FDR's efforts in USA political arena to provide arms to democratic Britain & France in response to Hitler led Nazi Germany's military aggression in Europe in 1938 & 1939; Isolationists in USA who opposed FDR
The book: FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt) by Jean Edward Smith (referred to as FDR book in this post) gives an account of how dire the situation had become in Europe for democracy and freedom loving people due to the aggression of Hitler starting from 1938.
Initially, most people in USA did not want USA to get involved in the war directly. Some wanted to be neutral while some supported Britain and France (democracies) in their fight against Hitler's aggression in Europe that was able to conquer many small European countries in a short span of time.
As president of USA, FDR was against Hitler right from the initial aggression that Hitler showed with his annexation of Austria on 11th March 1938. But he was opposed by isolationists in USA who wanted to be completely neutral.
FDR's second term was to end in early 1941 with the president election to be held in November 1940. As per the book, FDR had planned to retire after the second term (in early 1941), and had already made some arrangements about what he would be doing afterwards.
It was Hitler's aggression in Europe including his April 1940 invasion and later occupation of Norway and Denmark followed by similar invasion of Belgium, Netherlands and France, that led to FDR running for the 3rd term (and winning).
In this post, I have captured some of the relevant matters from the book and other sources for the years 1938 & 1939. A later post is planned to capture FDR's efforts in 1940 till he ran for re-election and won in November 1940.
* On 11th March 1938 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss gives date as 12th March 1938], Hitler annexed Austria. The Nazis justified the annexation with the slogan "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - one people, one realm, one leader! France, Britain and Italy did nothing. The League of Nations did nothing even though this annexation was against the Treaty of Versailles. Note that many Austrians were supportive of Hitler annexing Austria but there was some opposition which seems to have been brutally suppressed by the Nazis.
As per the book, FDR was critical of Britain under Chamberlain appeasing Hitler though he did not say it publicly. Privately FDR is reported to have said, "If a Chief of Police makes a deal with the leading gangsters and the deal results in no more hold-ups, that Chief of Police will be called a great man - but if the gangsters do not live up to their word the Chief of Police will go to jail."
* On 29th Sept. 1938, leaders of UK (Chamberlain), France (Daladier), Nazi Germany (Hitler) and Fascist Italy (Mussolini) signed the Munich agreement that gave Sudetenland (then part of Czechoslovakia) to Nazi Germany. The book quotes Chamberlain as saying, "How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement : "Hitler announced it was his last territorial claim in Europe, and the choice seemed to be between war and appeasement."
The book states that FDR had urged Hitler and Chamberlain to peacefully solve the matter.
* Kristallnacht, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht , happened on 9-10 November 1938 in Nazi Germany where Jewish people and their stores, homes and synagogues were attacked by rioters, with German authorities doing nothing to stop these attacks. The pretext for the attacks was the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris in 7th November 1938 by a 17-year-old German born Jew who was angered by the expulsion of Polish Jews including some of his family from Germany.
The book quotes FDR as saying (about Kristallnacht), "I myself could scarcely believe that such things could occur in a twentieth century civilization." American public opinion turned against Hitler and the Nazis. FDR called the American ambassador to Berlin, back to USA for consultations, and then the ambassador did not return to Germany.
[On 15th March 1939] German troops entered remaining Czech parts of Czechoslovakia (Rest-Tschechei in German), meeting practically no resistance (the only instance of organized resistance took place in MÃstek where an infantry company commanded by Karel PavlÃk fought invading German troops).
...
Besides violating his promises at Munich, the annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia was, unlike Hitler's previous actions, not described in Mein Kampf. After having repeatedly stated that he was interested only in pan-Germanism, the unification of ethnic Germans into one Reich, Germany had now conquered seven million Czechs. Hitler's proclamation creating the protectorate claimed that "Bohemia and Moravia have for thousands of years belonged to the Lebensraum of the German people".[21]
[Reference 21: Gunther, John (1940). Inside Europe. New York: Harper & Brothers. pp. 130–131. ]
--- end wiki extracts ---
FDR responded by trying to revise the Neutrality Act to permit sale of war material to Britain and France if war happened. FDR also appointed Brigadier General George C. Marshall as the chief of staff of the US army.
