For Roosevelt, entry into WWII was complicated by the Neutrality Acts, the fact that he was in an election year, and a few very public isolationists (Charles Lindbergh, Sen. Gerald P. Nye and Father Charles Coughlin).
NEUTRALITY ACTS
The four Neutrality Acts of the late 1930s represented an effort to keep the United States out of "foreign" wars, an effort resulting in part from widespread questioning of the reasons for and results of America's participation in World War I. These laws, unlike U.S. policy in 1916-1917, limited the exercise of neutral rights as a way of protecting that neutrality. A characteristic of the acts was that they made no distinction between aggressor and victim; both sides were simply characterized as "belligerents."
The first Neutrality Act (August 1935), passed after Italy's attack on Ethiopia in May 1935, empowered the president, on finding a state of war, to declare an embargo on arms shipments to the belligerents and to announce that U.S. citizens traveling on belligerents' ships did so at their own risk. This act set no limits, however, on trade in materials useful for war, such as copper, steel, and oil. The 1935 act was replaced by the Neutrality Act of 1936 (February 29), which added a prohibition on extending loans or credits to belligerents.
The Spanish civil war, which broke out in July 1936, was not covered by existing neutrality legislation, which applied only to wars between nations; accordingly, Congress by joint resolution on January 6, 1937, forbade supplying arms to either side. When the 1936 law expired, the Neutrality Act of 1937 (May 1) included civil wars, empowered the president to add strategic materials to the embargo list, and made travel by U.S. citizens on belligerents' ships unlawful. The practical difficulties of maintaining neutrality became clear, however, when Japan's incursions into China led to the outbreak of fighting there on July 7, 1937. Since invoking the Neutrality Act would penalize China, which was more dependent than Japan on American assistance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose not to identify the fighting as a state of war.
The Neutrality Act of 1939 (November 4) contained a "cash and carry" formula devised by Bernard M. Baruch. Belligerents were again permitted to buy American arms and strategic materials, but they had to pay cash and to transport the goods in their own ships. This provision, it was believed, would prevent the United States from being drawn into war either by holding debt in some belligerent countries or by violating blockades while transporting supplies. In addition, the president was empowered to designate a "combat zone" in time of war, through which American citizens and ships were forbidden to travel.
On November 17, 1941, after repeated confrontations with German submarines in the North Atlantic and the torpedoing of the destroyer Reuben James, Congress amended the act to permit merchant vessels to arm themselves and to carry cargoes to belligerent ports. But three weeks later, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States was at war.
I found the above info here:
http://college.hmco.com/history/readers ... lityac.htm
To date, I have found nothing that indicates that Roosevelt was trying to maximize profit to the U.S. at the risk of a Nazi dominated Europe. The reason I say Roosevelt instead of America is that in a capitalist society there will always be those try to profit.
Share This Page:
WW II thoughts.
Snib,
Mrs. Frank S. has provided you a very good answer to your question regarding the issue of the US trying to profit from WW2.
In answer to your other comment, I don't want to trivialize this thread by arguing over something as insignificant as an episode of Friends but if you do a Google search, you will find out where this particular episode was filmed. Again, let me remind you that Friends should in no way be used as a barometer to measure the average American's political or historical viewpoints. You will be much better informed of the views across the pond if you stay away from Hollywood.
Mrs. Frank S. has provided you a very good answer to your question regarding the issue of the US trying to profit from WW2.
In answer to your other comment, I don't want to trivialize this thread by arguing over something as insignificant as an episode of Friends but if you do a Google search, you will find out where this particular episode was filmed. Again, let me remind you that Friends should in no way be used as a barometer to measure the average American's political or historical viewpoints. You will be much better informed of the views across the pond if you stay away from Hollywood.
-
Wholley
- Guest
OO-er.
You people are much smarter than me,
so I'll just bugger off back to Viz online and converse with the fat slags.
Seven and Spanners,your both wrong about the development of the so called Packard Merlin,a relative of mine was in Detroit late 1939.
A British Rolls Royce engineer he was working with Packard in their R&D
Dept.
So my point is still relevant.
