Recovering from Disaster: Pearl Harbor and After by Dr. Rob Citino

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor stunned America: the tragic loss of life, the crippling of the US Pacific Fleet, the suddenness of it all. US leaders and military commanders had to fashion a response, literally overnight, one that responded to the immediate problem, but also looked ahead and laid the groundwork for victory in World War II.
Join Robert M. Citino, PhD, Executive Director of the Museum’s Institute for the Study of War and Democracy, for an Online Lunchbox Lecture on how the United States rebounded from the catastrophe of December 1941.

[@LukoHevia]

I'm a simple man. I see Dr. Citino, i click

[@solengarugarsubarbengabu2773]

HE IS WORTHY EVEN OF EMPEROR TRUMP!!!

[@davidsabillon5182]

This ☝️

[@kenhutcherson5639]

Same

[@DavidSmith-ss1cg]

@@solengarugarsubarbengabu2773 - We should see the Emperor prancing around in his new clothes any time now.

[@KMN-bg3yu]

Same here, I once watched back-to-back 2 different lectures he gave over the same book (Fighting a Losing War) and thoroughly enjoyed both

[@omkarshinde6359]

Please do more of these, great stuff from a great historian

[@zodiac1287]

Dr Citino never disappoints, Thanks for doing this great video. Please do more!

[@fredglickman3230]

On the way. 194

[@fredglickman3230]

104

[@showbuster]

Rob Citino does it again! absolute masterpiece. Well done.

[@christianm7220]

I truly enjoyed studying under Dr Citino. I was able to take a number of his classes while in college.

[@Stephen-wb3wf]

I much more dig the videos like this with JUST Dr. Citino belting out an amazing lecture.

[@jona.scholt4362]

My grandmother installed wiring in B-24s at Willow Run! Apparently you had to be small to fit in certain nooks and crannies. She said she absolutely loved the work, the girls she worked with and the sense of purpose; those things made it enjoyable. But she also said she they never forgot about their husbands and brothers who were fighting ( her husband, my grandfather, was a radio operator on a B-17 in the Pacific that wasn't used as a bomber but as a long range transport. My other granddad was an army surgeon only a couple years out of medical school and served in Burma). As an Ann Arbor native and located close to Willow Run, I was able to visit the museum there a few times. Proud to be a native Michigander!

[@chinacatsunflower8054]

Thanks from Italy, dr. Citino!

[@davidsabillon5182]

I would love to hear all his Italian army jokes.

[@timothyh7053]

I would love to see Robert Citino and Victor Davis Hanson do a seminar together on WWII.

[@cpawp]

Great - thank you to National WW2 Museum and to Dr. Citino, for the lecture and especially for the Literature references.

[@ianbooth3164]

Always enjoy talks by this guy.

[@mattd6086]

Dr. Citino is awesome!

[@danbushman7509]

Love the lectures and people on this site.

[@hobbitreet]

I really enjoy your work, the energy you project is out standing.

[@snowyowl7042]

Love Robert Cintino, great speaker.

[@carlgolec2884]

Wonder if you and John Parshnall would ever do a book together on Japanese/German relations in the Axis coalition ?

[@dpatrick4705]

Would be a paper, not a book.

[@bobkohl6779]

The Shaw was not completely destroyed. It was refloated, temp bow welded on and sent back to the US for rebuilding. The floating dry dock it was in and also salvaged

[@JLWestaz]

Was PH really that disastrous. We primary lost our Battle Ships in the Pacific. However, WWII wasn't fought with battleships. In the Pacific against Japan it was fought with aircraft carriers. Battle Ships were used effectively in past wars. In WWII Battle Ships had a limited use. There assigned job could easily have been assigned to other ships. The Battle Ships lost at PH were to slow to keep up with the fleet carriers, so wouldn't be able to protect the fleet carrier. USN task force that were created and used in the Coral Sea and at Midway didn't really have a role for the old slow Battle Ships. The Iowa class Battle Ships could make 33 knots, and were commissioned in 1943. The had a useful role late in the war.