* On 23rd Aug. 1939, Nazi Germany and Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact :
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that enabled those two powers to partition Poland between them. The pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov[1] and was officially known as the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.[2][3]
Its clauses provided a written guarantee of peace by each party towards the other and a commitment that declared that neither government would ally itself to or aid an enemy of the other. In addition to the publicly-announced stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included the Secret Protocol, which defined the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence across Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland.
[References:
1. Zabecki, David (2014). Germany at war : 400 years of military history. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC. p. 536. ISBN 978-1-59884-981-3.
2. "Faksimile Nichtangriffsvertrag zwischen Deutschland und der Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken, 23. August 1939 / Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (BSB, München)". 1000dokumente.de. Retrieved 14 March 2020.
3. Ronen, Yaël (19 May 2011). Transition from Illegal Regimes under International Law. Cambridge University Press. pp. xix. ISBN 978-1-139-49617-9. ]
--- end wiki extracts ---
* On 1st Sept. 1939, Germany invaded Poland. As per the book, FDR was awakened at 2.50 A.M. Washington time by a phone call by US ambassador in Paris, France who conveyed the message of US ambassador in Warsaw, Poland that the war had begun. FDR said, "Well, Bill, it has come at last. .. God help us all".
In a meeting with the press on the same day just before noon, FDR was asked, "Can we stay out of this?" FDR responded: "I not only sincerely hope so but I believe we can and every effort will be made by this Administration so to do."
FDR later told his cabinet: "Unless some miracle beyond our present grasp changes the hearts of men the days ahead will be crowded days - crowded with the same problems, the same anxieties that filled to the brim those September days of 1914. For history does in fact repeat."
On 3rd September Britain declared war on Germany and France followed a few hours later. Afterwards on the night of the same day, 3rd September 1939, FDR said to the USA nation in his fireside chat: "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 his conscience."
FDR moved to attempt to repeal the Neutrality Act which prohibited USA from providing arms and war materials to any parties in a war, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_the_1930s .
Isolationist opposition arose to this attempt of FDR. The FDR book says that Senator Borah of Idaho argued against USA selling arms to European countries as "that would be the first step to active intervention".
Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator, addressed the US nation over radio on 15th Sept. 1939, whose audience was said to at least match FDR's address to USA nation on 3rd Sept. He argued against providing arms to Britain and France, thereby going against FDR. His full address is available here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/1939-09-15a.html . Some extracts from it are given below.
We must band together to prevent the loss of more American lives in these internal struggles of Europe. We must keep foreign propaganda from pushing our country blindly into another war. Modern war with all its consequences is too tragic and too devastating to be approached from anything but a purely American standpoint. We should never enter a war unless it is absolutely essential to the future welfare of our nation.
...
Now that war has broken out again we in America have a decision to make on which the destiny of our nation depends. We must decide whether or not we intend to become forever involved in this age-old struggle between the nations of Europe.
Let us not delude ourselves. If we enter the quarrels of Europe during war, we must stay in them in time of peace as well. It is madness to send our soldiers to be killed as we did in the last war if we turn the course of peace over to the greed, the fear and the intrigue of European nations. We must either keep out of European wars entirely or stay in European affairs permanently.
In making our decision, this point should be clear: These wars in Europe are not wars in which our civilization is defending itself against some Asiatic intruder. There is no Genghis Khan nor Xerxes marching against our Western nations. This is not a question of banding together to defend the white race against foreign invasion. This is simply one more of those age-old struggles within our own family of nations—a quarrel arising from the errors of the last war— from the failure of the victors of that war to follow a consistent policy either of fairness or of force.
...
If we enter fighting for democracy abroad we may end by losing it at home.
...
