US Neutrality Acts of the 1930s and the Lend-Lease Act

The Neutrality Acts were a series of laws enacted by the United States government between 1935 and 1939 that were intended to prevent the United States from becoming involved in foreign wars. They more-or-less succeeded until the imminent threat of World War II spurred passage of the 1941 Lend-Lease Act (H.R. 1776), which repealed several key provisions of the Neutrality Acts. Key Takeaways: Neutrality Acts and Lend-Lease The Neutrality Acts, enacted between 1935 and 1939, were intended to prevent the United States from becoming involved in foreign wars.In 1941, the threat of World War II drove passage of the Lend-Lease Act repealing key provisions of the Neutrality Acts.Championed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Lend-Lease Act authorized the transfer of U.S. arms or other war materials to Britain, France, China, the Soviet Union, and other nations threatened by the Axis powers without the requirement of monetary repayment. Isolationism Spurred the Neutrality Acts Although many Americans had supported President Woodrow Wilson’s 1917 demand that Congress help create a world â€Å"made safe for democracy† by declaring war on Germany in World War I, the Great Depression of the 1930s spurred a period of American isolationism that would persist until the nation entered World War II in 1942. Many people continued to believe that World War I had involved mainly foreign issues and that America’s entry into the bloodiest conflict in human history had mainly benefited U.S. bankers and arms dealers. These beliefs, combined with the people’s ongoing struggle to recover from the Great Depression, fueled an isolationist movement that opposed the nation’s involvement future foreign wars and financial involvement with the countries fighting in them. The Neutrality Act of 1935 By the mid-1930s, with war in Europe and Asia imminent, the U.S. Congress took action to ensure U.S. neutrality in foreign conflicts. On August 31, 1935, Congress passed the first Neutrality Act. The primary provisions of the law banned the export of â€Å"arms, ammunition, and implements of war† from the United States to any foreign nations at war and required U.S. arms makers to apply for export licenses. â€Å"Whoever, in violation of any of the provisions of this section, shall export, or attempt to export, or cause to be exported, arms, ammunition, or implements of war from the United States, or any of its possessions, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both †¦,† stated the law. The law also specified that all arms and war materials found being transported from the U.S. to any foreign nations at war, along with the â€Å"vessel, or vehicle† carrying them would be confiscated. In addition, the law placed American citizens on notice that if they attempted to travel to any foreign nation in a war zone, they did so at their own risk and should not expect any protection or intervention on their behalf from the U.S. government. On February 29, 1936, Congress amended the Neutrality Act of 1935 to prohibit individual Americans or financial institutions from loaning money to foreign nations involved in wars. While President Franklin D. Roosevelt initially opposed and considered vetoing the Neutrality Act of 1935, he signed it in the face of strong public opinion and congressional support for it.   The Neutrality Act of 1937 In 1936, the Spanish Civil War and the growing threat of fascism in Germany and Italy boosted support for further expanding the scope of the Neutrality Act. On May 1, 1937, Congress passed a joint resolution known as the Neutrality Act of 1937, which amended and made the Neutrality Act of 1935 permanent. Under the 1937 Act, U.S. Citizens were barred from traveling on any ship registered to or owned by any foreign nation involved in ​a  war. In addition, American merchant ships were forbidden from carrying arms to such â€Å"belligerent† nations, even if those arms were made outside of the United States.  The president was given the authority to ban all ships of any sort belonging to nations at war from sailing in U.S. waters. The Act also extended its prohibitions to apply to nations involved in civil wars, like the Spanish Civil War. In one concession to President Roosevelt, who had opposed the first Neutrality Act, the 1937 Neutrality Act gave the president the authority to allow nations at war to acquire materials not considered â€Å"implements of war,† such as oil and food, from the United States, provided the material was immediately paid for – in cash – and that the material was carried only on foreign ships. The so-called â€Å"cash-and-carry† provision had been promoted by Roosevelt as a way to Help Great Britain and France in their looming war against the Axis Powers. Roosevelt reasoned that only Britain and France had enough cash and cargo ships to take advantage of the â€Å"cash-and-carry† plan. Unlike other provisions of