If you've forgotten,the point I was trying to get across was that Great Britain was not alone at the outbreak of WW11.
He retired from RR and now lives in New London VT where he plays with model aircraft.
Wholley.
You people are much smarter than me,
so I'll just bugger off back to Viz online and converse with the fat slags.
Seven and Spanners,your both wrong about the development of the so called Packard Merlin,a relative of mine was in Detroit late 1939.
A British Rolls Royce engineer he was working with Packard in their R&D
Dept.
So my point is still relevant.
If you've forgotten,the point I was trying to get across was that Great Britain was not alone at the outbreak of WW11.
He retired from RR and now lives in New London VT where he plays with model aircraft.
Wholley.
-
Spannerman
- Member
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
- Location: East Anglia
Whilst I have to give the Americans their due, they helped us in our hour of need in two World Wars, that will be forever imprinted in my memory that a lot of Americans laid down their lives so that others may survive.
But, I have to say that I do think they are very insular in their perfunctory ways, as long as 'its not in my back yard' no one seems to give a damn. The war on terror was quickly seized upon and Afghanistan bore the brunt of 9/11, that I accept, Iraq invasion I cannot. I understand the support the USA gives to Israel, not that I condone the heavy handed way it is enforced though.
One could argue until the next blue moon comes along whether our support from the UK to the USA in the war on terror has eased or worsened our situation, like Australia/Britain and the Bali bombing, the UK Embassy deaths in Istanbul, the Spanish deaths in Madrid.
The USA would never accept Russian ICB missiles in Cuba on the Americans doorstep but it was always OK for the Americans to have Nukes stationed at Incirlik in Turkey, is that hypocrisy?
The USA only helped us in a limited way with the recapture of the Falklands, with the purchase of Sidewinder missiles and satintel info. We even had to ask permission to use Wideawake Airfield on OUR Island of Ascension as a forward supply base and a refuelling stopover, without it we would have been bandjaxed. Do we have to give similar permission for the USA to use their base at Diego Garcia for bombing the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan from OUR archipelago, I don't know. But the Americans never asked our permission to invade Grenada when a new Communist regime was building a huge runway on our Island.
Pre 9/11 I wonder what Dubya's views on Northern Ireland were, were these Republican people terrorists or freedom fighters? Would he have taken any action if the problems were still ongoing?
Too many questions, never enough answers, I still know which side my bread is buttered though!
But, I have to say that I do think they are very insular in their perfunctory ways, as long as 'its not in my back yard' no one seems to give a damn. The war on terror was quickly seized upon and Afghanistan bore the brunt of 9/11, that I accept, Iraq invasion I cannot. I understand the support the USA gives to Israel, not that I condone the heavy handed way it is enforced though.
One could argue until the next blue moon comes along whether our support from the UK to the USA in the war on terror has eased or worsened our situation, like Australia/Britain and the Bali bombing, the UK Embassy deaths in Istanbul, the Spanish deaths in Madrid.
The USA would never accept Russian ICB missiles in Cuba on the Americans doorstep but it was always OK for the Americans to have Nukes stationed at Incirlik in Turkey, is that hypocrisy?
The USA only helped us in a limited way with the recapture of the Falklands, with the purchase of Sidewinder missiles and satintel info. We even had to ask permission to use Wideawake Airfield on OUR Island of Ascension as a forward supply base and a refuelling stopover, without it we would have been bandjaxed. Do we have to give similar permission for the USA to use their base at Diego Garcia for bombing the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan from OUR archipelago, I don't know. But the Americans never asked our permission to invade Grenada when a new Communist regime was building a huge runway on our Island.
Pre 9/11 I wonder what Dubya's views on Northern Ireland were, were these Republican people terrorists or freedom fighters? Would he have taken any action if the problems were still ongoing?
Too many questions, never enough answers, I still know which side my bread is buttered though!
-
Spannerman
- Member
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
- Location: East Anglia
Yep Wholley I was wrong with the date not 1944, 1942 was the date as per the first website that came up on GOOGLE re Packard/Rolls Royce Merlin engines:-wholley wrote:OO-er.
