The addresses are separated by three asterisks: ***

Dates of addresses by Franklin D. Roosevelt in this eBook: January 3, 1934 January 7, 1943 January 11, 1944 January 6, 1945 January 4, 1935 January 3, 1936 January 6, 1937 January 3, 1938 January 4, 1939 January 3, 1940 January 6, 1941 January 6, 1942

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 3, 1934

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Senators and Representatives in Congress:

I come before you at the opening of the Regular Session of the 73dCongress, not to make requests for special or detailed items oflegislation; I come, rather, to counsel with you, who, like myself, havebeen selected to carry out a mandate of the whole people, in order thatwithout partisanship you and I may cooperate to continue the restoration ofour national wellbeing and, equally important, to build on the ruins of thepast a new structure designed better to meet the present problems of moderncivilization. 

Such a structure includes not only the relations of industry andagriculture and finance to each other but also the effect which all ofthese three have on our individual citizens and on the whole people as aNation. 

Now that we are definitely in the process of recovery, lines have beenrightly drawn between those to whom this recovery means a return to oldmethods--and the number of these people is small--and those for whomrecovery means a reform of many old methods, a permanent readjustment ofmany of our ways of thinking and therefore of many of our social andeconomic arrangements. . . . . 

Civilization cannot go back; civilization must not stand still. We haveundertaken new methods. It is our task to perfect, to improve, to alterwhen necessary, but in all cases to go forward. To consolidate what we aredoing, to make our economic and social structure capable of dealing withmodern life is the joint task of the legislative, the judicial, and theexecutive branches of the national Government. 

Without regard to party, the overwhelming majority of our people seek agreater opportunity for humanity to prosper and find happiness. Theyrecognize that human welfare has not increased and does not increasethrough mere materialism and luxury, but that it does progress throughintegrity, unselfishness, responsibility and justice. 

In the past few months, as a result of our action, we have demanded of manycitizens that they surrender certain licenses to do as they please intheir business relationships; but we have asked this in exchange for theprotection which the State can give against exploitation by their fellowmen or by combinations of their fellow men. 

I congratulate this Congress upon the courage, the earnestness and theefficiency with which you met the crisis at the Special Session. It wasyour fine understanding of the national problem that furnished the examplewhich the country has so splendidly followed. I venture to say that thetask confronting the First Congress of 1789 was no greater than your own. 

I shall not attempt to set forth either the many phases of the crisis whichwe experienced last March, or the many measures which you and I undertookduring the Special Session that we might initiate recovery and reform. 

It is sufficient that I should speak in broad terms of the results of ourcommon counsel. The credit of the Government has been fortified by drasticreduction in the cost of its permanent agencies through the Economy Act. 

With the twofold purpose of strengthening the whole financial structure andof arriving eventually at a medium of exchange which over the years willhave less variable purchasing and debt paying power for our people thanthat of the past, I have used the authority granted me to purchase allAmerican-produced gold and silver and to buy additional gold in the worldmarkets. Careful investigation and constant study prove that in the matterof foreign exchange rates certain of our sister Nations find themselves sohandicapped by internal and other conditions that they feel unable at thistime to enter into stabilization discussion based on permanent andworld-wide objectives. 

The overwhelming majority of the banks, both national and State, whichreopened last spring, are in sound condition and have been brought withinthe protection of Federal insurance. In the case of those banks which werenot permitted to reopen, nearly six hundred million dollars of frozendeposits are being restored to the depositors through the assistance of thenational Government. 

We have made great strides toward the objectives of the National IndustrialRecovery Act, for not only have several millions of our unemployed beenrestored to work, but industry is organizing itself with a greaterunderstanding that reasonable profits can be earned while at the same timeprotection can be assured to guarantee to labor adequate pay and properconditions of work. Child labor is abolished. Uniform standards of hoursand wages apply today to 95 percent of industrial employment within thefield of the National Industrial Recovery Act. We seek the definite end ofpreventing combinations in furtherance of monopoly and in restraint oftrade, while at the same time we seek to prevent ruinous rivalries withinindustrial groups which in many cases resemble the gang wars of theunderworld and in which the real victim in every case is the publicitself. 

Under the authority of this Congress, we have brought the component partsof each industry together around a common table, just as we have broughtproblems affecting labor to a common meeting ground. Though the machinery, hurriedly devised, may need readjustment from time to time, nevertheless Ithink you will agree with me that we have created a permanent feature ofour modernized industrial structure and that it will continue under thesupervision but not the arbitrary dictation of Government itself. 

You recognized last spring that the most serious part of the debt burdenaffected those who stood in danger of losing their farms and their homes. Iam glad to tell you that refinancing in both of these cases is proceedingwith good success and in all probability within the financial limits set bythe Congress. 

But agriculture had suffered from more than its debts. Actual experiencewith the operation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act leads to my beliefthat thus far the experiment of seeking a balance between production andconsumption is succeeding and has made progress entirely in line withreasonable expectations toward the restoration of farm prices to parity. Icontinue in my conviction that industrial progress and prosperity can onlybe attained by bringing the purchasing power of that portion of ourpopulation which in one form or another is dependent upon agriculture up toa level which will restore a proper balance between every section of thecountry and between every form of work. 

In this field, through carefully planned flood control, power developmentand land-use policies in the Tennessee Valley and in other, greatwatersheds, we are seeking the elimination of waste, the removal of poorlands from agriculture and the encouragement of small local industries, thus furthering this principle of a better balanced national life. Werecognize the great ultimate cost of the application of this rounded policyto every part off the Union. Today we are creating heavy obligations tostart the work because of the great unemployment needs of the moment. Ilook forward, however, to the time in the not distant future, when annualappropriations, wholly covered by current revenue, will enable the work toproceed under a national plan. Such a national plan will, in a generationor two, return many times the money spent on it; more important, it willeliminate the use of inefficient tools, conserve and increase naturalresources, prevent waste, and enable millions of our people to take betteradvantage of the opportunities which God has given our country. 

I cannot, unfortunately, present to you a picture of complete optimismregarding world affairs. 

The delegation representing the United States has worked in closecooperation with the other American Republics assembled at Montevideo tomake that conference an outstanding success. We have, I hope, made it clearto our neighbors that we seek with them future avoidance of territorialexpansion and of interference by one Nation in the internal affairs ofanother. Furthermore, all of us are seeking the restoration of commerce inways which will preclude the building up of large favorable trade balancesby any one Nation at the expense of trade debits on the part of otherNations. 

In other parts of the world, however, fear of immediate or futureaggression and with it the spending of vast sums on armament and thecontinued building up of defensive trade barriers prevent any greatprogress in peace or trade agreements. I have made it clear that the UnitedStates cannot take part in political arrangements in Europe but that westand ready to cooperate at any time in practicable measures on a worldbasis looking to immediate reduction of armaments and the lowering of thebarriers against commerce. 

I expect to report to you later in regard to debts owed the Government andpeople of this country by the Governments and peoples of other countries. Several Nations, acknowledging the debt, have paid in small part; otherNations have failed to pay. One Nation--Finland--has paid the installmentsdue this country in full. 

Returning to home problems, we have been shocked by many notorious examplesof injuries done our citizens by persons or groups who have been living offtheir neighbors by the use of methods either unethical or criminal. 

In the first category--a field which does not involve violations of theletter of our laws--practices have been brought to light which have shockedthose who believed that we were in the past generation raising the ethicalstandards of business. They call for stringent preventive or regulatorymeasures. I am speaking of those individuals who have evaded the spirit andpurpose of our tax laws, of those high officials of banks or corporationswho have grown rich at the expense of their stockholders or the public, ofthose reckless speculators with their own or other people's money whoseoperations have injured the values of the farmers' crops and the savingsof the poor. 

In the other category, crimes of organized banditry, coldblooded shooting, lynching and kidnapping have threatened our security. 

These violations of ethics and these violations of law call on the strongarm of Government for their immediate suppression; they call also on thecountry for an aroused public opinion. 

The adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment should give material aid to theelimination of those new forms of crime which came from the illegal trafficin liquor. 

I shall continue to regard it as my duty to use whatever means may benecessary to supplement State, local and private agencies for the relief ofsuffering caused by unemployment. With respect to this question, I haverecognized the dangers inherent in the direct giving of relief and havesought the means to provide not mere relief, but the opportunity for usefuland remunerative work. We shall, in the process of recovery, seek to moveas rapidly as possible from direct relief to publicly supported work andfrom that to the rapid restoration of private employment. 

It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendousreadjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully, withoutserious dislocation, with only a minimum of injustice and with a great, willing spirit of cooperation throughout the country. 

Disorder is not an American habit. Self-help and self-control are theessence of the American tradition--not of necessity the form of thattradition, but its spirit. The program itself comes from the Americanpeople. 

It is an integrated program, national in scope. Viewed in the large, it isdesigned to save from destruction and to keep for the future the genuinelyimportant values created by modern society. The vicious and wasteful partsof that society we could not save if we wished; they have chosen the way ofself-destruction. We would save useful mechanical invention, machineproduction, industrial efficiency, modern means of communication, broadeducation. We would save and encourage the slowly growing impulse amongconsumers to enter the industrial market place equipped with sufficientorganization to insist upon fair prices and honest sales. 

But the unnecessary expansion of industrial plants, the waste of naturalresources, the exploitation of the consumers of natural monopolies, theaccumulation of stagnant surpluses, child labor, and the ruthlessexploitation of all labor, the encouragement of speculation with otherpeople's money, these were consumed in the fires that they themselveskindled; we must make sure that as we reconstruct our life there be no soilin which such weeds can grow again. 

We have plowed the furrow and planted the good seed; the hard beginning isover. If we would reap the full harvest, we must cultivate the soil wherethis good seed is sprouting and the plant is reaching up to mature growth. 

A final personal word. I know that each of you will appreciate that. I amspeaking no mere politeness when I assure you how much I value the finerelationship that we have shared during these months of hard and incessantwork. Out of these friendly contacts we are, fortunately, building a strongand permanent tie between the legislative and executive branches of theGovernment. The letter of the Constitution wisely declared a separation, but the impulse of common purpose declares a union. In this spirit we joinonce more in serving the American people. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 7, 1943

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Seventy-eighth Congress:

This Seventy-eighth Congress assembles in one of the great moments in thehistory of the Nation. The past year was perhaps the most crucial formodern civilization; the coming year will be filled with violent conflicts--yet with high promise of better things. 

We must appraise the events of 1942 according to their relative importance;we must exercise a sense of proportion. 

First in importance in the American scene has been the inspiring proof ofthe great qualities of our fighting men. They have demonstrated thesequalities in adversity as well as in victory. As long as our flag fliesover this Capitol, Americans will honor the soldiers, sailors, and marineswho fought our first battles of this war against overwhelming odds theheroes, living and dead, of Wake and Bataan and Guadalcanal, of the JavaSea and Midway and the North Atlantic convoys. Their unconquerable spiritwill live forever. 

By far the largest and most important developments in the whole world-widestrategic picture of 1942 were the events of the long fronts in Russia:first, the implacable defense of Stalingrad; and, second, the offensives bythe Russian armies at various points that started in the latter part ofNovember and which still roll on with great force and effectiveness. 

The other major events of the year were: the series of Japanese advances inthe Philippines, the East Indies, Malaya, and Burma; the stopping of thatJapanese advance in the mid-Pacific, the South Pacific, and the IndianOceans; the successful defense of the Near East by the Britishcounterattack through Egypt and Libya; the American-British occupation ofNorth Africa. Of continuing importance in the year 1942 were the unendingand bitterly contested battles of the convoy routes, and the gradualpassing of air superiority from the Axis to the United Nations. 

The Axis powers knew that they must win the war in 1942--or eventually loseeverything. I do not need to tell you that our enemies did not win the warin 1942. 

In the Pacific area, our most important victory in 1942 was the air andnaval battle off Midway Island. That action is historically importantbecause it secured for our use communication lines stretching thousands ofmiles in every direction. In placing this emphasis on the Battle of Midway, I am not unmindful of other successful actions in the Pacific, in the airand on land and afloat--especially those on the Coral Sea and New Guineaand in the Solomon Islands. But these actions were essentially defensive. They were part of the delaying strategy that characterized this phase ofthe war. 

During this period we inflicted steady losses upon the enemy--great lossesof Japanese planes and naval vessels, transports and cargo ships. As earlyas one year ago, we set as a primary task in the war of the Pacific aday-by-day and week-by-week and month-by-month destruction of more Japanesewar materials than Japanese industry could replace. Most certainly, thattask has been and is being performed by our fighting ships and planes. Anda large part of this task has been accomplished by the gallant crews of ourAmerican submarines who strike on the other side of the Pacific at Japaneseships--right up at the very mouth of the harbor of Yokohama. 

We know that as each day goes by, Japanese strength in ships and planes isgoing down and down, and American strength in ships and planes is going upand up. And so I sometimes feel that the eventual outcome can now be put ona mathematical basis. That will become evident to the Japanese peoplethemselves when we strike at their own home islands, and bomb themconstantly from the air. 

And in the attacks against Japan, we shall be joined with the heroic peopleof China--that great people whose ideals of peace are so closely akin to ourown. Even today we are flying as much lend-lease material into China asever traversed the Burma Road, flying it over mountains 17, 000 feet high, flying blind through sleet and snow. We shall overcome all the formidableobstacles, and get the battle equipment into China to shatter the power ofour common enemy. From this war, China will realize the security, theprosperity and the dignity, which Japan has sought so ruthlessly todestroy. 

The period of our defensive attrition in the Pacific is drawing to a close. Now our aim is to force the Japanese to fight. Last year, we stopped them. This year, we intend to advance. 

Turning now to the European theater of war, during this past year it wasclear that our first task was to lessen the concentrated pressure on theRussian front by compelling Germany to divert part of her manpower andequipment to another theater of war. After months of secret planning andpreparation in the utmost detail, an enormous amphibious expedition wasembarked for French North Africa from the United States and the UnitedKingdom in literally hundreds of ships. It reached its objectives with verysmall losses, and has already produced an important effect upon the wholesituation of the war. It has opened to attack what Mr. Churchill welldescribed as "the under-belly of the Axis, " and it has removed the alwaysdangerous threat of an Axis attack through West Africa against the SouthAtlantic Ocean and the continent of South America itself. 

The well-timed and splendidly executed offensive from Egypt by the BritishEighth Army was a part of the same major strategy of the United Nations. 

Great rains and appalling mud and very limited communications have delayedthe final battles of Tunisia. The Axis is reinforcing its strong positions. But I am confident that though the fighting will be tough, when the finalAllied assault is made, the last vestige of Axis power will be driven fromthe whole of the south shores of the Mediterranean. 

Any review of the year 1942 must emphasize the magnitude and the diversityof the military activities in which this Nation has become engaged. As Ispeak to you, approximately one and a half million of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and fliers are in service outside of our continentallimits, all through the world. Our merchant seamen, in addition, arecarrying supplies to them and to our allies over every sea lane. 

Few Americans realize the amazing growth of our air strength, though I amsure our enemy does. Day in and day out our forces are bombing the enemyand meeting him in combat on many different fronts in every part of theworld. And for those who question the quality of our aircraft and theability of our fliers, I point to the fact that, in Africa, we are shootingdown two enemy planes to every one we lose, and in the Pacific and theSouthwest Pacific we are shooting them down four to one. 

We pay great tribute--the tribute of the United States of America--to thefighting men of Russia and China and Britain and the various members of theBritish Commonwealth--the millions of men who through the years of this warhave fought our common enemies, and have denied to them the world conquestwhich they sought. 

We pay tribute to the soldiers and fliers and seamen of others of theUnited Nations whose countries have been overrun by Axis hordes. 

As a result of the Allied occupation of North Africa, powerful units of theFrench Army and Navy are going into action. They are in action with theUnited Nations forces. We welcome them as allies and as friends. They joinwith those Frenchmen who, since the dark days of June, 1940, have beenfighting valiantly for the liberation of their stricken country. 

We pay tribute to the fighting leaders of our allies, to Winston Churchill, to Joseph Stalin, and to the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. Yes, there is avery great unanimity between the leaders of the United Nations. This unityis effective in planning and carrying out the major strategy of this warand in building up and in maintaining the lines of supplies. 

I cannot prophesy. I cannot tell you when or where the United Nations aregoing to strike next in Europe. But we are going to strike--and strikehard. I cannot tell you whether we are going to hit them in Norway, orthrough the Low Countries, or in France, or through Sardinia or Sicily, orthrough the Balkans, or through Poland--or at several pointssimultaneously. But I can tell you that no matter where and when we strikeby land, we and the British and the Russians will hit them from the airheavily and relentlessly. Day in and day out we shall heap tons upon tonsof high explosives on their war factories and utilities and seaports. 

Hitler and Mussolini will understand now the enormity of theirmiscalculations--that the Nazis would always have the advantage of superiorair power as they did when they bombed Warsaw, and Rotterdam, and Londonand Coventry. That superiority has gone--forever. 

Yes, the Nazis and the Fascists have asked for it--and they are going to getit. 

Our forward progress in this war has depended upon our progress on theproduction front. 

There has been criticism of the management and conduct of our warproduction. Much of this self-criticism has had a healthy effect. It hasspurred us on. It has reflected a normal American impatience to get on withthe job. We are the kind of people who are never quite satisfied withanything short of miracles. 

But there has been some criticism based on guesswork and even on maliciousfalsification of fact. Such criticism creates doubts and creates fears, andweakens our total effort. 

I do not wish to suggest that we should be completely satisfied with ourproduction progress today, or next month, or ever. But I can report to youwith genuine pride on what has been accomplished in 1942. 

A year ago we set certain production goals for 1942 and for 1943. Somepeople, including some experts, thought that we had pulled some big figuresout of a hat just to frighten the Axis. But we had confidence in theability of our people to establish new records. And that confidence hasbeen justified. 

Of course, we realized that some production objectives would have to bechanged--some of them adjusted upward, and others downward; some itemswould be taken out of the program altogether, and others added. This wasinevitable as we gained battle experience, and as technologicalimprovements were made. 

Our 1942 airplane production and tank production fell short, numerically--stress the word numerically of the goals set a year ago. Nevertheless, we have plenty of reason to be proud of our record for 1942. We produced 48, 000 military planes--more than the airplane production ofGermany, Italy, and Japan put together. Last month, in December, weproduced 5, 500 military planes and the rate is rapidly rising. Furthermore, we must remember that as each month passes by, the averages of our typesweigh more, take more man-hours to make, and have more striking power. 

In tank production, we revised our schedule--and for good and sufficientreasons. As a result of hard experience in battle, we have diverted aportion of our tank-producing capacity to a stepped-up production of new, deadly field weapons, especially self-propelled artillery. 

Here are some other production figures:

In 1942, we produced 56, 000 combat vehicles, such as tanks andself-propelled artillery. 

In 1942, we produced 670, 000 machine guns, six times greater than ourproduction in 1941 and three times greater than our total production duringthe year and a half of our participation in the first World War. 

We produced 21, 000 anti-tank guns, six times greater than our 1941production. 

We produced ten and a quarter billion rounds of small-arms ammunition, fivetimes greater than our 1941 production and three times greater than ourtotal production in the first World War. 

We produced 181 million rounds of artillery ammunition, twelve timesgreater than our 1941 production and ten times greater than our totalproduction in the first World War. 

I think the arsenal of democracy is making good. 

These facts and figures that I have given will give no great aid andcomfort to the enemy. On the contrary, I can imagine that they will givehim considerable discomfort. I suspect that Hitler and Tojo will find itdifficult to explain to the German and Japanese people just why it is that"decadent, inefficient democracy" can produce such phenomenal quantities ofweapons and munitions--and fighting men. 

We have given the lie to certain misconceptions--which is an extremelypolite word--especially the one which holds that the various blocs orgroups within a free country cannot forego their political and economicdifferences in time of crisis and work together toward a common goal. 

While we have been achieving this miracle of production, during the pastyear our armed forces have grown from a little over 2, 000, 000 to 7, 000, 000. In other words, we have withdrawn from the labor force and the farms some5, 000, 000 of our younger workers. And in spite of this, our farmers havecontributed their share to the common effort by producing the greatestquantity of food ever made available during a single year in all ourhistory. 

I wonder is there any person among us so simple as to believe that all thiscould have been done without creating some dislocations in our normalnational life, some inconveniences, and even some hardships?

Who can have hoped to have done this without burdensome Governmentregulations which are a nuisance to everyone--including those who have thethankless task of administering them?

We all know that there have been mistakes--mistakes due to the inevitableprocess of trial and error inherent in doing big things for the first time. We all know that there have been too many complicated forms andquestionnaires. I know about that. I have had to fill some of them outmyself. 

But we are determined to see to it that our supplies of food and otheressential civilian goods are distributed on a fair and just basis--to richand poor, management and labor, farmer and city dweller alike. We aredetermined to keep the cost of living at a stable level. All this hasrequired much information. These forms and questionnaires represent anhonest and sincere attempt by honest and sincere officials to obtain thisinformation. 

We have learned by the mistakes that we have made. 

Our experience will enable us during the coming year to improve thenecessary mechanisms of wartime economic controls, and to simplifyadministrative procedures. But we do not intend to leave things so lax thatloopholes will be left for cheaters, for chiselers, or for the manipulatorsof the black market. 

Of course, there have been disturbances and inconveniences--and evenhardships. And there will be many, many more before we finally win. Yes, 1943 will not be an easy year for us on the home front. We shall feel inmany ways in our daily lives the sharp pinch of total war. 

Fortunately, there are only a few Americans who place appetite abovepatriotism. The overwhelming majority realize that the food we send abroadis for essential military purposes, for our own and Allied fighting forces, and for necessary help in areas that we occupy. 

We Americans intend to do this great job together. In our common labors wemust build and fortify the very foundation of national unity--confidence inone another. 

It is often amusing, and it is sometimes politically profitable, to picturethe City of Washington as a madhouse, with the Congress and theAdministration disrupted with confusion and indecision and generalincompetence. 

However--what matters most in war is results. And the one pertinent fact isthat after only a few years of preparation and only one year of warfare, weare able to engage, spiritually as well as physically, in the total wagingof a total war. 

Washington may be a madhouse--but only in the sense that it is the CapitalCity of a Nation which is fighting mad. And I think that Berlin and Romeand Tokyo, which had such contempt for the obsolete methods of democracy, would now gladly use all they could get of that same brand of madness. 

And we must not forget that our achievements in production have beenrelatively no greater than those of the Russians and the British and theChinese who have developed their own war industries under the incredibledifficulties of battle conditions. They have had to continue work throughbombings and blackouts. And they have never quit. 

We Americans are in good, brave company in this war, and we are playing ourown, honorable part in the vast common effort. 

As spokesmen for the United States Government, you and I take off our hatsto those responsible for our American production--to the owners, managers, and supervisors, to the draftsmen and the engineers, and to the workers--men and women--in factories and arsenals and shipyards and mines and millsand forests--and railroads and on highways. 

We take off our hats to the farmers who have faced an unprecedented task offeeding not only a great Nation but a great part of the world. 

We take off our hats to all the loyal, anonymous, untiring men and womenwho have worked in private employment and in Government and who haveendured rationing and other stringencies with good humor and good will. 

Yes, we take off our hats to all Americans who have contributed somagnificently to our common cause. 

I have sought to emphasize a sense of proportion in this review of theevents of the war and the needs of the war. 

We should never forget the things we are fighting for. But, at thiscritical period of the war, we should confine ourselves to the largerobjectives and not get bogged down in argument over methods and details. 

We, and all the United Nations, want a decent peace and a durable peace. Inthe years between the end of the first World War and the beginning of thesecond World War, we were not living under a decent or a durable peace. 

I have reason to know that our boys at the front are concerned with twobroad aims beyond the winning of the war; and their thinking and theiropinion coincide with what most Americans here back home are mulling over. They know, and we know, that it would be inconceivable--it would, indeed, besacrilegious--if this Nation and the world did not attain some real, lasting good out of all these efforts and sufferings and bloodshed anddeath. 

The men in our armed forces want a lasting peace, and, equally, they wantpermanent employment for themselves, their families, and their neighborswhen they are mustered out at the end of the war. 

Two years ago I spoke in my Annual Message of four freedoms. The blessingsof two of them--freedom of speech and freedom of religion--are an essentialpart of the very life of this Nation; and we hope that these blessings willbe granted to all men everywhere. 

'The people at home, and the people at the front, are wondering a littleabout the third freedom--freedom from want. To them it means that when theyare mustered out, when war production is converted to the economy of peace, they will have the right to expect full employment--full employment forthemselves and for all able-bodied men and women in America who want towork. 

