the entire debate. Fdr is able to do that over and over again. And the fall of 1939, it seemed like americans were done. They have cash and carry, congress approved, it fdr signs it. We have our policy. We are good here. And you know what happens next. The nazi offensive in the spring of 1940. And then the fall of france. inaudible theoretically, i suppose. I dont know about the specific language of the legislation. But everyone knew what the legislation was actually accomplishing. There was no expectation that nazi germany would be buying more materials from the United States. Is the cash and carry policy the start of what would become the program . Yes and no. Ultimately, i will argue that that was actually a break from this policy. But its a step in that direction. Cash and carry was okay, as long as it looked like england and france were likely to win. Thats what changed in the spring and summer of 1940. The fall of france completely changed americas opinion of the 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, it was a lot harder to imagine that. What now . What if britain falls . What if the allies lose the war . This is when, i would argue, the great debate really begins in the summer of 1940. Now, a much tougher question is on the table. Cash and carry might work. It might work for sometime. But what if britain is about to fall . Then what do we do . Two organizations came into being in the summer of 1940. And they were on each side of that question. The anti interventionist America First committee, and the interventionist group, the awkwardly named committee to defend america by aiding the allies. That is a mouthful. Nobody ever said that because it was too long. It was generally known as the White Committee named after the 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 that basically says the United States should do Everything Possible to make sure that england winds, 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 from 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 now is talk about some of the major issues. I wont talk about all of them. There are far too many because this is a widespread and varying debate. But there are certain key themes that i think are central to the debate between these two organizations. The anti interventionists, the America First committee, they basically 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 untangled in european affairs. It certainly shouldnt 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 the 1917 and went into europe. That was a mistake and its a mistake that should not be repeated. We have 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 1800s is not appropriate in the 20th century. The United States was a weak, underdeveloped nation in the late 1700s and early 18 hundreds. Of course it made sense to stay out of european wars. Thats not true anymore. 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 pacific ocean. That was our protection, but that protection is not what it used to be. Military technology is changing, air power in particular allows countries to protect their military power away, away thats 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. The world is changed, the anti interventionist argue in that case we need better hemisphere defenses. Thats what we need, that only reinforces the idea that what we need is fortress america. We need to build up our hemisphere 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, we are we should remain a hemispheric power. The interventionists argue we dont understand the fight were in britain is for fighting our battle. Britain is our first line of defense if they fall to nazism, we are 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 anti interventionist said youre exaggerating exaggerating the threat, there is no real threat to america here. American interests in europe are being mortal danger, were not going to get attacked. Even if worstcase scenario even if nazi germany wins, even if Imperial Japan wins. Will be fine, we may not like it but will be fine. We can trade with those countries, we can survive in that war in that world. The interventionists respond, you dont understand the threat, an axis dominated world would be a threat to the United States. Its a threat to the United States militarily maybe not in terms the United States being invaded and card kurd thats likely not 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 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 the state of permanent depression. We may not have any capacity for growth in a world dominated by nazi germany and Imperial Japan. This is a threat to democracy for, us 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 would die. We saw a taste of it in the last one the centralization of power in the federal government, unprecedented and government control, government regulation that will just be a tiny proportion of what will happen in the next quarter, 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 anti interventionist argue this wont be the end of any kind of reform if you support roosevelts new deal its going to die. Progressivism dies during world war i and 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 anti interventionist said were concerned about democracy to the thing that will kill democracy is an axis victory thats the real threat to us our democracy will be impossible in an axis dominated world. Maybe we wont be invaded or attacked, but will have to be on guard, what will that mean. Massive defense, high taxes a permanent state of preparation for war, economic hardships because of lack of trade. Those are the things that will destroy our democracy, theyre both arguing that the others position will somehow destroy democracy. And i think both sincerely believe in that, seeing a fundamental threat to the american way of life if the other side gets its way. Questions, comments about that . It is a summary, of a pretty raw wide range of a 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 difference, is that its taking place wonders for the first time really in American History a truly National Medium to carry out this debate. By the time the war broke out there are four National Radio networks, we see nbc red its primary network carried most popular entertainment programs. Nbc blue which had more news in opinion, cbs and the mutual. 