the Act, which were permanent, Congress specified that that â€Å"cash-and-carry† provision would expire in two years. The Neutrality Act of 1939 After Germany occupied Czechoslovakia in March of 1939, President Roosevelt asked Congress to renew the â€Å"cash-and-carry† provision and expand it to include arms and other materials of war. In a stinging rebuke, Congress refused to do either. As the war in Europe expanded and the Axis nations’ sphere of control spread, Roosevelt persisted, citing the Axis threat to the freedom of America’s European allies. At last, and only after lengthy debate, Congress relented and in November of 1939, enacted a final Neutrality Act, which repealed the embargo against the sale of arms and placed all trade with nations at war under the terms of â€Å"cash-and-carry.† However, the prohibition of U.S. monetary loans to belligerent nations remained in effect and U.S. ships were still prohibited from delivering goods of any kind to countries at war. The Lend-Lease Act of 1941 By late 1940, it had become unavoidably apparent to Congress that the growth of the Axis powers in Europe could eventually threaten the lives and freedom of Americans. In an effort to help the nations fighting the Axis, Congress enacted the Lend-Lease Act (H.R. 1776) in March 1941. The Lend-Lease Act authorized the President of the United States to transfer arms or other defense-related materials – subject to ​the  approval of funding by Congress – to the â€Å"government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States† at no cost to those countries. Permitting the president to send arms and war materials to Britain, France, China, the Soviet Union, and other threatened nations without payment, the Lend-Lease plan allowed the United States to support the war effort against the Axis without becoming engaged in battle. Viewing the plan as drawing America closer to war, Lend-Lease was opposed by influential isolationists, including Republican Senator Robert Taft. In debate before the Senate, Taft stated that the Act would â€Å"give the president power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the front-line trenches where the fighting is.† Among the public, opposition to Lend-Lease was led by the America First Committee. With a membership of over 800,000, including national hero Charles A. Lindbergh, America First challenged Roosevelt’s every move. Roosevelt took complete control of the program, quietly sending Sec. of Commerce Harry Hopkins, Sec. of State Edward Stettinius Jr., and diplomat W. Averell Harriman on frequent special missions to London and Moscow to coordinate Lend-Lease overseas. Still acutely aware of public sentiment for neutrality, Roosevelt saw to it that details of Lend-Lease expenditures were hidden away in the overall military budget and not allowed to become public until after the war. It is now known that a total of $50.1 billion—about $681 billion today—or about 11% of the total U.S. war expenditures went to Lend-Lease. On a country-by-country basis, U.S. expenditures broke down as follows: British Empire: $31.4 billion (about $427 billion today)Soviet Union: $11.3 billion (about $154 billion today)France: $3.2 billion (about $43.5 billion today)China: $1.6 billion (about to $21.7 billion today) By October 1941, the overall success of the Lend-Lease plan in assisting the allied nations prompted President Roosevelt to seek the repeal of other sections of the Neutrality Act of 1939. On October 17, 1941, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to repeal the section of the Act prohibiting the arming of U.S. merchant ships. A month later, following a series of deadly German submarine attacks on U.S. Navy and merchant ships in international waters, Congress repealed the provision that had barred U.S. ships from delivering arms to belligerent seaports or â€Å"combat zones.† In retrospect, the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s allowed the U.S. Government to accommodate the isolationist sentiment held by a majority of the American people while still protecting America’s security and interests in a foreign war. The Lend-Lease agreements provided that the countries involved would repay the United States not with money or returned goods, but with â€Å"joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world.† Meaning the U.S. would be repaid when the recipient country helped the U.S. fight common enemies and agreed to join new world trade and diplomatic agencies, such as the United Nations. Of course, the isolationists’ hopes of America maintaining any pretense of neutrality in World War II ended on the morning of December 7, 1942, when the Japanese Navy attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Commentary on Old Majors Speech Essay - 879 Words