They expect the opportunity to work, to run their farms, their stores, toearn decent wages. They are eager to face the risks inherent in our systemof free enterprise. 

They do not want a postwar America which suffers from undernourishment orslums--or the dole. They want no get-rich-quick era of bogus "prosperity"which will end for them in selling apples on a street corner, as happenedafter the bursting of the boom in 1929. 

When you talk with our young men and our young women, you will find theywant to work for themselves and for their families; they consider that theyhave the right to work; and they know that after the last war their fathersdid not gain that right. 

When you talk with our young men and women, you will find that with theopportunity for employment they want assurance against the evils of allmajor economic hazards--assurance that will extend from the cradle to thegrave. And this great Government can and must provide this assurance. 

I have been told that this is no time to speak of a better America afterthe war. I am told it is a grave error on my part. 

I dissent. 

And if the security of the individual citizen, or the family, should becomea subject of national debate, the country knows where I stand. 

I say this now to this Seventy-eighth Congress, because it is whollypossible that freedom from want--the right of employment, the right ofassurance against life's hazards--will loom very large as a task of Americaduring the coming two years. 

I trust it will not be regarded as an issue--but rather as a task for all ofus to study sympathetically, to work out with a constant regard for theattainment of the objective, with fairness to all and with injustice tonone. 

In this war of survival we must keep before our minds not only the evilthings we fight against but the good things we are fighting for. We fightto retain a great past--and we fight to gain a greater future. 

Let us remember, too, that economic safety for the America of the future isthreatened unless a greater economic stability comes to the rest of theworld. We cannot make America an island in either a military or an economicsense. Hitlerism, like any other form of crime or disease, can grow fromthe evil seeds of economic as well as military feudalism. 

Victory in this war is the first and greatest goal before us. Victory inthe peace is the next. That means striving toward the enlargement of thesecurity of man here and throughout the world--and, finally, striving forthe fourth freedom--freedom from fear. 

It is of little account for any of us to talk of essential human needs, ofattaining security, if we run the risk of another World War in ten ortwenty or fifty years. That is just plain common sense. Wars grow in size, in death and destruction, and in the inevitability of engulfing allNations, in inverse ratio to the shrinking size of the world as a result ofthe conquest of the air. I shudder to think of what will happen tohumanity, including ourselves, if this war ends in an inconclusive peace, and another war breaks out when the babies of today have grown to fightingage. 

Every normal American prays that neither he nor his sons nor his grandsonswill be compelled to go through this horror again. 

Undoubtedly a few Americans, even now, think that this Nation can end thiswar comfortably and then climb back into an American hole and pull the holein after them. 

But we have learned that we can never dig a hole so deep that it would besafe against predatory animals. We have also learned that if we do not pullthe fangs of the predatory animals of this world, they will multiply andgrow in strength--and they will be at our throats again once more in ashort generation. 

Most Americans realize more clearly than ever before that modern warequipment in the hands of aggressor Nations can bring danger overnight toour own national existence or to that of any other Nation--or island--orcontinent. 

It is clear to us that if Germany and Italy and Japan--or any one of them--remain armed at the end of this war, or are permitted to rearm, they willagain, and inevitably, embark upon an ambitious career of world conquest. They must be disarmed and kept disarmed, and they must abandon thephilosophy, and the teaching of that philosophy, which has brought so muchsuffering to the world. 

After the first World War we tried to achieve a formula for permanentpeace, based on a magnificent idealism. We failed. But, by our failure, wehave learned that we cannot maintain peace at this stage of humandevelopment by good intentions alone. 

Today the United Nations are the mightiest military coalition in allhistory. They represent an overwhelming majority of the population of theworld. Bound together in solemn agreement that they themselves will notcommit acts of aggression or conquest against any of their neighbors, theUnited Nations can and must remain united for the maintenance of peace bypreventing any attempt to rearm in Germany, in Japan, in Italy, or in anyother Nation which seeks to violate the Tenth Commandment--"Thou shalt notcovet. "

There are cynics, there are skeptics who say it cannot be done. TheAmerican people and all the freedom-loving peoples of this earth are nowdemanding that it must be done. And the will of these people shallprevail. 

The very philosophy of the Axis powers is based on a profound contempt forthe human race. If, in the formation of our future policy, we were guidedby the same cynical contempt, then we should be surrendering to thephilosophy of our enemies, and our victory would turn to defeat. 

The issue of this war is the basic issue between those who believe inmankind and those who do not--the ancient issue between those who put theirfaith in the people and those who put their faith in dictators and tyrants. There have always been those who did not believe in the people, whoattempted to block their forward movement across history, to force themback to servility and suffering and silence. 

The people have now gathered their strength. They are moving forward intheir might and power--and no force, no combination of forces, no trickery, deceit, or violence, can stop them now. They see before them the hope ofthe world--a decent, secure, peaceful life for men everywhere. 

I do not prophesy when this war will end. 

But I do believe that this year of 1943 will give to the United Nations avery substantial advance along the roads that lead to Berlin and Rome andTokyo. 

I tell you it is within the realm of possibility that this Seventy-eighthCongress may have the historic privilege of helping greatly to save theworld from future fear. 

Therefore, let us all have confidence, let us redouble our efforts. 

A tremendous, costly, long-enduring task in peace as well as in war isstill ahead of us. 

But, as we face that continuing task, we may know that the state of thisNation is good--the heart of this Nation is sound--the spirit of this Nationis strong--the faith of this Nation is eternal. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 11, 1944

To the Congress:

This Nation in the past two years has become an active partner in theworld's greatest war against human slavery. 

We have joined with like-minded people in order to defend ourselves in aworld that has been gravely threatened with gangster rule. 

But I do not think that any of us Americans can be content with meresurvival. Sacrifices that we and our allies are making impose upon us all asacred obligation to see to it that out of this war we and our childrenwill gain something better than mere survival. 

We are united in determination that this war shall not be followed byanother interim which leads to new disaster--that we shall not repeat thetragic errors of ostrich isolationism--that we shall not repeat the excessesof the wild twenties when this Nation went for a joy ride on a rollercoaster which ended in a tragic crash. 

When Mr. Hull went to Moscow in October, and when I went to Cairo andTeheran in November, we knew that we were in agreement with our allies inour common determination to fight and win this war. But there were manyvital questions concerning the future peace, and they were discussed in anatmosphere of complete candor and harmony. 

In the last war such discussions, such meetings, did not even begin untilthe shooting had stopped and the delegates began to assemble at the peacetable. There had been no previous opportunities for man-to-man discussionswhich lead to meetings of minds. The result was a peace which was not apeace. 

That was a mistake which we are not repeating in this war. 

And right here I want to address a word or two to some suspicious souls whoare fearful that Mr. Hull or I have made "commitments" for the future whichmight pledge this Nation to secret treaties, or to enacting the role ofSanta Claus. 

To such suspicious souls--using a polite terminology--I wish to say that Mr. Churchill, and Marshal Stalin, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek are allthoroughly conversant with the provisions of our Constitution. And so isMr. Hull. And so am I. 

Of course we made some commitments. We most certainly committed ourselvesto very large and very specific military plans which require the use of allAllied forces to bring about the defeat of our enemies at the earliestpossible time. 

But there were no secret treaties or political or financial commitments. 

The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for eachNation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up inone word: Security. 

And that means not only physical security which provides safety fromattacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security--in a family of Nations. 

In the plain down-to-earth talks that I had with the Generalissimo andMarshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear thatthey are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progressby their own peoples--progress toward a better life. All our allies wantfreedom to develop their lands and resources, to build up industry, toincrease education and individual opportunity, and to raise standards ofliving. 

All our allies have learned by bitter experience that real development willnot be possible if they are to be diverted from their purpose by repeatedwars--or even threats of war. 

China and Russia are truly united with Britain and America in recognitionof this essential fact:

The best interests of each Nation, large and small, demand that allfreedom-loving Nations shall join together in a just and durable system ofpeace. In the present world situation, evidenced by the actions of Germany, Italy, and Japan, unquestioned military control over disturbers of thepeace is as necessary among Nations as it is among citizens in a community. And an equally basic essential to peace is a decent standard of living forall individual men and women and children in all Nations. Freedom from fearis eternally linked with freedom from want. 

There are people who burrow through our Nation like unseeing moles, andattempt to spread the suspicion that if other Nations are encouraged toraise their standards of living, our own American standard of living mustof necessity be depressed. 

The fact is the very contrary. It has been shown time and again that if thestandard of living of any country goes up, so does its purchasing power--and that such a rise encourages a better standard of living in neighboringcountries with whom it trades. That is just plain common sense--and it isthe kind of plain common sense that provided the basis for our discussionsat Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran. 

Returning from my journeyings, I must confess to a sense of "let-down" whenI found many evidences of faulty perspective here in Washington. The faultyperspective consists in overemphasizing lesser problems and therebyunderemphasizing the first and greatest problem. 

The overwhelming majority of our people have met the demands of this warwith magnificent courage and understanding. They have acceptedinconveniences; they have accepted hardships; they have accepted tragicsacrifices. And they are ready and eager to make whatever furthercontributions are needed to win the war as quickly as possible--if onlythey are given the chance to know what is required of them. 

However, while the majority goes on about its great work without complaint, a noisy minority maintains an uproar of demands for special favors forspecial groups. There are pests who swarm through the lobbies of theCongress and the cocktail bars of Washington, representing these specialgroups as opposed to the basic interests of the Nation as a whole. Theyhave come to look upon the war primarily as a chance to make profits forthemselves at the expense of their neighbors--profits in money or in termsof political or social preferment. 

Such selfish agitation can be highly dangerous in wartime. It createsconfusion. It damages morale. It hampers our national effort. It muddiesthe waters and therefore prolongs the war. 

If we analyze American history impartially, we cannot escape the fact thatin our past we have not always forgotten individual and selfish andpartisan interests in time of war--we have not always been united in purposeand direction. We cannot overlook the serious dissensions and the lack ofunity in our war of the Revolution, in our War of 1812, or in our WarBetween the States, when the survival of the Union itself was at stake. 

In the first World War we came closer to national unity than in anyprevious war. But that war lasted only a year and a half, and increasingsigns of disunity began to appear during the final months of the conflict. 

In this war, we have been compelled to learn how interdependent upon eachother are all groups and sections of the population of America. 

Increased food costs, for example, will bring new demands for wageincreases from all war workers, which will in turn raise all prices of allthings including those things which the farmers themselves have to buy. Increased wages or prices will each in turn produce the same results. Theyall have a particularly disastrous result on all fixed income groups. 

And I hope you will remember that all of us in this Government representthe fixed income group just as much as we represent business owners, workers, and farmers. This group of fixed income people includes: teachers, clergy, policemen, firemen, widows and minors on fixed incomes, wives anddependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old-age pensioners. They andtheir families add up to one-quarter of our one hundred and thirty millionpeople. They have few or no high pressure representatives at the Capitol. In a period of gross inflation they would be the worst sufferers. 

If ever there was a time to subordinate individual or group selfishness tothe national good, that time is now. Disunity at home--bickerings, self-seeking partisanship, stoppages of work, inflation, business as usual, politics as usual, luxury as usual these are the influences which canundermine the morale of the brave men ready to die at the front for ushere. 

Those who are doing most of the complaining are not deliberately strivingto sabotage the national war effort. They are laboring under the delusionthat the time is past when we must make prodigious sacrifices--that the waris already won and we can begin to slacken off. But the dangerous folly ofthat point of view can be measured by the distance that separates ourtroops from their ultimate objectives in Berlin and Tokyo--and by the sum ofall the perils that lie along the way. 

Overconfidence and complacency are among our deadliest enemies. Lastspring--after notable victories at Stalingrad and in Tunisia and against theU-boats on the high seas--overconfidence became so pronounced that warproduction fell off. In two months, June and July, 1943, more than athousand airplanes that could have been made and should have been made werenot made. Those who failed to make them were not on strike. They weremerely saying, "The war's in the bag--so let's relax. "

That attitude on the part of anyone--Government or management or labor--canlengthen this war. It can kill American boys. 

Let us remember the lessons of 1918. In the summer of that year the tideturned in favor of the allies. But this Government did not relax. In fact, our national effort was stepped up. In August, 1918, the draft age limitswere broadened from 21-31 to 18-45. The President called for "force to theutmost, " and his call was heeded. And in November, only three months later, Germany surrendered. 

That is the way to fight and win a war--all out--and not with half-an-eye onthe battlefronts abroad and the other eye-and-a-half on personal, selfish, or political interests here at home. 

Therefore, in order to concentrate all our energies and resources onwinning the war, and to maintain a fair and stable economy at home, Irecommend that the Congress adopt:

(1) A realistic tax law--which will tax all unreasonable profits, bothindividual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to oursons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congressdoes not begin to meet this test. 

(2) A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts--whichwill prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profitsout of war. 

(3) A cost of food law--which will enable the Government (a) to place areasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production;and (b) to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay forthe food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will requirepublic funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percentof the present annual cost of the war. 

(4) Early reenactment of the stabilization statute of October, 1942. Thisexpires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, thecountry might just as well expect price chaos by summer. 

We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positiveaction to maintain the integrity of the American dollar. 

(5) A national service law--which, for the duration of the war, willprevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will makeavailable for war production or for any other essential services everyable-bodied adult in this Nation. 

These five measures together form a just and equitable whole. I would notrecommend a national service law unless the other laws were passed to keepdown the cost of living, to share equitably the burdens of taxation, tohold the stabilization line, and to prevent undue profits. 

The Federal Government already has the basic power to draft capital andproperty of all kinds for war purposes on a basis of just compensation. 

As you know, I have for three years hesitated to recommend a nationalservice act. Today, however, I am convinced of its necessity. Although Ibelieve that we and our allies can win the war without such a measure, I amcertain that nothing less than total mobilization of all our resources ofmanpower and capital will guarantee an earlier victory, and reduce the tollof suffering and sorrow and blood. 

I have received a joint recommendation for this law from the heads of theWar Department, the Navy Department, and the Maritime Commission. These arethe men who bear responsibility for the procurement of the necessary armsand equipment, and for the successful prosecution of the war in the field. They say:

"When the very life of the Nation is in peril the responsibility forservice is common to all men and women. In such a time there can be nodiscrimination between the men and women who are assigned by the Governmentto its defense at the battlefront and the men and women assigned toproducing the vital materials essential to successful military operations. A prompt enactment of a National Service Law would be merely an expressionof the universality of this responsibility. "

I believe the country will agree that those statements are the solemntruth. 

National service is the most democratic way to wage a war. Like selectiveservice for the armed forces, it rests on the obligation of each citizen toserve his Nation to his utmost where he is best qualified. 

It does not mean reduction in wages. It does not mean loss of retirementand seniority rights and benefits. It does not mean that any substantialnumbers of war workers will be disturbed in their present jobs. Let thesefacts be wholly clear. 

Experience in other democratic Nations at war--Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand--has shown that the very existence of national servicemakes unnecessary the widespread use of compulsory power. National servicehas proven to be a unifying moral force based on an equal and comprehensivelegal obligation of all people in a Nation at war. 

There are millions of American men and women who are not in this war atall. It is not because they do not want to be in it. But they want to knowwhere they can best do their share. National service provides thatdirection. It will be a means by which every man and woman can find thatinner satisfaction which comes from making the fullest possiblecontribution to victory. 

I know that all civilian war workers will be glad to be able to say manyyears hence to their grandchildren: "Yes, I, too, was in service in thegreat war. I was on duty in an airplane factory, and I helped make hundredsof fighting planes. The Government told me that in doing that I wasperforming my most useful work in the service of my country. "

It is argued that we have passed the stage in the war where nationalservice is necessary. But our soldiers and sailors know that this is nottrue. We are going forward on a long, rough road--and, in all journeys, thelast miles are the hardest. And it is for that final effort--for the totaldefeat of our enemies--that we must mobilize our total resources. Thenational war program calls for the employment of more people in 1944 thanin 1943. 

It is my conviction that the American people will welcome this win-the-warmeasure which is based on the eternally just principle of "fair for one, fair for all. "

It will give our people at home the assurance that they are standingfour-square behind our soldiers and sailors. And it will give our enemiesdemoralizing assurance that we mean business--that we, 130, 000, 000Americans, are on the march to Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo. 

I hope that the Congress will recognize that, although this is a politicalyear, national service is an issue which transcends politics. Great powermust be used for great purposes. 

As to the machinery for this measure, the Congress itself should determineits nature--but it should be wholly nonpartisan in its make-up. 

Our armed forces are valiantly fulfilling their responsibilities to ourcountry and our people. Now the Congress faces the responsibility fortaking those measures which are essential to national security in this themost decisive phase of the Nation's greatest war. 

Several alleged reasons have prevented the enactment of legislation whichwould preserve for our soldiers and sailors and marines the fundamentalprerogative of citizenship--the right to vote. No amount of legalisticargument can becloud this issue in the eyes of these ten million Americancitizens. Surely the signers of the Constitution did not intend a documentwhich, even in wartime, would be construed to take away the franchise ofany of those who are fighting to preserve the Constitution itself. 

Our soldiers and sailors and marines know that the overwhelming majority ofthem will be deprived of the opportunity to vote, if the voting machineryis left exclusively to the States under existing State laws--and that thereis no likelihood of these laws being changed in time to enable them to voteat the next election. The Army and Navy have reported that it will beimpossible effectively to administer forty-eight different soldier votinglaws. It is the duty of the Congress to remove this unjustifiablediscrimination against the men and women in our armed forces--and to do itas quickly as possible. 

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy forthe winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an Americanstandard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, nomatter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction ofour people--whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth--is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure. 

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, underthe protection of certain inalienable political rights--among them the rightof free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom fromunreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life andliberty. 

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however--as our industrialeconomy expanded--these political rights proved inadequate to assure usequality in the pursuit of happiness. 

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individualfreedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men. " People who are hungry and out of a jobare the stuff of which dictatorships are made. 

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. Wehave accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basisof security and prosperity can be established for all regardless ofstation, race, or creed. 

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops orfarms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing andrecreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return whichwill give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphereof freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home orabroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoygood health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education. 

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must beprepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to newgoals of human happiness and well-being. 

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon howfully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for ourcitizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lastingpeace in the world. 

One of the great American industrialists of our day--a man who has renderedyeoman service to his country in this crisis--recently emphasized the gravedangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinkingbusinessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop--ifhistory were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called"normalcy" of the 1920's--then it is certain that even though we shall haveconquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded tothe spirit of Fascism here at home. 

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic billof rights--for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so todo. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress inthe form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicatewith the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the eventthat no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that theNation will be conscious of the fact. 

Our fighting men abroad--and their families at home--expect such a programand have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that thisGovernment should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfishpressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans aredying. 

The foreign policy that we have been following--the policy that guided us atMoscow, Cairo, and Teheran--is based on the common sense principle which wasbest expressed by Benjamin Franklin on July 4, 1776: "We must all hangtogether, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. "

I have often said that there are no two fronts for America in this war. There is only one front. There is one line of unity which extends from thehearts of the people at home to the men of our attacking forces in ourfarthest outposts. When we speak of our total effort, we speak of thefactory and the field, and the mine as well as of the battleground--wespeak of the soldier and the civilian, the citizen and his Government. 

Each and every one of us has a solemn obligation under God to serve thisNation in its most critical hour--to keep this Nation great--to make thisNation greater in a better world. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 6, 1945

To the Congress:

In considering the State of the Union, the war and the peace that is tofollow are naturally uppermost in the minds of all of us. 

This war must be waged--it is being waged--with the greatest and mostpersistent intensity. Everything we are and have is at stake. Everything weare and have will be given. American men, fighting far from home, havealready won victories which the world will never forget. 

We have no question of the ultimate victory. We have no question of thecost. Our losses will be heavy. 

We and our allies will go on fighting together to ultimate total victory. 

We have seen a year marked, on the whole, by substantial progress towardvictory, even though the year ended with a setback for our arms, when theGermans launched a ferocious counter-attack into Luxembourg and Belgiumwith the obvious objective of cutting our line in the center. 

Our men have fought with indescribable and unforgettable gallantry undermost difficult conditions, and our German enemies have sustainedconsiderable losses while failing to obtain their objectives. 

The high tide of this German effort was reached two days after Christmas. Since then we have reassumed the offensive, rescued the isolated garrisonat Bastogne, and forced a German withdrawal along the whole line of thesalient. The speed with which we recovered from this savage attack waslargely possible because we have one supreme commander in complete controlof all the Allied armies in France. General Eisenhower has faced thisperiod of trial with admirable calm and resolution and with steadilyincreasing success. He has my complete confidence. 

Further desperate attempts may well be made to break our lines, to slow ourprogress. We must never make the mistake of assuming that the Germans arebeaten until the last Nazi has surrendered. 

And I would express another most serious warning against the poisonouseffects of enemy propaganda. 

The wedge that the Germans attempted to drive in western Europe was lessdangerous in actual terms of winning the war than the wedges which they arecontinually attempting to drive between ourselves and our allies. 

Every little rumor which is intended to weaken our faith in our allies islike an actual enemy agent in our midst--seeking to sabotage our wareffort. There are, here and there, evil and baseless rumors against theRussians--rumors against the British--rumors against our own Americancommanders in the field. 

When you examine these rumors closely, you will observe that every one ofthem bears the same trade-mark--"Made in Germany. "

We must resist this divisive propaganda--we must destroy it--with the samestrength and the same determination that our fighting men are displaying asthey resist and destroy the panzer divisions. 

In Europe, we shall resume the attack and--despite temporary setbacks hereor there--we shall continue the attack relentlessly until Germany iscompletely defeated. 

It is appropriate at this time to review the basic strategy which hasguided us through three years of war, and which will lead, eventually, tototal victory. 

The tremendous effort of the first years of this war was directed towardthe concentration of men and supplies in the various theaters of action atthe points where they could hurt our enemies most. 

It was an effort--in the language of the military men--of deployment of ourforces. Many battles--essential battles--were fought; many victories--vitalvictories--were won. But these battles and these victories were fought andwon to hold back the attacking enemy, and to put us in positions from whichwe and our allies could deliver the final, decisive blows. 

In the beginning our most important military task was to prevent ourenemies--the strongest and most violently aggressive powers that ever havethreatened civilization--from winning decisive victories. But even while wewere conducting defensive, delaying actions, we were looking forward to thetime when we could wrest the initiative from our enemies and place oursuperior resources of men and materials into direct competition with them. 

It was plain then that the defeat of either enemy would require the massingof overwhelming forces--ground, sea, and air--in positions from which weand our allies could strike directly against the enemy homelands anddestroy the Nazi and Japanese war machines. 

In the case of Japan, we had to await the completion of extensivepreliminary operations--operations designed to establish secure supply linesthrough the Japanese outer-zone defenses. This called for overwhelming seapower and air power--supported by ground forces strategically employedagainst isolated outpost garrisons. 

Always--from the very day we were attacked--it was right militarily as wellas morally to reject the arguments of those shortsighted people who wouldhave had us throw Britain and Russia to the Nazi wolves and concentrateagainst the Japanese. Such people urged that we fight a purely defensivewar against Japan while allowing the domination of all the rest of theworld by Nazism and Fascism. 

In the European theater the necessary bases for the massing of ground andair power against Germany were already available in Great Britain. In theMediterranean area we could begin ground operations against major elementsof the German Army as rapidly as we could put troops in the field, first inNorth Africa and then in Italy. 

Therefore, our decision was made to concentrate the bulk of our ground andair forces against Germany until her utter defeat. That decision was basedon all these factors; and it was also based on the realization that, of ourtwo enemies, Germany would be more able to digest quickly her conquests, the more able quickly to convert the manpower and resources of herconquered territory into a war potential. 

We had in Europe two active and indomitable allies--Britain and the SovietUnion--and there were also the heroic resistance movements in the occupiedcountries, constantly engaging and harassing the Germans. We cannot forgethow Britain held the line, alone, in 1940 and 1941; and at the same time, despite ferocious bombardment from the air, built up a tremendous armamentsindustry which enabled her to take the offensive at El Alamein in 1942. 

We cannot forget the heroic defense of Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad, or the tremendous Russian offensives of 1943 and 1944 which destroyedformidable German armies. 

Nor can we forget how, for more than seven long years, the Chinese peoplehave been sustaining the barbarous attacks of the Japanese and containinglarge enemy forces on the vast areas of the Asiatic mainland. 

In the future we must never forget the lesson that we have learned--that wemust have friends who will work with us in peace as they have fought at ourside in war. 