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 the radio. Theyre getting their news, theyre 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 on american Foreign Policy, but they were mostly carried out in newspapers among elites. This is available to virtually everybody in america, almost the entire country is covered by radio now. And significantly, according to the census data from 1940, lots of people have radios. In 90 of people in urban areas outside the south, some smaller percentage and sub southern urban areas about 79 . Among orban 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 owe the either own when themselves, they know somebody a neighbor a family member, 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 have 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 thats going to shape the debate as well, started off talking about how important Public Opinion is going to be in 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 among elites Foreign Policy experts. It has to be made accessible to the average person, and so both sides went out of the way to try and appeal to the average person, in general, they started out with traditional speeches the way politicians have always done. Im going to give you a couple of clips to illustrate the sort of thing that American People were hearing on the radios. This is a man called hand furred acting secretary of war. Hes an anti interventionist, so listen into this clip for those scenes i was just talking about. I have heard no accredited military finally, who thinks that we are an 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 shell have the necessary men chain trained and under arms, return any hostile approach to our shores into our firstclass disaster for whomever tries it. Two i am all alternate opposed the further attempt on any part to furthers a man in a place in the old world everlasting quarrels. Europe and asia have been in constant battle over the balance of balances of power for over 1000 years, and theyll be added it long after us all are here 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. Europe and asia an old world, quarrelsome warlike, theyre always like this, they always will be like this this is not our problem. Our people, our fathers left that behind, we shouldnt voluntarily returned to it. The next clip is going to be an interventionist, who was the republican nominee for president in 1940. Wilkie echoes a lot of the arguments. We must bend every effort to keep britain afloat, and let us be very clear very clear as to this fact we cannot keep britain afloat with mere words. applause we cannot keep britain afloat with no delivered goods. Any such policy is 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 its dangerous to age britain. Our freedom is at stake thats the dangerous thing, not helping Great Britain fight its fight. The airwaves in 1940, 1941 were filled with speeches like this. Basically major public figure could go to the Radio Networks and request time and probably be granted a good 15 or 20 minutes to speak on one of the major networks. They didnt always speak in these set pieces. Sometimes they actually had debates face to face, there are a number of programs on the air that were designed around this concept, americans town meeting of the air. American afford with the air, the university of chicago roundtable. Virtually every one of these debates that went around american Foreign Policy had a representative of either America First, the White Committee or actually both. So it wasnt just that they were giving speeches, they were actually actively debating with one another on the air. Usually live although not always, for the American People to listen. But again this is still elite opinion, these are still experts, these are still Foreign Policy people. One of the really interesting things about this debate is that both sides recognize that wasnt good enough. You have to do more than that, if you are trying to reach the average person you want them to hear the average person. Not just have politicians, senators and representatives and elites, what about the average . Person and so you had an innovation that took place that really for shots foreshadows a law we actually see an advertising, making political arguments in the media. Interviewing america average americans. And now for the east coast new york city, here is fred an automobile machinists, 33 years old and married. How about it . Is the british fleet one of our first line of defenses . No defense from what. Hitler may be crazy but hes not so crazy has to take us on. Unless we deliberately pushed 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, its a valid opinion. Other people hold that. The american first commuter is brought to you the print opinion of seven patriotic american citizens, from different parts of the country and different walks of life. The seven, represent the beliefs and feelings of the vast majority of our people. Different places, different walks of life. Somewhere out there youve 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 thing, but telling them here is what you already think from someone just like you. Another technique introduced, i think its really fascinating, introduced by America First, theres a representative from pennsylvania named james, 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 we actually set up a broadcast from a Veterans Hospital outside washington, he said we need to listen to these people because they are the one. The appalling cost of war, but in shuddered bodies, suffocated long and shadowed lives. These men understand war and have devastating effects on mankind. They know its, firsthand. Theyre not the politicians, theyre the people who actually fought the last war. Theyre the ones we should listen to, and so he interviews. Them in your own words comrade, what do you think of the United States entering another european war . We dont want to go over there, but to come here and were already for to fight. Thank