Seven and Spanners,your both wrong about the development of the so called Packard Merlin,a relative of mine was in Detroit late 1939.
A British Rolls Royce engineer he was working with Packard in their R&D
Dept.
So my point is still relevant.
Wholley.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng33.htm
There where many things that America did for us that are tucked away and out of sight, the supply of high octane fuel for our fighters made a great deal of diference to the war in the air. Let alone a large number of aircraft that we purchased, lets face it the Army lost nearly all it's kit in France, when the French Arny collapsed. Again not the French Armies fault but lack of spending on modern kit just as the French Air Force was hampered by the lack of modern aircraft as their government had spent all the cash on the Magiont line. It was through all this purchase of military kit by Britain that put American factories on a war footing. I have seen the P51 mentioned a few times on this thread, but this aircraft was built for Britain on specifications laid down by Britain. Now what stopped it being a great fighter from the start was that America had only one inline engine [water cooled] as they went in for the big radial engines [air cooled] which would take more punishnent. It was until some one got around to replacing it with a Merlin that it's true worth was found, again this was done in Britain. But rather than pick holes in one another we should be working on just what we have, and can achieve together
Surely the distinction of 'foreign' wars is misguided. Does foreign imply far away and irrelevant or simply not a civil war?
Hornet: you seem keen to stick to a slightly patronising tone, steering me gently away from Hollywood. Do you really think that I base my opinions of the US solely on the moving media? The example I stated was indicative. It indicated that an American audience cheered the statement I referred to, (if it was filmed in London they must have packed the theatre with Yanks. Impossible to get Brits to cheer like that. Trust me) and the media is a powerful medium in todays society. Therefore it often reflects the views of 'hoi polloi' in society. Why do you assume I base my opinions of the US on it? I read quality papers every day. I read books that feature many aspects of US past and present. I've been to the US and met absolutely loads of Yanks at university. One of my best friends is one. My sister read American studies at university.
May I suggest that you are a little less earnest in jumping to your conclusions about people and their motivations. A rigorous examination is often the best way to advance undestanding of a particular concept. I could happily jump into a debate that was highly critical of my own country. Could you? Just a question.
Mrs. Frank: Were the neutrality acts really relevant to such a momentous war? To my mind the concept of Britain and Germany being equal 'belligerents' is central to them yet I find it hard to accept that this could have been the US stance.
I'm not really in the know about how political motivations are recorded. Would it have been put down on paper if Roosevelt wanted to let the two sides punch themselves out?
Lastly, what plans were made in the US for a British defeat? Did they envisage a Nazi empire across the three continents like I suggested?
Hornet: you seem keen to stick to a slightly patronising tone, steering me gently away from Hollywood. Do you really think that I base my opinions of the US solely on the moving media? The example I stated was indicative. It indicated that an American audience cheered the statement I referred to, (if it was filmed in London they must have packed the theatre with Yanks. Impossible to get Brits to cheer like that. Trust me) and the media is a powerful medium in todays society. Therefore it often reflects the views of 'hoi polloi' in society. Why do you assume I base my opinions of the US on it? I read quality papers every day. I read books that feature many aspects of US past and present. I've been to the US and met absolutely loads of Yanks at university. One of my best friends is one. My sister read American studies at university.
May I suggest that you are a little less earnest in jumping to your conclusions about people and their motivations. A rigorous examination is often the best way to advance undestanding of a particular concept. I could happily jump into a debate that was highly critical of my own country. Could you? Just a question.
Mrs. Frank: Were the neutrality acts really relevant to such a momentous war? To my mind the concept of Britain and Germany being equal 'belligerents' is central to them yet I find it hard to accept that this could have been the US stance.
I'm not really in the know about how political motivations are recorded. Would it have been put down on paper if Roosevelt wanted to let the two sides punch themselves out?
Lastly, what plans were made in the US for a British defeat? Did they envisage a Nazi empire across the three continents like I suggested?
-
Mrs. Frank S.
- Guest
Snib, I'll try to anwer as best I am able.
A foreign was is described as any war fought against a foreign county.