As a result of the combined effort of the Allied forces, great militaryvictories were achieved in 1944: The liberation of France, Belgium, Greece, and parts of The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, andCzechoslovakia; the surrender of Rumania and Bulgaria; the invasion ofGermany itself and Hungary; the steady march through the Pacific islands tothe Philippines, Guam, and Saipan; and the beginnings of a mighty airoffensive against the Japanese islands. 

Now, as this Seventy-ninth Congress meets, we have reached the mostcritical phase of the war. 

The greatest victory of the last year was, of course, the successful breachon June 6, 1944, of the German "impregnable" seawall of Europe and thevictorious sweep of the Allied forces through France and Belgium andLuxembourg--almost to the Rhine itself. 

The cross-channel invasion of the Allied armies was the greatest amphibiousoperation in the history of the world. It overshadowed all other operationsin this or any other war in its immensity. Its success is a tribute to thefighting courage of the soldiers who stormed the beaches--to the sailorsand merchant seamen who put the soldiers ashore and kept them supplied--andto the military and naval leaders who achieved a real miracle of planningand execution. And it is also a tribute to the ability of two Nations, Britain and America, to plan together, and work together, and fighttogether in perfect cooperation and perfect harmony. 

This cross-channel invasion was followed in August by a second greatamphibious operation, landing troops in southern France. In this, the samecooperation and the same harmony existed between the American, French, andother Allied forces based in North Africa and Italy. 

The success of the two invasions is a tribute also to the ability of manymen and women to maintain silence, when a few careless words would haveimperiled the lives of hundreds of thousands, and would have jeopardizedthe whole vast undertakings. 

These two great operations were made possible by success in the Battle ofthe Atlantic. 

Without this success over German submarines, we could not have built up ourinvasion forces or air forces in Great Britain, nor could we have kept asteady stream of supplies flowing to them after they had landed in France. 

The Nazis, however, may succeed in improving their submarines and theircrews. They have recently increased their U-boat activity. The Battle ofthe Atlantic--like all campaigns in this war--demands eternal vigilance. Butthe British, Canadian, and other Allied navies, together with our own, areconstantly on the alert. 

The tremendous operations in western Europe have overshadowed in the publicmind the less spectacular but vitally important Italian front. Its place inthe strategic conduct of the war in Europe has been obscured, and--by somepeople unfortunately--underrated. 

It is important that any misconception on that score be corrected--now. 

What the Allied forces in Italy are doing is a well-considered part in ourstrategy in Europe, now aimed at only one objective--the total defeat ofthe Germans. These valiant forces in Italy are continuing to keep asubstantial portion of the German Army under constant pressure--includingsome 20 first-line German divisions and the necessary supply and transportand replacement troops--all of which our enemies need so badly elsewhere. 

Over very difficult terrain and through adverse weather conditions, ourFifth Army and the British Eighth Army--reinforced by units from otherUnited Nations, including a brave and well equipped unit of the BrazilianArmy--have, in the past year, pushed north through bloody Cassino and theAnzio beachhead, and through Rome until now they occupy heights overlookingthe valley of the Po. 

The greatest tribute which can be paid to the courage and fighting abilityof these splendid soldiers in Italy is to point out that although theirstrength is about equal to that of the Germans they oppose, the Allies havebeen continuously on the offensive. 

That pressure, that offensive, by our troops in Italy will continue. 

The American people--and every soldier now fighting in the Apennines--shouldremember that the Italian front has not lost any of the importance which ithad in the days when it was the only Allied front in Europe. 

In the Pacific during the past year, we have conducted the fastest-movingoffensive in the history of modern warfare. We have driven the enemy backmore than 3, 000 miles across the Central Pacific. A year ago, our conquestof Tarawa was a little more than a month old. 

A year ago, we were preparing for our invasion of Kwajalein, the second ofour great strides across the Central Pacific to the Philippines. 

A year ago, General MacArthur was still fighting in New Guinea almost 1, 500miles from his present position in the Philippine Islands. 

We now have firmly established bases in the Mariana Islands, from which ourSuper fortresses bomb Tokyo itself--and will continue to blast Japan inever-increasing numbers. 

Japanese forces in the Philippines have been cut in two. There is stillhard fighting ahead--costly fighting. But the liberation of the Philippineswill mean that Japan has been largely cut off from her conquests in theEast Indies. 

The landing of our troops on Leyte was the largest amphibious operationthus far conducted in the Pacific. 

Moreover, these landings drew the Japanese Fleet into the first great seabattle which Japan has risked in almost two years. Not since the nightengagements around Guadalcanal in November-December, 1942, had our Navybeen able to come to grips with major units of the Japanese Fleet. We hadbrushed against their fleet in the first battle of the Philippine Sea inJune, 1944, but not until last October were we able really to engage amajor portion of the Japanese Navy in actual combat. The naval engagementwhich raged for three days was the heaviest blow ever struck againstJapanese sea power. 

As a result of that battle, much of what is left of the Japanese Fleet hasbeen driven behind the screen of islands that separates the Yellow Sea, theChina Sea, and the Sea of Japan from the Pacific. 

Our Navy looks forward to any opportunity which the lords of the JapaneseNavy will give us to fight them again. 

The people of this Nation have a right to be proud of the courage andfighting ability of the men in the armed forces--on all fronts. They alsohave a right to be proud of American leadership which has guided their sonsinto battle. 

The history of the generalship of this war has been a history of teamworkand cooperation, of skill and daring. Let me give you one example out oflast year's operations in the Pacific. 

Last September Admiral Halsey led American naval task forces intoPhilippine waters and north to the East China Sea, and struck heavy blowsat Japanese air and sea power. 

At that time it was our plan to approach the Philippines by further stages, taking islands which we may call A, C, and E. However, Admiral Halseyreported that a direct attack on Leyte appeared feasible. When GeneralMacArthur received the reports from Admiral Halsey's task forces, he alsoconcluded that it might be possible to attack the Japanese in thePhilippines directly--bypassing islands A, C, and E. 

Admiral Nimitz thereupon offered to make available to General MacArthurseveral divisions which had been scheduled to take the intermediateobjectives. These discussions, conducted at great distances, all took placein one day. 

General MacArthur immediately informed the Joint Chiefs of Staff here inWashington that he was prepared to initiate plans for an attack on Leyte inOctober. Approval of the change in plan was given on the same day. 

Thus, within the space of 24 hours, a major change of plans wasaccomplished which involved Army and Navy forces from two differenttheaters of operations--a change which hastened the liberation of thePhilippines and the final day of victory--a change which saved lives whichwould have been expended in the capture of islands which are nowneutralized far behind our lines. 

Our over-all strategy has not neglected the important task of rendering allpossible aid to China. Despite almost insuperable difficulties, weincreased this aid during 1944. At present our aid to China must beaccomplished by air transport--there is no other way. By the end of 1944, the Air Transport Command was carrying into China a tonnage of suppliesthree times as great as that delivered a year ago, and much more, eachmonth, than the Burma Road ever delivered at its peak. 

Despite the loss of important bases in China, the tonnage delivered by airtransport has enabled General Chennault's Fourteenth Air Force, whichincludes many Chinese flyers, to wage an effective and aggressive campaignagainst the Japanese. In 1944 aircraft of the Fourteenth Air Force flewmore than 35, 000 sorties against the Japanese and sank enormous tonnage ofenemy shipping, greatly diminishing the usefulness of the China Sea lanes. 

British, Dominion, and Chinese forces together with our own have not onlyheld the line in Burma against determined Japanese attacks but have gainedbases of considerable importance to the supply line into China. 

The Burma campaigns have involved incredible hardship, and have demandedexceptional fortitude and determination. The officers and men who haveserved with so much devotion in these far distant jungles and mountainsdeserve high honor from their countrymen. 

In all of the far-flung operations of our own armed forces--on land, and seaand in the air--the final job, the toughest job, has been performed by theaverage, easy-going, hard-fighting young American, who carries the weightof battle on his own shoulders. 

It is to him that we and all future generations of Americans must paygrateful tribute. 

But--it is of small satisfaction to him to know that monuments will beraised to him in the future. He wants, he needs, and he is entitled toinsist upon, our full and active support--now. 

Although unprecedented production figures have made possible our victories, we shall have to increase our goals even more in certain items. 

Peak deliveries of supplies were made to the War Department in December, 1943. Due in part to cutbacks, we have not produced as much since then. Deliveries of Army supplies were down by 15 percent by July, 1944, beforethe upward trend was once more resumed. 

Because of increased demands from overseas, the Army Service Forces in themonth of October, 1944, had to increase its estimate of required productionby 10 percent. But in November, one month later, the requirements for 1945had to be increased another 10 percent, sending the production goal wellabove anything we have yet attained. Our armed forces in combat havesteadily increased their expenditure of medium and heavy artilleryammunition. As we continue the decisive phases of this war, the munitionsthat we expend will mount day by day. 

In October, 1944, while some were saying the war in Europe was over, theArmy was shipping more men to Europe than in any previous month of thewar. 

One of the most urgent immediate requirements of the armed forces is morenurses. Last April the Army requirement for nurses was set at 50, 000. Actual strength in nurses was then 40, 000. Since that time the Army hastried to raise the additional 10, 000. Active recruiting has been carriedon, but the net gain in eight months has been only 2, 000. There are now42, 000 nurses in the Army. 

Recent estimates have increased the total number needed to 60, 000. Thatmeans that 18, 000 more nurses must be obtained for the Army alone and theNavy now requires 2, 000 additional nurses. 

The present shortage of Army nurses is reflected in undue strain on theexisting force. More than a thousand nurses are now hospitalized, and partof this is due to overwork. The shortage is also indicated by the fact that11 Army hospital units have been sent overseas without their complement ofnurses. At Army hospitals in the United States there is only 1 nurse to 26beds, instead of the recommended 1 to 15 beds. 

It is tragic that the gallant women who have volunteered for service asnurses should be so overworked. It is tragic that our wounded men shouldever want for the best possible nursing care. 

The inability to get the needed nurses for the Army is not due to anyshortage of nurses; 280, 000 registered nurses are now practicing in thiscountry. It has been estimated by the War Manpower Commission that 27, 000additional nurses could be made available to the armed forces withoutinterfering too seriously with the needs of the civilian population fornurses. 

Since volunteering has not produced the number of nurses required, I urgethat the Selective Service Act be amended to provide for the induction ofnurses into the armed forces. The need is too pressing to await the outcomeof further efforts at recruiting. 

The care and treatment given to our wounded and sick soldiers have been thebest known to medical science. Those standards must be maintained at allcosts. We cannot tolerate a lowering of them by failure to provide adequatenursing for the brave men who stand desperately in need of it. 

In the continuing progress of this war we have constant need for new typesof weapons, for we cannot afford to fight the war of today or tomorrow withthe weapons of yesterday. For example, the American Army now has developeda new tank with a gun more powerful than any yet mounted on a fast-movingvehicle. The Army will need many thousands of these new tanks in 1945. 

Almost every month finds some new development in electronics which must beput into production in order to maintain our technical superiority--and inorder to save lives. We have to work every day to keep ahead of the enemyin radar. On D-Day, in France, with our superior new equipment, we locatedand then put out of operation every warning set which the Germans had alongthe French coast. 

If we do not keep constantly ahead of our enemies in the development of newweapons, we pay for our backwardness with the life's blood of our sons. 

The only way to meet these increased needs for new weapons and more of themis for every American engaged in war work to stay on his war job--foradditional American civilians, men and women, not engaged in essentialwork, to go out and get a war job. Workers who are released because theirproduction is cut back should get another job where production is beingincreased. This is no time to quit or change to less essential jobs. 

There is an old and true saying that the Lord hates a quitter. And thisNation must pay for all those who leave their essential jobs--or all thosewho lay down on their essential jobs for nonessential reasons. And--again--that payment must be made with the life's blood of our sons. 

Many critical production programs with sharply rising needs are nowseriously hampered by manpower shortages. The most important Army needs areartillery ammunition, cotton duck, bombs, tires, tanks, heavy trucks, andeven B-29's. In each of these vital programs, present production is behindrequirements. 

Navy production of bombardment ammunition is hampered by manpowershortages; so is production for its huge rocket program. Labor shortageshave also delayed its cruiser and carrier programs, and production ofcertain types of aircraft. 

There is critical need for more repair workers and repair parts; this Jackdelays the return of damaged fighting ships to their places in the fleet, and prevents ships now in the fighting line from getting neededoverhauling. 

The pool of young men under 26 classified as I-A is almost depleted. Increased replacements for the armed forces will take men now deferred whoare at work in war industry. The armed forces must have an assurance of asteady flow of young men for replacements. Meeting this paramount need willbe difficult, and will also make it progressively more difficult to attainthe 1945 production goals. 

Last year, after much consideration, I recommended that the Congress adopta national service act as the most efficient and democratic way of insuringfull production for our war requirements. This recommendation was notadopted. 

I now again call upon the Congress to enact this measure for the totalmobilization of all our human resources for the prosecution of the war. Iurge that this be done at the earliest possible moment. 

It is not too late in the war. In fact, bitter experience has shown that inthis kind of mechanized warfare where new weapons are constantly beingcreated by our enemies and by ourselves, the closer we come to the end ofthe war, the more pressing becomes the need for sustained war productionwith which to deliver the final blow to the enemy. 

There are three basic arguments for a national service law:

First, it would assure that we have the right numbers of workers in theright places at the right times. 

Second, it would provide supreme proof to all our fighting men that we aregiving them what they are entitled to, which is nothing less than our totaleffort. 

And, third, it would be the final, unequivocal answer to the hopes of theNazis and the Japanese that we may become halfhearted about this war andthat they can get from us a negotiated peace. 

National service legislation would make it possible to put ourselves in aposition to assure certain and speedy action in meeting our manpowerneeds. 

It would be used only to the extent absolutely required by militarynecessities. In fact, experience in Great Britain and in other Nations atwar indicates that use of the compulsory powers of national service isnecessary only in rare instances. 

This proposed legislation would provide against loss of retirement andseniority rights and benefits. It would not mean reduction in wages. 

In adopting such legislation, it is not necessary to discard the voluntaryand cooperative processes which have prevailed up to this time. Thiscooperation has already produced great results. The contribution of ourworkers to the war effort has been beyond measure. We must build on thefoundations that have already been laid and supplement the measures now inoperation, in order to guarantee the production that may be necessary inthe critical period that lies ahead. 

At the present time we are using the inadequate tools at hand to do thebest we can by such expedients as manpower ceilings, and the use ofpriority and other powers, to induce men and women to shift fromnon-essential to essential war jobs. 

I am in receipt of a joint letter from the Secretary of War and theSecretary of the Navy, dated January 3, 1945, which says:

"With the experience of three years of war and after the most thoroughconsideration, we are convinced that it is now necessary to carry out thestatement made by the Congress in the joint resolutions declaring that astate of war existed with Japan and Germany: That 'to bring the conflict toa successful conclusion, all of the resources of the country are herebypledged by the Congress of the United States. '

"In our considered judgment, which is supported by General Marshall andAdmiral King, this requires total mobilization of our manpower by thepassage of a national war service law. The armed forces need thislegislation to hasten the day of final victory, and to keep to a minimumthe cost in lives. 

"National war service, the recognition by law of the duty of every citizento do his or her part in winning the war, will give complete assurance thatthe need for war equipment will be filled. In the coming year we mustincrease the output of many weapons and supplies on short notice. Otherwisewe shall not keep our production abreast of the swiftly changing needs ofwar. At the same time it will be necessary to draw progressively many mennow engaged in war production to serve with the armed forces, and theirplaces in war production must be filled promptly. These developments willrequire the addition of hundreds of thousands to those already working inwar industry. We do not believe that these needs can be met effectivelyunder present methods. 

"The record made by management and labor in war industry has been a notabletestimony to the resourcefulness and power of America. The needs are sogreat, nevertheless, that in many instances we have been forced to recallsoldiers and sailors from military duty to do work of a civilian characterin war production, because of the urgency of the need for equipment andbecause of inability to recruit civilian labor. "

Pending action by the Congress on the broader aspects of national service, I recommend that the Congress immediately enact legislation which will beeffective in using the services of the 4, 000, 000 men now classified as IV-Fin whatever capacity is best for the war effort. 

In the field of foreign policy, we propose to stand together with theUnited Nations not for the war alone but for the victory for which the waris fought. 

It is not only a common danger which unites us but a common hope. Ours isan association not of Governments but of peoples--and the peoples' hope ispeace. Here, as in England; in England, as in Russia; in Russia, as inChina; in France, and through the continent of Europe, and throughout theworld; wherever men love freedom, the hope and purpose of the people arefor peace--a peace that is durable and secure. 

It will not be easy to create this peoples' peace. We delude ourselves ifwe believe that the surrender of the armies of our enemies will make thepeace we long for. The unconditional surrender of the armies of our enemiesis the first and necessary step--but the first step only. 

We have seen already, in areas liberated from the Nazi and the Fascisttyranny, what problems peace will bring. And we delude ourselves if weattempt to believe wishfully that all these problems can be solvedovernight. 

The firm foundation can be built--and it will be built. But the continuanceand assurance of a living peace must, in the long run, be the work of thepeople themselves. 

We ourselves, like all peoples who have gone through the difficultprocesses of liberation and adjustment, know of our own experience howgreat the difficulties can be. We know that they are not difficultiespeculiar to any continent or any Nation. Our own Revolutionary War leftbehind it, in the words of one American historian, "an eddy of lawlessnessand disregard of human life. " There were separatist movements of one kindor another in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, andMaine. There were insurrections, open or threatened, in Massachusetts andNew Hampshire. These difficulties we worked out for ourselves as thepeoples of the liberated areas of Europe, faced with complex problems ofadjustment, will work out their difficulties for themselves. 

Peace can be made and kept only by the united determination of free andpeace-loving peoples who are willing to work together--willing to help oneanother--willing to respect and tolerate and try to understand one another'sopinions and feelings. 

The nearer we come to vanquishing our enemies the more we inevitably becomeconscious of differences among the victors. 

We must not let those differences divide us and blind us to our moreimportant common and continuing interests in winning the war and buildingthe peace. 

International cooperation on which enduring peace must be based is not aone-way street. 

Nations like individuals do not always see alike or think alike, andinternational cooperation and progress are not helped by any Nationassuming that it has a monopoly of wisdom or of virtue. 

In the future world the misuse of power, as implied in the term "powerpolitics, " must not be a controlling factor in international relations. That is the heart of the principles to which we have subscribed. We cannotdeny that power is a factor in world politics any more than we can deny itsexistence as a factor in national politics. But in a democratic world, asin a democratic Nation, power must be linked with responsibility, andobliged to defend and justify itself within the framework of the generalgood. 

Perfectionism, no less than isolationism or imperialism or power politics, may obstruct the paths to international peace. Let us not forget that theretreat to isolationism a quarter of a century ago was started not by adirect attack against international cooperation but against the allegedimperfections of the peace. 

In our disillusionment after the last war we preferred internationalanarchy to international cooperation with Nations which did not see andthink exactly as we did. We gave up the hope of gradually achieving abetter peace because we had not the courage to fulfill our responsibilitiesin an admittedly imperfect world. 

We must not let that happen again, or we shall follow the same tragic roadagain--the road to a third world war. 

We can fulfill our responsibilities for maintaining the security of our owncountry only by exercising our power and our influence to achieve theprinciples in which we believe and for which we have fought. 

In August, 1941, Prime Minister Churchill and I agreed to the principles ofthe Atlantic Charter, these being later incorporated into the Declarationby United Nations of January 1, 1942. At that time certain isolationistsprotested vigorously against our right to proclaim the principles--andagainst the very principles themselves. Today, many of the same people areprotesting against the possibility of violation of the same principles. 

It is true that the statement of principles in the Atlantic Charter doesnot provide rules of easy application to each and every one of thiswar-torn world's tangled situations. But it is a good and a useful thing--it is an essential thing--to have principles toward which we can aim. 

And we shall not hesitate to use our influence--and to use it now--to secureso far as is humanly possible the fulfillment of the principles of theAtlantic Charter. We have not shrunk from the military responsibilitiesbrought on by this war. We cannot and will not shrink from the politicalresponsibilities which follow in the wake of battle. 

I do not wish to give the impression that all mistakes can be avoided andthat many disappointments are not inevitable in the making of peace. But wemust not this time lose the hope of establishing an international orderwhich will be capable of maintaining peace and realizing through the yearsmore perfect justice between Nations. 

To do this we must be on our guard not to exploit and exaggerate thedifferences between us and our allies, particularly with reference to thepeoples who have been liberated from Fascist tyranny. That is not the wayto secure a better settlement of those differences or to secureinternational machinery which can rectify mistakes which may be made. 

I should not be frank if I did not admit concern about many situations--theGreek and Polish for example. But those situations are not as easy or assimple to deal with as some spokesmen, whose sincerity I do not question, would have us believe. We have obligations, not necessarily legal, to theexiled Governments, to the underground leaders, and to our major allies whocame much nearer the shadows than we did. 

We and our allies have declared that it is our purpose to respect the rightof all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will liveand to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who havebeen forcibly deprived of them. But with internal dissension, with manycitizens of liberated countries still prisoners of war or forced to laborin Germany, it is difficult to guess the kind of self-government the peoplereally want. 

During the interim period, until conditions permit a genuine expression ofthe people's will, we and our allies have a duty, which we cannot ignore, to use our influence to the end that no temporary or provisionalauthorities in the liberated countries block the eventual exercise of thepeoples' right freely to choose the government and institutions underwhich, as freemen, they are to live. 

It is only too easy for all of us to rationalize what we want to believe, and to consider those leaders we like responsible and those we dislikeirresponsible. And our task is not helped by stubborn partisanship, howeverunderstandable on the part of opposed internal factions. 

It is our purpose to help the peace-loving peoples of Europe to livetogether as good neighbors, to recognize their common interests and not tonurse their traditional grievances against one another. 

But we must not permit the many specific and immediate problems ofadjustment connected with the liberation of Europe to delay theestablishment of permanent machinery for the maintenance of peace. Underthe threat of a common danger, the United Nations joined together in war topreserve their independence and their freedom. They must now join togetherto make secure the independence and freedom of all peace-loving states, sothat never again shall tyranny be able to divide and conquer. 

International peace and well-being, like national peace and well-being, require constant alertness, continuing cooperation, and organized effort. 

International peace and well-being, like national peace and well-being, canbe secured only through institutions capable of life and growth. 

Many of the problems of the peace are upon us even now while the conclusionof the war is still before us. The atmosphere of friendship and mutualunderstanding and determination to find a common ground of commonunderstanding, which surrounded the conversations at Dumbarton Oaks, givesus reason to hope that future discussions will succeed in developing thedemocratic and fully integrated world security system toward which thesepreparatory conversations were directed. 

We and the other United Nations are going forward, with vigor andresolution, in our efforts to create such a system by providing for itstrong and flexible institutions of joint and cooperative action. 

The aroused conscience of humanity will not permit failure in this supremeendeavor. 

We believe that the extraordinary advances in the means ofintercommunication between peoples over the past generation offer apractical method of advancing the mutual understanding upon which peace andthe institutions of peace must rest, and it is our policy and purpose touse these great technological achievements for the common advantage of theworld. 

We support the greatest possible freedom of trade and commerce. 

We Americans have always believed in freedom of opportunity, and equalityof opportunity remains one of the principal objectives of our nationallife. What we believe in for individuals, we believe in also for Nations. We are opposed to restrictions, whether by public act or privatearrangement, which distort and impair commerce, transit, and trade. 

We have house-cleaning of our own to do in this regard. But it is our hope, not only in the interest of our own prosperity but in the interest of theprosperity of the world, that trade and commerce and access to materialsand markets may be freer after this war than ever before in the history ofthe world. 

One of the most heartening events of the year in the international fieldhas been the renaissance of the French people and the return of the FrenchNation to the ranks of the United Nations. Far from having been crushed bythe terror of Nazi domination, the French people have emerged with strongerfaith than ever in the destiny of their country and in the soundness of thedemocratic ideals to which the French Nation has traditionally contributedso greatly. 

During her liberation, France has given proof of her unceasingdetermination to fight the Germans, continuing the heroic efforts of theresistance groups under the occupation and of all those Frenchmenthroughout the world who refused to surrender after the disaster of 1940. 

Today, French armies are again on the German frontier, and are againfighting shoulder to shoulder with our sons. 

Since our landings in Africa, we have placed in French hands all the armsand material of war which our resources and the military situationpermitted. And I am glad to say that we are now about to equip large newFrench forces with the most modern weapons for combat duty. 

In addition to the contribution which France can make to our commonvictory, her liberation likewise means that her great influence will againbe available in meeting the problems of peace. 