Commentary on Old Majors Speech Old Majors speech was directed to the animals. It was about over throwing the man and the animals should take over. It was all a rebellion. In this short essay I will describe the persuasive techniques used by Old Major to persuade his fellow animals to follow his dreams. I will include quotes and other important features used by Orwell. The main part of his speech is on his dream. Old Major the Middle White Boar chooses the place and the time to make his speech very carefully. From this we can infer that he has taken his time to analyse successful techniques employed by other famous speakers from the past. In addition Old Major has a title and that is he†¦show more content†¦Comrades are Old Majors main word in the speech to attract the audience to him. Before he starts the speech on his dream he does an intro on his and says he will die soon. He convinces the audience that they understand his concerns and that the animals and him share interests in common and one of the interests Orwell states is that our lives are miserable, laborious and short. The point of this line is that Old Major is trying to tell the animals everyone dies and that it is nature. In addition he establishes his expertise or personal experience to convince his fellow creatures that the farm will be able to support a dozen horses, twenty cows, hundreds of sheep. This is also an example of using the list of 3 on a rhetorical device. Another well thought of persuasive technique is that Orwell makes Old Major use repetition when he says the seven commandments No animal must ever live in a house, No animal must ever sleep in a bed, No animal must ever wear clothes, No animal must ever drink alcohol, No animal must ever smoke tobacco. Old majors employs a lot of rhetorical questions that he answers afterward one of them was about a fellow animal called Clover here is the rhetorical question where areShow MoreRelatedEssay on Popular Mechanics Analysis: The Need for Good Communication778 Words   |  4 Pagesthe traitor animals in front of the farm and when they had finished their confession the dogs promptly tore their throats out (84). Old Majors speech strongly advised, Remove man from the scene and the root of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever (7). He also informed them that, All men are enemies. All animals are comrades (10). Old Majors speech was taken very seriously; so seriously that the animals ev entually did what he had told them to do. The rebellion didnt give them exactly

Proctor Gamble Free Essays

1. In our opinion, we think the answer about product life cycle is not absolutely correct. It is depend on product’s characteristic. We will write a custom essay sample on Proctor Gamble or any similar topic only for you Order Now 3C product such as eeepc (asus’s product, netbook) have quite short product life cycle; Rolex watch have been established more than 200 years. So if marketers want to extend product life cycle, they have to do more afford on survey to realize consumer behavior and satisfy their really needs and wants. When the product’s sales shows that it is on the decline stage, marketers should find the new desire on consumers and reposition, modify their product or marketing strategy, It is gain brand loyalty and equity to extend brands or products life cycle. Consequently, the â€Å"brand† makes its product life cycle prolong and maintain the product in the market. 2. Before we start to reposition, we must know the environment situation, such as industry, competitive, and consumer analysis. We use five forces analysis to analyze industry, and conclude that the competition is fierce. After that, we analyze competitive situation, through perceptual map we find that Kimberly-Clark is PG biggest competitor. The price of Huggies is between Pampers and Luvs, and with the same function of Luvs. Consumers were willing to pay more than Pampers to buy Huggies. Form consumer analysis, we find that consumers are sensitive to quality. Because there were many double-income families, consumers are afford to pay high price for diapers. To regain the status of market share, PG repositioned Pampers as high price brand, and changed some marketing strategies. Pampers has repositioned its products from â€Å"providing the most comfortable diapers† to â€Å"assisting mothers in bringing up children†. Therefore, it has come up with some concepts and ways to meet the purpose of the repositioning, such as the concept of Baby Stage of Development, the use of step-by-step toys, the consultation of experts, and establishment of Pampers parenting network. The concept of Baby Stage of Development is based on the babies various needs at various stages. As a result, PG provides suitable diapers products for babies, including new babies, babies, toddlers and preschoolers. With the concepts of BSOD, Pampers has further introduced the step-by-step toy system. In the course of playing, the toys function as children friends. Besides changing the products, Pampers also establishes Pampers Parenting Network. On the websites, some experts have written professional articles on how to breed babies, how to help babies grow healthy, and so on. And all these articles are posted on the website as references for parents. Besides, the experts also provide professional responses to the problems parents have in the process of bringing up children. (2) We think that PG can use the same way to reposition Crest’s brand image to differ from its competitors, and let it have room for progress. For instance, PG can reposition Crest as a product for healthy and beautiful smile, not just for the purpose of cleaning. In this way, consumers can have better looks and fulfill their mental needs by using the repositioned products. 