The Congress passed the Neutrality Act and President Roosevely signed it into law August 31, 1935. It was passed for a 6-month period, but Congress continued to renew it. Thus the Act is generally referred to in the plural as the Neutrality Acts. It was first invoked against Italy when Musolini invaded Ethiopia (1936). As war loomed in Europe, a September 23, 1938, Gallup poll showed 73 prcent of Americans were in favor of maintaining a mandatory arms embargo. A Douglas DB-7 bomber crashed in California pn January 23, 1939. When it was revealed that a Frenchman injured, press reports reveal that FDR planed to sell advanced U.S. aircraft to England and France. One journalist charged that the U.S. frontier was now "on the Rhine". Administration attempts to change provision of the Neutrality Acts run into Congressionl opposition, but public opinion polls show that American public opinion was beginning to change in 1939. FDR invoked 1937 Neutrality Law on September 5, 1938 after Germany invades Poland and England and France declared war on Germany. This meant American arms could not be shipped to the Allies as was done in World War I.
Roosevelt did what he could but his attempts to change the Act were hampered by Congress. In addition, there was another problem he had to deal with. We were not ready for mobilization early on. Rather than "cut and paste" I'll post the link. It's a bit long, but well worth the read.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/mobpam.htm
As to American sentiment, remember that what you are getting from TV and newspapers is just that, news. The only way most people wind up in the news is via protest, tv shows, etc. There are a LOT of other people like me who never express an opinion in the public eye. While they may speak for a few, they do not speak for the rest of us...and the "rest of us" is a rather large number.
A foreign was is described as any war fought against a foreign county.
The Congress passed the Neutrality Act and President Roosevely signed it into law August 31, 1935. It was passed for a 6-month period, but Congress continued to renew it. Thus the Act is generally referred to in the plural as the Neutrality Acts. It was first invoked against Italy when Musolini invaded Ethiopia (1936). As war loomed in Europe, a September 23, 1938, Gallup poll showed 73 prcent of Americans were in favor of maintaining a mandatory arms embargo. A Douglas DB-7 bomber crashed in California pn January 23, 1939. When it was revealed that a Frenchman injured, press reports reveal that FDR planed to sell advanced U.S. aircraft to England and France. One journalist charged that the U.S. frontier was now "on the Rhine". Administration attempts to change provision of the Neutrality Acts run into Congressionl opposition, but public opinion polls show that American public opinion was beginning to change in 1939. FDR invoked 1937 Neutrality Law on September 5, 1938 after Germany invades Poland and England and France declared war on Germany. This meant American arms could not be shipped to the Allies as was done in World War I.
Roosevelt did what he could but his attempts to change the Act were hampered by Congress. In addition, there was another problem he had to deal with. We were not ready for mobilization early on. Rather than "cut and paste" I'll post the link. It's a bit long, but well worth the read.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/mobpam.htm
As to American sentiment, remember that what you are getting from TV and newspapers is just that, news. The only way most people wind up in the news is via protest, tv shows, etc. There are a LOT of other people like me who never express an opinion in the public eye. While they may speak for a few, they do not speak for the rest of us...and the "rest of us" is a rather large number.
-
Frank S.
- Guest
), her IQ's higher than mine and she reads a hell of a lot more.... 
-
Frank S.
- Guest
-
Wholley
- Guest
Frank.
As this thread has already been hi-jacked,
I figured I'd put in my 2cents worth.
My wife aka "She Who Must Be Obeyed"is much smarter than me.
She is always aware when I don't get out of my grot and mow,if she catches me reading I'm in the deep stuff as I should be doing outside stuff.
Of course when she sleeps for 24 hours thats fine.
I detect a double standard here,but God forbid if I mention it.
Wholley.
Return to thread.
As this thread has already been hi-jacked,
I figured I'd put in my 2cents worth.
My wife aka "She Who Must Be Obeyed"is much smarter than me.
She is always aware when I don't get out of my grot and mow,if she catches me reading I'm in the deep stuff as I should be doing outside stuff.
Of course when she sleeps for 24 hours thats fine.
I detect a double standard here,but God forbid if I mention it.
Wholley.
Return to thread.