We fully recognize France's vital interest in a lasting solution of theGerman problem and the contribution which she can make in achievinginternational security. Her formal adherence to the declaration by UnitedNations a few days ago and the proposal at the Dumbarton Oaks discussions, whereby France would receive one of the five permanent seats in theproposed Security Council, demonstrate the extent to which France hasresumed her proper position of strength and leadership. 

I am clear in my own mind that, as an essential factor in the maintenanceof peace in the future, we must have universal military training after thiswar, and I shall send a special message to the Congress on this subject. 

An enduring peace cannot be achieved without a strong America--strong inthe social and economic sense as well as in the military sense. 

In the State of the Union message last year I set forth what I consideredto be an American economic bill of rights. 

I said then, and I say now, that these economic truths represent a secondbill of rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can beestablished for all--regardless of station, race, or creed. 

Of these rights the most fundamental, and one on which the fulfillment ofthe others in large degree depends, is the "right to a useful andremunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of theNation. " In turn, others of the economic rights of American citizenship, such as the right to a decent home, to a good education, to good medicalcare, to social security, to reasonable farm income, will, if fulfilled, make major contributions to achieving adequate levels of employment. 

The Federal Government must see to it that these rights becomerealities--with the help of States, municipalities, business, labor, andagriculture. 

We have had full employment during the war. We have had it because theGovernment has been ready to buy all the materials of war which the countrycould produce--and this has amounted to approximately half our presentproductive capacity. 

After the war we must maintain full employment with Government performingits peacetime functions. This means that we must achieve a level of demandand purchasing power by private consumers--farmers, businessmen, workers, professional men, housewives--which is sufficiently high to replace wartimeGovernment demands; and it means also that we must greatly increase ourexport trade above the prewar level. 

Our policy is, of course, to rely as much as possible on private enterpriseto provide jobs. But the American people will not accept mass unemploymentor mere makeshift work. There will be need for the work of everyone willingand able to work--and that means close to 60, 000, 000 jobs. 

Full employment means not only jobs--but productive jobs. Americans do notregard jobs that pay substandard wages as productive jobs. 

We must make sure that private enterprise works as it is supposed to work--on the basis of initiative and vigorous competition, without the stiflingpresence of monopolies and cartels. 

During the war we have guaranteed investment in enterprise essential to thewar effort. We should also take appropriate measures in peacetime to secureopportunities for new small enterprises and for productive businessexpansion for which finance would otherwise be unavailable. 

This necessary expansion of our peacetime productive capacity will requirenew facilities, new plants, and new equipment. 

It will require large outlays of money which should be raised throughnormal investment channels. But while private capital should finance thisexpansion program, the Government should recognize its responsibility forsharing part of any special or abnormal risk of loss attached to suchfinancing. 

Our full-employment program requires the extensive development of ournatural resources and other useful public works. The undeveloped resourcesof this continent are still vast. Our river-watershed projects will add newand fertile territories to the United States. The Tennessee ValleyAuthority, which was constructed at a cost of $750, 000, 000--the cost ofwaging this war for less than 4 days--was a bargain. We have similaropportunities in our other great river basins. By harnessing the resourcesof these river basins, as we have in the Tennessee Valley, we shall providethe same kind of stimulus to enterprise as was provided by the LouisianaPurchase and the new discoveries in the West during the nineteenthcentury. 

If we are to avail ourselves fully of the benefits of civil aviation, andif we are to use the automobiles we can produce, it will be necessary toconstruct thousands of airports and to overhaul our entire national highwaysystem. 

The provision of a decent home for every family is a national necessity, ifthis country is to be worthy of its greatness--and that task will itselfcreate great employment opportunities. Most of our cities need extensiverebuilding. Much of our farm plant is in a state of disrepair. To make afrontal attack on the problems of housing and urban reconstruction willrequire thoroughgoing cooperation between industry and labor, and theFederal, State, and local Governments. 

An expanded social security program, and adequate health and educationprograms, must play essential roles in a program designed to supportindividual productivity and mass purchasing power. I shall communicatefurther with the Congress on these subjects at a later date. 

The millions of productive jobs that a program of this nature could bringare jobs in private enterprise. They are jobs based on the expanded demandfor the output of our economy for consumption and investment. Through aprogram of this character we can maintain a national income high enough toprovide for an orderly retirement of the public debt along with reasonabletax reduction. 

Our present tax system geared primarily to war requirements must be revisedfor peacetime so as to encourage private demand. 

While no general revision of the tax structure can be made until the warends on all fronts, the Congress should be prepared to provide taxmodifications at the end of the war in Europe, designed to encouragecapital to invest in new enterprises and to provide jobs. As an integralpart of this program to maintain high employment, we must, after the war isover, reduce or eliminate taxes which bear too heavily on consumption. 

The war will leave deep disturbances in the world economy, in our nationaleconomy, in many communities, in many families, and in many individuals. Itwill require determined effort and responsible action of all of us to findour way back to peacetime, and to help others to find their way back topeacetime--a peacetime that holds the values of the past and the promise ofthe future. 

If we attack our problems with determination we shall succeed. And we mustsucceed. For freedom and peace cannot exist without security. 

During the past year the American people, in a national election, reasserted their democratic faith. 

In the course of that campaign various references were made to "strife"between this Administration and the Congress, with the implication, if notthe direct assertion, that this Administration and the Congress could neverwork together harmoniously in the service of the Nation. 

It cannot be denied that there have been disagreements between thelegislative and executive branches--as there have been disagreements duringthe past century and a half. 

I think we all realize too that there are some people in this Capital Citywhose task is in large part to stir up dissension, and to magnify normalhealthy disagreements so that they appear to be irreconcilable conflicts. 

But--I think that the over-all record in this respect is eloquent: TheGovernment of the United States of America--all branches of it--has a goodrecord of achievement in this war. 

The Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary have worked together for thecommon good. 

I myself want to tell you, the Members of the Senate and of the House ofRepresentatives, how happy I am in our relationships and friendships. Ihave not yet had the pleasure of meeting some of the new Members in eachHouse, but I hope that opportunity will offer itself in the near future. 

We have a great many problems ahead of us and we must approach them withrealism and courage. 

This new year of 1945 can be the greatest year of achievement in humanhistory. 

Nineteen forty-five can see the final ending of the Nazi-Fascist reign ofterror in Europe. 

Nineteen forty-five can see the closing in of the forces of retributionabout the center of the malignant power of imperialistic Japan. 

Most important of all--1945 can and must see the substantial beginning ofthe organization of world peace. This organization must be the fulfillmentof the promise for which men have fought and died in this war. It must bethe justification of all the sacrifices that have been made--of all thedreadful misery that this world has endured. 

We Americans of today, together with our allies, are making history--and Ihope it will be better history than ever has been made before. 

We pray that we may be worthy of the unlimited opportunities that God hasgiven us. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 4, 1935

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and of the House ofRepresentatives:

The Constitution wisely provides that the Chief Executive shall report tothe Congress on the state of the Union, for through you, the chosenlegislative representatives, our citizens everywhere may fairly judge theprogress of our governing. I am confident that today, in the light of theevents of the past two years, you do not consider it merely a trite phrasewhen I tell you that I am truly glad to greet you and that I look forwardto common counsel, to useful cooperation, and to genuine friendshipsbetween us. 

We have undertaken a new order of things; yet we progress to it under theframework and in the spirit and intent of the American Constitution. Wehave proceeded throughout the Nation a measurable distance on the roadtoward this new order. Materially, I can report to you substantial benefitsto our agricultural population, increased industrial activity, and profitsto our merchants. Of equal moment, there is evident a restoration of thatspirit of confidence and faith which marks the American character. Let him, who, for speculative profit or partisan purpose, without just warrant wouldseek to disturb or dispel this assurance, take heed before he assumesresponsibility for any act which slows our onward steps. 

Throughout the world, change is the order of the day. In every Nationeconomic problems, long in the making, have brought crises of many kindsfor which the masters of old practice and theory were unprepared. In mostNations social justice, no longer a distant ideal, has become a definitegoal, and ancient Governments are beginning to heed the call. 

Thus, the American people do not stand alone in the world in their desirefor change. We seek it through tested liberal traditions, through processeswhich retain all of the deep essentials of that republican form ofrepresentative government first given to a troubled world by the UnitedStates. 

As the various parts in the program begun in the Extraordinary Session ofthe 73rd Congress shape themselves in practical administration, the unityof our program reveals itself to the Nation. The outlines of the neweconomic order, rising from the disintegration of the old, are apparent. Wetest what we have done as our measures take root in the living texture oflife. We see where we have built wisely and where we can do still better. 

The attempt to make a distinction between recovery and reform is a narrowlyconceived effort to substitute the appearance of reality for realityitself. When a man is convalescing from illness, wisdom dictates not onlycure of the symptoms, but also removal of their cause. 

It is important to recognize that while we seek to outlaw specific abuses, the American objective of today has an infinitely deeper, finer and morelasting purpose than mere repression. Thinking people in almost everycountry of the world have come to realize certain fundamental difficultieswith which civilization must reckon. Rapid changes--the machine age, theadvent of universal and rapid communication and many other new factors--havebrought new problems. Succeeding generations have attempted to keep pace byreforming in piecemeal fashion this or that attendant abuse. As a result, evils overlap and reform becomes confused and frustrated. We lose sight, from time to time, of our ultimate human objectives. 

Let us, for a moment, strip from our simple purpose the confusion thatresults from a multiplicity of detail and from millions of written andspoken words. 

We find our population suffering from old inequalities, little changed byvast sporadic remedies. In spite of our efforts and in spite of our talk, we have not weeded out the over privileged and we have not effectivelylifted up the underprivileged. Both of these manifestations of injusticehave retarded happiness. No wise man has any intention of destroying whatis known as the profit motive; because by the profit motive we mean theright by work to earn a decent livelihood for ourselves and for ourfamilies. 

We have, however, a clear mandate from the people, that Americans mustforswear that conception of the acquisition of wealth which, throughexcessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, toour misfortune, over public affairs as well. In building toward this end wedo not destroy ambition, nor do we seek to divide our wealth into equalshares on stated occasions. We continue to recognize the greater ability ofsome to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of theindividual to obtain for him and his a proper security, a reasonableleisure, and a decent living throughout life, is an ambition to bepreferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power. 

I recall to your attention my message to the Congress last June in which Isaid: "among our objectives I place the security of the men, women andchildren of the Nation first. " That remains our first and continuing task;and in a very real sense every major legislative enactment of this Congressshould be a component part of it. 

In defining immediate factors which enter into our quest, I have spoken tothe Congress and the people of three great divisions:

1. The security of a livelihood through the better use of the nationalresources of the land in which we live. 

2. The security against the major hazards and vicissitudes of life. 

3. The security of decent homes. 

I am now ready to submit to the Congress a broad program designedultimately to establish all three of these factors of security--a programwhich because of many lost years will take many future years to fulfill. 

A study of our national resources, more comprehensive than any previouslymade, shows the vast amount of necessary and practicable work which needsto be done for the development and preservation of our natural wealth forthe enjoyment and advantage of our people in generations to come. The sounduse of land and water is far more comprehensive than the mere planting oftrees, building of dams, distributing of electricity or retirement ofsub-marginal land. It recognizes that stranded populations, either in thecountry or the city, cannot have security under the conditions that nowsurround them. 

To this end we are ready to begin to meet this problem--the intelligent careof population throughout our Nation, in accordance with an intelligentdistribution of the means of livelihood for that population. A definiteprogram for putting people to work, of which I shall speak in a moment, isa component part of this greater program of security of livelihood throughthe better use of our national resources. 

Closely related to the broad problem of livelihood is that of securityagainst the major hazards of life. Here also, a comprehensive survey ofwhat has been attempted or accomplished in many Nations and in many Statesproves to me that the time has come for action by the national Government. I shall send to you, in a few days, definite recommendations based on thesestudies. These recommendations will cover the broad subjects ofunemployment insurance and old age insurance, of benefits for children, form others, for the handicapped, for maternity care and for other aspectsof dependency and illness where a beginning can now be made. 

The third factor--better homes for our people--has also been the subject ofexperimentation and study. Here, too, the first practical steps can be madethrough the proposals which I shall suggest in relation to giving work tothe unemployed. 

Whatever we plan and whatever we do should be in the light of these threeclear objectives of security. We cannot afford to lose valuable time inhaphazard public policies which cannot find a place in the broad outlinesof these major purposes. In that spirit I come to an immediate issue madefor us by hard and inescapable circumstance--the task of putting people towork. In the spring of 1933 the issue of destitution seemed to stand apart;today, in the light of our experience and our new national policy, we findwe can put people to work in ways which conform to, initiate and carryforward the broad principles of that policy. 

The first objectives of emergency legislation of 1933 were to relievedestitution, to make it possible for industry to operate in a more rationaland orderly fashion, and to put behind industrial recovery the impulse oflarge expenditures in Government undertakings. The purpose of the NationalIndustrial Recovery Act to provide work for more people succeeded in asubstantial manner within the first few months of its life, and the Act hascontinued to maintain employment gains and greatly improved workingconditions in industry. 

The program of public works provided for in the Recovery Act launched theFederal Government into a task for which there was little time to makepreparation and little American experience to follow. Great employment hasbeen given and is being given by these works. 

More than two billions of dollars have also been expended in direct reliefto the destitute. Local agencies of necessity determined the recipients ofthis form of relief. With inevitable exceptions the funds were spent bythem with reasonable efficiency and as a result actual want of food andclothing in the great majority of cases has been overcome. 

But the stark fact before us is that great numbers still remainunemployed. 

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have beenforced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grownwith great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritualand moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtledestroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of soundpolicy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be foundfor able-bodied but destitute workers. 

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief. 

I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by thegiving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cuttinggrass, raking leaves or picking up . Papers in the public parks. We mustpreserve not only the bodies of the unemployed from destitution but alsotheir self-respect, their self-reliance and courage and determination. Thisdecision brings me to the problem of what the Government should do withapproximately five million unemployed now on the relief rolls. 

About one million and a half of these belong to the group which in the pastwas dependent upon local welfare efforts. Most of them are unable for onereason or another to maintain themselves independently--for the most part, through no fault of their own. Such people, in the days before the greatdepression, were cared for by local efforts--by States, by counties, bytowns, by cities, by churches and by private welfare agencies. It is mythought that in the future they must be cared for as they were before. Istand ready through my own personal efforts, and through the publicinfluence of the office that I hold, to help these local agencies to getthe means necessary to assume this burden. 

The security legislation which I shall propose to the Congress will, I amconfident, be of assistance to local effort in the care of this type ofcases. Local responsibility can and will be resumed, for, after all, commonsense tells us that the wealth necessary for this task existed and stillexists in the local community, and the dictates of sound administrationrequire that this responsibility be in the first instance a local one. There are, however, an additional three and one half million employablepeople who are on relief. With them the problem is different and theresponsibility is different. This group was the victim of a nation-widedepression caused by conditions which were not local but national. TheFederal Government is the only governmental agency with sufficient powerand credit to meet this situation. We have assumed this task and we shallnot shrink from it in the future. It is a duty dictated by everyintelligent consideration of national policy to ask you to make it possiblefor the United States to give employment to all of these three and one halfmillion employable people now on relief, pending their absorption in arising tide of private employment. 

It is my thought that with the exception of certain of the normal publicbuilding operations of the Government, all emergency public works shall beunited in a single new and greatly enlarged plan. 

With the establishment of this new system we can supersede the FederalEmergency Relief Administration with a coordinated authority which will becharged with the orderly liquidation of our present relief activities andthe substitution of a national chart for the giving of work. 

This new program of emergency public employment should be governed by anumber of practical principles. 

(1) All work undertaken should be useful--not just for a day, or a year, but useful in the sense that it affords permanent improvement in livingconditions or that it creates future new wealth for the Nation. 

(2) Compensation on emergency public projects should be in the form ofsecurity payments which should be larger than the amount now received as arelief dole, but at the same time not so large as to encourage therejection of opportunities for private employment or the leaving of privateemployment to engage in Government work. 

(3) Projects should be undertaken on which a large percentage of directlabor can be used. 

(4) Preference should be given to those projects which will beself-liquidating in the sense that there is a reasonable expectation thatthe Government will get its money back at some future time. 

(5) The projects undertaken should be selected and planned so as to competeas little as possible with private enterprises. This suggests that if itwere not for the necessity of giving useful work to the unemployed now onrelief, these projects in most instances would not now be undertaken. 

(6) The planning of projects would seek to assure work during the comingfiscal year to the individuals now on relief, or until such time as privateemployment is available. In order to make adjustment to increasing privateemployment, work should be planned with a view to tapering it off inproportion to the speed with which the emergency workers are offeredpositions with private employers. 

(7) Effort should be made to locate projects where they will serve thegreatest unemployment needs as shown by present relief rolls, and the broadprogram of the National Resources Board should be freely used for guidancein selection. Our ultimate objective being the enrichment of human lives, the Government has the primary duty to use its emergency expenditures asmuch as possible to serve those who cannot secure the advantages of privatecapital. 

Ever since the adjournment of the 73d Congress, the Administration has beenstudying from every angle the possibility and the practicability of newforms of employment. As a result of these studies I have arrived at certainvery definite convictions as to the amount of money that will be necessaryfor the sort of public projects that I have described. I shall submit thesefigures in my budget message. I assure you now they will be within thesound credit of the Government. 

The work itself will cover a wide field including clearance of slums, whichfor adequate reasons cannot be undertaken by private capital; in ruralhousing of several kinds, where, again, private capital is unable tofunction; in rural electrification; in the reforestation of the greatwatersheds of the Nation; in an intensified program to prevent soil erosionand to reclaim blighted areas; in improving existing road systems and inconstructing national highways designed to handle modern traffic; in theelimination of grade crossings; in the extension and enlargement of thesuccessful work of the Civilian Conservation Corps; in non-Federal works, mostly self-liquidating and highly useful to local divisions of Government;and on many other projects which the Nation needs and cannot afford toneglect. 

This is the method which I propose to you in order that we may better meetthis present-day problem of unemployment. Its greatest advantage is that itfits logically and usefully into the long-range permanent policy ofproviding the three types of security which constitute as a whole anAmerican plan for the betterment of the future of the American people. 

I shall consult with you from time to time concerning other measures ofnational importance. Among the subjects that lie immediately before us arethe consolidation of Federal regulatory administration over all forms oftransportation, the renewal and clarification of the general purposes ofthe National Industrial Recovery Act, the strengthening of our facilitiesfor the prevention, detection and treatment of crime and criminals, therestoration of sound conditions in the public utilities field throughabolition of the evil features of holding companies, the gradual taperingoff of the emergency credit activities of Government, and improvement inour taxation forms and methods. 

We have already begun to feel the bracing effect upon our economic systemof a restored agriculture. The hundreds of millions of additional incomethat farmers are receiving are finding their way into the channels oftrade. The farmers' share of the national income is slowly rising. Theeconomic facts justify the widespread opinion of those engaged inagriculture that our provisions for maintaining a balanced production giveat this time the most adequate remedy for an old and vexing problem. Forthe present, and especially in view of abnormal world conditions, agricultural adjustment with certain necessary improvements in methodsshould continue. 

It seems appropriate to call attention at this time to the fine spiritshown during the past year by our public servants. I cannot praise toohighly the cheerful work of the Civil Service employees, and of thosetemporarily working for the Government. As for those thousands in ourvarious public agencies spread throughout the country who, withoutcompensation, agreed to take over heavy responsibilities in connection withour various loan agencies and particularly in direct relief work, I cannotsay too much. I do not think any country could show a higher average ofcheerful and even enthusiastic team-work than has been shown by these menand women. 

I cannot with candor tell you that general international relationshipsoutside the borders of the United States are improved. On the surface ofthings many old jealousies are resurrected, old passions aroused; newstrivings for armament and power, in more than one land, rear their uglyheads. I hope that calm counsel and constructive leadership will providethe steadying influence and the time necessary for the coming of new andmore practical forms of representative government throughout the worldwherein privilege and power will occupy a lesser place and world welfare agreater. 

I believe, however, that our own peaceful and neighborly attitude towardother Nations is coming to be understood and appreciated. The maintenanceof international peace is a matter in which we are deeply and unselfishlyconcerned. Evidence of our persistent and undeniable desire to preventarmed conflict has recently been more than once afforded. 

There is no ground for apprehension that our relations with any Nation willbe otherwise than peaceful. Nor is there ground for doubt that the peopleof most Nations seek relief from the threat and burden attaching to thefalse theory that extravagant armament cannot be reduced and limited byinternational accord. 

The ledger of the past year shows many more gains than losses. Let us notforget that, in addition to saving millions from utter destitution, childlabor has been for the moment outlawed, thousands of homes saved to theirowners and most important of all, the morale of the Nation has beenrestored. Viewing the year 1934 as a whole, you and I can agree that wehave a generous measure of reasons for giving thanks. 

It is not empty optimism that moves me to a strong hope in the coming year. We can, if we will, make 1935 a genuine period of good feeling, sustainedby a sense of purposeful progress. Beyond the material recovery, I sense aspiritual recovery as well. The people of America are turning as neverbefore to those permanent values that are not limited to the physicalobjectives of life. There are growing signs of this on every hand. In theface of these spiritual impulses we are sensible of the Divine Providenceto which Nations turn now, as always, for guidance and fostering care. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 3, 1936

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and of the House ofRepresentatives:

We are about to enter upon another year of the responsibility which theelectorate of the United States has placed in our hands. Having come sofar, it is fitting that we should pause to survey the ground which we havecovered and the path which lies ahead. 

On the fourth day of March, 1933, on the occasion of taking the oath ofoffice as President of the United States, I addressed the people of ourcountry. Need I recall either the scene or the national circumstancesattending the occasion? The crisis of that moment was almost exclusively anational one. In recognition of that fact, so obvious to the millions inthe streets and in the homes of America, I devoted by far the greater partof that address to what I called, and the Nation called, critical dayswithin our own borders. 

You will remember that on that fourth of March, 1933, the world picture wasan image of substantial peace. International consultation and widespreadhope for the bettering of relations between the Nations gave to all of us areasonable expectation that the barriers to mutual confidence, to increasedtrade, and to the peaceful settlement of disputes could be progressivelyremoved. In fact, my only reference to the field of world policy in thataddress was in these words: "I would dedicate this Nation to the policy ofthe good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, becausehe does so, respects the rights of others--a neighbor who respects hisobligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a worldof neighbors. "

In the years that have followed, that sentiment has remained the dedicationof this Nation. Among the Nations of the great Western Hemisphere thepolicy of the good neighbor has happily prevailed. At no time in the fourand a half centuries of modern civilization in the Americas has thereexisted--in any year, in any decade, in any generation in all that time--agreater spirit of mutual understanding, of common helpfulness, and ofdevotion to the ideals of serf-government than exists today in thetwenty-one American Republics and their neighbor, the Dominion of Canada. This policy of the good neighbor among the Americas is no longer a hope, nolonger an objective remaining to be accomplished. It is a fact, active, present, pertinent and effective. In this achievement, every AmericanNation takes an understanding part. There is neither war, nor rumor of war, nor desire for war. The inhabitants of this vast area, two hundred andfifty million strong, spreading more than eight thousand miles from theArctic to the Antarctic, believe in, and propose to follow, the policy ofthe good neighbor. They wish with all their heart that the rest of theworld might do likewise. 

The rest of the world--Ah! there is the rub. 

Were I today to deliver an Inaugural Address to the people of the UnitedStates, I could not limit my comments on world affairs to one paragraph. With much regret I should be compelled to devote the greater part to worldaffairs. Since the summer of that same year of 1933, the temper and thepurposes of the rulers of many of the great populations in Europe and inAsia have not pointed the way either to peace or to good-will among men. Not only have peace and good-will among men grown more remote in thoseareas of the earth during this period, but a point has been reached wherethe people of the Americas must take cognizance of growing ill-will, ofmarked trends toward aggression, of increasing armaments, of shorteningtempers--a situation which has in it many of the elements that lead to thetragedy of general war. 

On those other continents many Nations, principally the smaller peoples, ifleft to themselves, would be content with their boundaries and willing tosolve within themselves and in cooperation with their neighbors theirindividual problems, both economic and social. The rulers of those Nations, deep in their hearts, follow these peaceful and reasonable aspirations oftheir peoples. These rulers must remain ever vigilant against thepossibility today or tomorrow of invasion or attack by the rulers of otherpeoples who fail to subscribe to the principles of bettering the human raceby peaceful means. 