[@deeznoots6241]

The battleships certainly would have helped at Guadalcanal, where the older US battleships would have both been expendable enough to put in the slot, while also having more than enough firepower to devastate the tokyo express. And of course the Japanese attack at Midway would have been impossible with an intact US battle fleet able to interdict the invasion fleet(though of course the american carrier planes were able to discover the Kido Butai and sink 3 carriers forcing the Japanese to call off the whole operation)

[@johncunningham1430]

It will probably never happen, but I’d love to meet Dr. Citino. There is not, on the subject of WWII, a better lecturer than he. Dr. Citino has expertise and charisma, which makes his talks engagingly informative. I’d also strongly recommend his books. The Wehrmacht Retreats, in particular, is spectacular.

[@roadtrip2943]

Understanding The scope ot the gifting of the future by my father, his brothers, my wife's father and uncles in service , in harms way, grows as i listen to our knowledgeable historians when they tell the tale of those dark days for our nation and the world.

[@RajKumar-ep8pr]

Cheers from India

[@gerryconstant4914]

The National WWII History Museum was originally the D Day Museum founded by author Stephen Ambrose(Band Of Brothers, etc)because the landing craft was built in New Orleans by Andrew Higgins. Ambrose was a professor at UNO, where I studied in the early 70s. It expanded to the entire war to receive more funding. My than high school grandson took an Advanced Placement WWII History Class & used the museum's large library. His class even attended several conferences for college professors from all over the world. They even did podcast about the war with his being on Operation Torch in N Africa. He is now a plebe at a US Military Academy.

[@escoffier1967]

Dr. Citino, please add volume to the ends of your sentences. Thanks for the show.

[@tedberwick3186]

Ty

[@richardscott6716]

Much has been said and written about the state of preparedness of the Americans on the eve of Pearl Harbour. When learning history its essential to recall that people at the time were living these events forward. They lacked the benefit of hindsight. I recall the words of a naval historian, ( perhaps John Parshall), who noted that on December 7,1942, NO NAVY in the world was capable of executing an attack like the attack on Pearl except the Japanese navy.what’s more, even a mere three months earlier, no navy in the world could have executed the attack including the Japanese navy. With that fact in mind, it’s much easier to understand some of the judgements that were made.

[@manilajohn0182]

The statement that "...on December 7,1942, NO NAVY in the world was capable of executing an attack like the attack on Pearl except the Japanese navy" is untrue. On that date, two thirds of the carriers involved were at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and a majority of the veteran aircrews involved were dead.

[@richardscott6716]

@@manilajohn0182 I stand corrected. The date of course was December 7, 1941.

[@manilajohn0182]

@@richardscott6716 No big. I was wondering why Parshall would have said such a thing. While I disagree with much of Parshall has said, I didn't imagine that he would say that. I also didn't consider the possibility that it might be a typo. Cheers...

[@escoffier1967]

Ever heard of Taranto?

[@dionsanchez4478]

Again, going back to prior knowledge and warnings. At the very least, those in charge of military information at the time UNDER FDR had reports that either pointed to Pearl Harbor as the target or explicit reports naming PH as the target. This is becoming the main stream view of the Attack.

[@stevewilliamson8402]

Part of the objective of the Louisiana Games was for the Army to weed out the old guard, Marshall learned this from Pershing get rid of the inefficient quickly and be on the lookout for rising stars. In the beginning of the movie " Patton" he says you don't want to tell your grandchildren you spent the great war " shoveling shit in Louisiana" ouch!

[@thevillaaston7811]

America this, Ameica that... Britain covers the same area as the US State of Oregon, during the war, it had only the same population as the US states of California and Texas. Britain had to import 40% of its needs and had the the Germans 21 miles away for four years. Now look at the production figures for Great Britain, they are OUTSTANDING. US patience??? It was the US General, Marshall, who in 1942 insisted on an invasion of France that year. Britain said OK, but we only have seven divisions available. How many divisions can the US supply? The answer was two. Two, to take on 25 German divisions already in France. Priceless! So much for these three Ps.

[@ianshaver8954]

The British Empire covered about 1/4 of the world, making it both geographically larger than and more populous than the US.

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@ianshaver8954 And what practical help could the Dominions, and Colonies offer over and above that which they were already providing?..

[@ross.venner]

32:00 - Absolutely. The idea is so old that the Romans quoted the Greeks - Si vis pacem, parabellum - in other words, "if you love peace, prepare for war." In many ways, the peace lovers of the 1930s contributed to the war of the 1940s. Sounds familiar...

