Showing the role radio played shaping american view and Foreign Policy. All right. So last week we talked about coming to the war in europe and coming to the war in asia, so what id like to talk about today is the american reaction to all of that. Lets call that the american debate over american involvement in world war ii. This is the most important debate in all of american history, and Public Opinion probably more than any previous debate mattered here in part because for the first time it was a way of gauging Public Opinion. The gallop poll organization had begun regularly polling the American People. And so leaders had a much better sense, a much more direct sense what the people actually thought. So youre going to see a lot of polling data in this, in fleshing out exactly what americans thought. So well focus quite a bit on Public Opinion and talk about actual policy as a reflection of that Public Opinion. At the start of the war in europe my argument is that there were two basic positions held almost unanimously by the American People. They wanted britain and france to win the war, to defeat germany, and they did want the United States to have to fight in that war to make it happen. And over the course of the 2 plus years of this debate nothing that happened really changed fundamentally those two points of views. 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 in world war ii. The great debate moved the American Public in the direction of risking war but never fully convinced americans 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. But below the surface i think theres a much more important and fundamental debate going on. What role should the United States play in the world Going Forward . Should it as the antiinterventionests 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 interventionests argued, should it recognize that the United States was a global power and be willing to join the fight against those dictators to prevent those dictators from dominating the world . Thats a big question. And behind all the details and well talk about a fair amount of detailed arguments that i think is the fundmental question americans are considering. What role should the United States play in the world Going Forward. The great debate gradually moves the public in a direction of a much more active american engagement ibthe world and set the stage for americas postwar emergence as a gloel 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 oursives but how maerps 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 now really regret. After the United States rejected participation in wadrow wilsons legal 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. It did not need to be engaged. In the events of the 1920s and especially the 1930s really enforced 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 growing consensus particularly in congress what we needed to do in the United States was create a legal structure that would prevent that from happening. 1935 to 1937 you had a series of laws which collectively we called the neutrality legislation. And the basic idea here was to make sure by law that the United States kpt macouldnt make the mistakes it made last time. And it targeted very specifically the things americans now blamed for american involvement in the previous war. Specifically if theres another war there should be an impartial arms embargo on all belligerence, aggressive, 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 belligerent we maybe have an interest in making sure they win the war, so no loans. A ban on americans traveling on belligerent ships, we dont want americans killed in this war accidently because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They happened last time and shouldnt happen again. In each of these cases americans are responding directly to what happened in 1914 and 1917, and a retrospective sense this had been a mistake. Americans had made all 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 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, so he signed these pieces of legislation but at the same time warned they could be problematic in the future. It does become problematic in the future. In particular by 1938, 1939 with the czech crisis and 10 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 they 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 had a great opinion of brit squn france. When the idea of war on those two sides became 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 and a solid majority said yes. Remember 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 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, were not going to make that mistake again. And it also reflects the idea 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 theres a clear majority, more than two thirds favors keeping. Similarly what about traveling on ships . 82 said the United States should not allow its citizens to travel on the ships of 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 a british passenger liner sunk in 1915 with the loss of american lives. Well 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 our lives are in danger when were traveling. Now americans say, no, its too dangerous. Its okay for the government to forb forbid that so if it happens its not our responsibility. The government has 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. And this is after the first world war. Wilson had argued american ships should be free to go anywhere they want. Were a neutral country, not at war. We should not be endangered just because werekerrying on trade. 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 . But on all the other proposals americans stayed where they were. Keep the neutrality legislation. Dont change it to allow these pit falls for becoming possible pit falls in the next war. So why did americans support changing the arms embargo . Why did they support changing it for britain and france . And i think the answer to that comes down to an almost universally negative view of nazi germany. Its hitler. Its hitlers behavior that americans are responding to. August of 1939, gallup asked the public if hitlers claim against poland were justified. 