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 legisl