[@jona.scholt4362]

While I agree with the comment to a degree I believe there are a couple problems with it. First, sometimes enemies are attacked regardless of how "prepared" or strong they are. Think of Hitler and the Soviet Union. The Soviets had millions of me under arms and tens of thousands of tanks and artillery pieces get were still attacked. And they were formal allies! So I think the USSR was as "prepared" at about as high a level as you could expect in peace time, or in a cruder way of saying it; they covered there asses pretty well. But that still didn't deter Hitler, a very ideologically driven state/military leader. You could also make the case that that maxim only applies to rational actors. If you're enemy is not rational they will attack regardless of strength. In the Errol Morris documentary "Fog of War" on Robert McNamara (a great film) McNamara mentions a meeting he had with Castro in the 1990s where they talked about out the Cuban missile crisis, McNamara mentions how Castro admitted he would have used the nuclear missiles on Cuba against the United States even though he knew it would lead to the total destruction of Cuba. In that instance it did not matter how strong or powerful the United States military was. Another example where that Maxim did not hold true but rather may have started conflict who was the lead up to World War 1. The expansion of the German Navy in the decade or so prior to the conflict was a major destabilizing factor in Europe causing not only an arms race but enmity between Germany and Great Britain. If strength was the way to prevent conflict the buildup of the Navy would have decreased the chances of a European War however the building of German battleships had the opposite affect. I also think an argument could be made that giving a military large amounts of new and powerful equipment creates pressure to use them as a means to justify their cost.

[@ross.venner]

@@jona.scholt4362 - Remember, Hitler saw the Soviet Union as weak. "You will only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse." Thus perceived weakness led to the attack.

[@jona.scholt4362]

@@ross.venner I think it's all about how you perceive the "prepare for war" part. Does it mean, actually be prepared? If so, I think the Soviets obviously met that mark. After all, they were already at war with Finland and their army was huge. If the "prepare for war" part means, be perceived as strong then the saying is poorly worded. As I said before you could have the most powerful military in history (like the US in the Cuban missile crisis) and irrational actors will still be willing to attack you, as Castro told McNamara he would if the Soviets had authorized him to use the missiles. For me, I think the quote is far too vague and there are too many too many exceptions for it to have any real meaning. For example, I think "if you want peace, avoid imperialistic ambitions" or "if you want peace, create important economic relationships with other nations" are both more likely to keep you at peace. I mean, look at Switzerland or Sweden. Both have been peaceful, prosperous, and done so without gigantic (or even large) militaries.

[@ross.venner]

@@jona.scholt4362 - Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will try to honour you with the best response I can offer. You pointed to three cases (1) Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union. I made a partial response to this one previously. Hitler was well informed about the Soviet military, as you pointed out, they were in an uneasy alliance. One of the reasons he was so confident that they could be defeated was his knowledge of the purges that had destroyed the Russian military leadership. I would contend that this knowledge of weakness confirmed Hitler in the timing of his attack in 1941. (2) Castro’s willingness to use nuclear weapons if attached. From the perspective of his leadership, this was absolutely rational. If overthrown, the leadership of the Cuban Revolution faced certain death, so why not take out “some damned Yankies” on the way out. (3) The naval arms race leading-up to WW1 certainly antagonised the British. Even so, the Kaiser believed that the British would not enter the war, and even if they did, his excellent army could capture Paris before the British Army (BEF) could be effective on the battlefield. In cases (1) and (3) it was the perception of weakness that led to aggression. In case (2) The Americans were unaware of the nuclear weapons already emplaced in Cuba. Over confidence and incorrect intelligence seem to be the issues, leading to war. I have observed French politics. For much of my life it was “just across the water, far more meaningful than tawdry British political scandals - remember Profumo? The strident dynamic of those postwar years was “You collaborated,” “No, you collaborated more…” At the height of the Nuclear Disarmament campaigns, people would say aggressively, “It’s better to be Red than dead, isn’t it.” Superficially true, but a false choice and I took to responding, “Better possibly dead than certainly Red, then probably tortured and dead.” I maintain that position and believe it fits the present great power contestation. It is also appropriate to remember “strategic depth.” Russia today is seeking to reclaim the strategic depth in Eastern Europe that enabled it to defeat Napoleon and Hitler and to survive as long as it did against the Kaiser. China is seeking to push America out of the Western Pacific and America is weak at this time. One of the great destabilisers is, as I said above, a perception of weakness in the rival and the temptation to act that flows from it.