86 said no. What he is demanding is wrong. A from 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 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 do not actually feel neutral about that. These two sides are not the same. There is a significant difference. Once there was an actual war instead of theoretical war, americans opinions shifted a bit. They still do not 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 do not want to fight them. They do not want to be actively involved in a war. In fact, opposition to becoming actively involved in the war grew after the war began. If you look at the interview and dates in this poll. August 30, before the war began. Then carrying on for a few days of the war in europe. When asked if the United States should stand their army and navy to fight. 80 said no. That is overwhelmingly 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 it is worth asking, why americans were 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 who they thought were going to win . The allies, 82 . In other words, we do not have to fight this war. The 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 they will win on their own. They do not need us. This is important to remember. They are over confident, in fact in an ally victory when the war begins. They are underestimating the germanys ability to fight in this 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 said yes. It is still not a majority even if nazi germany is going to win, but that is a huge number for the amount of people that would be willing to go to war. Flushing out this view of american Public Opinion, they do not want to fight, but they think it might be necessary, at least some think it might be necessary, but only if it is the only way to keep the nazi germanys away. Yuck so to sum up all of this. The fundamental tension i would argue in American Opinion, is americans overwhelmingly wanted the nazis to lose and most were willing to help the allies to win but only after the war. If the aid threatened to track the United States and the more than the americans got cold feet, and the majority were against involvement against any under any circumstances. A couple more poll numbers i want to show you that i think are really illustrate of of the way American Opinion shifts back and forth depending on how they are thinking big. This is not after. Do you think the United States should do Everything Possible to help england and france in the war except go to ourselves to our ourselves. 62 said yes. Powerful majority. Everything possible, no limitations put on that, except going to war ourselves. 62 . Look what happens when you put this freeze into it. At the risk of getting into the war ourselves, the numbers flip. Same question, except, the risk of getting involved is raced. Suddenly 66 of people dont want to have to do anything with it. We should do everything to help britain and france when if it means we do not get involved. Thats just a difference of framing the question and it produces a huge difference i think that is telling you something really interesting and very important about american Public Opinion. They want the allies to win. They sure do not want to fight the war themselves. This is what Franklin Roosevelt has to deal with. A public that once a british and french victory, but does not want to fight. That is what he is trying to satisfy when he is forming a american policy. Again, he is very acutely aware of this. He public follows Public Opinion polls. He has all this information. You knows where the public is. He has to craft a policy that will coincide with what the public thinks. He does a very good job of this. When the world began, he did what he almost always did. He went on the radio. He won his famous fireside chats. What he said reflected what americans wanted. He says, the United States of course will not be able to be part of this conflict we will do our best to stay out of it. Then he says something really interesting. He refused to ask the public to be neutral in thought as which row wilson had famously done in 1914. Because he knew they were not. They were 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 conscience. There is a right and wrong side in this world, and we know it. We should not be neutral about this. I am 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 . One thing to just talk about not being neutral. What do you do in terms of policy . The policy that he crafted, again, closely resembled and 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 make cash, and they have to take it away on their own ships. That fits exactly in that polling data 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. So that if they want to come in pay cash and carried away themselves they can do that. It is the safest, possible policy. It satisfies the desire to aid england and france by selling war goods but it does not put americans at risk. Once they take the good from our ports it is not our problem anymore. If those ships get attacked it is not our ships. If lives are lofts theyre not our lives. It is beautifully crafted. To perfectly capture what the American People were willing to do. I do not think it was a coincidence. I think its the fdr understanding exactly what the public would tolerate at any given point. This is what we will see throughout the entire debate. Fdr is able to do that over and over again. In the fall of 1939, it seems like americans were done. They had cash and carry. Congress approved, it fdr signed it. We have our policy. You know what happens next . The nazi offensive in 1940, the fall of france. That changed everything. Cash and policy apply only to Great Britain . Or could it have applied to germany or other countries . Theoretically, but im not sure about the specific language of the legislation, but everybody knew what the legislation was actually accomplishing. There was no expectation that nazi germany would