Certainly! Here is a breakdown of how each action/event impacted the US in terms of moving closer to war or maintaining neutrality:
- Neutrality Act of 1939: This act allowed for the sale of arms to belligerent nations on a "cash and carry" basis, which moved the US closer to war as it signaled a shift towards supporting countries involved in conflicts.
- Neutrality Acts 1935: These acts aimed to keep the US neutral by imposing an embargo on trading arms with warring nations. This policy was meant to prevent the US from getting entangled in foreign conflicts and therefore helped maintain neutrality.
- Battleships for bases deal: This deal involved trading old US battleships for British bases in the Caribbean, which can be seen as a step towards supporting the Allies and potentially moving closer to war.
- Shoot on Sight Order: This order authorized US Navy vessels to attack German or Italian submarines on sight, indicating a more aggressive stance and moving the US closer to war.
- Nye Committee: The Nye Committee investigated the US involvement in World War I and raised concerns about the influence of arms manufacturers on US foreign policy. This committee's findings contributed to the desire to maintain neutrality and avoid future conflicts.
- Lend Lease Act: The Lend Lease Act allowed the US to provide military aid to Allies without direct involvement in the war. This act was a significant step towards supporting the Allies and can be viewed as moving closer to war indirectly by aiding countries at war.
Each of these actions/events had a different impact on the US stance towards war, with some moving closer to conflict while others aimed to maintain neutrality.