[@shelliwilliamson1360]

love Rick Atkinson's trilogy. The best !!!

[@MrKen-wy5dk]

720p upload??

[@dennisweidner288]

I agree that Gen. Marshall was the great architect if victory. I do not understand, however, why he thought that D-Day was feasible in 1943 or even 42.

[@jimkelley1000]

Martin 12 String?

[@dennisweidner288]

I think the Tommy Gun image [11:22] may have been before Lend Lease when after Dunkirk, FDR cleared out American arsenals to get guns back in the hands of British soldiers on an emergency basis. Here is a bit from my HBC World War II Website. British Army The evacuation at Dunkirk had been nothing short of miraculous and saved the British Army. The Royal Navy, the little boats, the RAF, and the weather all combined to save the Army. The Army had, however, been forced to abandon its equipment on the beaches and surrounding countryside. The British Army and not the Wehrmacht had been the only fully mechanized army at the onset of World War II. Huge quantities of equipment had been abandoned. There were an estimated 120,000 vehicles and perhaps as many heavy guns. Almost all its heavy artillery had been left at Dunkirk. Then there was the Rifle Crisis. Churchill says 90,000 rifles were left at Dunkirk. [Churchill, p. 126.] Other sources say that also assessing the Norwegian incursion, the British Army had lost 300,000 rifles. [Skennerton, p. 286.] And now there was a need to arm the Home Guard. And if this was not bad enough, Britain had stopped manufacturing rifles in quantity after World War I--leading to the Rifle Crisis. [Skennerton, p. 286.] This incredibly was not completely solved until 1943. The First Canadian Division was the only fully equipped force in Britain prepared to resist a German invasion. If the Germans had been able to invade at the time, they would have encountered a largely disarmed Britain. British factories could rapidly produce the needed arms and equipment, but they needed time and the Germans were not prepared to give them time. Our favorite British historian believes that the loss of the BEF would have been a psychological blow, but not that big of a loss in military terms. Here we tend to disagree. The BEF saved at Dunkirk would be the future leadership core of the British Army that would play an important role in defeating NAZI Germany. British Request Churchill turned to the United States for emergency arms deliveries. Presidential Decesion President Roosevelt responded immediately and even as the evacuation at Dunkirk was still underway, ordered U.S. military arsenals to send all available war materiel to Britain. Many in America, especially the military, opposed this step, including General Marshall. Arms for Britain mean that the American Army would be less prepared. Roosevelt was, however adamant. Churchill writes, "As early as June 1 the President sent out orders to the War and Navy Departments to report what weapons they could spare for Britain and France... In forty-eight hours the answers were given, and on June 3 [General] Marshall approved the lists. The first list comprised half a million .30 caliber rifles manufactured in 1917 and 1918 and stored in grease for more than twenty years. For these, there were about 250 cartridges apiece. There were 900 “soixante-85quinze” field guns, with a million rounds, 80,000 machine guns, and various other items... Since every hour counted, it was decided that the Army should sell (for thirty-seven million dollars) everything on the list to one concern, which could in turn resell immediately to the British and French. By these extraordinary measures, the United States left themselves with the equipment for only 1,800,000 men, the minimum figure stipulated by the American Army's mobilization plan." [Churchill, p. 127.] Arms Shipments The shipments included a great deal of World War I equipment. America shipped 500 French 75 artillery pieces as well as 0.5 million Springfield rifles, 500 mortars and machine guns, and large quantities of ammunition which had also been left at Dunkirk. The U.S. Army began packing these arms and loading them onto boxcars even as the Royal Navy and small boats were bringing the Army back from Dunkirk. The rifles and machine guns proved to be of limited use because the American 30-06 round was completely incompatible with the British 303 round. (This was a problem not resolved until the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1948). The American rifles were used mainly to arm the Home Guard and for training. Many authors disparage the Home Guard, but if the Germans had invaded, the Home Guard would have been very important. One author writes, "The first real weapons to reach the LDV [Local Defense Volunteers or Hime Guard] in any quantity were half a million ancient [World War I vintage] rifles, sent by the United States during June and July in response to an appeal from Winston Churchill. Their vintage was betrayed by their popular name 'Springfield 1917', or '17' for short, and they arrived caked in heavy grease, like congealed Vaseline, which had protected them during their long years of disuse. Removing the grease proved to be a dirty and wearisome job. Opinions about the Springfields varied." [Longmate, p.70.] But at least the Home Guard was armed. The American artillery pieces and mortars, however, were absolutely vital. [Moss] These shipments were only a fraction of the Lend-Lease arms that were to follow, but they came when Britain was desperate and were delivered in the utmost haste. Sources Churchill, Winston. The Second World War: Volume Two: Their Finest Hour, 8th impression (Reprint Society: London. 1955). Longmate, Norman. The Real Dad's Army: The Story of the Home Guard (Arrow Books: London, 1974). Moss, Norman. Nineteen Weeks: America, Britain, and the Fateful Summer of 1940 (2004). Skennerton, Ian. The Lee-Enfield Story: The Lee-Metford, Lee-Enfield S.M.L.E. and No. 4 Series Rifles and Carbines, 1880 to the Present (Greenhill Books: London, 1993).