be buying or materials in the United States. Yes. Its the cash and carry policy would be the start of what became these programs . Yes and no. Well get to that later, but ultimately we will will say it is a step in that direction. Cash and carry was okay as long as it looked like england and france were to win. That is what changed in the spring and summer of 1940. The fall of france completely changed the opinion of this war. Up to than it was plausible to believe that Great Britain and france would win the war. Against nazi germany. Once france surrendered, that was a lot harder to imagine. With now . What if britain falls . What if the allies lose the war . This is one i would argue the great debate really begins. The summer of 1940. Now, i must tougher a much 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 . The two organizations came into being in the summer of 1940. On each side of that question. The anti interventionists, America First committee, and the interventionist group the awkwardly named, committee to defend america by aiding the allies. It is a mouthful, nobody ever said that because it was too long. Named after will william allen. So you have America First that says the United States should remain aloof, should not take any risks of getting involved in the war. And the committee to defend america by aiding the allies saying the United States should do Everything Possible to make sure that england wins, because aiding the allies is defending america. That is the equation that they are making. Those two things are the same. If you want to defend america America First is saying if you want to defend america, defend america. Hoard americans resources for America First. Dont give them to the allies. What id like to do now is talk about some of the major issues. There are far too many wont talk about them all. There are certain key things that i think are essential to the debate between these two organizations. The anti interventionist, the America First committee. Basically make the argument that staying out of european wars is americans tradition. This goes all the way back to george washington. The United States should not get itself untangled in european affairs. It should not get involved in european wars. This is a Foreign Policy that has served america well. It did so for over 100 years, until the United States broke from that tradition in 1917 and went to war in europe. That was a mistake and it is 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 and the late 1718 hundreds its not appropriate for the 20th century. The United States was a weak, underdeveloped nation. In the late 1700s and early 1800s. Of course it made sense to stay out of european wars. But that is 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 the pacific oceans. That was our protection. But that protection is not what it used to be. Military technology has changed. Air power in particular. It allows countries to project 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 have ever been in the past. The world has changed. The anti interventionist argued, well, in that case we need better hemispheric defenses. That is what we need. That only reinforces the idea that what we need is a fortress america. We need to build up our hemispheric defenses. We need to become so strong that no one will dare attack us. That means every bit of military hardware we produce needs to stay with us. Stay here in this hemisphere. We are a hemispheric power, we should remain that way. The interventionists argued, you do not understand the fight we are in. Britain is fighting our battle. Britain is our first line of the fence. If they fall to nazi infiltration, we are in danger. We cannot 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 you are exaggerating. There is no real threat to america here. American interests in europe and asia are not in mortal danger. We are not going to be attacked. Even if, worst case scenario, even if nazi germany wins, even if Imperial Japan wins its war, we will be fine. We may not like it, but will be fine. We can trade with those countries. We can survive in that war and in that world. The interventionists respond, you do not understand the threat. And axis dominated world would be a threat to the United States. It is a threat to the United States militarily, maybe not in terms of the United States being invaded and conquered. That is likely not going to happen. But it is still a military threat. We can be damaged by Imperial Japan and nazi germany. Perhaps even more significantly, it is an economic threat to our world. 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 we will trade with them, but what if they do not trade with . Us would if they isolate us economically . How do we grow and prosper . Remember, 1939, 1940, the Great Depression is not fully over yet. It is not better but still on. This argument says we might be in a state of permanent depression. We may not have any capacity for Economic Growth in a world dominated by nazi germany germany and Imperial Japan. This is a threat. We are in danger. Our whole way of life can be destroyed by world dominated by these dictatorships. The internet and turn in the interventionists argued, if they destroy democracy, this is war. We become involved in this war. Democracy at home will die. We saw a taste of it in the last war. The centralization of power in the federal government. Unprecedented government control, government regulation. That will be just a tiny portion of what will happen in the next war the next war will be longer, and harder, and more deadly for americans. And one of the main casualties will be american democracy. The liberal component of the anti interventionists argue this would mean the end of any kind of free form. If you support roosevelts new deal it will die. Progressivism died sharing world war one. 