Within those other Nations--those which today must bear the primary, definite responsibility for jeopardizing world peace--what hope lies? Tosay the least, there are grounds for pessimism. It is idle for us or forothers to preach that the masses of the people who constitute those Nationswhich are dominated by the twin spirits of autocracy and aggression, areout of sympathy with their rulers, that they are allowed no opportunity toexpress themselves, that they would change things if they could. 

That, unfortunately, is not so clear. It might be true that the masses ofthe people in those Nations would change the policies of their Governmentsif they could be allowed full freedom and full access to the processes ofdemocratic government as we understand them. But they do not have thataccess; lacking it they follow blindly and fervently the lead of those whoseek autocratic power. 

Nations seeking expansion, seeking the rectification of injusticesspringing from former wars, or seeking outlets for trade, for population oreven for their own peaceful contributions to the progress of civilization, fail to demonstrate that patience necessary to attain reasonable andlegitimate objectives by peaceful negotiation or by an appeal to the finerinstincts of world justice. 

They have therefore impatiently reverted to the old belief in the law ofthe sword, or to the fantastic conception that they, and they alone, arechosen to fulfill a mission and that all the others among the billion and ahalf of human beings in the world must and shall learn from and be subjectto them. 

I recognize and you will recognize that these words which I have chosenwith deliberation will not prove popular in any Nation that chooses to fitthis shoe to its foot. Such sentiments, however, will find sympathy andunderstanding in those Nations where the people themselves are honestlydesirous of peace but must constantly align themselves on one side or theother in the kaleidoscopic jockeying for position which is characteristicof European and Asiatic relations today. For the peace-loving Nations, andthere are many of them, find that their very identity depends on theirmoving and moving again on the chess board of international politics. 

I suggested in the spring of 1933 that 85 or 90 percent of all the peoplein the world were content with the territorial limits of their respectiveNations and were willing further to reduce their armed forces if everyother Nation in the world would agree to do likewise. 

That is equally true today, and it is even more true today that world peaceand world good-will are blocked by only 10 or 15 percent of the world'spopulation. That is why efforts to reduce armies have thus far not onlyfailed, but have been met by vastly increased armaments on land and in theair. That is why even efforts to continue the existing limits on navalarmaments into the years to come show such little current success. 

But the policy of the United States has been clear and consistent. We havesought with earnestness in every possible way to limit world armaments andto attain the peaceful solution of disputes among all Nations. 

We have sought by every legitimate means to exert our moral influenceagainst repression, against intolerance, against autocracy and in favor offreedom of expression, equality before the law, religious tolerance andpopular rule. 

In the field of commerce we have undertaken to encourage a more reasonableinterchange of the world's goods. In the field of international finance wehave, so far as we are concerned, put an end to dollar diplomacy, to moneygrabbing, to speculation for the benefit of the powerful and the rich, atthe expense of the small and the poor. 

As a consistent part of a clear policy, the United States is following atwofold neutrality toward any and all Nations which engage in wars that arenot of immediate concern to the Americas. First, we decline to encouragethe prosecution of war by permitting belligerents to obtain arms, ammunition or implements of war from the United States. Second, we seek todiscourage the use by belligerent Nations of any and all American productscalculated to facilitate the prosecution of a war in quantities over andabove our normal exports of them in time of peace. 

I trust that these objectives thus clearly and unequivocally stated will becarried forward by cooperation between this Congress and the President. 

I realize that I have emphasized to you the gravity of the situation whichconfronts the people of the world. This emphasis is justified because ofits importance to civilization and therefore to the United States. Peace isjeopardized by the few and not by the many. Peace is threatened by thosewho seek selfish power. The world has witnessed similar eras--as in thedays when petty kings and feudal barons were changing the map of Europeevery fortnight, or when great emperors and great kings were engaged in amad scramble for colonial empire. We hope that we are not again at thethreshold of such an era. But if face it we must, then the United Statesand the rest of the Americas can play but one role: through a well-orderedneutrality to do naught to encourage the contest, through adequate defenseto save ourselves from embroilment and attack, and through example and alllegitimate encouragement and assistance to persuade other Nations to returnto the ways of peace and good-will. 

The evidence before us clearly proves that autocracy in world affairsendangers peace and that such threats do not spring from those Nationsdevoted to the democratic ideal. If this be true in world affairs, itshould have the greatest weight in the determination of domestic policies. 

Within democratic Nations the chief concern of the people is to prevent thecontinuance or the rise of autocratic institutions that beget slavery athome and aggression abroad. Within our borders, as in the world at large, popular opinion is at war with a power-seeking minority. 

That is no new thing. It was fought out in the Constitutional Convention of1787. From time to time since then, the battle has been continued, underThomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. 

In these latter years we have witnessed the domination of government byfinancial and industrial groups, numerically small but politically dominantin the twelve years that succeeded the World War. The present group ofwhich I speak is indeed numerically small and, while it exercises a largeinfluence and has much to say in the world of business, it does not, I amconfident, speak the true sentiments of the less articulate but moreimportant elements that constitute real American business. 

In March, 1933, I appealed to the Congress of the United States and to thepeople of the United States in a new effort to restore power to those towhom it rightfully belonged. The response to that appeal resulted in thewriting of a new chapter in the history of popular government. You, themembers of the Legislative branch, and I, the Executive, contended for andestablished a new relationship between Government and people. 

What were the terms of that new relationship? They were an appeal from theclamor of many private and selfish interests, yes, an appeal from theclamor of partisan interest, to the ideal of the public interest. Government became the representative and the trustee of the publicinterest. Our aim was to build upon essentially democratic institutions, seeking all the while the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, theprotection of the weak, the liberation of the exploited and the genuineprotection of the people's property. 

It goes without saying that to create such an economic constitutionalorder, more than a single legislative enactment was called for. We, you inthe Congress and I as the Executive, had to build upon a broad base. Now, after thirty-four months of work, we contemplate a fairly rounded whole. Wehave returned the control of the Federal Government to the City ofWashington. 

To be sure, in so doing, we have invited battle. We have earned the hatredof entrenched greed. The very nature of the problem that we faced made itnecessary to drive some people from power and strictly to regulate others. I made that plain when I took the oath of office in March, 1933. I spoke ofthe practices of the unscrupulous money-changers who stood indicted in thecourt of public opinion. I spoke of the rulers of the exchanges ofmankind's goods, who failed through their own stubbornness and their ownincompetence. I said that they had admitted their failure and hadabdicated. 

Abdicated? Yes, in 1933, but now with the passing of danger they forgettheir damaging admissions and withdraw their abdication. 

They seek the restoration of their selfish power. They offer to lead usback round the same old corner into the same old dreary street. 

Yes, there are still determined groups that are intent upon that verything. Rigorously held up to popular examination, their true characterpresents itself. They steal the livery of great national constitutionalideals to serve discredited special interests. As guardians and trusteesfor great groups of individual stockholders they wrongfully seek to carrythe property and the interests entrusted to them into the arena of partisanpolitics. They seek--this minority in business and industry--to control andoften do control and use for their own purposes legitimate and highlyhonored business associations; they engage in vast propaganda to spreadfear and discord among the people--they would "gang up" against the people'sliberties. 

The principle that they would instill into government if they succeed inseizing power is well shown by the principles which many of them haveinstilled into their own affairs: autocracy toward labor, towardstockholders, toward consumers, toward public sentiment. Autocrats insmaller things, they seek autocracy in bigger things. "By their fruits yeshall know them. "

If these gentlemen believe, as they say they believe, that the measuresadopted by this Congress and its predecessor, and carried out by thisAdministration, have hindered rather than promoted recovery, let them beconsistent. Let them propose to this Congress the complete repeal of thesemeasures. The way is open to such a proposal. 

Let action be positive and not negative. The way is open in the Congress ofthe United States for an expression of opinion by yeas and nays. Shall wesay that values are restored and that the Congress will, therefore, repealthe laws under which we have been bringing them back? Shall we say thatbecause national income has grown with rising prosperity, we shall repealexisting taxes and thereby put off the day of approaching a balanced budgetand of starting to reduce the national debt? Shall we abandon thereasonable support and regulation of banking? Shall we restore the dollarto its former gold content?

Shall we say to the farmer, "The prices for your products are in partrestored. Now go and hoe your own row?"

Shall we say to the home owners, "We have reduced your rates of interest. We have no further concern with how you keep your home or what you pay foryour money. That is your affair?"

Shall we say to the several millions of unemployed citizens who face thevery problem of existence, of getting enough to eat, "We will withdraw fromgiving you work. We will turn you back to the charity of your communitiesand those men of selfish power who tell you that perhaps they will employyou if the Government leaves them strictly alone?"

Shall we say to the needy unemployed, "Your problem is a local one exceptthat perhaps the Federal Government, as an act of mere generosity, will bewilling to pay to your city or to your county a few grudging dollars tohelp maintain your soup kitchens?"

Shall we say to the children who have worked all day in the factories, "Child labor is a local issue and so are your starvation wages; somethingto be solved or left unsolved by the jurisdiction of forty-eight States?"

Shall we say to the laborer, "Your right to organize, your relations withyour employer have nothing to do with the public interest; if your employerwill not even meet with you to discuss your problems and his, that is noneof our affair?"

Shall we say to the unemployed and the aged, "Social security lies notwithin the province of the Federal Government; you must seek reliefelsewhere?"

Shall we say to the men and women who live in conditions of squalor incountry and in city, "The health and the happiness of you and your childrenare no concern of ours?"

Shall we expose our population once more by the repeal of laws whichprotect them against the loss of their honest investments and against themanipulations of dishonest speculators? Shall we abandon the splendidefforts of the Federal Government to raise the health standards of theNation and to give youth a decent opportunity through such means as theCivilian Conservation Corps?

Members of the Congress, let these challenges be met. If this is what thesegentlemen want, let them say so to the Congress of the United States. Letthem no longer hide their dissent in a cowardly cloak of generality. Letthem define the issue. We have been specific in our affirmative action. Letthem be specific in their negative attack. 

But the challenge faced by this Congress is more menacing than merely areturn to the past--bad as that would be. Our resplendent economic autocracydoes not want to return to that individualism of which they prate, eventhough the advantages under that system went to the ruthless and thestrong. They realize that in thirty-four months we have built up newinstruments of public power. In the hands of a people's Government thispower is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of aneconomic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties ofthe people. Give them their way and they will take the course of everyautocracy of the past--power for themselves, enslavement for the public. 

Their weapon is the weapon of fear. I have said, "The only thing we have tofear is fear itself. " That is as true today as it was in 1933. But suchfear as they instill today is not a natural fear, a normal fear; it is asynthetic, manufactured, poisonous fear that is being spread subtly, expensively and cleverly by the same people who cried in those other days, "Save us, save us, lest we perish. "

I am confident that the Congress of the United States well understands thefacts and is ready to wage unceasing warfare against those who seek acontinuation of that spirit of fear. The carrying out of the laws of theland as enacted by the Congress requires protection until finaladjudication by the highest tribunal of the land. The Congress has theright and can find the means to protect its own prerogatives. 

We are justified in our present confidence. Restoration of national income, which shows continuing gains for the third successive year, supports thenormal and logical policies under which agriculture and industry arereturning to full activity. Under these policies we approach a balance ofthe national budget. National income increases; tax receipts, based on thatincome, increase without the levying of new taxes. That is why I am able tosay to this, the Second Session of the 74th Congress, that it is my beliefbased on existing laws that no new taxes, over and above the present taxes, are either advisable or necessary. 

National income increases; employment increases. Therefore, we can lookforward to a reduction in the number of those citizens who are in need. Therefore, also, we can anticipate a reduction in our appropriations forrelief. 

In the light of our substantial material progress, in the light of theincreasing effectiveness of the restoration of popular rule, I recommend tothe Congress that we advance; that we do not retreat. I have confidencethat you will not fail the people of the Nation whose mandate you havealready so faithfully fulfilled. 

I repeat, with the same faith and the same determination, my words of March4, 1933: "We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courageof national unity; with a clear consciousness of seeking old and preciousmoral values; with a clean satisfaction that comes from the sternperformance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of arounded and permanent national life. We do not distrust the future ofessential democracy. "

I cannot better end this message on the state of the Union than byrepeating the words of a wise philosopher at whose feet I sat many, manyyears ago. 

"What great crises teach all men whom the example and counsel of the braveinspire is the lesson: Fear not, view all the tasks of life as sacred, havefaith in the triumph of the ideal, give daily all that you have to give, beloyal and rejoice whenever you find yourselves part of a great idealenterprise. You, at this moment, have the honor to belong to a generationwhose lips are touched by fire. You live in a land that now enjoys theblessings of peace. But let nothing human be wholly alien to you. The humanrace now passes through one of its great crises. New ideas, new issues--anew call for men to carry on the work of righteousness, of charity, ofcourage, of patience, and of loyalty. . . . However memory bring back thismoment to your minds, let it be able to say to you: That was a greatmoment. It was the beginning of a new era. . . . This world in its crisiscalled for volunteers, for men of faith in life, of patience in service, ofcharity and of insight. I responded to the call however I could. Ivolunteered to give myself to my Master--the cause of humane and braveliving. I studied, I loved, I labored, unsparingly and hopefully, to beworthy of my generation. "

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 6, 1937

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congress of the United States:

For the first time in our national history a President delivers his AnnualMessage to a new Congress within a fortnight of the expiration of his termof office. While there is no change in the Presidency this year, changewill occur in future years. It is my belief that under this newconstitutional practice, the President should in every fourth year, in sofar as seems reasonable, review the existing state of our national affairsand outline broad future problems, leaving specific recommendations forfuture legislation to be made by the President about to be inaugurated. 

At this time, however, circumstances of the moment compel me to ask yourimmediate consideration of: First, measures extending the life of certainauthorizations and powers which, under present statutes, expire within afew weeks; second, an addition to the existing Neutrality Act to coverspecific points raised by the unfortunate civil strife in Spain; and, third, a deficiency appropriation bill for which I shall submit estimatesthis week. 

In March, 1933, the problems which faced our Nation and which only ournational Government had the resources to meet were more serious even thanappeared on the surface. 

It was not only that the visible mechanism of economic life had brokendown. More disturbing was the fact that long neglect of the needs of theunderprivileged had brought too many of our people to the verge of doubt asto the successful adaptation of our historic traditions to the complexmodern world. In that lay a challenge to our democratic form of Governmentitself. 

Ours was the task to prove that democracy could be made to function in theworld of today as effectively as in the simpler world of a hundred yearsago. Ours was the task to do more than to argue a theory. The timesrequired the confident answer of performance to those whose instinctivefaith in humanity made them want to believe that in the long run democracywould prove superior to more extreme forms of Government as a process ofgetting action when action was wisdom, without the spiritual sacrificeswhich those other forms of Government exact. 

That challenge we met. To meet it required unprecedented activities underFederal leadership to end abuses, to restore a large measure of materialprosperity, to give new faith to millions of our citizens who had beentraditionally taught to expect that democracy would provide continuouslywider opportunity and continuously greater security in a world wherescience was continuously making material riches more available to man. 

In the many methods of attack with which we met these problems, you and I, by mutual understanding and by determination to cooperate, helped to makedemocracy succeed by refusing to permit unnecessary disagreement to arisebetween two of our branches of Government. That spirit of cooperation wasable to solve difficulties of extraordinary magnitude and ramification withfew important errors, and at a cost cheap when measured by the immediatenecessities and the eventual results. 

I look forward to a continuance of that cooperation in the next four years. I look forward also to a continuance of the basis of that cooperation--mutual respect for each other's proper sphere of functioning in a democracywhich is working well, and a common-sense realization of the need for playin the joints of the machine. 

On that basis, it is within the right of the Congress to determine which ofthe many new activities shall be continued or abandoned, increased orcurtailed. 

On that same basis, the President alone has the responsibility for theiradministration. I find that this task of Executive management has reachedthe point where our administrative machinery needs comprehensiveoverhauling. I shall, therefore, shortly address the Congress more fully inregard to modernizing and improving the Executive branch of theGovernment. 

That cooperation of the past four years between the Congress and thePresident has aimed at the fulfillment of a twofold policy: first, economicrecovery through many kinds of assistance to agriculture, industry andbanking; and, second, deliberate improvement in the personal security andopportunity of the great mass of our people. 

The recovery we sought was not to be merely temporary. It was to be arecovery protected from the causes of previous disasters. With that aim inview--to prevent a future similar crisis--you and I joined in a series ofenactments--safe banking and sound currency, the guarantee of bank deposits, protection for the investor in securities, the removal of the threat ofagricultural surpluses, insistence on collective bargaining, the outlawingof sweat shops, child labor and unfair trade practices, and the beginningsof security for the aged and the worker. 

Nor was the recovery we sought merely a purposeless whirring of machinery. It is important, of course, that every man and woman in the country be ableto find work, that every factory run, that business and farming as a wholeearn profits. But Government in a democratic Nation does not exist solely, or even primarily, for that purpose. 

It is not enough that the wheels turn. They must carry us in the directionof a greater satisfaction in life for the average man. The deeper purposeof democratic government is to assist as many of its citizens as possible, especially those who need it most, to improve their conditions of life, toretain all personal liberty which does not adversely affect theirneighbors, and to pursue the happiness which comes with security and anopportunity for recreation and culture. 

Even with our present recovery we are far from the goal of that deeperpurpose. There are far-reaching problems still with us for which democracymust find solutions if it is to consider itself successful. 

For example, many millions of Americans still live in habitations which notonly fail to provide the physical benefits of modern civilization but breeddisease and impair the health of future generations. The menace exists notonly in the slum areas of the very large cities, but in many smaller citiesas well. It exists on tens of thousands of farms, in varying degrees, inevery part of the country. 

Another example is the prevalence of an un-American type of tenant farming. I do not suggest that every farm family has the capacity to earn asatisfactory living on its own farm. But many thousands of tenant farmers, indeed most of them, with some financial assistance and with some adviceand training, can be made self-supporting on land which can eventuallybelong to them. The Nation would be wise to offer them that chance insteadof permitting them to go along as they do now, year after year, withneither future security as tenants nor hope of ownership of their homes norexpectation of bettering the lot of their children. 

Another national problem is the intelligent development of our socialsecurity system, the broadening of the services it renders, and practicalimprovement in its operation. In many Nations where such laws are ineffect, success in meeting the expectations of the community has comethrough frequent amendment of the original statute. 

And, of course, the most far-reaching and the most inclusive problem of allis that of unemployment and the lack of economic balance of whichunemployment is at once the result and the symptom. The immediate questionof adequate relief for the needy unemployed who are capable of performinguseful work, I shall discuss with the Congress during the coming months. The broader task of preventing unemployment is a matter of long-rangeevolutionary policy. To that we must continue to give our best thought andeffort. We cannot assume that immediate industrial and commercial activitywhich mitigates present pressures justifies the national Government at thistime in placing the unemployment problem in a filing cabinet of finishedbusiness. 

Fluctuations in employment are tied to all other wasteful fluctuations inour mechanism of production and distribution. One of these wastes isspeculation. In securities or commodities, the larger the volume ofspeculation, the wider become the upward and downward swings and the morecertain the result that in the long run there will be more losses thangains in the underlying wealth of the community. 

And, as is now well known to all of us, the same net loss to society comesfrom reckless overproduction and monopolistic underproduction of naturaland manufactured commodities. 

Overproduction, underproduction and speculation are three evil sisters whodistill the troubles of unsound inflation and disastrous deflation. It isto the interest of the Nation to have Government help private enterprise togain sound general price levels and to protect those levels from wideperilous fluctuations. We know now that if early in 1931 Government hadtaken the steps which were taken two and three years later, the depressionwould never have reached the depths of the beginning of 1933. 

Sober second thought confirms most of us in the belief that the broadobjectives of the National Recovery Act were sound. We know now that itsdifficulties arose from the fact that it tried to do too much. For example, it was unwise to expect the same agency to regulate the length of workinghours, minimum wages, child labor and collective bargaining on the one handand the complicated questions of unfair trade practices and businesscontrols on the other. 

The statute of N. R. A. Has been outlawed. The problems have not. They arestill with us. 

That decent conditions and adequate pay for labor, and just return foragriculture, can be secured through parallel and simultaneous action byforty-eight States is a proven impossibility. It is equally impossible toobtain curbs on monopoly, unfair trade practices and speculation by Stateaction alone. There are those who, sincerely or insincerely, still cling toState action as a theoretical hope. But experience with actualities makesit clear that Federal laws supplementing State laws are needed to helpsolve the problems which result from modern invention applied in anindustrialized Nation which conducts its business with scant regard toState lines. 

During the past year there has been a growing belief that there is littlefault to be found with the Constitution of the United States as it standstoday. The vital need is not an alteration of our fundamental law, but anincreasingly enlightened view with reference to it. Difficulties have grownout of its interpretation; but rightly considered, it can be used as aninstrument of progress, and not as a device for prevention of action. 

It is worth our while to read and reread the preamble of the Constitution, and Article I thereof which confers the legislative powers upon theCongress of the United States. It is also worth our while to read again thedebates in the Constitutional Convention of one hundred and fifty yearsago. From such reading, I obtain the very definite thought that the membersof that Convention were fully aware that civilization would raise problemsfor the proposed new Federal Government, which they themselves could noteven surmise; and that it was their definite intent and expectation that aliberal interpretation in the years to come would give to the Congress thesame relative powers over new national problems as they themselves gave tothe Congress over the national problems of their day. 

In presenting to the Convention the first basic draft of the Constitution, Edmund Randolph explained that it was the purpose "to insert essentialprinciples only, lest the operation of government should be clogged byrendering those provisions permanent and unalterable which ought to beaccommodated to times and events. "

With a better understanding of our purposes, and a more intelligentrecognition of our needs as a Nation, it is not to be assumed that therewill be prolonged failure to bring legislative and judicial action intocloser harmony. Means must be found to adapt our legal forms and ourjudicial interpretation to the actual present national needs of the largestprogressive democracy in the modern world. 

That thought leads to a consideration of world problems. To go no furtherback than the beginning of this century, men and women everywhere wereseeking conditions of life very different from those which were customarybefore modern invention and modern industry and modern communications hadcome into being. The World war, for all of its tragedy, encouraged thesedemands, and stimulated action to fulfill these new desires. 

Many national Governments seemed unable adequately to respond; and, oftenwith the improvident assent of the masses of the people themselves, newforms of government were set up with oligarchy taking the place ofdemocracy. In oligarchies, militarism has leapt forward, while in thoseNations which have retained democracy, militarism has waned. 

I have recently visited three of our sister Republics in South America. Thevery cordial receptions with which I was greeted were in tribute todemocracy. To me the outstanding observation of that visit was that themasses of the peoples of all the Americas are convinced that the democraticform of government can be made to succeed and do not wish to substitute forit any other form of government. They believe that democracies are bestable to cope with the changing problems of modern civilization withinthemselves, and that democracies are best able to maintain peace amongthemselves. 

The Inter-American Conference, operating on these fundamental principles ofdemocracy, did much to assure peace in this Hemisphere. Existing peacemachinery was improved. New instruments to maintain peace and eliminatecauses of war were adopted. Wider protection of the interests of theAmerican Republics in the event of war outside the Western Hemisphere wasprovided. Respect for, and observance of, international treaties andinternational law were strengthened. Principles of liberal trade policies, as effective aids to the maintenance of peace, were reaffirmed. Theintellectual and cultural relationships among American Republics werebroadened as a part of the general peace program. 

In a world unhappily thinking in terms of war, the representatives oftwenty-one Nations sat around a table, in an atmosphere of completeconfidence and understanding, sincerely discussing measures for maintainingpeace. Here was a great and a permanent achievement directly affecting thelives and security of the two hundred and fifty million human beings whodwell in this Western Hemisphere. Here was an example which must have awholesome effect upon the rest of the world. 

In a very real sense, the Conference in Buenos Aires sent forth a messageon behalf of all the democracies of the world to those Nations which liveotherwise. Because such other Governments are perhaps more spectacular, itwas high time for democracy to assert itself. 

Because all of us believe that our democratic form of government can copeadequately with modern problems as they arise, it is patriotic as well aslogical for us to prove that we can meet new national needs with new lawsconsistent with an historic constitutional framework clearly intended toreceive liberal and not narrow interpretation. 

The United States of America, within itself, must continue the task ofmaking democracy succeed. 

In that task the Legislative branch of our Government will, I am confident, continue to meet the demands of democracy whether they relate to thecurbing of abuses, the extension of help to those who need help, or thebetter balancing of our interdependent economies. 

So, too, the Executive branch of the Government must move forward in thistask, and, at the same time, provide better management for administrativeaction of all kinds. 