[@dwightcrapson135]

32:59 The Filipinos pronounce Bataan as a three syllable word, like ba-ta-on, which makes since, considering the spelling.

[@bruceclothier8238]

Unfortunately I wasnt able to ask questions when this was presented, but there is a feature of Pearl Harbour which I have never seen addressed by any historian: even if Kimmel had suspected a pre-emptive strike the battleships were protected by anti torpedo nets. There were bombs but military dogma is that bombs cant sink battle ships. So Kimmel had every reason to believe that his big ships were safe. Lots of smaller stuff was mauled, but with 8 battleships the USA could have struck back big time./ The Japanese were dead clever in devising a way to get torpedoes over the nets. Nobody in the USA thought this was possible so Kimmel was not really culpable in the way he is portrayed. Sloppy thinking at all levels in the Navy, The Japanese started the war with a pre-emptive strike. It wasnt the military who were asleep at the wheel, it was historians. For a very long time every time Japan went to war it started hostilities with a surprise attack. The reason the West was taken by surprise is that the West treats war like a game of cricket and while to the West a surprise attack isnt playing the game, for the Japanese that was the only way to play the game, It was a mismatch of culture and somebody in America should have seen it coming

[@manilajohn0182]

There were no torpedo nets installed at Pearl Harbor.

[@bruceclothier8238]

@@manilajohn0182 I cant prove you wrong but the Japanese had developed a special torpedo which rann shallow so it could go over the nets which would be an odd thing to do if there were no nets. Somebody has this all wrong

[@manilajohn0182]

@@bruceclothier8238 The Japanese modified some of their already existing aerial torpedoes by attaching wooden fins to them. The fins were designed to break off upon the torpedo's impact with the water, In so doing, they would retard the tendency of the torpedo to dive deeper than it normally would. The reason for this was not that the Americans had torpedo nets; a Japanese spy operating under the guise of an assistant at the Japanese consulate in Honolulu had already established that the Americans were not deploying torpedo nets at Pearl Harbor, and had communicated this to Tokyo. The reason for the attached fins was that the waters in Pearl Harbor were approximately 43 feet deep, and Japan's existing aerial torpedoes would normally dive deeper than that before leveling off to their normal running depth. The fins worked as advertised.

[@bruceclothier8238]

@@manilajohn0182 OK I stand corrected. I got my story from a book on the Atom Bomb. The reason that this book about the Atom Bomb mentioned the modified torpedoes at Pearl is that they were modified by a company stationed in Nagasaki. Karma, But this author assumed it was to avoid any nets, Where did you get your info from?

[@manilajohn0182]

@@bruceclothier8238 No big. There are a number of works dedicated to the attack on Pearl Harbor which reference the Japanese efforts to modify their torpedoes for use at Pearl Harbor. "At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange is a good starting point, as is "Day of Infamy" by John Costello and "Pearl Harbor Betrayed" by Michael Gannon. They all reference modified torpdoes. "The Attack On Pearl Harbor 1941- The True Story As Revealed To Congress", which covers the conclusions of the Congressional committee assigned to investigate the attack, is also a good source. Hope this helps, and enjoy the reading.