you for your frank opinion. applause that expression lady and gentlemen is from the lips of a real world war veteran. No one better in notice a couple things here, first of all theres an audience. Like in a rich regular radio program, he actually brought in an audience. Very straightforward simple opinion, if were attacked will fight back but we dont want to go over there nothing complicated very straightforward. Will defend ourselves but were not going to interject ourselves. And then at the end, remembers radio so hes painting a picture, now i will talk to this veteran in a wheelchair, and immediately that pictures in the minds of a listener. This is a really sophisticated way at least for the time, we have trying to get across a political opinion, as far as i know nothing like this had ever happened before. It shows how important this debate was, a new invading way to think of things recognize at the same old speeches with the same old political figures might not do it, but maybe if you hear from a veteran directly in his own words. So, what does this produce . What does all this debate poses various techniques, what does it do for american Public Opinion, thats ultimately the important thing . I think the ballast illustration to finally get back to your question earlier, is the land lease act. Thats what shows the extent to which Public Opinion did change, and the extent which it did not change. And of 1940, Winston Churchill inform roosevelt that cash and carry would not going to work anymore. The british were basically running out of cash, its still needed a aid from the United States but it couldnt afford to pay cash anymore. It was going to be unable to do that much longer. And this created a dilemma obviously for fdr, the cash and carry policy had perfectly fit american Public Opinion but now we wont work. What do you do instead . How do you compensate for this problem . Fdr came up with something called a land lease bill, that would allow him as president , to provide military aid to any countrys defense, he did the turn was vital to u. S. Security. The president gets to decide this, whats 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 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 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 the public, remember hes all was 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 releasing military equipment, and make it a matter of common sense to 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 sound, get rid of this silly foolish old dollar sign. Suppose my neighbors home catches fire, and i have a length of garden hose, if he can take my garden hose and connected up with his hydro i may help to put out his fire. I dont say to him for that operation neighbor, my garden hose cost me 15 dollars, you have to pay 15 dollars for it. I dont want 15 dollars i want my garden hose back after the fire is gone. Thats all this is their lending their neighbor 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 burned down, because yours might catch fire to. Its a beautiful attempts at capturing the common sense mindset of the average person. Putting it in terms that they can understand, the other side didnt much like this analogy. Republican senator an anti interventionist rubber taft of ohio responded by saying. Lending war equipment is like lending chewing gum, you dont want to 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 the polling data, i asked at the end of 1940 if americas future safety depended on england winning the world war, 68 said. Yes 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 could lose the war . 85 said yes. We know how important this is, we know it is essential to britain survival, that they continue to get paid 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 we cant pay for it . Fdr said theyd bold willing to lend it to them, landed or least 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 even at the risk of war was put in that earlier poll, it flipped Public Opinion. Now 61 would 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 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 was behind that two. This question basically asked about the land lease act, should the government lender lease war materials to the British Government . 68 said yes. Once again, fdr found that Public Opinion sweet spot. This is what the public believes in, this was what the public was willing to go along with. Its a big change, what the united is now doing is much different from cash and carry, and the anti interventionist made a point of emphasizing how much of a change this was. This is basically the America First people said, a declaration declaration of war against germany. Were not calling that, but its basically what were doing. We are siding unequivocally with Great Britain by giving them, selling them would you could just say thats business right just a business transaction we are giving them weapons of war. That is for all intents and purposes joining this or, without sending our soldiers, but were sending our material. If were sending our material today, we will send our soldiers tomorrow, thats the next logical step. We are going to get into this war, roosevelt and his supporters said no this is the best way to ensure that doesnt happen. If england falls, we will have to go to war, if england survives we may not have to. Our best chance of staying out of this thing is make is keeping britain float, making sure Great Britain does not fall. Ultimately congress agreed with roosevelt, strong margins but again there still is division in the United States. Public opinion and in congress. But those are comfortable margins, the members of the house and the senate were overwhelmingly in favor of roosevelts proposal, as was the public in general. So ultimately what has the great debate accomplished . What has it done from the beginning of the war and now the spring of 1941. I think you can argue the interventionist had to convince the American People to do Everything Possible short of war and to help Great Britain, even now 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 nudge the public in the direction of war, active role for the United