And if Europe is again prostrated by war, as she has been so often in the past, then the greatest hope for our Western civilization lies in America. By staying out of war ourselves, we may even bring peace to Europe more quickly.
--- end Lindbergh speech extracts ---
So isolationism sentiment was strong in USA and wanted to stop FDR from giving arms to Britain and France in their fight against Germany.
[Of course, Lindbergh's speech even in USA context has to be viewed as racist, given African-American as well as Native American populations of USA are not of the white race. But perhaps such white superiority-racism was acceptable in most of USA then. However, I wonder about Kristalnacht and the general oppression of Jews in Nazi Germany that had become well established by then? His speech made no references to that at all! That showed a remarkable lack of fair judgement in Lindbergh's speech.]
* On 17th Sept. 1939, Soviet Union invaded Poland resulting in a very difficult situation for Poland. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
The Soviet invasion of Poland was a military operation by the Soviet Union without a formal declaration of war. On 17 September 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east, sixteen days after Germany invaded Poland from the west. Subsequent military operations lasted for the following 20 days and ended on 6 October 1939 with the two-way division and annexation of the entire territory of the Second Polish Republic by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.[7]
[Reference 7: Gross, Jan Tomasz (2002). Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-09603-1 pp. 17–18]
--- end wiki extract ---
The entire country of Poland got divided between the two invaders with the whole operation taking slightly over a month! And this happened in the 20th century! I think such history must not be forgotten so that people are aware of the dangers of history repeating itself.
FDR settled for trying to only lift the arms embargo and selling arms to Britain and France on "cash-and-carry" basis and seemed to get bipartisan support for it. He made a powerful speech to US Congress on 21st Sept. 1939, whose full text is available here: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/address-delivered-by-president-roosevelt-to-the-congress/ . An extract from that speech is given below:
Our next deviation by statute from the sound principles of neutrality and peace through international law did not come for 130 years. It was the so-called Neutrality Act of 1935-only 4 years ago-an act continued in force by the joint resolution of May 1, 1937, despite grave doubts expressed as to its wisdom by many Senators and Representatives and by officials charged with the conduct of our foreign relations, including myself. I regret that the act. I regret equally that I signed that act.
On July fourteenth of this year I asked the Congress in the cause of peace and in the interest of real American neutrality and to take action to change that act.
I now ask again that such action be taken in respect to of the act which is wholly inconsistent with ancient precepts of the law of nations-the embargo provisions. I ask it because they are, in my opinion, most vitally dangerous to American neutrality, American security, and American peace.
I seek a greater consistency through the repeal of the embargo provisions and a return to international law. I seek reenactment of the historic and traditional American policy which, except for the disastrous interlude of the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts, has served us well for nearly a century and a half. It has been erroneously said that return to that policy might bring us nearer to war. I give to you my deep and unalterable conviction, based on years of experience as a worker in the field of international peace, that by the repeal of the embargo the United States will more probably remain at peace than if the law remains as it stands today[.] I say this because with the repeal of the embargo this Government clearly and definitely will insist that American citizens and American ships keep away from the immediate perils of the actual zones of conflict.
Repeal of the embargo and a return to international law are the crux of this issue.
To those who say that this program would involve a step toward war on our part, I reply that it offers far greater safeguards than we now possess or have ever possessed to protect American lives and property from danger. It is a positive program for giving safety. This means less likelihood of incidents and controversies which tend to draw us into conflict, as they did in the last World War. There lies the road to peace!
I should like to be able to offer the hope that the shadow over the world might swiftly pass. I cannot. The facts compel my stating, with candor, that darker periods may lie ahead. The disaster is not of our making; no act of ours engendered the forces which assault the foundations of civilization. Yet we find ourselves affected to the core; our currents of commerce are changing, our minds are filled with new problems, our position in world affairs has already been altered.
