Presidential Leadership in Time of Crisis: Fdr Shifts The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP IN TIME OF CRISIS: FDR SHIFTS THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE FROM ISOLATION TO INTERVENTION IN WORLD WAR TWO, 1939-1941 A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of History California State University, Sacramento Submitted in partial satisfaction of The requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in History by Kenneth Charles Hudson SPRING 2015 PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP IN TIME OF CRISIS: FDR SHIFTS THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE FROM ISOLATION TO INTERVENTION IN WORLD WAR TWO, 1939-1941 A Thesis By Kenneth Charles Hudson Approved By: _________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Christopher Castaneda _________________________________, Second Reader Dr. Joseph Palermo ______________________ Date ii Student: Kenneth Charles Hudson I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for this thesis. ___________________________, Graduate Coordinator ______________________ Dr. Mona Siegel Date Department of History iii Abstract of PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP IN TIME OF CRISIS: FDR SHIFTS THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE FROM ISOLATION TO INTERVENTION IN WORLD WAR TWO, 1939-1941 by Kenneth Charles Hudson President Franklin Roosevelt set out to establish popular support for an interventionist foreign policy designed to insure the survival of Great Britain as the key component of American national defense. To overcome the prevailing isolationist viewpoint, FDR educated the people of the immoral character of Nazi Germany and provided necessary understanding of unfolding events. He generated sufficient public support to provide legitimacy for his actions in mobilizing the nation and engaging in an undeclared war in the North Atlantic. FDR’s speeches, public opinion polls, and newspaper accounts are herein examined within their historical context. The evidence supports the conclusion that Roosevelt was successful in shifting public opinion. So much so, that succeeding presidents used the foundation FDR laid to fight the Cold War. _______________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Christopher Castaneda __________________________ Date iv There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings To the American people. May we ever be willing to confront evil, and to elect Presidents able to so lead them v The battleship Mississippi proudly flies the American flag as it steams through stormy seas while on patrol in the North Atlantic during 1941. Photo Credit: Photo #NH 94649, Collection of Vice Admiral Robert C. Giffen, Naval Historical Center, Online Library of Selected Images, Naval History and Heritage Command, Washington, D.C. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the twelve faculty members of the Department of History at California State University, Sacramento who have over the course of three years sought to inculcate in me the methods of researching and interpreting the events of the past. Of special note is Dr. Scott Lupo, who allowed me the freedom to explore this topic in an undergraduate paper. I also acknowledge the painstaking efforts of my thesis committee, Dr. Christopher Castaneda and Dr. Joseph Palermo, in their review of the drafts and their helpful suggestions regarding improvements and directions of research. One would be remiss not to mention Dr. Mona Siegel, who has not only acted as Graduate Coordinator and enforcer of her ten commandments of academic writing, but also as my mentor. I wish, also, to remember the encouraging words from Dr. Richard Cooper, now retired, who upon reading an earlier version of this thesis, said to me, “You have promise.” In addition to the contributions of an outstanding faculty and the resources of a well-stocked library, I wish to acknowledge the solid support of my family. My three children, Joshua, Bethany, and Katie, having completed their own college education, pressured first my wife and then me to complete our scholastic goals. It is because of their encouragement I find myself here at this institution of higher learning. It is obvious, however, I could not have completed this work without the great patience, understanding, and being held to task by my loving wife Sharon. As this thesis goes to print, the “University Widow” will finally get her husband back. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Dedication…………………………………………………………………………… v Frontispiece…………………………………………………………………………. vi Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………. vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORIOGRAPHY…………………………………. 1 2. FROM THE ARMS EMBARGO TO “CASH AND CARRY”…………………. 14 3. THE DESTROYERS-FOR-BASES DEAL……………………………………… 25 4. THE SELECTIVE SERVICE AND TRAINING ACT………………………….. 39 5. FROM “CASH AND CARRY” TO LEND-LEASE…………………………….. 48 6. ROOSEVELT DECLARES AN UNLIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY…... 57 7. THE US NAVY ENGAGES IN THE BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC…………. 73 8. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………… 97 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………103 viii 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND HISTORIOGRAPHY President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the thirty-second President of the United States, demonstrated effective leadership during the time period leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, which precipitated America’s entry into the Second World War. During this time of world crisis, Roosevelt educated the populace of the immoral character of Nazi Germany and provided meaning and understanding of the unfolding events. By doing so, FDR was able to shift public opinion concerning foreign affairs from the dominant philosophy of isolationism toward willingness to intervene in the war to protect freedom. Roosevelt was able to thus build a national consensus of increasing proportion that not only mobilized a nation morally and materially, but also allowed him to take concrete actions to confront the Hitler’s evil empire that was engulfing Europe. The President, given the prevailing attitude of the public of isolation from the problems growing in Europe, had to be circumspect with his words while working to change that attitude. An examination of his speeches and the changes in his rhetoric over the years reveals that FDR increasingly felt able to make bolder pronouncements as support for intervention grew amongst the populace. This is evident when comparing two speeches Roosevelt gave one year apart. On October 30, 1940, Roosevelt gave a speech in Boston during his campaign for a third term as President of the United States, a few weeks after initiating the first peacetime draft in American history. Roosevelt felt he needed to alleviate the fear in many American’s minds that he would dispatch an 2 expeditionary force of American soldiers fight in Europe in like manner as President Wilson had done during the First World War. Roosevelt took the opportunity during his speech to promise otherwise, stating, “Mothers and fathers, I give you one assurance. Your boys are not going to be sent to any foreign wars.”1 FDR communicated the message that his policies at the time were not intended to lead the nation into direct armed conflict. Only one year later, Roosevelt appeared to reverse his stated policy, utilizing more strident and forceful rhetoric. In a Navy Day speech that he gave on October 27, 1941, Roosevelt made reference to a recent incident that had taken place in the North Atlantic. A German U-boat had torpedoed an American warship, the destroyer Kearny. The President artfully listed the home states of the sailors who had been killed or wounded. Roosevelt then declared, “America has been attacked…. We do not propose to take this lying down…. [I have given] orders to the American Navy to ‘shoot on sight.’”2 The President, having established significant support among the electorate for energetic endeavors to confront Nazism, felt he could speak of more bold action than he felt possible the year previously. The apparent shift by Roosevelt toward active belligerency was not in response to any sudden world event that radically altered the security situation, but rather it was the result of his deepening understanding over an extended period of time of the necessity for the United States to take strong measures to insure the preservation of freedom in a world 1 Cited in Samuel I. Rosenman, ed, Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, vol. 1940 (New York: Macmillan, 1941), 517. 2 Cited in Public Papers and Addresses, vol. 1941, 438-441. 3 where the forces of tyranny were advancing, both in Europe and in Asia. Roosevelt needed to prepare the nation for war, not only in the military and industrial sectors, but also more significantly by preparing the hearts and minds of the American people to understand and accept the challenge of another world war. The hurdle that Roosevelt had to overcome was the divisive nature that the First World War had on public opinion. Initially, Americans viewed the participation of the American Expeditionary Force in battle against the German invaders in France as triumphant, that victory in defense of Western democracies was worth the expense of lives and dollars. But by the 1930s, the public became disillusioned with World War as the realization set in that it did not live up to President Wilson’s extravagant war aims. The world was not made “safe for democracy,” nor did the First World War prove to be the “war to end all wars.” Even though the empires associated with the defeated Central Powers collapsed, along with the Russian empire; France and Great Britain increased their imperial holdings. Japan, as a result of its participation on the side of the Entente, embarked on the beginning of imperial expansion. A U.S. Senate committee, chaired by Senator Gerald Nye, set out to prove that the real reason leading the United States into the Great War was not in defense of lofty ideals, but to enhance war profiteering by the banking sector and the munitions manufacturers.3 Major newspapers across the country covered the Nye committee investigations. An example is found under the New York Times headline, “Issue of War Profits Now Taking Form.”4 By the late 1930s, a significant portion of the public felt that American lives were wasted for no good cause 3 Robert E.