States. But had not convinced americans to take the lead and world affairs. Theyll continue to help Great Britain, but we dont want to actually fight, will assist but we wont lead. So in that sense the anti interventionists also have succeeded to a certain extent. Most americans remain convinced it was best to stay out. They did not want a new war, even after the land lease act was approved thats what americans wanted. As directly as they should declare war in april 81 said stay out. Theyre happy with a land lease, theyre willing to do lend lease, they still want to stay out. Overwhelmingly want to stay out of the war but this is really interesting. They dont think its going to happen they dont think the United States will stay out. Asked if ultimately american will get involved, 82 said yeah its gonna happen we will go in. We dont want to itll be against our will, its going to happen. Its going to happen, and again these are just mere images of each other. 81 say stay out 82 said yeah were gonna go in. Its inevitable in all likelihood but we dont want to this is not something we are going to do unless we absolutely have to. So as Public Opinion changed somewhat, remember 1939 95 say the United States should stay out. In the weeks before pearl harbor, 26 said the United States should probably just go and declare war. So that is a significant shift, a 20 shift of a people who think a declaration of war makes sense. The previous two years had changed something, but still most people are against it. This is just weeks before pearl harbor, the anti interventionist argue against war, still a powerful one in the eyes of most americans. Americans want to have it both both ways. They want the nazis vanquished theyre 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 11th. Did the United States go ahead and declare war in germany. Even after pearl harbor the United States did not immediately declare war on germany, germany was not attacked. Germany declared war first, took the decision out of american hands i think its worth wondering, if germany had not done that, with the American People have supported going to war against germany after pearl harbor . Well never know its hypothetical, i think its a question worth considering. This suggests maybe not, in fact maybe not especially given the fact that japan had attacked United States. Maybe the focus should be on japan and not on germany. Let the interventionists ultimately succeeded in doing is six worth whisk in your war, but not convincing that the United States should enter the war. And take on world leadership, now that idea was being advocating vibe group i havent mentioned, its called the fight for freedom committee. 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 ourselves, and they made that case after the land lease act, in the spring is summer of 1941, they were openly making the argument we should declare war. And the public didnt buy. And public did not want to declare war. Its not convinced public to adopt their views. The Political Class, though, is different. The Political Leadership is different. They largely were convinced by the events of world war ii, the United States should assume the leading role in defenders, both in the war and especially after the war. Pearl harbor convinced them, the United States, they needed to lead. After pearl harbor, it was almost impossible to have a National Political career and be known as an isolationist. It was not a negative term, the same way and appeaser became a negative term. Nobody wanted to be known as an isolationist. You wanted national leadership, you had to be in favor of interventionist Foreign Policy where the United States would lead. In international affairs. That was the consensus and the Political Class. But it never was the consensus in the public. And that, i think, is interesting and an 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 great leader. I think thats why, today, 80 years after the great debate first began, we are, once again, debating the value of, again, i dont think this is a coincidence, an american first Foreign Policy. Questions . Comments . All right. I will see you guys next time. We will talk about the war in asia. Youre watching American History tv. Every weekend on cspan three, explore our nations past. Cspan 3, created by americas Cable Television company, a public service, and brought to you today by your television provider. Weeknights, this month, we are featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan three. On friday, San Diego StateUniversity Professor lectures on the vietnam war. He looks at the conflict from the u. S. Military escalation in 1965 to the fall of saigon ten years later. And the competing interest of the americans, chinese, and soviets in the region. Watch for tonight beginning at eight eastern, enjoy American History tv this week, and every weekend on cspan three. Every saturday, at 8 pm eastern, on American History tv, on cspan three, go inside a Different College classroom, and hear about topics ranging from the american revolution, civil rights, and u. S. President s. To 9 11. Thanks for your patience, and for logging into class. With most College Campuses closed due to the impact of the coronavirus, watch professors transfer teaching to a virtual setting to engage with our students. He did most of the work to change the soviet union, but reagan met him halfway, reagan encouraged him, reagan supported him. Freedom of the press, which will get to, later i just mentioned, madison originally called it freedom of the use of the press, and it is, indeed, freedom to print things, and publish things. It is not a freedom for what we now refer to as institutionally as the press. Lectures in history, on American History tv on cspan three. Every saturday, at 8 pm eastern. Lectures in history is also available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Texas womans University Professor catherine landdeck taught a class about the way american and contributed to the war effort in world war ii. She details the expectations for women on the home front, and compared options available to women for each military branch. Its good to see everybody today. I app