You continue to assert that the US involvement in WW2 was directly due to the battle for the Atlantic, apparently primarily stemming from our supplying of destroyers to the British. You are blatantly wrong and the historical record shows this pretty clearly. Consider these facts:
The destroyers for bases agreement came on September 2, 1940.
However the following preceding events telegraph quite clearly our intention to provide arms against Germany, regardless of the u boat threat:
Cash and carry was ratified on November 5, 1939. England and France can buy whatever arms, munitions, and equipment they want.
On May 31, 1940, FDR introduces a billion-dollar defense program to build up American military strength. Hey, the allies can buy anything they want, and now there's going to be even more of it!
On June 1, 1940, due to the imminent fall of France, FDR agrees to send the British, at no charge, a very sizable shipment of arms. The shipment included 93 bombers, 500,000 Enfield rifles, 184 tanks, 76,000 machine guns, 25,000 BARs, 895 french 75mm artillery pieces, 100 million rounds of ammunition, 500 stokes mortars.
If, you continue to stand by the logic that providing arms to Germany enemies made us defacto enemies of Germany, these events make the battle of the Atlantic a moot point. To wit, we did not get even slightly involved in the battle of the Atlantic until after we had already started supplying other arms and munitions.
Further, on the other side of the globe where the battle of the Atlantic did not even come into play, we had been giving aid to china since 1937 in the form of both materiel and economic sanctions against japan. (Fun fact, even Germany provided aid to china prior to the Tripartite Pact. Not many people know this) This culminated in severe economic sanctions in 1941 and (hopefully) we all know what happened as a result. The point is, while we liked china and wanted to help them, we quite frankly did not consider ourselves to be even remotely as close to china as we where with the UK. Not to mention the fact that we where also quite happy to supply arms and materiel to the soviet union before we entered the war as well.
During late August - mid September of 1940, congress caves to public pressure over fears that Brittan will fall and enacts our first peacetime draft.
It was shown quite clearly from our actions that we had no intention of just spending our money "on cars, movies, eating and drinking", not because of the battle of the Atlantic, but in spite of it. None of this was a secret. The republicans tried to use all of the above as ammunition against the democrats during the 1940 elections, yet FDR remained president and the democrats remained firmly in control of both the house and the senate. FDR took this to be an affirmation of his policies and proposed lend-lease the following month. In February, polls said that only 20-25% of Americans disapproved and it was ratified in march of 1941.
Take a look at this data:
http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/3040.pdf You can see that the tipping point for intervention came as early as September of 1940 and continued to climb, reaching 70% a full quarter before pearl harbor. The first sinking of an American vessel was not until may of 41. The first sinking with casualties wasn't until October 31 (Reuben James) and the first merchant sinking where there was casualties was not until December 2 (Astral). Popular support for intervention had already hit a 2/3rds majority before the Germans even sank any of our ships.
In regards to Brittan accepting a peace, you are flat wrong in saying that Chamberlain was elected. He was appointed by George 6 when his predecessor stepped down immediately following the coronation of the new king. Appeasement was never very popular in the UK. While there was support for the Munich agreement, it only lasted a matter of days. Public opinion soured almost immediately. The British people routinely booed at Hitler when he appeared in the newsreels, well before the outbreak of hostilities. In fact, the British public was spoiling for a fight to such a degree that Chamberlain was practically forced to introduce a conscription program more than 4 months before Germany invaded Poland. Check out "Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War" and "Public Opinion and the End of Appeasement in Britain and France" for more info.
It doesn't matter *where* Dunkirk happened, what matters is its effects on British morale. Just Google "Dunkirk spirit". The effects of which can be seen quite clearly in the civil response to the threat of German invasion. The public reaction and mobilization in defense of the home islands tells the story pretty fully. The parallels between the after effects of Dunkirk and pearl harbor are quite obvious if you've done any reading on the matter at all. The British people where not looking for peace, they where looking for a fight.
I know that there's more I could correct you on here, but frankly I have better things to do. Your posts contain so many egregious factual errors that I honestly have to wonder where you even got most of that information? I mean seriously man, your pet theory is riddled with so many factual errors that you should be the last person to ever criticism somebody else's work (a paper written by the current commander of NS Newport BTW, it's not some "college thesis") for containing logical errors. I would suggest that first you look into getting your facts straight, and only then, start looking at logic.