[@paulgee8253]

Seemed that in Europe the British were, correctly, far more reluctant to go head to head vs. Germans in early invasion schemes pushed by US.

[@PalleRasmussen]

They knew what fighting the Germans was like.

[@rascallyrabbit717]

Britain knew the only way was overwhelming force, any gamble would be fatal

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@rascallyrabbit717 the US, up to and including Marshall (but not Roosevelt), thought they had overwhelming force. The British were smarter, they had lots of experience fighting the Germans.

[@dennisweidner288]

Absolutely correct.

[@dennisweidner288]

@@PalleRasmussen Marshall did push for an early invasion. I am not sure he was unaware of just how good the Germans were. One historin suggests he was putting a marker down. Britain was still reluctant i n early 1944. But as they has been postponing for 2 years, they finally had to give in to Marshall.

[@jeffreymcfadden9403]

Frigidaire made among other things,,,,propellers, hydraulic controls for planes, .50 cal M2 and 20mm guns. From 2 plants in Dayton , OHIO.

[@planaritytheory]

This guy is a great speaker, but there's a couple problems: - his mic quality is total garbage, and - he tends to start his sentences VERY loudly, then gradually lower the volume to the point that he's barely audible by the end of the sentence (unfortunately that's also when he starts speaking faster and cramming more words in). These two factors seem to collude with one another to create a very unpleasant and stressful experience. If I turn up the volume loud enough to hear the ends of the sentences, then each of the subsequent loud beginning bits hurts my ears. I'm sure this guy is just amazing live--that's surely how he developed his style and I wouldn't want him to change his unique style. The problems would probably be mostly fixed by just using a better mic.

[@planaritytheory]

For example, at 20:34 the final word of the previous sentence ("to") feels like it's about 1/10 of the volume of the first word of the subsequent sentence ("I").

[@creid7537]

All you’ve noted indicates he is not a great speaker, and I share your observations. I couldn’t get past nine minutes, unfortunately. A shame really; the subject matter is very interesting.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

Maybe one can say that the US contributed the most to war production, but the Soviets definitely contributed more in manpower. They fought 80% of the Nazi army more or less consistently from the moment they got involved in the war. They also suffered by far the worst losses. One might therefore argue that the Soviets' was the heaviest price to pay. But certainly, they too profited from the US' contributions, especially in terms of trucks and food.

[@idohgersten7952]

The Societs were collaborators with Nazi Germany - e.g. dividing up Poland - before they were enemies, so not that they deserved it but they aren’t blameless.

[@richardschaffer5588]

Willow run was not converted to build bombers it was BUILT for bomber production. See “Willow Run, Colossus of American Industry” Warren B Kidder ISBN 0-9647205-3-1 1995 Re: Production, Creating the Army, Air force and Navy was America’s greatest production feat. Drafting, training and fielding these forces was very complex and expensive feat of organization. Millions of civilian farmers and workers had to be converted into military forces.

[@billolsen4360]

Does this guy sound like the photos of exploding ships exciting to him?

[@billd2635]

"Mein fuhrer, we could use a few of those razor blades."

[@barebp]

Rob is a rockstar lol

[@michaelswami]

The hindsight bias regarding Pearl Harbor is monolithic.

[@markstephan2304]

Dr. Citino, I’m hope your introductory comment was only a misspeak. The USA is a democratic republic, not a democracy.

[@escoffier1967]

No, its a Trumptopia, not a democratic anything.

[@GeoStreber]

It's actually both. Democracy means that people can vote, and republic means that the head of state isn't a royal. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

[@petrs65]

I really like listening to Dr. Citino or reading his books but this is one of these "sounds good/feels good" presentation nowhere near reality - sorry

[@clydecessna737]

Irritating presentation.

[@willboudreau1187]

Hitler declared war on US 4 days after Pearl, not 2 days. The 2 days you're thinking of is how long Britain/France waited to declare war on Hitler after he attacked Poland.

[@dennisweidner288]

While I agree with you entirely about President Roosevelt, I would make two comments: 1. When he said on many occasions, "Your boys are not going to be sent to fight in foreign wars." He usually but not always added, "unless we are attacked". 2. While he stayed within the bounds of the Constitution, launching an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic (September 1941) was skating on the border of that statement. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/sea/nca-unw.html