The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in makingdemocracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powersinto being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or thoselegitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the commongood. 

The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial ofessential powers of free government. 

Your task and mine is not ending with the end of the depression. The peopleof the United States have made it clear that they expect us to continue ouractive efforts in behalf of their peaceful advancement. 

In that spirit of endeavor and service I greet the 75th Congress at thebeginning of this auspicious New Year. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 3, 1938

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and of the House ofRepresentatives:

In addressing the Congress on the state of the Union present facts andfuture hazards demand that I speak clearly and earnestly of the causeswhich underlie events of profound concern to all. 

In spite of the determination of this Nation for peace, it has become clearthat acts and policies of nations in other parts of the world havefar-reaching effects not only upon their immediate neighbors but also onus. 

I am thankful that I can tell you that our Nation is at peace. It has beenkept at peace despite provocations which in other days, because of theirseriousness, could well have engendered war. The people of the UnitedStates and the Government of the United States have shown capacity forrestraint and a civilized approach to the purposes of peace, while at thesame time we maintain the integrity inherent in the sovereignty of130, 000, 000 people, lest we weaken or destroy our influence for peace andjeopardize the sovereignty itself. 

It is our traditional policy to live at peace with other nations. More thanthat, we have been among the leaders in advocating the use of pacificmethods of discussion and conciliation in international differences. Wehave striven for the reduction of military forces. 

But in a world of high tension and disorder, in a world where stablecivilization is actually threatened, it becomes the responsibility of eachnation which strives for peace at home and peace with and among others tobe strong enough to assure the observance of those fundamentals of peacefulsolution of conflicts which are the only ultimate basis for orderlyexistence. 

Resolute in our determination to respect the rights of others, and tocommand respect for the rights of ourselves, we must keep ourselvesadequately strong in self-defense. 

There is a trend in the world away from the observance both of the letterand the spirit of treaties. We propose to observe, as we have in the past, our own treaty obligations to the limit; but we cannot be certain ofreciprocity on the part of others. 

Disregard for treaty obligations seems to have followed the surface trendaway from the democratic representative form of government. It would seem, therefore, that world peace through international agreements is most safein the hands of democratic representative governments--or, in other words, peace is most greatly jeopardized in and by those nations where democracyhas been discarded or has never developed. 

I have used the words "surface trend, " for I still believe that civilizedman increasingly insists and in the long run will insist on genuineparticipation in his own government. Our people believe that over the yearsdemocracies of the world will survive, and that democracy will be restoredor established in those nations which today know it not. In that faith liesthe future peace of mankind. 

At home, conditions call for my equal candor. Events of recent months arenew proof that we cannot conduct a national government after the practiceof 1787, or 1837 or 1887, for the obvious reason that human needs and humandesires are infinitely greater, infinitely more difficult to meet than inany previous period in the life of our Republic. Hitherto it has been anacknowledged duty of government to meet these desires and needs: nothinghas occurred of late to absolve the Congress, the Courts or the Presidentfrom that task. It faces us as squarely, as insistently, as in March, 1933. 

Much of trouble in our own lifetime has sprung from a long period ofinaction--from ignoring what fundamentally was happening to us, and from atime-serving unwillingness to face facts as they forced themselves uponus. 

Our national life rests on two nearly equal producing forces, agricultureand industry, each employing about one-third of our citizens. The otherthird transports and distributes the products of the first two, or performsspecial services for the whole. 

The first great force, agriculture--and with it the production of timber, minerals and other natural resources--went forward feverishly andthoughtlessly until nature rebelled and we saw deserts encroach, floodsdestroy, trees disappear and soil exhausted. 

At the same time we have been discovering that vast numbers of our farmingpopulation live in a poverty more abject than that of many of the farmersof Europe whom we are wont to call peasants; that the prices of ourproducts of agriculture are too often dependent on speculation bynon-farming groups; and that foreign nations, eager to becomeself-sustaining or ready to put virgin land under the plough are no longerbuying our surpluses of cotton and wheat and lard and tobacco and fruit asthey had before. 

Since 1933 we have knowingly faced a choice of three remedies. First, tocut our cost of farm production below that of other nations--an obviousimpossibility in many crops today unless we revert to human slavery or itsequivalent. 

Second, to make the government the guarantor of farm prices and theunderwriter of excess farm production without limit--a course which wouldbankrupt the strongest government in the world in a decade. 

Third, to place the primary responsibility directly on the farmersthemselves, under the principle of majority rule, so that they may decide, with full knowledge of the facts of surpluses, scarcities, world marketsand domestic needs, what the planting of each crop should be in order tomaintain a reasonably adequate supply which will assure a minimum adequateprice under the normal processes of the law of supply and demand. 

That means adequacy of supply but not glut. It means adequate reservesagainst the day of drought. It is shameless misrepresentation to call thisa policy of scarcity. It is in truth insurance before the fact, instead ofgovernment subsidy after the fact. 

Any such plan for the control of excessive surpluses and the speculationthey bring has two enemies. There are those well meaning theorists who harpon the inherent right of every free born American to do with his land whathe wants--to cultivate it well--or badly; to conserve his timber by cuttingonly the annual increment thereof--or to strip it clean, let fire burn theslash, and erosion complete the ruin; to raise only one crop--and if thatcrop fails, to look for food and support from his neighbors or hisgovernment. 

That, I assert is not an inherent right of citizenship. For if a man farmshis land to the waste of the soil or the trees, he destroys not only hisown assets but the Nation's assets as well. Or if by his methods he makeshimself, year after year, a financial hazard of the community and thegovernment, he becomes not only a social problem but an economic menace. The day has gone by when it could be claimed that government has nointerest in such ill-considered practices and no right throughrepresentative methods to stop them. 

The other group of enemies is perhaps less well-meaning. It includes thosewho for partisan purposes oppose each and every practical effort to helpthe situation, and also those who make money from undue fluctuations incrop prices. 

I gladly note that measures which seek to initiate a government program fora balanced agriculture are now in conference between the two Houses of theCongress. In their final consideration, I hope for a sound consistentmeasure which will keep the cost of its administration within the figure ofcurrent government expenditures in aid of agriculture. The farmers of thisNation know that a balanced output can be put into effect without excessivecost and with the cooperation of the great majority of them. 

If this balance can be created by an all-weather farm program, our farmpopulation will soon be assured of relatively constant purchasing power. From this will flow two other practical results: the consuming public willbe protected against excessive food and textile prices, and the industriesof the Nation and their workers will find a steadier demand for wares soldto the agricultural third of our people. 

To raise the purchasing power of the farmer is, however, not enough. Itwill not stay raised if we do not also raise the purchasing power of thatthird of the Nation which receives its income from industrial employment. Millions of industrial workers receive pay so low that they have littlebuying power. Aside from the undoubted fact that they thereby suffer greathuman hardship, they are unable to buy adequate food and shelter, tomaintain health or to buy their share of manufactured goods. 

We have not only seen minimum wage and maximum hour provisions prove theirworth economically and socially under government auspices in 1933, 1934 and1935, but the people of this country, by an overwhelming vote, are in favorof having the Congress--this Congress--put a floor below which industrialwages shall not fall, and a ceiling beyond which the hours of industriallabor shall not rise. 

Here again let us analyze the opposition. A part of it is sincere inbelieving that an effort thus to raise the purchasing power of lowest paidindustrial workers is not the business of the Federal Government. Othersgive "lip service" to a general objective, but do not like any specificmeasure that is proposed. In both cases it is worth our while to wonderwhether some of these opponents are not at heart opposed to any program forraising the wages of the underpaid or reducing the hours of theoverworked. 

Another group opposes legislation of this type on the ground that cheaplabor will help their locality to acquire industries and outside capital, or to retain industries which today are surviving only because of existinglow wages and long hours. It has been my thought that, especially duringthese past five years, this Nation has grown away from local or sectionalselfishness and toward national patriotism and unity. I am disappointed bysome recent actions and by some recent utterances which sound like thephilosophy of half a century ago. 

There are many communities in the United States where the average familyincome is pitifully low. It is in those communities that we find thepoorest educational facilities and the worst conditions of health. Why? Itis not because they are satisfied to live as they do. It is because thosecommunities have the lowest per capita wealth and income; therefore, thelowest ability to pay taxes; and, therefore, inadequate functioning oflocal government. 

Such communities exist in the East, in the Middle West, in the Far West, and in the South. Those who represent such areas in every part of thecountry do their constituents ill service by blocking efforts to raisetheir incomes, their property values and, therefore, their whole scale ofliving. In the long run, the profits from Child labor, low pay and overworkenure not to the locality or region where they exist but to the absenteeowners who have sent their capital into these exploited communities togather larger profits for themselves. Indeed, new enterprises and newindustries which bring permanent wealth will come more readily to thosecommunities which insist on good pay and reasonable hours, for the simplereason that there they will find a greater industrial efficiency andhappier workers. 

No reasonable person seeks a complete uniformity in wages in every part ofthe United States; nor does any reasonable person seek an immediate anddrastic change from the lowest pay to the highest pay. We are seeking, ofcourse, only legislation to end starvation wages and intolerable hours;more desirable wages are and should continue to be the product ofcollective bargaining. 

Many of those who represent great cities have shown their understanding ofthe necessity of helping the agricultural third of the Nation. I hope thatthose who represent constituencies primarily agricultural will notunderestimate the importance of extending like aid to the industrialthird. 

Wage and hour legislation, therefore, is a problem which is definitelybefore this Congress for action. It is an essential part of economicrecovery. It has the support of an overwhelming majority of our people inevery walk of life. They have expressed themselves through the ballot box. 

Again I revert to the increase of national purchasing power as anunderlying necessity of the day. If you increase that purchasing power forthe farmers and for the industrial workers, especially for those in bothgroups who have least of it today, you will increase the purchasing powerof the final third of our population--those who transport and distribute theproducts of farm and factory, and those of the professions who serve allgroups. I have tried to make clear to you, and through you to the people ofthe United States, that this is an urgency which must be met by completeand not by partial action. 

If it is met, if the purchasing power of the Nation as a whole--in otherwords, the total of the Nation's income--can be still further increased, other happy results will flow from such increase. 

We have raised the Nation's income from thirty-eight billion dollars in theyear 1932 to about sixty-eight billion dollars in the year 1937. Our goal, our objective is to raise it to ninety or one hundred billion dollars. 

We have heard much about a balanced budget, and it is interesting to notethat many of those who have pleaded for a balanced budget as the sole neednow come to me to plead for additional government expenditures at theexpense of unbalancing the budget. As the Congress is fully aware, theannual deficit, large for several years, has been declining the last fiscalyear and this. The proposed budget for 1939, which I shall shortly send tothe Congress, will exhibit a further decrease in the deficit, though not abalance between income and outgo. 

To many who have pleaded with me for an immediate balancing of the budget, by a sharp curtailment or even elimination of government functions, I haveasked the question: "What present expenditures would you reduce oreliminate?" And the invariable answer has been "that is not my business--Iknow nothing of the details, but I am sure that it could be done. " That isnot what you or I would call helpful citizenship. 

On only one point do most of them have a suggestion. They think that relieffor the unemployed by the giving of work is wasteful, and when I pin themdown I discover that at heart they are actually in favor of substituting adole in place of useful work. To that neither I nor, I am confident, theSenators and Representatives in the Congress will ever consent. 

I am as anxious as any banker or industrialist or business man or investoror economist that the budget of the United States Government be broughtinto balance as quickly as possible. But I lay down certain conditionswhich seem reasonable and which I believe all should accept. 

The first condition is that we continue the policy of not permitting anyneedy American who can and is willing to work to starve because the FederalGovernment does not provide the work. 

The second is that the Congress and the Executive join hands in eliminatingor curtailing any Federal activity which can be eliminated or curtailed oreven postponed without harming necessary government functions or the safetyof the Nation from a national point of view. 

The third is to raise the purchasing power of the Nation to the point thatthe taxes on this purchasing power--or, in other words, on the Nation'sincome--will be sufficient to meet the necessary expenditures of thenational government. 

I have hitherto stated that, in my judgment, the expenditures of thenational government cannot be cut much below seven billion dollars a yearwithout destroying essential functions or letting people starve. That sumcan be raised and will be cheerfully provided by the American people, if wecan increase the Nation's income to a point well beyond the present level. 

This does not mean that as the Nation's income goes up the Federalexpenditures should rise in proportion. On the contrary, the Congress andthe Executive should use every effort to hold the normal Federalexpenditures to approximately the present level, thus making it possible, with an increase in the Nation's income and the resulting increase in taxreceipts, not only to balance future budgets but to reduce the debt. 

In line with this policy fall my former recommendations for thereorganization and improvement of the administrative structure of thegovernment, both for immediate Executive needs and for the planning offuture national needs. I renew those recommendations. 

In relation to tax changes, three things should be kept in mind. First, thetotal sum to be derived by the Federal Treasury must not be decreased as aresult of any changes in schedules. Second, abuses by individuals orcorporations designed to escape tax-paying by using various methods ofdoing business, corporate and otherwise--abuses which we have sought, withgreat success, to end--must not be restored. Third, we should rightly changecertain provisions where they are proven to work definite hardship, especially on the small business men of the Nation. But, speculative incomeshould not be favored over earned income. 

It is human nature to argue that this or that tax is responsible for everyill. It is human nature on the part of those who pay graduated taxes toattack all taxes based on the principle of ability to pay. These are thesame complainants who for a generation blocked the imposition of agraduated income tax. They are the same complainants who would impose thetype of flat sales tax which places the burden of government more on thoseleast able to pay and less on those most able to pay. 

Our conclusion must be that while proven hardships should be corrected, they should not be corrected in such a way as to restore abuses alreadyterminated or to shift a greater burden to the less fortunate. 

This subject leads naturally into the wider field of the public attitudetoward business. The objective of increasing the purchasing power of thefarming third, the industrial third and the service third of our populationpresupposes the cooperation of what we call capital and labor. 

Capital is essential; reasonable earnings on capital are essential; butmisuse of the powers of capital or selfish suspension of the employment ofcapital must be ended, or the capitalistic system will destroy itselfthrough its own abuses. 

The overwhelming majority of business men and bankers intend to be goodcitizens. Only a small minority have displayed poor citizenship by engagingin practices which are dishonest or definitely harmful to society. Thisstatement is straightforward and true. No person in any responsible placein the Government of the United States today has ever taken any positioncontrary to it. 

But, unfortunately for the country, when attention is called to, or attackis made on specific misuses of capital, there has been a deliberate purposeon the part of the condemned minority to distort the criticism into anattack on all capital. That is wilful deception but it does not longdeceive. 

If attention is called to, or attack made on, certain wrongful businesspractices, there are those who are eager to call it "an attack on allbusiness. " That, too, is wilful deception that will not long deceive. Letus consider certain facts:

There are practices today which most people believe should be ended. Theyinclude tax avoidance through corporate and other methods, which I havepreviously mentioned; excessive capitalization, investment write-ups andsecurity manipulations; price rigging and collusive bidding in defiance ofthe spirit of the antitrust laws by methods which baffle prosecution underthe present statutes. They include high-pressure salesmanship which createscycles of overproduction within given industries and consequent recessionsin production until such time as the surplus is consumed; the use of patentlaws to enable larger corporations to maintain high prices and withholdfrom the public the advantages of the progress of science; unfaircompetition which drives the smaller producer out of business locally, regionally or even on a national scale; intimidation of local or stategovernment to prevent the enactment of laws for the protection of labor bythreatening to move elsewhere; the shifting of actual production from onelocality or region to another in pursuit of the cheapest wage scale. 

The enumeration of these abuses does not mean that business as a whole isguilty of them. Again, it is deception that will not long deceive to tellthe country that an attack on these abuses is an attack on business. 

Another group of problems affecting business, which cannot be termedspecific abuses, gives us food for grave thought about the future. Generically such problems arise out of the concentration of economiccontrol to the detriment of the body politic--control of other people'smoney, other people's labor, other people's lives. 

In many instances such concentrations cannot be justified on the ground ofoperating efficiency, but have been created for the sake of securitiesprofits, financial control, the suppression of competition and the ambitionfor power over others. In some lines of industry a very small numericalgroup is in such a position of influence that its actions are of necessityfollowed by the other units operating in the same field. 

That such influences operate to control banking and finance is equallytrue, in spite of the many efforts, through Federal legislation, to takesuch control out of the hands of a small group. We have but to talk withhundreds of small bankers throughout the United States to realize thatirrespective of local conditions, they are compelled in practice to acceptthe policies laid down by a small number of the larger banks in the Nation. The work undertaken by Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson is not finishedyet. 

The ownership of vast properties or the organization of thousands ofworkers creates a heavy obligation of public service. The power should notbe sought or sanctioned unless the responsibility is accepted as well. Theman who seeks freedom from such responsibility in the name of individualliberty is either fooling himself or trying to cheat his fellow men. Hewants to eat the fruits of orderly society without paying for them. 

As a Nation we have rejected any radical revolutionary program. For apermanent correction of grave weaknesses in our economic system we haverelied on new applications of old democratic processes. It is not necessaryto recount what has been accomplished in preserving the homes andlivelihood of millions of workers on farms and in cities, in reconstructinga sound banking and credit system, in reviving trade and industry, inreestablishing security of life and property. All we need today is to lookupon the fundamental, sound economic conditions to know that this businessrecession causes more perplexity than fear on the part of most people andto contrast our prevailing mental attitude with the terror and despair offive years ago. 

Furthermore, we have a new moral climate in America. That means that we askbusiness and finance to recognize that fact, to cure such inequalities asthey can cure without legislation but to join their government in theenactment of legislation where the ending of abuses and the steadyfunctioning of our economic system calls for government assistance. TheNation has no obligation to make America safe either for incompetentbusiness men or for business men who fail to note the trend of the timesand continue the use of machinery of economics and practices of finance asoutworn as the cotton spindle of 1870. 

Government can be expected to cooperate in every way with the business ofthe Nation provided the component parts of business abandon practices whichdo not belong to this day and age, and adopt price and production policiesappropriate to the times. 

In regard to the relationship of government to certain processes ofbusiness, to which I have referred, it seems clear to me that existing lawsundoubtedly require reconstruction. I expect, therefore, to address theCongress in a special message on this subject, and I hope to have the helpof business in the efforts of government to help business. 

I have spoken of labor as another essential in the three great groups ofthe population in raising the Nation's income. Definite strides incollective bargaining have been made and the right of labor to organize hasbeen nationally accepted. Nevertheless in the evolution of the processdifficult situations have arisen in localities and among groups. Unfortunate divisions relating to jurisdiction among the workers themselveshave retarded production within given industries and have, therefore, affected related industries. The construction of homes and other buildingshas been hindered in some localities not only by unnecessarily high pricesfor materials but also by certain hourly wage scales. 

For economic and social reasons our principal interest for the near futurelies along two lines: first, the immediate desirability of increasing thewages of the lowest paid groups in all industry; and, second, in thinkingin terms of regularizing the work of the individual worker more greatlythrough the year--in other words, in thinking more in terms of the worker'stotal pay for a period of a whole year rather than in terms of hisremuneration by the hour or by the day. 

In the case of labor as in the case of capital, misrepresentation of thepolicy of the government of the United States is deception which will notlong deceive. In both cases we seek cooperation. In every case power andresponsibility must go hand in hand. 

I have spoken of economic causes which throw the Nation's income out ofbalance; I have spoken of practices and abuses which demand correctionthrough the cooperation of capital and labor with the government. But nogovernment can help the destinies of people who insist in putting sectionaland class consciousness ahead of general weal. There must be proof thatsectional and class interests are prepared more greatly than they are todayto be national in outlook. 

A government can punish specific acts of spoliation; but no government canconscript cooperation. We have improved some matters by way of remediallegislation. But where in some particulars that legislation has failed wecannot be sure whether it fails because some of its details are unwise orbecause it is being sabotaged. At any rate, we hold our objectives and ourprinciples to be sound. We will never go back on them. 

Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of itscitizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work forwilling hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering hardship fromno fault of their own have a right to call upon the Government for aid; anda government worthy of its name must make fitting response. 

It is the opportunity and the duty of all those who have faith indemocratic methods as applied in industry, in agriculture and in business, as well as in the field of politics, to do their utmost to cooperate withgovernment--without regard to political affiliation, special interests oreconomic prejudices--in whatever program may be sanctioned by the chosenrepresentatives of the people. 

That presupposes on the part of the representatives of the people, aprogram, its enactment and its administration. 

Not because of the pledges of party programs alone, not because of theclear policies of the past five years, but chiefly because of the need ofnational unity in ending mistakes of the past and meeting the necessitiesof today, we must carry on. I do not propose to let the people down. 

I am sure the Congress of the United States will not let the people down. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 4, 1939

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and the Congress:

In Reporting on the state of the nation, I have felt it necessary onprevious occasions to advise the Congress of disturbance abroad and of theneed of putting our own house in order in the face of storm signals fromacross the seas. As this Seventy-sixth Congress opens there is need forfurther warning. 

A war which threatened to envelop the world in flames has been averted; butit has become increasingly clear that world peace is not assured. 

All about us rage undeclared wars--military and economic. All about us growmore deadly armaments--military and economic. All about us are threats ofnew aggression military and economic. 

Storms from abroad directly challenge three institutions indispensable toAmericans, now as always. The first is religion. It is the source of theother two--democracy and international good faith. 

Religion, by teaching man his relationship to God, gives the individual asense of his own dignity and teaches him to respect himself by respectinghis neighbors. 

Democracy, the practice of self-government, is a covenant among free men torespect the rights and liberties of their fellows. 

International good faith, a sister of democracy, springs from the will ofcivilized nations of men to respect the rights and liberties of othernations of men. 

In a modern civilization, all three--religion, democracy and internationalgood faith--complement and support each other. 

Where freedom of religion has been attacked, the attack has come fromsources opposed to democracy. Where democracy has been overthrown, thespirit of free worship has disappeared. And where religion and democracyhave vanished, good faith and reason in international affairs have givenway to strident ambition and brute force. 

An ordering of society which relegates religion, democracy and good faithamong nations to the background can find no place within it for the idealsof the Prince of Peace. The United States rejects such an ordering, andretains its ancient faith. 

There comes a time in the affairs of men when they must prepare to defend, not their homes alone, but the tenets of faith and humanity on which theirchurches, their governments and their very civilization are founded. Thedefense of religion, of democracy and of good faith among nations is allthe same fight. To save one we must now make up our minds to save all. 

We know what might happen to us of the United States if the newphilosophies of force were to encompass the other continents and invade ourown. We, no more than other nations, can afford to be surrounded by theenemies of our faith and our humanity. Fortunate it is, therefore, that inthis Western Hemisphere we have, under a common ideal of democraticgovernment, a rich diversity of resources and of peoples functioningtogether in mutual respect and peace. 

That Hemisphere, that peace, and that ideal we propose to do our share inprotecting against storms from any quarter. Our people and our resourcesare pledged to secure that protection. From that determination no Americanflinches. 

This by no means implies that the American Republics disassociatethemselves from the nations of other continents. It does not mean theAmericas against the rest of the world. We as one of the Republicsreiterate our willingness to help the cause of world peace. We stand on ourhistoric offer to take counsel with all other nations of the world to theend that aggression among them be terminated, that the race of armamentscease and that commerce be renewed. 

But the world has grown so small and weapons of attack so swift that nonation can be safe in its will to peace so long as any other powerfulnation refuses to settle its grievances at the council table. 

For if any government bristling with implements of war insists on policiesof force, weapons of defense give the only safety. 

In our foreign relations we have learned from the past what not to do. Fromnew wars we have learned what we must do. 

We have learned that effective timing of defense, and the distant pointsfrom which attacks may be launched are completely different from what theywere twenty years ago. 

We have learned that survival cannot be guaranteed by arming after theattack begins--for there is new range and speed to offense. 

We have learned that long before any overt military act, aggression beginswith preliminaries of propaganda, subsidized penetration, the loosening ofties of good will, the stirring of prejudice and the incitement todisunion. 

We have learned that God-fearing democracies of the world which observe thesanctity of treaties and good faith in their dealings with other nationscannot safely be indifferent to international lawlessness anywhere. Theycannot forever let pass, without effective protest, acts of aggressionagainst sister nations--acts which automatically undermine all of us. 

Obviously they must proceed along practical, peaceful lines. But the merefact that we rightly decline to intervene with arms to prevent acts ofaggression does not mean that we must act as if there were no aggression atall. Words may be futile, but war is not the only means of commanding adecent respect for the opinions of mankind. There are many methods short ofwar, but stronger and more effective than mere words, of bringing home toaggressor governments the aggregate sentiments of our own people. 

