Media. Wofford College Professor teaches about the rise of radio and its impact on whether to enter world war ii. The class uses sound clips showing the role radio played shaping views and policy. All right. So, last week we talked about coming of the war in europe and asia. I want to talk about the great debate over american involvement in world war ii. This is arguably the most important debate on Foreign Policy in all of American History. And Public Opinion probably more than any previous debate mattered here in part for the first time there was a way of gauging Public Opinion. The gallop poll organization had started polling American People. So leaders had a much more direct sense of what the people actually thought. Youre going to see a lot of polling data in this, in fleshing out exactly what it was that americans thought. So im going to focus quite a bit on Public Opinion and well talk about policy as a reflection 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 this debate, nothing that happened really changed fundamentally those two point of views. There will be changes in American Opinion, but those two fundamental views remained the same, even on the eve of pearl harbor. Most americans 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. Thats one thing. The debate is about, on the surface, how much age should the United States give to the allies to help them defeat nazi germany. But below the surface theres a fundamental debate going on. What role should the United States play in the world Going Forward . Should it, as the antiinterventionists argue, remain a hemispheric power dominating north and south america has 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 of the details, and well talking about a fair amount of detailed arguments here, thats the fundamental question americans are considering, what role should the United States play in the world Going Forward. The great debate that takes place between the beginning of the war and pearl harbor 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 postwar emergence as a global superpower. 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. Its something they really regret. After the United States rejected participation in wood hydrowilsonhydr Woodrow Wilsons league of nations, the world did not need to be engaged. And techbevents of the 1920s reinforced the idea that involvement in the last war had been a mistake. It was a departure from technician 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 growing consensus, particularly in congress, that what we needed to do in the United States was create a legal structure that would prevent that from happening. From 1935 to 1937 you had a series of laws which 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 theres another war, there should be an impartial arms embargo on all belligerents, all belligerents. Aggressor, victim, it doesnt matter. Impartial. 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 belligerent, we maybe have an interest in masking sure they have an interest on winning the war. We dont want americans being killed in this war accidentally because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That happened last time, it shouldnt happen again. In each of these cases, americans were responding directly to something that happened between 1914 to 1917. And a retrospective sense that this had been a mistake. The americans had made all of those mistakes last time, next time, we wont make those mistakes. This is coming from congress which is one of the things that makes it unusual. Foreign policy is primarily the purview of the president. Here is congress saying, were 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 in Foreign Policy being limited but he also recognized that this is popular. The people are behind this. 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 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, and generally had a positive opinion of Great Britain and france. When the idea of war between those sides began to become more and more possible, american Public Opinion began to shift 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 we would sell war materials to england and france in case of a war and the solid majority said yes. Thats against the law at this point. But when faced with the idea that its england and france that would be on the receiving end, yeah, we do support doing that. This is not a theoretical war, its 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. And what this is really reflecting is american resentment that a lot of the war debts from world war i were never fully paid back. We didnt get our money back last time. Were not going to make that mistake again. And it also reflects the idea that if we have as our debtors england in 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, clear majority, more than twothirds, favors keeping. Similarly, what about traveling on ships . 82 say the United States should not allow its citizens to travel of the ships of a country now at war. Theyll be in danger. If those ships are sunk and americans die, that will become a reason to get involved in the next war. What theyre remembering is the lusitania, the passenger liner that was sunk by a german u boat in 1915. That gives america a stake in the war. Well get dragged in if americans dry. Woodrow wilson asserted this as a basic right, we shouldnt have to worry that our lives are in danger when were traveling. Now theyre saying its okay for the government to forbid that so if it happens, its not the 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. This is the opposite of the first world war. Wilson has argued that american ships should be free to go where we want. Were a neutral country. Were not at war, we should not be endangered because were carrying on trade. 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 theres some movement on that one point. Should we be allowed to sell arms to britain and france. On the other proposals, americans stayed where they were, keep the legislation, dont change it to allow these pitfalls from becoming possible pitfalls in the next war. Why did americans support changing the arms embargo. Why did they support changing it for britain and france . I think the answer to that comes down a universally negative view of nazi germany. Its hitler. Its hitlers behavior that americans are responding to. August of 1939, gallop 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, britain and france are defending the victim. So we dont actually feel neutral about that. These two sides are not the same. Theres 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 interviewing dates for this poll, august 30, a couple of days before the war began, a lot of people saw it coming. It was before the war actually began. And carrying on for the first few days of the war in europe. When asked if the United States should send its army and navy to fight, 84 said no. Thats overwhelmingly against fighting. Look what happens weeks later. 95 . Americans did not want to fight this war. They were not neutral. They took sides. But they did not want to fight. It is not our fight. I think its worth asking why americans were so resolved to stay uninvolved if they really believed one side was right and the other side was wrong . And i think the answer to that is they were confident that britain and france would win. Americans were asked who they thought were going to win, the allies, 82 . In other words, we dont have to fight this thing. The allies are going to take care of it. They will win it. We can be on their side, we can sell them goods. We can root for them. But theyll win on their own. They dont need us. 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 war . 44 suddenly say yes. Still not a majority. Still most americans are against involvement in the war even if nazi germany is going to win, but thats a huge jump in the number of people who would be willing to go to war. And this, i think, is what fleshing 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, only if its the only way to keep your 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. If the aid threaten 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 that i think are really illustrative of the way American Opinion shifts back and forth depending on how theyre thinking about issues at any given moment. October 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 go to war ourselves . 62 say yes. Thats a favorable majority. 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 with it. We shouldnt do everything to help britain and france win if it means we might get involved. Thats a difference of framing the question and it produces a huge difference and i think thats 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 thats what hes trying to satisfy when hes forming american policy. 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. He has to craft a policy that will coincide with what the public thinks. And he does a very, very good job of this. When the war began, fdr went on the radio. He gave one of his famous fireside chats. What he said reflected what americans wanted. He says the United States wont be a belligerent in this conflict. It will do its best to stay out of it and not get dragged into it. And then he says something interesting. He refused to ask the public to be neutral in thought as Woodrow Wilson had 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. Theres 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 . And the policy that he crafted, again, closely resembled what weve seen in 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. Its the safest possible policy. It satisfies the desires to aid england and france by selling them war goods, but it does not put americans at risk. Once they take the goods from our ports, its not our problem anymore. Those ships get attacked, theyre not our ships. If lives are lost, theyre not american lives. Its beautifully craft today perfectly capture what the American People were willing to do and i dont think thats a coincidence. I think thats fdr understanding exactly what the public was willing to tolerate at any given point. That i think is what were going to se