In such circumstances our policy must be to appreciate in the deepest sense the true American interest. Rightly considered, this interest is not selfish. Destiny first made us, with our sister nations on this hemisphere, joint heirs of European culture. Fate seems now to compel us to assume the task of helping to maintain in the western world a citadel wherein that civilization may be kept alive. The peace, the integrity, and the safety of the Americas-these must be kept firm and serene. In a period when it is sometimes said that free discussion is no longer compatible with national safety, may you by your deeds show the world that we of the United States are one people, of one mind, one spirit, one clear resolution, walking before God in the light of the living.
--- end extracts from FDR speech to US Congress on 21st Sept. 1939 ---
As per the FDR book, the above speech was received with approval among the public at large and in US Congress. On Sept. 28th the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to bring the ("cash-and-carry") bill removing the arms embargo on cash-and-carry basis, to the US Senate floor. On the same day, the Polish army in Warsaw surrendered to the Germans! The German army entered Warsaw on October 1st, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Warsaw_(1939).
Poland falling to Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, led former Secretary of State under Herbert Hoover from March 1929 to March 1933, Henry Stimson, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Stimson, to publicly say (as per FDR book), "Britain and France are now fighting a battle which, in the event of their losing, will become our battle." Stimson's speech was well received and some other political and religious leaders in USA spoke in favour of lifting the arms embargo.
But, before the Senate vote for repealing the arms embargo, on October 13th Lindbergh made another radio address to US nation arguing against USA supplying arms to Britain and France. Here's the text of that speech: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/1939-10-13a.html .
Some extracts from it are given below:
TONIGHT I speak again to the people of this country who are opposed to the United States entering the war which is now going on in Europe. We are faced with the need of deciding on a policy of American neutrality. The future of our nation and of our civilization rests upon the wisdom and foresight we use.
...
Let us give no one the impression that America's love for peace means that she is afraid of war, or that we are not fully capable and willing to defend all that is vital to us. National life and influence depend upon national strength, both in character and in arms. A neutrality built on pacifism alone will eventually fail.
...
Let us give no promises we cannot keep, make no meaningless assurances to an Ethiopia, a Czecho-Slovakia or a Poland. The policy we decide upon should be as clear cut as our shore lines and as easily defended as our continent.
This Western Hemisphere is our domain. It is our right to trade freely within it. From Alaska to Labrador, from the Hawaiian Islands to Bermuda, from Canada to South America, we must allow no invading army to set foot.
These are the outposts of the United States. They form the essential outline of our geographical defense. We must be ready to wage war with all the resources of our nation if they are ever seriously threatened. Their defense is the mission of our army, our navy and our air corps—the minimum requirement of our military strength.
...
Our Congress is now assembled to decide upon the best policy for this country to maintain during the war which is going on in Europe. The legislation under discussion involves three major issues—the embargo of arms, the restriction of shipping and the allowance of credit.
The action we take in regard to these issues will be an important indication to ourselves, and to the nations of Europe, whether or not we are likely to enter the conflict eventually, as we did in the last war. The entire world is watching us. The action we take in America may either stop or precipitate this war.
Let us take up these issues, one at a time, and examine them. First, the embargo of arms: It is argued that the repeal of this embargo would assist democracy in Europe, that it would let us make a profit for ourselves from the sale of munitions abroad, and, at the same time, help to build up our own arms industry.
I do not believe that repealing the arms embargo would assist democracy in Europe, because I do not believe this is a war for democracy. This is a war over the balance of power in Europe—a war brought about by the desire for strength on the part of Germany and the fear of strength on the part of England and France.
The more munitions the armies obtain, the longer the war goes on, and the more devastated Europe becomes, the less hope there is for democracy.
That is a lesson we should have learned from our participation in the last war. If democratic principles had been applied in Europe after that war, if the "democracies" of Europe had been willing to make some sacrifices to help democracy in Europe while it was fighting for its life, if England and France had offered a hand to the struggling republic of Germany, there would be no war today.
If we repeal the arms embargo with the idea of assisting one of the warring sides to overcome the other, then why mislead ourselves by talk of neutrality?