3. To realize consumers’ needs, PG has a consumer relationship management system. In the system, there are three key points of customer relationship management. One is to understand consumers’ need deeply, second is to build consumer service center, third is to value consumers’ suggestions. To understand consumer’s need deeply, PG through depth interviews, focus group, questionnaire survey, visit shop, trace system, e-mail, and telephone to attain this goal. Finally, value consumer’s suggestion is according to consumer’s feedback to improve product continuously. For example, there are colorful designs on the Pampers, because the babies’ clothes are light colors in summer, the picture color can be seen easily. Thus, PG adopt the mothers’ advice to redesign the color. The above is how PG to manage their customer relationship. Through the customer relationship management system, we can realize what consumers’ needs are. How to cite Proctor Gamble, Papers

Interview With The Vampire Essay Example For Students

Interview With The Vampire Essay When Lestat seduces then kills the two whores in the hotel room, he delights in sexual cruelty. This is displayed in Louis narrative describing Lestat as both: masterfully clever and utterly vicious, he drank his fill without the other woman even knowing (Rice p.89) and he played with his victims, made friends with them, seduced them into trusting and liking him, even loving him (Rice p141). Lestat clearly plays with his victims when he invokes sexual competition from the second woman as she says: I can warm that cold skin of yours better than she can (Rice p.87) Lestat shows he is the master of mockery combined with sadism. My argument here is focused on sadism defined as male with a low sense of self-worth since childhood, trying to prove importance and superiority by punishing others. As far as we know, Lestat has had no life-choices, either in his education or in becoming immortal, as both decisions were taken without consent. Therefore, Lestats indulgence in sadistic sexual pleasure can be credited to an indiscriminate motive of revenge. But Lestat has no conception of his sadistic nature and so does not appear to manifest any sense of rationality since he says to Louis: I like to do itI enjoy it (Rice p.93) without explaining. As Michel Foucault says of sadism: In Sade, sex is without any norm or intrinsic rule that might be formulated from its own nature: but it is subject to the unrestricted law of power which itself knows no other law but its own (Foucault p.149). However, Louis does offer some reasoning for Lestats senseless carnage of the young or attractive in: You see they represented the greatest loss to Lestat, because they stood on the threshold of the maximum possibility of life (Rice p.47) Lestats rationale in killing the two beautiful whores, the young, rich Freniere and dooming a five year old girl to an eternity of childhood is symptomatic of Lestats sadistic nature, but in some way related to his past. Consequently, Lestat unconsciously transgresses from conflicts within vampire relationships to avenge his past, and he achieves this through sadistic redress. The performance at the Theatre des Vampires is where both vampires and humans gather to mutually experience: A highly erotic, somewhat disturbing scene (Gelder p.112). The vampires masquerade as vampires. The audience indulge in simulation of sexuality and death. The audience believe the performance is a theatrical illusion and are there to be: mesmerised by the performancetitillated (Gelder p.112). So I want to argue here that the relationship between sexuality and cruelty works on a number of levels as both the vampires and audience are involved in a type of sexual perversity. For the vampires, the scene represents reality, as killing and drinking human blood is pertinent to vampire nature. In contrast, the audience are an antithesis to human nature in comparison to other mortals in the text, such as Babette, who have shown disdain for vampiric sexual evil. But further perversity exists, since vampires openly kill a mortal in front of other humans thereby increasing vampire pleasure in killing. Louis attests to vampiric pleasure when he recalls an instinctive sexual longing at the performance: I wanted her. Wanted her. My mouth full of the taste of her, my veins in torment (Rice pp242-243). Conversely, it could also be argued that the vampires perform at the Theatre de Vampires to acquire legitimacy for their communal home. So, I also suggest that the theatre provides both a faà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½ade and sanctuary to enable the vampires from arousing suspicion from mortals. Therefore, these vile heterogeneous gatherings between vampires and mortals have irony but fundamental to the existence of the Parisian vampires. .