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 we are concerned about democracy to, but what will kill democracy is an axis victory. Our democracy will be impossible in an axis dominated world. Maybe we will not be invaded, but we will have to be on guard, wont we . What will that mean . Massive defense, high taxes, a permanent state of preparation for war. Economic hardship because of lack of tree. Those are the things that will destroy us. So theyre both arguing that the others position will somehow destroy democracy. Seeing a fundamental threat to the american way of life if the other side gets its way. Questions or comments about that . This is just a summary of a pretty wide range of debate. How are americans hearing this . What are they being exposed to . The answer is the radio. This is another thing that made this debate difference. Its taking place for the first time in american history, truly National Medium to carry out this debate. By the time the war broke out for four national networks, nbc red, nbc blue, cbs mutual. I think this point is incredibly important. As early as 1940, more than half the American People got their news from the radio, primarily. Newspapers have already been this displaced by radio. They are getting their news, also getting opinions. Speakers are going on the radio, making cases to the American People directly. This had never happened before. There had been debates, of course in american Foreign Policy, but they were mostly carried out in newspapers and among elites. This is available to virtually everybody in america. Almost the entire country is covered by Radio Networks. Significantly, according to the census status from 1940, lots of people have radios. 90 of people outside of the south, some smaller percentage and southern urban areas 79 ,. Among urban writes, 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, they know somebody who owns one. When important events happen like a president ial address, they can gather at that person s house and listen to. It nothing like this of ever happened before. We take this for granted. We instantly know everything. We have access to anything at any time. This was new this and never happened. You could reach, in one speech, virtually everyone in america at least in theory. So that will shape the debate as well talking about how important Public Opinion is going to be shaping policy. This is going to factor into how American PublicAmerican Opinion is shaped. If we want to affect the public, we have to address the public. In other words this debate cannot just be among elites. Foreign policy experts. It has to be made accessible to the average person. And so both sides went out of their way to try to repeal to the average person, in general they started in 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 the radio. This is a man in hand furred acting secretary of war. He is an anti interventionist so listen in this clip for those themes i was just talking about. I have heard no accredited military authority who thinks that we are an imminent danger of invasion from anywhere. What is more, we can depend on the statement of the under secretary 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 firstclass disaster for whomever tries it. To, i am unalterabley opposed to any attempt on our part to further demand a place in the old worlds everlasting quarrels europe and asia have been in constant battle over the balances of power for thousands of years and 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. You can see some of those themes, we cant really be attacked, it would be disaster someone try it, europe and asia, the old world, quarrelsome warlike always like this they always will be like this this is not our problem our people found that and left that behind this next clip is gonna be from our interventionist wilkie who was the republican nominee for president in 1940. Wilkie echoes a lot of the White Committee arguments. We must bend every effort to keep britain afloat and lets be very clear as to this half we cannot keep it afloat with their words to talk we can, not keep britain afloat with no risk and undue goods gawk any such policy is that spells destruction it is the most dangerous part that america could possibly pursue we cannot defend freedom that way. The danger is not leaving, you say its dangerous its not to our freedom is at stake that is the dangerous not help in 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 maybe 20 minutes to speak on one of the Major Networks they didnt always sometimes actually had debates face to face debates they were a number of programs on the air on the British Networks that were tongue meeting of the year i chicago roundtable and virtually every one of these debates that went around american Foreign Policy had a representative of either american first or White Committee are very often both, so it wasnt just that they were giving they were actively debating with one another on the air, usually live not always. For the American People who listened. Again, this is still a leap, 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 that wasnt good enough, they had to do more than that if youre trying to reach the average person, you want them to hear the average person not enough to just half politicians president senators the elites, what about the average person . You had an innovation that took place that really foreshadows a lot of what we now see in political advertising and political arguments in the media interviewing average americans. And now to the east coast new york city and here is automobile machinists 33 years old married, how about it mr. Redone . Is the british fleet one of our first lines of defense . Defense from what . Hitler maybe crazy but hes not so craziest 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. 