Those who advance this argument should admit openly that repeal is a step toward war. The next step would be the extension of credit, and the next would be the sending of American troops.
To those who argue that we could make a profit and build up our own industry by selling munitions abroad I reply that we in America have not yet reached a point where we wish to capitalize on the destruction and death of war.
I do not believe that the material welfare of this country needs, or that our spiritual welfare could withstand, such a policy.
If our industry depends upon a commerce of arms for its strength then our industrial system should be changed. It is impossible for me to understand how America can contribute to civilization and humanity by sending offensive instruments of destruction to European battlefields. This would not only implicate us in the war, but it would also make us partly responsible for its devastation.
The fallacy of helping to defend a political ideology, even though it be somewhat similar to our own, was clearly demonstrated to us in the last war. Through our help that war was won, but neither the democracy nor the justice for which we fought grew in the peace that followed our victory.
Our bond with Europe is a bond of race and not of political ideology. We had to fight a European army to establish democracy in this country. It is the European race we must preserve; political progress will follow.
Racial strength is vital—politics, a luxury. If the white race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction.
Let us not dissipate our strength or help Europe to dissipate hers in these wars of politics and possession. For the benefit of Western civilization we should continue our embargo on offensive armaments.
As far as purely defensive arms are concerned, I, for one, am in favor of supplying European countries with as much as we can spare of the material that falls within this category.
There are technicians who will argue that offensive and defensive arms cannot be separated completely. That is true, but it is no more difficult to make a list of defensive weapons than it is to separate munitions of war from semi-manufactured articles, and we are faced with that problem today.
...
The United States of America is a democracy. The policy of our country is still controlled by our people. It is time for us to take action. There has never been a greater test for the democratic principle of government.
--- end extracts from Oct. 13th 1939 Charles Lindbergh radio address ---
Lindbergh clearly was trying to get the public to force US Congress to reject the bill lifting the arms embargo! FDR was facing tough resistance from Lindbergh and his radio addresses to US nation!
[I repeat what I wrote earlier in this post in context of another speech of Lindbergh: Of course, Lindbergh's speech even in USA context has to be viewed as racist, given African-American as well as Native American populations of USA are not of the white race. But perhaps such white superiority-racism was acceptable in most of USA then.]
On 26th Oct. 1939 FDR gave a radio address to the New York Herald Tribune Forum. It's full text is available here: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/radio-address-the-new-york-herald-tribune-forum-0 . Extracts from it are given below:
From the end of the World War twenty-one years ago, this country, like many others, went through a phase of having large groups of people carried away by some emotion—some alluring, attractive, even speciously inspiring, public presentation of a nostrum, a cure-all. Many Americans lost their heads because several plausible fellows lost theirs in expounding schemes to end barbarity, to give weekly handouts to people, to give everybody a better job- or, more modestly, for example, to put a chicken or two in every pot—all by adoption of some new financial plan or some new social system. And all of them burst like bubbles.
Some proponents of nostrums were honest and sincere, others -too many of them- were seekers of personal power; still others saw a chance to get rich on the dimes and quarters of the poorer people in our population. All of them, perhaps unconsciously, were capitalizing on the fact that the democratic form of Government works slowly. There always exists in a democratic society a large group which, quite naturally, champs at the bit over the slowness of democracy; and that is why it is right for us who believe in democracy to keep the democratic processes progressive—in other words, moving forward with the advances in civilization. That is why it is dangerous for democracy to stop moving forward because any period of stagnation increases the numbers of those who demand action and action now.
There are, therefore, two distinct dangers to democracy. There is the peril from those who seek the fulfillment of fine ideals at a pace that is too fast for the machinery of the modern body politic to function—people who by insistence on too great speed foster an oligarchic form of Government such as Communism, or Naziism or Fascism.
The other group which presents an equal danger, is composed of that small minority which complains that the democratic processes are inefficient as well as being too slow, people who would have the whole of Government put into the hands of a little group of those who have proved their efficiency in lines of specialized science or specialized private business, but who do not see the picture as a whole. They equally, and in most cases unconsciously too, are in effect advocating the oligarchic form of Government—Communism, or Naziism or Fascism.