At the very least, we can and should avoid any action, or any lack ofaction, which will encourage, assist or build up an aggressor. We havelearned that when we deliberately try to legislate neutrality, ourneutrality laws may operate unevenly and unfairly--may actually give aid toan aggressor and deny it to the victim. The instinct of self-preservationshould warn us that we ought not to let that happen any more. 

And we have learned something else--the old, old lesson that probability ofattack is mightily decreased by the assurance of an ever ready defense. Since 1931, nearly eight years ago, world events of thunderous import havemoved with lightning speed. During these eight years many of our peopleclung to the hope that the innate decency of mankind would protect theunprepared who showed their innate trust in mankind. Today we are allwiser--and sadder. 

Under modern conditions what we mean by "adequate defense"--a policysubscribed to by all of us--must be divided into three elements. First, wemust have armed forces and defenses strong enough to ward off sudden attackagainst strategic positions and key facilities essential to ensuresustained resistance and ultimate victory. Secondly, we must have theorganization and location of those key facilities so that they may beimmediately utilized and rapidly expanded to meet all needs without dangerof serious interruption by enemy attack. 

In the course of a few days I shall send you a special message makingrecommendations for those two essentials of defense against danger which wecannot safely assume will not come. 

If these first two essentials are reasonably provided for, we must be ableconfidently to invoke the third element, the underlying strength ofcitizenship--the self-confidence, the ability, the imagination and thedevotion that give the staying power to see things through. 

A strong and united nation may be destroyed if it is unprepared againstsudden attack. But even a nation well armed and well organized from astrictly military standpoint may, after a period of time, meet defeat if itis unnerved by self-distrust, endangered by class prejudice, by dissensionbetween capital and labor, by false economy and by other unsolved socialproblems at home. 

In meeting the troubles of the world we must meet them as one people--with aunity born of the fact that for generations those who have come to ourshores, representing many kindreds and tongues, have been welded by commonopportunity into a united patriotism. If another form of government canpresent a united front in its attack on a democracy, the attack must andwill be met by a united democracy. Such a democracy can and must exist inthe United States. 

A dictatorship may command the full strength of a regimented nation. Butthe united strength of a democratic nation can be mustered only when itspeople, educated by modern standards to know what is going on and wherethey are going, have conviction that they are receiving as large a share ofopportunity for development, as large a share of material success and ofhuman dignity, as they have a right to receive. 

Our nation's program of social and economic reform is therefore a part ofdefense, as basic as armaments themselves. 

Against the background of events in Europe, in Africa and in Asia duringthese recent years, the pattern of what we have accomplished since 1933appears in even clearer focus. 

For the first time we have moved upon deep-seated problems affecting ournational strength and have forged national instruments adequate to meetthem. 

Consider what the seemingly piecemeal struggles of these six years add upto in terms of realistic national preparedness. 

We are conserving and developing natural resources--land, water power, forests. 

We are trying to provide necessary food, shelter and medical care for thehealth of our population. 

We are putting agriculture--our system of food and fibre supply--on asounder basis. 

We are strengthening the weakest spot in our system of industrial supply--its long smouldering labor difficulties. 

We have cleaned up our credit system so that depositor and investor alikemay more readily and willingly make their capital available for peace orwar. 

We are giving to our youth new opportunities for work and education. 

We have sustained the morale of all the population by the dignifiedrecognition of our obligations to the aged, the helpless and the needy. 

Above all, we have made the American people conscious of theirinterrelationship and their interdependence. They sense a common destinyand a common need of each other. Differences of occupation, geography, raceand religion no longer obscure the nation's fundamental unity in thoughtand in action. 

We have our difficulties, true--but we are a wiser and a tougher nation thanwe were in 1929, or in 1932. 

Never have there been six years of such far-flung internal preparedness inour history. And this has been done without any dictator's power tocommand, without conscription of labor or confiscation of capital, withoutconcentration camps and without a scratch on freedom of speech, freedom ofthe press or the rest of the Bill of Rights. 

We see things now that we could not see along the way. The tools ofgovernment which we had in 1933 are outmoded. We have had to forge newtools for a new role of government operating in a democracy--a role of newresponsibility for new needs and increased responsibility for old needs, long neglected. 

Some of these tools had to be roughly shaped and still need some machiningdown. Many of those who fought bitterly against the forging of these newtools welcome their use today. The American people, as a whole, haveaccepted them. The Nation looks to the Congress to improve the newmachinery which we have permanently installed, provided that in the processthe social usefulness of the machinery is not destroyed or impaired. 

All of us agree that we should simplify and improve laws if experience andoperation clearly demonstrate the need. For instance, all of us want betterprovision for our older people under our social security legislation. Forthe medically needy we must provide better care. 

Most of us agree that for the sake of employer and employee alike we mustfind ways to end factional labor strife and employer-employee disputes. 

Most of us recognize that none of these tools can be put to maximumeffectiveness unless the executive processes of government arerevamped--reorganized, if you will--into more effective combination. Andeven after such reorganization it will take time to develop administrativepersonnel and experience in order to use our new tools with a minimum ofmistakes. The Congress, of course, needs no further information on this. 

With this exception of legislation to provide greater governmentefficiency, and with the exception of legislation to ameliorate ourrailroad and other transportation problems, the past three Congresses havemet in part or in whole the pressing needs of the new order of things. 

We have now passed the period of internal conflict in the launching of ourprogram of social reform. Our full energies may now be released toinvigorate the processes of recovery in order to preserve our reforms, andto give every man and woman who wants to work a real job at a living wage. 

But time is of paramount importance. The deadline of danger from within andfrom without is not within our control. The hour-glass may be in the handsof other nations. Our own hour-glass tells us that we are off on a race tomake democracy work, so that we may be efficient in peace and thereforesecure in national defense. 

This time element forces us to still greater efforts to attain the fullemployment of our labor and our capital. 

The first duty of our statesmanship is to bring capital and man-powertogether. 

Dictatorships do this by main force. By using main force they apparentlysucceed at it--for the moment. However we abhor their methods, we arecompelled to admit that they have obtained substantial utilization of alltheir material and human resources. Like it or not, they have solved, for atime at least, the problem of idle men and idle capital. Can we competewith them by boldly seeking methods of putting idle men and idle capitaltogether and, at the same time, remain within our American way of life, within the Bill of Rights, and within the bounds of what is, from our pointof view, civilization itself?

We suffer from a great unemployment of capital. Many people have the ideathat as a nation we are overburdened with debt and are spending more thanwe can afford. That is not so. Despite our Federal Government expendituresthe entire debt of our national economic system, public and privatetogether, is no larger today than it was in 1929, and the interest thereonis far less than it was in 1929. 

The object is to put capital--private as well as public--to work. 

We want to get enough capital and labor at work to give us a total turnoverof business, a total national income, of at least eighty billion dollars ayear. At that figure we shall have a substantial reduction of unemployment;and the Federal Revenues will be sufficient to balance the current level ofcash expenditures on the basis of the existing tax structure. That figurecan be attained, working within the framework of our traditional profitsystem. 

The factors in attaining and maintaining that amount of national income aremany and complicated. 

They include more widespread understanding among business men of manychanges which world conditions and technological improvements have broughtto our economy over the last twenty years--changes in the interrelationshipof price and volume and employment, for example--changes of the kind inwhich business men are now educating themselves through excellentopportunities like the so-called "monopoly investigation. "

They include a perfecting of our farm program to protect farmers' incomeand consumers' purchasing power from alternate risks of crop gluts and cropshortages. 

They include wholehearted acceptance of new standards of honesty in ourfinancial markets. 

They include reconcilement of enormous, antagonistic interests--some of themlong in litigation--in the railroad and general transportation field. 

They include the working out of new techniques--private, state andfederal--to protect the public interest in and to develop wider markets forelectric power. 

They include a revamping of the tax relationships between federal, stateand local units of government, and consideration of relatively small taxincreases to adjust inequalities without interfering with the aggregateincome of the American people. 

They include the perfecting of labor organization and a universalungrudging attitude by employers toward the labor movement, until there isa minimum of interruption of production and employment because of disputes, and acceptance by labor of the truth that the welfare of labor itselfdepends on increased balanced out-put of goods. 

To be immediately practical, while proceeding with a steady evolution inthe solving of these and like problems, we must wisely useinstrumentalities, like Federal investment, which are immediately availableto us. 

Here, as elsewhere, time is the deciding factor in our choice of remedies. 

Therefore, it does not seem logical to me, at the moment we seek toincrease production and consumption, for the Federal Government to considera drastic curtailment of its own investments. 

The whole subject of government investing and government income is onewhich may be approached in two different ways. 

The first calls for the elimination of enough activities of government tobring the expenses of government immediately into balance with income ofgovernment. This school of thought maintains that because our nationalincome this year is only sixty billion dollars, ours is only a sixtybillion dollar country; that government must treat it as such; and thatwithout the help of government, it may some day, somehow, happen to becomean eighty billion dollar country. 

If the Congress decides to accept this point of view, it will logicallyhave to reduce the present functions or activities of government byone-third. Not only will the Congress have to accept the responsibility forsuch reduction; but the Congress will have to determine which activitiesare to be reduced. 

Certain expenditures we cannot possibly reduce at this session, such as theinterest on the public debt. A few million dollars saved here or there inthe normal or in curtailed work of the old departments and commissions willmake no great saving in the Federal budget. Therefore, the Congress wouldhave to reduce drastically some of certain large items, very large items, such as aids to agriculture and soil conservation, veterans' pensions, flood control, highways, waterways and other public works, grants forsocial and health security, Civilian Conservation Corps activities, relieffor the unemployed, or national defense itself. 

The Congress alone has the power to do all this, as it is the appropriatingbranch of the government. 

The other approach to the question of government spending takes theposition that this Nation ought not to be and need not be only a sixtybillion dollar nation; that at this moment it has the men and the resourcessufficient to make it at least an eighty billion dollar nation. This schoolof thought does not believe that it can become an eighty billion dollarnation in the near future if government cuts its operations by one-third. It is convinced that if we were to try it, we would invite disaster--andthat we would not long remain even a sixty billion dollar nation. There aremany complicated factors with which we have to deal, but we have learnedthat it is unsafe to make abrupt reductions at any time in our netexpenditure program. 

By our common sense action of resuming government activities last spring, we have reversed a recession and started the new rising tide of prosperityand national income which we are now just beginning to enjoy. 

If government activities are fully maintained, there is a good prospect ofour becoming an eighty billion dollar country in a very short time. Withsuch a national income, present tax laws will yield enough each year tobalance each year's expenses. 

It is my conviction that down in their hearts the American public--industry, agriculture, finance--want this Congress to do whatever needs to be done toraise our national income to eighty billion dollars a year. 

Investing soundly must preclude spending wastefully. To guard againstopportunist appropriations, I have on several occasions addressed theCongress on the importance of permanent long-range planning. I hope, therefore, that following my recommendation of last year, a permanentagency will be set up and authorized to report on the urgency anddesirability of the various types of government investment. 

Investment for prosperity can be made in a democracy. 

I hear some people say, "This is all so complicated. There are certainadvantages in a dictatorship. It gets rid of labor trouble, ofunemployment, of wasted motion and of having to do your own thinking. "

My answer is, "Yes, but it also gets rid of some other things which weAmericans intend very definitely to keep--and we still intend to do our ownthinking. "

It will cost us taxes and the voluntary risk of capital to attain some ofthe practical advantages which other forms of government have acquired. 

Dictatorship, however, involves costs which the American people will neverpay: The cost of our spiritual values. The cost of the blessed right ofbeing able to say what we please. The cost of freedom of religion. The costof seeing our capital confiscated. The cost of being cast into aconcentration camp. The cost of being afraid to walk down the street withthe wrong neighbor. The cost of having our children brought up, not as freeand dignified human beings, but as pawns molded and enslaved by a machine. 

If the avoidance of these costs means taxes on my income; if avoiding thesecosts means taxes on my estate at death, I would bear those taxes willinglyas the price of my breathing and my children breathing the free air of afree country, as the price of a living and not a dead world. 

Events abroad have made it increasingly clear to the American people thatdangers within are less to be feared than dangers from without. If, therefore, a solution of this problem of idle men and idle capital is theprice of preserving our liberty, no formless selfish fears can stand in theway. 

Once I prophesied that this generation of Americans had a rendezvous withdestiny. That prophecy comes true. To us much is given; more is expected. 

This generation will "nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope ofearth. . . . The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which iffollowed the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless. "

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 3, 1940

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives:

I wish each and every one of you a very happy New Year. 

As the Congress reassembles, the impact of war abroad makes it natural toapproach "the state of the union" through a discussion of foreign affairs. 

But it is important that those who hear and read this message should in noway confuse that approach with any thought that our Government isabandoning, or even overlooking, the great significance of its domesticpolicies. 

The social and economic forces which have been mismanaged abroad until theyhave resulted in revolution, dictatorship and war are the same as thosewhich we here are struggling to adjust peacefully at home. 

You are well aware that dictatorships--and the philosophy of force thatjustifies and accompanies dictatorships--have originated in almost everycase in the necessity for drastic action to improve internal conditions inplaces where democratic action for one reason or another has failed torespond to modern needs and modern demands. 

It was with far-sighted wisdom that the framers of our Constitution broughttogether in one magnificent phrase three great concepts--"common defense, ""general welfare" and "domestic tranquility. "

More than a century and a half later we, who are here today, still believewith them that our best defense is the promotion of our general welfare anddomestic tranquillity. 

In previous messages to the Congress I have repeatedly warned that, whetherwe like it or not, the daily lives of American citizens will, of necessity, feel the shock of events on other continents. This is no longer meretheory; because it has been definitely proved to us by the facts ofyesterday and today. 

To say that the domestic well-being of one hundred and thirty millionAmericans is deeply affected by the well-being or the ill-being of thepopulations of other nations is only to recognize in world affairs thetruth that we all accept in home affairs. 

If in any local unit--a city, county, State or region--low standards ofliving are permitted to continue, the level of the civilization of theentire nation will be pulled downward. 

The identical principle extends to the rest of the civilized world. Butthere are those who wishfully insist, in innocence or ignorance or both, that the United States of America as a self-contained unit can live happilyand prosperously, its future secure, inside a high wall of isolation while, outside, the rest of Civilization and the commerce and culture of mankindare shattered. 

I can understand the feelings of those who warn the nation that they willnever again consent to the sending of American youth to fight on the soilof Europe. But, as I remember, nobody has asked them to consent--for nobodyexpects such an undertaking. 

The overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens do not abandon in theslightest their hope and their expectation that the United States will notbecome involved in military participation in these wars. 

I can also understand the wishfulness of those who oversimplify the wholesituation by repeating that all we have to do is to mind our own businessand keep the nation out of war. But there is a vast difference betweenkeeping out of war and pretending that this war is none of our business. 

We do not have to go to war with other nations, but at least we can strivewith other nations to encourage the kind of peace that will lighten thetroubles of the world, and by so doing help our own nation as well. 

I ask that all of us everywhere think things through with the single aim ofhow best to serve the future of our own nation. I do not mean merely itsfuture relationship with the outside world. I mean its domestic future aswell--the work, the security, the prosperity, the happiness, the life of allthe boys and girls in the United States, as they are inevitably affected bysuch world relationships. For it becomes clearer and clearer that thefuture world will be a shabby and dangerous place to live in--yes, even forAmericans to live in--if it is ruled by force in the hands of a few. 

Already the crash of swiftly moving events over the earth has made us allthink with a longer view. Fortunately, that thinking cannot be controlledby partisanship. The time is long past when any political party or anyparticular group can curry or capture public favor by labeling itself the"peace party" or the "peace bloc. " That label belongs to the whole UnitedStates and to every right thinking man, woman and child within it. 

For out of all the military and diplomatic turmoil, out of all thepropaganda, and counter-propaganda of the present conflicts, there are twofacts which stand out, and which the whole world acknowledges. 

The first is that never before has the Government of the United States ofAmerica done so much as in our recent past to establish and maintain thepolicy of the Good Neighbor with its sister nations. 

The second is that in almost every nation in the world today there is atrue public belief that the United States has been, and will continue tobe, a potent and active factor in seeking the reestablishment of worldpeace. 

In these recent years we have had a clean record of peace and good-will. Itis an open book that cannot be twisted or defamed. It is a record that mustbe continued and enlarged. 

So I hope that Americans everywhere will work out for themselves theseveral alternatives which lie before world civilization, which necessarilyincludes our own. 

We must look ahead and see the possibilities for our children if the restof the world comes to be dominated by concentrated force alone--even thoughtoday we are a very great and a very powerful nation. 

We must look ahead and see the effect on our own future if all the smallnations of the world have their independence snatched from them or becomemere appendages to relatively vast and powerful military systems. 

We must look ahead and see the kind of lives our children would have tolead if a large part of the rest of the world were compelled to worship agod imposed by a military ruler, or were forbidden to worship God at all;if the rest of the world were forbidden to read and hear the facts--thedaily news of their own and other nations--if they were deprived of thetruth that makes men free. 

We must look ahead and see the effect on our future generations if worldtrade is controlled by any nation or group of nations which sets up thatcontrol through military force. 

It is, of course, true that the record of past centuries includesdestruction of many small nations, the enslavement of peoples, and thebuilding of empires on the foundation of force. But wholly apart from thegreater international morality which we seek today, we recognize thepractical fact that with modern weapons and modern conditions, modern mancan no longer lead a civilized life if we are to go back to the practice ofwars and conquests of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 

Summing up this need of looking ahead, and in words of common sense andgood American citizenship. I hope that we shall have fewer Americanostriches in our midst. It is not good for the ultimate health of ostrichesto bury their heads in the sand. 

Only an ostrich would look upon these wars through the eyes of cynicism orridicule. 

Of course, the peoples of other nations have the right to choose their ownform of Government. But we in this nation still believe that such choiceshould be predicated on certain freedoms which we think are essentialeverywhere. We know that we ourselves shall never be wholly safe at homeunless other governments recognize such freedoms. 

Twenty-one American Republics, expressing the will of two hundred and fiftymillion people to preserve peace and freedom in this Hemisphere, aredisplaying a unanimity of ideals and practical relationships which giveshope that what is being done here can be done on other continents. We inall the Americas are coming to the realization that we can retain ourrespective nationalities without, at the same time, threatening thenational existence of our neighbors. 

Such truly friendly relationships, for example, permit us to follow our owndomestic policies with reference to our agricultural products, while at thesame time we have the privilege of trying to work out mutual assistancearrangements for a world distribution of world agricultural surpluses. 

And we have been able to apply the same simple principle to manymanufactured products--surpluses of which must be sold in the world exportmarkets if we intend to continue a high level of production andemployment. 

For many years after the World War blind economic selfishness in mostcountries, including our own, resulted in a destructive mine-field of traderestrictions which blocked the channels of commerce among nations. Indeed, this policy was one of the contributing causes of existing wars. It dammedup vast unsalable surpluses, helping to bring about unemployment andsuffering in the United States and everywhere else. 

To point the way to break up that log-jam our Trade Agreements Act waspassed--based upon a policy of equality of treatment among nations and ofmutually profitable arrangements of trade. 

It is not correct to infer that legislative powers have been transferredfrom the Congress to the Executive Branch of the Government. Everyonerecognizes that general tariff legislation is a Congressional function; butwe know that, because of the stupendous task involved in the fashioning andthe passing of a general tariff law, it is advisable to provide at times ofemergency some flexibility to make the general law adjustable to quicklychanging conditions. 

We are in such a time today. Our present trade agreement method provides atemporary flexibility and is, therefore, practical in the best sense. Itshould be kept alive to serve our trade interests--agricultural andindustrial--in many valuable ways during the existing wars. 

But what is more important, the Trade Agreements Act should be extended asan indispensable part of the foundation of any stable and enduring peace. 

The old conditions of world trade made for no enduring peace; and when thetime comes, the United States must use its influence to open up the tradechannels of the world, in all nations, in order that no one nation needfeel compelled in later days to seek by force of arms what it can well gainby peaceful conference. For that purpose, too, we need the Trade AgreementsAct even more today than when it was passed. 

I emphasize the leadership which this nation can take when the time comesfor a renewal of world peace. Such an influence will be greatly weakened ifthis Government becomes a dog in the manger of trade selfishness. 

The first President of the United States warned us against entanglingforeign alliances. The present President of the United States subscribes toand follows that precept. 

I hope that most of you will agree that trade cooperation with the rest ofthe world does not violate that precept in any way. 

Even as through these trade agreements we prepare to cooperate in a worldthat wants peace, we must likewise be prepared to take care of ourselves ifthe world cannot attain peace. 

For several years past we have been compelled to strengthen our ownnational defense. That has created a very large portion of our Treasurydeficits. This year in the light of continuing world uncertainty, I amasking the Congress for Army and Navy increases which are based not onpanic but on common sense. They are not as great as enthusiastic alarmistsseek. They are not as small as unrealistic persons claiming superiorprivate information would demand. 

As will appear in the annual budget tomorrow, the only important increasein any part of the budget is the estimate for national defense. Practicallyall other important items show a reduction. But you know, you can't eatyour cake and have it too. Therefore, in the hope that we can continue inthese days of increasing economic prosperity to reduce the Federal deficit, I am asking the Congress to levy sufficient additional taxes to meet theemergency spending for national defense. 

Behind the Army and Navy, of course, lies our ultimate line of defense--"thegeneral welfare" of our people. We cannot report, despite all the progressthat we have made in our domestic problems--despite the fact that productionis back to 1929 levels--that all our problems are solved. The fact ofunemployment of millions of men and women remains a symptom of a number ofdifficulties in our economic system not yet adjusted. 

While the number of the unemployed has decreased very greatly, while theirimmediate needs for food and clothing--as far as the Federal Government isconcerned--have been largely met, while their morale has been kept alive bygiving them useful public work, we have not yet found a way to employ thesurplus of our labor which the efficiency of our industrial processes hascreated. 

We refuse the European solution of using the unemployed to build upexcessive armaments which eventually result in dictatorships and war. Weencourage an American way--through an increase of national income which isthe only way we can be sure will take up the slack. Much progress has beenmade; much remains to be done. 

We recognize that we must find an answer in terms of work and opportunity. 

The unemployment problem today has become very definitely a problem ofyouth as well as of age. As each year has gone by hundreds of thousands ofboys and girls have come of working age. They now form an army of unusedyouth. They must be an especial concern of democratic Government. 

We must continue, above all things, to look for a solution of their specialproblem. For they, looking ahead to life, are entitled to action on ourpart and not merely to admonitions of optimism or lectures on economiclaws. 

Some in our midst have sought to instill a feeling of fear and defeatism inthe minds of the American people about this problem. 

To face the task of finding jobs faster than invention can take themaway--is not defeatism. To warble easy platitudes that if we would only goback to ways that have failed, everything would be all right--is notcourage. 

In 1933 we met a problem of real fear and real defeatism. We faced thefacts--with action and not with words alone. 

The American people will reject the doctrine of fear, confident that in the'thirties we have been building soundly a new order of things, differentfrom the order of the 'twenties. In this dawn of the decade of the'forties, with our program of social improvement started, we will continueto carry on the processes of recovery, so as to preserve our gains andprovide jobs at living wages. 

There are, of course, many other items of great public interest which couldbe enumerated in this message--the continued conservation of our naturalresources, the improvement of health and of education, the extension ofsocial security to larger groups, the freeing of large areas fromrestricted transportation discriminations, the extension of the meritsystem and many others. 

Our continued progress in the social and economic field is important notonly for the significance of each part of it but for the total effect whichour program of domestic betterment has upon that most valuable asset of anation in dangerous times--its national unity. 

The permanent security of America in the present crisis does not lie inarmed force alone. What we face is a set of world-wide forces ofdisintegration--vicious, ruthless, destructive of all the moral, religiousand political standards which mankind, after centuries of struggle, hascome to cherish most. 

In these moral values, in these forces which have made our nation great, wemust actively and practically reassert our faith. 

These words--"national unity"--must not be allowed to be come merely ahigh-sounding phrase, a vague generality, a pious hope, to which everyonecan give lip-service. They must be made to have real meaning in terms ofthe daily thoughts and acts of every man, woman and child in our landduring the coming year and during the years that lie ahead. 

For national unity is, in a very real and a very deep sense, thefundamental safeguard of all democracy. 

Doctrines that set group against group, faith against faith, race againstrace, class against class, fanning the fires of hatred in men toodespondent, too desperate to think for themselves, were used asrabble-rousing slogans on which dictators could ride to power. And once inpower they could saddle their tyrannies on whole nations and on theirweaker neighbors. 