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 hurt somebody who is just 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 heres what you already think from someone just like you. Another technique that i think is really fascinating was introduced by again America First representative from pennsylvania name james van zen and he thought that 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 ones who the appalling cost of war, shattered bodies suffocated lungs and shadow denies these men understand war and instead of a stating effect on mankind. They know it firsthand they are not the politicians, they are the people who actually fought the last war. They are the ones we should listen to. And so he interviewed them. What do you think of the United States entering another war . You want to go over there but they come here were already to fight. Thank you comrade. That expression ladies and gentlemen is from the lips of a real world war veteran. Nothing is better than the real notice a couple of things there, first of all there is an audience applauding, like in a regular Radio Program that they were used to hearing. He actually brought an audience in. Very straightforward simple opinion. If we are attacked will fight back but we dont want to go over there. Nothing complicated, very straightforward. We will defend ourselves what we are not going to interject ourselves. And then at the end, remember number three, he is painting a picture, now im going to talk to this veteran in a wheelchair and immediately that picture is in the mind of the listener. This is a really sophisticated at least for the time, way of trying to get across a political opinion, as far as i know nothing like this had ever happened before and it shows how important this debate was, they are innovating, they are thinking of new ways to convince people, they recognize at the same old speeches from 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 of this debate, all of these various techniques, what does it do to american Public Opinion that is the ultimately important thing. I think the best illustration if i can get back to your question earlier, is the lend lease acts. The extent to which Public Opinion did change and the extent to which it did not change. End of 1940 winston churchill, roosevelt, cash and carry wasnt going to work anymore. The british were basically running out of cash. Its still needed aid from the United States but it couldnt afford to pay cash anymore. It was going to be unable to do that much longer. This created a dilemma obviously for fdr cash and carry policy had at least in theory had fifth Public Opinion now what do you do instead . How you compensate for this problem. Fdr came up with something called the lend lease bill, that would allow him as president to provide the military aid in any countries whose defense 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 was basically meant to control what the president was allowed to do, restrict with the president was allowed. This is going 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 kind somehow. After i came up with a really clever analogy to sell this to people and again remember he is always trying to sell this to the public we just talked about appealing to the average. Person so how do you take this idea of lending releasing military equipment . And make it a matter of conscience for the people. Fdr was a master of this. So he called reporters and to his office. Thats how they did press conferences. They would crowd around desk in the oval office. And he said this to them. What im trying to do is eliminate the dollar sign. Get rid of the silly, foolish old dollar signs. Suppose my neighbors home has this fire. If he can take my garden hose and connected up with his hydrant, i may help him to put out his fire. I dont say to him before 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 out. Thats all this is. You are lending your neighbor hose. Who would not do that . Who would ask for payment before landing the house . Nobody would do that. After all, it is in your interest that your neighbors house dont burn down cars yours might catch fire too. It is a beautiful attempt at capturing the common sense mind set of the average person, putting it in terms that they can understand. The other side did not much go for this as, this analogy. The republican senator an anti interventionist from ohio responded by saying, lending work witness like lending chewing gum. You do not want it back. Also a good line. But fdr had a better line. He had a better line because the public was with him. Ultimately the public was pr him behind him. Lets go to the poll. Asked at the end of 1940 if americas future safety depended on england winning winning the war. 68 said yes it did. Americans were convinced britain had to win the war. And, significantly, americans were also convinced that britain could not win the war without americans. If the United States stopped sending or materials to england, do you think england would lose the war . 85 said yes. We know how important isis. 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 eight. What happens when they cant . Fdr said they will be willing to give it to them. Lend it or lease it, like the garden hose. The American People will go along with that. He was right. Americans still want to stay out of the war but they think it is more important that england win the war. Even at the risk. Now remember, even at the risk of war when it was put at the earlier poll it flipped Public Opinion, now 61 say even at the risk of war we will continue to help england. So yes, this is a risk. If we change our policies, not just cash and carry anymore. We are actually giving them more materials, the risk is higher. But it is worth it. Winning the war is that important. It is probably not surprising when fdr put this proposal before congress, the public is behind that to. This question basically asks about the lend lease act. If the british are able to pay cash for war material spot in this country should our government literally swore materials to the british when the wars over. 68 said yes. This is what the public believed, this is what they were willing to go along with. It is a big change. With the United States is not doing as much different from cash and carry. The anti intervention has made a point of emphasizing how much of a change this was. This is basically the America First people said was a declaration of war against germany. We are not calling it that that is what we are basically doing. We