Hello and welcome to part 2 of our short series on Radio and the Great Debate over U.S. Involvement in World War II, by Mark S. Byrnes. As we said in part 1, Mark painstakingly documents the many Americans who made their cases for the intervention and anti-intervention sides of the argument between September 1939 and December 6, 1941, when the Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii settled the question.
His main focus is disproving the established anti-interventionist (“isolationist”) claim that the interventionists got special treatment–more time on the air, and support from a Democratic-controlled Congress that did whatever the popular and clearly interventionist Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, said to do. Both sides got equal time, and both sides made points that resonated with Americans.
In part 1 we covered the first argument in the anti-interventionist side of the debate: the wishful thinking Americans engaged in that the war could be won without them. Now in part 2, we look at the second, even more alarming argument against going to war: that the U.S. could manage living in a world where fascism had conquered Europe and Asia.
We should make up our minds that we probably have to live in a world with Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler… Let us not undertake to police the world. Let us come home and stay home.
–Senator Arthur Capper (R-KS), “Let Us Keep Out of Foreign Wars,” February 7, 1941 radio address
By February 1941, the U.S. was sending weapons and ships to Great Britain under the Lend-Lease Act. As Mark says, “the logic of the argument behind Lend-Lease was that a German victory was unacceptable and that the U.S. should act to prevent that outcome.” And, as we said in part 1, most Americans agreed that the U.S. must act, and approved Lend-Lease. But the anti-interventionist side knew well that many of those Americans only wanted to act short of sending soldiers and nurses and other personnel to the battlefields in Europe, Asia, and Africa. “Acting” could not extend that far–to declaring war. The U.S. should fund Great Britain’s soldiers, not send its own.
All the same, even those Americans felt less and less sure that this was really possible. With the fascists advancing on every front, it seemed like they might well win the war. Then how could the U.S. be safe?
The anti-interventionsts attacked this in two ways: first, they pressed the idea that the U.S. couldn’t begin to fight for democracy and justice abroad until it had completely offered it at home. Tell “the sharecroppers, the Oakies, the Negroes, the slumdwellers, downtrodden and oppressed for gain” that America had the right to send soldiers to fight abroad for democracy, said Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, in a radio address on January 23, 1941. “If we would change the face of the earth, we must first change our own hearts.” [133]
True enough… sort of… but what’s the timeframe on that? How long would changing Americans’ own hearts take? And couldn’t a powerful nation like the U.S. do both at once? Perhaps fighting overseas for democracy would have an important impact on American domestic policy. Waiting until you are perfect to act in the name of justice is a formula–or, to be more blunt, an excuse–for never acting, at home OR abroad. It’s a recipe for maintaining the status quo.
Former president Theodore Roosevelt’s son Theodore made a variation on this theme in a speech on February 16, 1941, saying that Americans “can serve our people and the world best by keeping alive in this country free democracy…” [137] Those are the key words: alive in this country. As long as America is free and democratic, the idea goes, we’re safe and will never change, so really, what do we have to worry about? Europe is a permanent mess, the argument went–they just had one devastating war and now they’re in another. No one can help them until they help themselves. And Asia was never democratic, and never will be, they continued. Needless to say, most American commentators never even mentioned Africa. The only place where the U.S. can assure democracy is the U.S., the anti-interventionists began to say. And that’s all we really need. We don’t need the rest of the world to be democratic.
As Mark puts it, “Well-meaning Americans, understandably fearful of fighting yet another world war, were being lulled into a false sense of security by demagogues who assured them that America and its democratic values could somehow not only survive but even prosper in an Axis-controlled world.” [187]
On January 9, 1941, the radio debate “Is a Hitler Defeat Essential to the United States?” was held between Dean Acheson (interventionist) and Verne Marshall (anti-interventionist). Yes, you saw that title correctly.
“The time has come to decide once and for all if it is essential to us that Hitler be defeated” was the statement of the Problem. Here are the Three Questions to be debated:
- Could we cooperate peacefully with a victorious Hitler?
- Would there be immediate danger of Hitler successfully attacking us?
- Would his victory give so much encouragement to totalitarian forces abroad and at home as to make them dangerous? [244]
The debate was hardly carried out, as Verne was immediately and consistently booed and shouted over by the live studio audience. But we don’t really need to hear the debate to choke over the Problem and the Questions, which basically have the premise that as long as the U.S. is not invaded, and can still make money through global trade, what does it matter who runs what other nation? As long as we’re okay politically and economically, let the chips fall. Hitler, after all, would probably be open to trade with the U.S. to recover from the war; why alienate a potential market?
It’s shocking to know this argument was presented by Americans to Americans. This argument was not about justice or weighing the value of lives lost. It was about making money at all costs, and claiming that democracy would be unharmed in a nation that made friends with fascism. Notice the language in Question 3–that a Hitler victory would encourage totalitarians at home as well as abroad. Those Americans who supported Hitler, or disliked even the half-way democracy in America that allowed black people to vote and ended slavery, would naturally strengthen and grow if the U.S. partnered with fascists. There is no democracy at home for a nation that won’t fight for democracy abroad. Refusing to fight to support democracy abroad means you don’t really care about fighting for democracy at home.
Next time: the final argument against intervention
The Historic Present 
One thought on “Let us stay home: WWII and wishful thinking, part 2”