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b , .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .postImageUrl , .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b , .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b:hover , .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b:visited , .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b:active { border:0!important; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b:active , .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u4878e9c21fb0a357ab336aaee8fb622b:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Choose a scene in Blood Brothers EssayEarlier in this essay, I argued that conflict is generally located externally or internally within vampire cultures. Yet in the two texts, overtly sexual female vampires are destroyed by threatened males. Examples of internal conflict and female sexuality appear in the text of Interview With The Vampire when Claudia and Madeleine are destroyed. Both Claudia and Madeleine are sexually aggressive, and this is apparent when the female vampires are created. Firstly, Claudia is insatiable in her desire to drink the blood of Lestat: He was trying to push her off, and she wouldnt let goshe held the wrist to her mouth, a growl coming out of he r (Rice p.102). The untamed lust of Claudia is prophetic, signaling superior female sexual power in comparison to Lestat and Louis. Accordingly then, it is natural that the greater sexual potency of Claudia, usurps Lestat in the affections of Louis. As Louis clearly views Claudia as flagrantly sexual: I loved her, must have her, must keep her (Rice p. 127) and later I knew I loved her only too well, that the passion for her was as great as the passion for Armand (Rice p.277). Then Louis view of Claudia shows she is a significant sexual rival to both Lestat and Armand. Madeleine is created by demand, the demand of Claudia. Furthermore, Louis acquiesces to Claudia, to avoid yet another doomed menage-a-trois. Female brutality and sexual craving are visible when Louis makes Madeleine into a vampire, and is comparable to the making of Claudia. As Louis recalls Madeleines insatiable lust was painful: it was cutting me, scoring me, so I all but cried out as it went on and on (Rice p.292). Therefore, a close alliance between the two female vampires must present an enormous risk to the domination of sexuality by male vampires. As a consequence, both Claudia and Madeleine die whilst Louis survives. Furthermore, this is not convincing justice for the death of Lestat, as Madeleine is innocent. Clearly, the vampires are motivated by fear of the potent liaison between Claudia and Madeleine. Furthermore, Louis is rescued from death, because of the homoerotic desire of Armand. A relationship that is now possible, as the two overtly lasciviousness female vampires and their, powerful natures are extinguished. Therefore, in Interview With The Vampire, sexuality and cruelty function principally to sustain male sexual domination and homoerotic relationships. One of the main points I have argued in this essay, is that power and sexual cruelty prevail through conflict. My assertion in Dracula is that conflict is external to vampire existence, whereas in contrast, internal conflicts exist in Interview With The Vampire. Therefore in conclusion, it is essential to say that although both narratives are told in the first person, the viewpoints in the text are endorsed by use of opposing narrative strategies. In Dracula the text is narrated by mortals, therefore the reader is greatly influenced by the mortal perspective. Whilst in contrast, the narrative of Interview With The Vampire is recounted from a vampires perspective. Accordingly, then, Dracula and Interview With The Vampire, present the reader with a textual biased perspective. The narrators present their own ideologies relating to power and sexual cruelty projecting their own identities and environment. As Michel Foucault argues: We must conceptualize the deployment of sexuality on the basis of the techniques of power that are contemporary with it (Foucault p.150). Therefore, sexuality and cruelty, operate by reflecting the personal, political and social opinions of their narrators. Consequently, Dracula reflects mortal ethics, in contrast to Interview With The Vampire, which through a single narrative is unmistakably opinionated but applies vampiric reasoning.