are citing unequivocally with Great Britain by giving them, not selling them, well thats business, its just a transaction we are giving them weapons of war. That is for all intents and purpose of joining this war without sending our soldiers. But we are sending our material. If we send our material today we will send our soldiers tomorrow. That is the next logical step. We are going to get into this war. Roosevelt and his supporters said no, this is the best way to make sure that it does not 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. Make sure britain doesnt fall. Ultimately, congress agreed with roosevelt. Strong margin, not unanimous. There still is division in the United States. Public opinion and in congress. But those are comfortable margins. Members of the house and members of the senate were overwhelmingly in favor of roosevelts proposal as was the public in general. Ultimately, what is the great debate accomplish . What has it done between the beginning of the war and now the spring of 1941 . I think you can argue the intervention interventionist said it convinced the American People to do Everything Possible to help Great Britain, even now, at the risk of war. Americans were willing to take that chance, but they had not convinced americans to go to war. That was still a step too far for most americans. They had sort of nudged the public in the direction of a more active goal for the United States and World Affairs but had not convinced americans to take the lead in World Affairs. We will continue to help rate Great Britain, but we do not want to actually fight. We will assist, but we will not lead. So in that sense, i think you can argue that the anti interventionists also had succeeded to a certain extent most americans agreed it was best to stay out they did not want to go to war even after the land leased act was approved. Asked directly if they should go to war in april 81 said stay out of it. They are happy with lend lease, they are willing to do lend lease, but they still want to stay out. Overwhelmingly want to stay out of the war. But, and this is also really interesting they do not think it is going to happen. They do not think the United States will stay out of it. Asked if ultimately, america would get involved, 82 said yes it will happen. We will go in. We dont want to, it will be against our will, but its going to happen. Its going to happen. These are almost mirror images of each other, right . 81 stay, out 82 say as we will go in. It is inevitable in all likelihood. But we do not want to. This is not something we are going to do unless we absolutely have to. As Public Opinion changed, somewhat. 1939 95 said the United States sets they should stay out. In the weeks before pearl harbor in 1941, 26 of the United States said they should go to war. That is a 20 shift of people who think the declaration of war makes sense. The previous two years had changed something, but still, most people are against it. This is weeks before pearl harbor. The anti interventionist argument against war is still a powerful one in the minds of most americans. Americans kind of want to have it both ways. They want the nets sees vanquished. Theyre willing to send materials tos but they do not want to sacrifice and go to war themselves. Only when germany took that decision out of the hands of americans by declaring war on the United States on december 11th 1941, did the United States go ahead and before war on german. Even after pearl harbor, the americans did not immediately declare war on germany. Germany declared war first. They took the decision out of americans hands. I think it is worth wondering if germany hadnt done that, with the American People have supported going toward against germany after pearl harbor . Will never know it is hypothetical but it is a question worth considering. Maybe not. Maybe not especially given the fact that japan had attacked the United States maybe the focus should be on japan and on germany. With the interventionist ultimately succeeded in doing was convincing the public that it was worth risking war but not convincing that the United States should enter the war and take on a leadership now that idea was being advocated by a group i hadnt mentioned before its called the fight for Freedom Committee which is basically the most radical faction of the White Committee the ones who thought we should just go ahead and declare war this is our fight we should fight ourselves and they made that case after the spring of summer 1941 they were openly making the argument, we should declare war. And the public didnt buy it. The public did not want to declare war. It did not convince the public to hug off to their view. The Political Class though. Was different. The Political Leadership was 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 pro harbor it was almost impossible to have a National Political career and be known as an isolationist. That was now a negative term the same way an appeaser became a negative term. We wanted to be known as it out and out isolationist, you wanted National Leadership you had to be in favor of an interventionist Foreign Policy one where the United States would lead in international affairs, that was the consensus in the Political Class. But it never was the consensus in the public. And 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 great leader. I think thats why today 80 years after the great debate first began we are once again debating the value of, i dont think this is a coincidence, on America FirstForeign Policy. Questions, comments . All right to see you next time we will talk about the war in asia. How are we all doing today . Welcome to class, today as i have talked about a little bit earlier this week we have a special lecture here, doctor jeff connor you may have a class with him he is the chair of our history and Political Science program here at Guilford Technical Community college. What you may not know about him is that he is a military historian he is an expert in military history, he is published at least four books on anything fr