Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures In History Public Opinion Ra

Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures In History Public Opinion Radio Entry Into World War II 20240712

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 an

© 2025 Vimarsana