This is the danger to which we in America must begin to be more alert. Forthe apologists for foreign aggressors, and equally those selfish andpartisan groups at home who wrap themselves in a false mantle ofAmericanism to promote their own economic, financial or politicaladvantage, are now trying European tricks upon us, seeking to muddy thestream of our national thinking, weakening us in the face of danger, bytrying to set our own people to fighting among themselves. Such tactics arewhat have helped to plunge Europe into war. We must combat them, as wewould the plague, if American integrity and American security are to bepreserved. We cannot afford to face the future as a disunited people. 

We must as a united people keep ablaze on this continent the flames ofhuman liberty, of reason, of democracy and of fair play as living things tobe preserved for the better world that is to come. 

Overstatement, bitterness, vituperation, and the beating of drums havecontributed mightily to ill-feeling and wars between nations. If theseunnecessary and unpleasant actions are harmful in the international field, if they have hurt in other parts of the world, they are also harmful in thedomestic scene. Peace among ourselves would seem to have some of theadvantage of peace between us and other nations. In the long run historyamply demonstrates that angry controversy surely wins less than calmdiscussion. 

In the spirit, therefore, of a greater unselfishness, recognizing that theworld--including the United States of America--passes through periloustimes, I am very hopeful that the closing session of the Seventy-sixthCongress will consider the needs of the nation and of humanity withcalmness, with tolerance and with cooperative wisdom. 

May the year 1940 be pointed to by our children as another period whendemocracy justified its existence as the best instrument of government yetdevised by mankind. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 6, 1941

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress:

I address you, the Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress, at a momentunprecedented in the history of the Union. I use the word "unprecedented, "because at no previous time has American security been as seriouslythreatened from without as it is today. 

Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to ourdomestic affairs. Fortunately, only one of these--the four-year War Betweenthe States--ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, onehundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have forgottenpoints of the compass in our national unity. 

It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often had been disturbed byevents in other Continents. We had even engaged in two wars with Europeannations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in theMediterranean and in the Pacific for the maintenance of American rights andfor the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case had a seriousthreat been raised against our national safety or our continuedindependence. 

What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as anation has at all times maintained clear, definite opposition, to anyattempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the processionof civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of theirchildren, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other partof the Americas. 

That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, forexample, during the quarter century of wars following the FrenchRevolution. 

While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United Statesbecause of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, andwhile we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peacefultrade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain, norany other nation, was aiming at domination of the whole world. 

In like fashion from 1815 to 1914--ninety-nine years--no single war inEurope or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or againstthe future of any other American nation. 

Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought toestablish itself in this Hemisphere; and the strength of the British fleetin the Atlantic has been a friendly strength. It is still a friendlystrength. 

Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only smallthreat of danger to our own American future. But, as time went on, theAmerican people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nationsmight mean to our own democracy. 

We need not overemphasize imperfections in the Peace of Versailles. We neednot harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of worldreconstruction. We should remember that the Peace of 1919 was far lessunjust than the kind of "pacification" which began even before Munich, andwhich is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks tospread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably settheir faces against that tyranny. 

Every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this momentbeing directly assailed in every part of the world--assailed either byarms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek todestroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace. 

During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole patternof democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great andsmall. The assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small. 

Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give tothe Congress information of the state of the Union, " I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and ofour democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond ourborders. 

Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in fourcontinents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resourcesof Europe, Asia, Africa and Australasia will be dominated by theconquerors. Let us remember that the total of those populations and theirresources in those four continents greatly exceeds the sum total of thepopulation and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere--manytimes over. 

In times like these it is immature--and incidentally, untrue--for anybody tobrag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tiedbehind its back, can hold off the whole world. 

No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace internationalgenerosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, orfreedom of expression, or freedom of religion--or even good business. 

Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. "Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but wecannot afford to be soft-headed. 

We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinklingcymbal preach the "ism" of appeasement. 

We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clipthe wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests. 

I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare couldbring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventuallyexpect if the dictator nations win this war. 

There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasionfrom across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains itspower, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is notprobable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landingtroops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, untilit had acquired strategic bases from which to operate. 

But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe--particularlythe lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treacheryand surprise built up over a series of years. 

The first phase of the invasion of this Hemisphere would not be the landingof regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied bysecret agents and their dupes--and great numbers of them are already here, and in Latin America. 

As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they--not we--willchoose the time and the place and the method of their attack. 

That is why the future of all the American Republics is today in seriousdanger. 

That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history. 

That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government andevery member of the Congress faces great responsibility and greataccountability. 

The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devotedprimarily--almost exclusively--to meeting this foreign peril. For all ourdomestic problems are now a part of the great emergency. 

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon adecent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men withinour gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on adecent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end. 

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard topartisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense. 

Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regardto partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolutepeoples, everywhere, who are resisting aggression and are thereby keepingwar away from our Hemisphere. By this support, we express our determinationthat the democratic cause shall prevail; and we strengthen the defense andthe security of our own nation. 

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard topartisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles ofmorality and considerations for our own security will never permit us toacquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. Weknow that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people'sfreedom. 

In the recent national election there was no substantial difference betweenthe two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue wasfought out on this line before the American electorate. Today it isabundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding andsupporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger. 

Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in ourarmament production. 

Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speedhave been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time;in some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but notserious delays; and in some cases--and I am sorry to say very importantcases--we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of ourplans. 

The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the pastyear. Actual experience is improving and speeding up our methods ofproduction with every passing day. And today's best is not good enough fortomorrow. 

I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge ofthe program represent the best in training, in ability, and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will besatisfied until the job is done. 

No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, ourobjective is quicker and better results. To give you two illustrations:

We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes; we are workingday and night to solve the innumerable problems and to catch up. 

We are ahead of schedule in building warships but we are working to geteven further ahead of that schedule. 

To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implementsof peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no smalltask. And the greatest difficulty comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools, new plant facilities, new assembly lines, and new ship waysmust first be constructed before the actual materiel begins to flowsteadily and speedily from them. 

The Congress, of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times ofthe progress of the program. However, there is certain information, as theCongress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our ownsecurity and those of the nations that we are supporting, must of needs bekept in confidence. 

New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. Ishall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations andauthorizations to carry on what we have begun. 

I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient tomanufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to beturned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressornations. 

Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as wellas for ourselves. They do not need man power, but they do need billions ofdollars worth of the weapons of defense. 

The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in readycash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender, merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we knowthey must have. 

I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to payfor these weapons--a loan to be repaid in dollars. 

I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue toobtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into ourown program. Nearly all their materiel would, if the time ever came, beuseful for our own defense. 

Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering whatis best for our own security, we are free to decide how much should be kepthere and how much should be sent abroad to our friends who by theirdetermined and heroic resistance are giving us time in which to make readyour own defense. 

For what we send abroad, we shall be repaid within a reasonable timefollowing the close of hostilities, in similar materials, or, at ouroption, in other goods of many kinds, which they can produce and which weneed. 

Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in yourdefense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources andour organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain afree world. We shall send you, in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. This is our purpose and our pledge. "

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats ofdictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as anact of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist theiraggression. Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator shouldunilaterally proclaim it so to be. 

When the dictators, if the dictators, are ready to make war upon us, theywill not wait for an act of war on our part. They did not wait for Norwayor Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war. 

Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacksmutuality in its observance, and, therefore, becomes an instrument ofoppression. 

The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend upon howeffective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell theexact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon tomeet. The Nation's hands must not be tied when the Nation's life is indanger. 

We must all prepare to make the sacrifices that the emergency--almost asserious as war itself--demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed andefficiency in defense preparations must give way to the national need. 

A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. Afree nation has the right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, andof agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among othergroups but within their own groups. 

The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in ourmidst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, touse the sovereignty of Government to save Government. 

As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses, and those behind them who build our defenses, must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief inthe manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we arecalling for cannot be based on a disregard of all things worth fightingfor. 

The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things whichhave been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake inthe preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughenedthe fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened theirdevotion to the institutions we make ready to protect. 

Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the socialand economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolutionwhich is today a supreme factor in the world. 

For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy andstrong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of theirpolitical and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others. 

Jobs for those who can work. 

Security for those who need it. 

The ending of special privilege for the few. 

The preservation of civil liberties for all. 

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider andconstantly rising standard of living. 

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in theturmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner andabiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent uponthe degree to which they fulfill these expectations. 

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediateimprovement. 

As examples:

We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions andunemployment insurance. 

We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care. 

We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needinggainful employment may obtain it. 

I have called for personal sacrifice. I am assured of the willingness ofalmost all Americans to respond to that call. 

A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In myBudget Message I shall recommend that a greater portion of this greatdefense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying today. Noperson should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and theprinciple of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should beconstantly before our eyes to guide our legislation. 

If the Congress maintains these principles, the voters, putting patriotismahead of pocketbooks, will give you their applause. 

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to aworld founded upon four essential human freedoms. 

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. 

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his ownway--everywhere in the world. 

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, meanseconomic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthypeacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world. 

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means aworld-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thoroughfashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physicalaggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world. 

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for akind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of worldis the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which thedictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb. 

To that new order we oppose the greater conception--the moral order. A goodsociety is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutionsalike without fear. 

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged inchange--in a perpetual peaceful revolution--a revolution which goes onsteadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions--without theconcentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which weseek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society. 

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of itsmillions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidanceof God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our supportgoes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strengthis our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end savevictory. 

***

State of the Union AddressFranklin D. RooseveltJanuary 6, 1942

In fulfilling my duty to report upon the State of the Union, I am proud tosay to you that the spirit of the American people was never higher than itis today--the Union was never more closely knit together--this country wasnever more deeply determined to face the solemn tasks before it. 

The response of the American people has been instantaneous, and it will besustained until our security is assured. 

Exactly one year ago today I said to this Congress: "When the dictators. . . Are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war onour part. . . . They--not we--will choose the time and the place and themethod of their attack. "

We now know their choice of the time: a peaceful Sunday morning--December7, 1941. 

We know their choice of the place: an American outpost in the Pacific. 

We know their choice of the method: the method of Hitler himself. 

Japan's scheme of conquest goes back half a century. It was not merely apolicy of seeking living room: it was a plan which included the subjugationof all the peoples in the Far East and in the islands of the Pacific, andthe domination of that ocean by Japanese military and naval control of thewestern coasts of North, Central, and South America. 

The development of this ambitious conspiracy was marked by the war againstChina in 1894; the subsequent occupation of Korea; the war against Russiain 1904; the illegal fortification of the mandated Pacific islandsfollowing 1920; the seizure of Manchuria in 1931; and the invasion of Chinain 1937. 

A similar policy of criminal conquest was adopted by Italy. The Fascistsfirst revealed their imperial designs in Libya and Tripoli. In 1935 theyseized Abyssinia. Their goal was the domination of all North Africa, Egypt, parts of France, and the entire Mediterranean world. 

But the dreams of empire of the Japanese and Fascist leaders were modest incomparison with the gargantuan aspirations of Hitler and his Nazis. Evenbefore they came to power in 1933, their plans for that conquest had beendrawn. Those plans provided for ultimate domination, not of any one sectionof the world, but of the whole earth and all the oceans on it. 

When Hitler organized his Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance, all these plans ofconquest became a single plan. Under this, in addition to her own schemesof conquest, Japan's role was obviously to cut off our supply of weapons ofwar to Britain, and Russia and China--weapons which increasingly werespeeding the day of Hitler's doom. The act of Japan at Pearl Harbor wasintended to stun us--to terrify us to such an extent that we would divertour industrial and military strength to the Pacific area, or even to ourown continental defense. 

The plan has failed in its purpose. We have not been stunned. We have notbeen terrified or confused. This very reassembling of the Seventy-seventhCongress today is proof of that; for the mood of quiet, grim resolutionwhich here prevails bodes ill for those who conspired and collaborated tomurder world peace. 

That mood is stronger than any mere desire for revenge. It expresses thewill of the American people to make very certain that the world will neverso suffer again. 

Admittedly, we have been faced with hard choices. It was bitter, forexample, not to be able to relieve the heroic and historic defenders ofWake Island. It was bitter for us not to be able to land a million men in athousand ships in the Philippine Islands. 

But this adds only to our determination to see to it that the Stars andStripes will fly again over Wake and Guam. Yes, see to it that the bravepeople of the Philippines will be rid of Japanese imperialism; and willlive in freedom, security, and independence. 

Powerful and offensive actions must and will be taken in proper time. Theconsolidation of the United Nations' total war effort against our commonenemies is being achieved. 

That was and is the purpose of conferences which have been held during thepast two weeks in Washington, and Moscow and Chungking. That is the primaryobjective of the declaration of solidarity signed in Washington on January1, 1942, by 26 Nations united against the Axis powers. 

Difficult choices may have to be made in the months to come. We do notshrink from such decisions. We and those united with us will make thosedecisions with courage and determination. 

Plans have been laid here and in the other capitals for coordinated andcooperative action by all the United Nations--military action and economicaction. Already we have established, as you know, unified command of land, sea, and air forces in the southwestern Pacific theater of war. There willbe a continuation of conferences and consultations among military staffs, so that the plans and operations of each will fit into the general strategydesigned to crush the enemy. We shall not fight isolated wars--each Nationgoing its own way. These 26 Nations are united--not in spirit anddetermination alone, but in the broad conduct of the war in all itsphases. 

For the first time since the Japanese and the Fascists and the Nazisstarted along their blood-stained course of conquest they now face the factthat superior forces are assembling against them. Gone forever are the dayswhen the aggressors could attack and destroy their victims one by onewithout unity of resistance. We of the United Nations will so dispose ourforces that we can strike at the common enemy wherever the greatest damagecan be done him. 

The militarists of Berlin and Tokyo started this war. But the massed, angered forces of common humanity will finish it. 

Destruction of the material and spiritual centers of civilization--this hasbeen and still is the purpose of Hitler and his Italian and Japanesechessmen. They would wreck the power of the British Commonwealth and Russiaand China and the Netherlands--and then combine all their forces to achievetheir ultimate goal, the conquest of the United States. 

They know that victory for us means victory for freedom. 

They know that victory for us means victory for the institution ofdemocracy--the ideal of the family, the simple principles of common decencyand humanity. 

They know that victory for us means victory for religion. And they couldnot tolerate that. The world is too small to provide adequate "living room"for both Hitler and God. In proof of that, the Nazis have now announcedtheir plan for enforcing their new German, pagan religion all over theworld--a plan by which the Holy Bible and the Cross of Mercy would bedisplaced by Mein Kampf and the swastika and the naked sword. 

Our own objectives are clear; the objective of smashing the militarismimposed by war lords upon their enslaved peoples the objective ofliberating the subjugated Nations--the objective of establishing andsecuring freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, andfreedom from fear everywhere in the world. 

We shall not stop short of these objectives--nor shall we be satisfiedmerely to gain them and then call it a day. I know that I speak for theAmerican people--and I have good reason to believe that I speak also forall the other peoples who fight with us--when I say that this time we aredetermined not only to win the war, but also to maintain the security ofthe peace that will follow. 

But we know that modern methods of warfare make it a task, not only ofshooting and fighting, but an even more urgent one of working andproducing. 

Victory requires the actual weapons of war and the means of transportingthem to a dozen points of combat. 

It will not be sufficient for us and the other United Nations to produce aslightly superior supply of munitions to that of Germany, Japan, Italy, andthe stolen industries in the countries which they have overrun. 

The superiority of the United Nations in munitions and ships must beoverwhelming--so overwhelming that the Axis Nations can never hope to catchup with it. And so, in order to attain this overwhelming superiority theUnited States must build planes and tanks and guns and ships to the utmostlimit of our national capacity. We have the ability and capacity to producearms not only for our own forces, but also for the armies, navies, and airforces fighting on our side. 

And our overwhelming superiority of armament must be adequate to putweapons of war at the proper time into the hands of those men in theconquered Nations who stand ready to seize the first opportunity to revoltagainst their German and Japanese oppressors, and against the traitors intheir own ranks, known by the already infamous name of "Quislings. " And Ithink that it is a fair prophecy to say that, as we get guns to thepatriots in those lands, they too will fire shots heard 'round the world. 

This production of ours in the United States must be raised far abovepresent levels, even though it will mean the dislocation of the lives andoccupations of millions of our own people. We must raise our sights allalong the production line. Let no man say it cannot be done. It must bedone--and we have undertaken to do it. 

I have just sent a letter of directive to the appropriate departments andagencies of our Government, ordering that immediate steps be taken:

First, to increase our production rate of airplanes so rapidly that in thisyear, 1942, we shall produce 60, 000 planes, 10, 000 more than the goal thatwe set a year and a half ago. This includes 45, 000 combat planes--bombers, dive bombers, pursuit planes. The rate of increase will be maintained andcontinued so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 125, 000 airplanes, including 100, 000 combat planes. 

Second, to increase our production rate of tanks so rapidly that in thisyear, 1942, we shall produce 45, 000 tanks; and to continue that increase sothat next year, 1943, we shall produce 75, 000 tanks. 

Third, to increase our production rate of anti-aircraft guns so rapidlythat in this year, 1942, we shall produce 20, 000 of them; and to continuethat increase so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 35, 000anti-aircraft guns. 

And fourth, to increase our production rate of merchant ships so rapidlythat in this year, 1942, we shall build 6, 000, 000 deadweight tons ascompared with a 1941 completed production of 1, 100, 000. And finally, weshall continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall build10, 000, 000 tons of shipping. 

These figures and similar figures for a multitude of other implements ofwar will give the Japanese and the Nazis a little idea of just what theyaccomplished in the attack at Pearl Harbor. 

And I rather hope that all these figures which I have given will becomecommon knowledge in Germany and Japan. 

Our task is hard--our task is unprecedented--and the time is short. We muststrain every existing armament-producing facility to the utmost. We mustconvert every available plant and tool to war production. That goes all theway from the greatest plants to the smallest--from the huge automobileindustry to the village machine shop. 

Production for war is based on men and women--the human hands and brainswhich collectively we call Labor. Our workers stand ready to work longhours; to turn out more in a day's work; to keep the wheels turning and thefires burning twenty-four hours a day, and seven days a week. They realizewell that on the speed and efficiency of their work depend the lives oftheir sons and their brothers on the fighting fronts. 

Production for war is based on metals and raw materials--steel, copper, rubber, aluminum, zinc, tin. Greater and greater quantities of them willhave to be diverted to war purposes. Civilian use of them will have to becut further and still further--and, in many cases, completely eliminated. 

War costs money. So far, we have hardly even begun to pay for it. We havedevoted only 15 percent of our national income to national defense. As willappear in my Budget Message tomorrow, our war program for the coming fiscalyear will cost 56 billion dollars or, in other words, more than half of theestimated annual national income. That means taxes and bonds and bonds andtaxes. It means cutting luxuries and other non-essentials. In a word, itmeans an "all-out" war by individual effort and family effort in a unitedcountry. 

Only this all-out scale of production will hasten the ultimate all-outvictory. Speed will count. Lost ground can always be regained--lost timenever. Speed will save lives; speed will save this Nation which is inperil; speed will save our freedom and our civilization--and slowness hasnever been an American characteristic. 

As the United States goes into its full stride, we must always be on guardagainst misconceptions which will arise, some of them naturally, or whichwill be planted among us by our enemies. 

We must guard against complacency. We must not underrate the enemy. He ispowerful and cunning--and cruel and ruthless. He will stop at nothing thatgives him a chance to kill and to destroy. He has trained his people tobelieve that their highest perfection is achieved by waging war. For manyyears he has prepared for this very conflict--planning, and plotting, andtraining, arming, and fighting. We have already tasted defeat. We maysuffer further setbacks. We must face the fact of a hard war, a long war, abloody war, a costly war. 

We must, on the other hand, guard against defeatism. That has been one ofthe chief weapons of Hitler's propaganda machine--used time and again withdeadly results. It will not be used successfully on the American people. 

We must guard against divisions among ourselves and among all the otherUnited Nations. We must be particularly vigilant against racialdiscrimination in any of its ugly forms. Hitler will try again to breedmistrust and suspicion between one individual and another, one group andanother, one race and another, one Government and another. He will try touse the same technique of falsehood and rumor-mongering with which hedivided France from Britain. He is trying to do this with us even now. Buthe will find a unity of will and purpose against him, which will persevereuntil the destruction of all his black designs upon the freedom and safetyof the people of the world. 

We cannot wage this war in a defensive spirit. As our power and ourresources are fully mobilized, we shall carry the attack against theenemy--we shall hit him and hit him again wherever and whenever we can reachhim. 

We must keep him far from our shores, for we intend to bring this battle tohim on his own home grounds. 

American armed forces must be used at any place in all the world where itseems advisable to engage the forces of the enemy. In some cases theseoperations will be defensive, in order to protect key positions. In othercases, these operations will be offensive, in order to strike at the commonenemy, with a view to his complete encirclement and eventual total defeat. 

American armed forces will operate at many points in the Far East. 

American armed forces will be on all the oceans--helping to guard theessential communications which are vital to the United Nations. 

American land and air and sea forces will take stations in the BritishIsles--which constitute an essential fortress in this great worldstruggle. 

American armed forces will help to protect this hemisphere--and also help toprotect bases outside this hemisphere, which could be used for an attack onthe Americas. 

If any of our enemies, from Europe or from Asia, attempt long-range raidsby "suicide" squadrons of bombing planes, they will do so only in the hopeof terrorizing our people and disrupting our morale. Our people are notafraid of that. We know that we may have to pay a heavy price for freedom. We will pay this price with a will. Whatever the price, it is a thousandtimes worth it. No matter what our enemies, in their desperation, mayattempt to do to us--we will say, as the people of London have said, "Wecan take it. " And what's more we can give it back and we will give itback--with compound interest. 

When our enemies challenged our country to stand up and fight, theychallenged each and every one of us. And each and every one of us hasaccepted the challenge--for himself and for his Nation. 

There were only some 400 United States Marines who in the heroic andhistoric defense of Wake Island inflicted such great losses on the enemy. Some of those men were killed in action; and others are now prisoners ofwar. When the survivors of that great fight are liberated and restored totheir homes, they will learn that a hundred and thirty million of theirfellow citizens have been inspired to render their own full share ofservice and sacrifice. 

We can well say that our men on the fighting fronts have already provedthat Americans today are just as rugged and just as tough as any of theheroes whose exploits we celebrate on the Fourth of July. 

Many people ask, "When will this war end?" There is only one answer tothat. It will end just as soon as we make it end, by our combined efforts, our combined strength, our combined determination to fight through and workthrough until the end--the end of militarism in Germany and Italy andJapan. Most certainly we shall not settle for less. 

That is the spirit in which discussions have been conducted during thevisit of the British Prime Minister to Washington. Mr. Churchill and Iunderstand each other, our motives and our purposes. Together, during thepast two weeks, we have faced squarely the major military and economicproblems of this greatest world war. 

All in our Nation have been cheered by Mr. Churchill's visit. We have beendeeply stirred by his great message to us. He is welcome in our midst, andwe unite in wishing him a safe return to his home. 

For we are fighting on the same side with the British people, who foughtalone for long, terrible months, and withstood the enemy with fortitude andtenacity and skill. 

We are fighting on the same side with the Russian people who have seen theNazi hordes swarm up to the very gates of Moscow, and who with almostsuperhuman will and courage have forced the invaders back into retreat. 

We are fighting on the same side as the brave people of China--thosemillions who for four and a half long years have withstood bombs andstarvation and have whipped the invaders time and again in spite of thesuperior Japanese equipment and arms. Yes, we are fighting on the same sideas the indomitable Dutch. We are fighting on the same side as all the otherGovernments in exile, whom Hitler and all his armies and all his Gestapohave not been able to conquer. 

But we of the United Nations are not making all this sacrifice of humaneffort and human lives to return to the kind of world we had after the lastworld war. 

We are fighting today for security, for progress, and for peace, not onlyfor ourselves but for all men, not only for one generation but for allgenerations. We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancientills. 

Our enemies are guided by brutal cynicism, by unholy contempt for the humanrace. We are inspired by a faith that goes back through all the years tothe first chapter of the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His ownimage. "

We on our side are striving to be true to that divine heritage. We arefighting, as our fathers have fought, to uphold the doctrine that all menare equal in the sight of God. Those on the other side are striving todestroy this deep belief and to create a world in their own image--a worldof tyranny and cruelty and serfdom. 

That is the conflict that day and night now pervades our lives. 

No compromise can end that conflict. There never has been--there never canbe--successful compromise between good and evil. Only total victory canreward the champions of tolerance, and decency, and freedom, and faith.