Extreme Rightists and extreme Leftists ought not to be taken out by us and shot against the wall, for they sharpen the argument, and make us realize the value of the democratic middle course—especially if that middle course, in order to keep up with the times, is, and I quote what I have said before, "just a little bit left of center."
...
Because the country is so profoundly interested in the world situation today, I do want to leave with you one thought bearing on international relations. I make bold to do this because the topic of this evening's discussion, as I understand it, is "The War's Challenge to the United States."
In and out of Congress we have heard orators and commentators and others beating their breasts and proclaiming against sending the boys of American mothers to fight on the battlefields of Europe. That I do not hesitate to label as one of the worst fakes in current history. It is a deliberate setting up of an imaginary bogey man. The simple truth is that no person in any responsible place in the national administration in Washington, or in any State Government, or in any city Government, or in any county Government, has ever suggested in any shape, manner or form the remotest possibility of sending the boys of American mothers to fight on the battlefields of Europe. That is why I label that argument a shameless and dishonest fake.
I have not the slightest objection to make against those amateurs who, to the reading and the listening public, discourse on the inner meanings of the military and naval events of the war in Europe. They do no harm because the average citizen is acquiring rapidly the gift of discrimination—and the more all of these subjects are talked about by amateur armchair strategists the more the public will make up its own mind in the long run. The public will acquire the ability to think things through for themselves.
The fact of the international situation—the simple fact, without any bogey in it, without any appeals to prejudice—is that the United States of America, as I have said before, is neutral and does not intend to get involved in war. That we can be neutral in thought as well as in act is impossible of fulfillment because again, the people of this country, thinking things through calmly and without prejudice, have been and are making up their minds about the relative merits of current events on other continents.
It is a fact increasingly manifest that presentation of real news has sharpened the minds and the judgment of men and Women everywhere in these days of real public discussion. We Americans begin to know the difference between the truth on the one side and the falsehood on the other, no matter how often the falsehood is iterated and reiterated. Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
--- end extract from FDR address on 26th Oct. 1939 ---
The FDR book states, "Roosevelt worked both sides of the street. He held out repeal of the arms embargo as a step toward peace, while the purpose of the repeal was to aid the Allies. The implicit logic was that by helping Britain and France defeat Hitler, the United States would not have to fight."
It is very interesting to note the view of that FDR book author that FDR wanted to provide arms to Britain and France so that they will fight and defeat Hitler without the need for USA to send its men to fight Hitler! Perhaps that was what FDR really thought. But there is brutal logic in Lindbergh's speech about providing arms to one side in the war having the danger of eventually dragging US troops into that war (which is what eventually happened), even if Lindbergh was not morally right as he did not condemn the brutality of Nazi Germany against Jews and and did not condemn Nazi Germany's and Soviet Union's outright invasion and land-grab of Poland.
On 27th October 1939, the US Senate voted 63-30 to repeal the arms embargo. As per FDR book, on 2nd November 1939, the US House of Representatives voted 243-181 on the same bill. But wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_and_carry_(World_War_II) , says this bill passed the House on 5th November 1939 (not 2nd November) and that FDR signed the bill into law on same day (5th Nov.). This wiki page also says, "The purpose of this policy was to allow the Allied nations at war with Germany to purchase war materials while maintaining a semblance of neutrality for the United States. Various policies, such as the Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, and 1937, forbade selling implements of war or lending money to belligerent countries under any terms. Cash and carry ended this prohibition, while still attempting to keep U.S. interests out of the conflict. U.S. ships were forbidden from entering into conflict zones, and US passengers traveling on foreign ships were notified that they did so at their own risk."
[I thank Wikipedia, publishers & author of FDR book mentioned above, www.ibiblio.org , teachingamericanhistory.org and www.presidency.ucsb.edu , and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extract(s) from their websites and book (very small extracts from FDR book) on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment