Franklin D. Roosevelt se toespraak op vierde Julie

Franklin D. Roosevelt se toespraak op vierde Julie

In 'n uitsending van sy huis in Hyde Park, New York, op 4 Julie 1941, waarsku president Franklin D. Roosevelt Amerikaners wat nie betrokke wil raak by die oorlog dat "die Verenigde State nooit sal oorleef as 'n gelukkige en vrugbare oase van vryheid omring deur 'n wrede woestyn van diktatuur. "


Pearl Harbor -toespraak aan die nasie

Gister, 7 Desember, 1941 — 'n datum wat in berugte sal lewe, is die Verenigde State van Amerika skielik en doelbewus aangeval deur vloot- en lugmag van die Keiserryk van Japan.

Die Verenigde State was in vrede met die nasie en was op versoek van Japan nog in gesprek met sy regering en sy keiser op soek na die handhawing van vrede in die Stille Oseaan.

'N Uur nadat die Japannese lugskader op die Amerikaanse eiland Oahu begin bomaan het, het die Japanse ambassadeur in die Verenigde State en sy kollega 'n formele antwoord aan 'n onlangse Amerikaanse boodskap aan ons minister van buitelandse sake gestuur. En hoewel hierdie antwoord verklaar dat dit nutteloos lyk om die bestaande diplomatieke onderhandelinge voort te sit, bevat dit geen bedreiging of sweempie van oorlog of gewapende aanval nie.

Daar sal aangeteken word dat die afstand van Hawaii tot Japan duidelik maak dat die aanval baie dae of selfs weke gelede doelbewus beplan is. Gedurende die tussentyd het die Japanse regering doelbewus probeer om die Verenigde State te mislei deur valse verklarings en uitdrukkings van hoop op voortgesette vrede.

Die aanval gister op die Hawaiiaanse eilande het ernstige skade aan Amerikaanse vloot- en militêre magte aangerig. Ek is jammer om te vertel dat baie Amerikaanse lewens verlore gegaan het. Daar is ook berig dat Amerikaanse skepe op die oop see tussen San Francisco en Honolulu getorpedeer is.

Gister het die Japannese regering ook 'n aanval op Malaya geloods.

Gisteraand het Japannese magte Hong Kong aangeval.

Gisteraand het Japannese magte Guam aangeval.

Gisteraand het Japannese magte die Filippynse eilande aangeval.

Gisteraand het die Japannese Wake Island aangeval.

En vanoggend val die Japannese Midway Island aan.

Japan het dus 'n verrassingsaanval onderneem wat oor die hele Stille Oseaan -gebied strek. Die feite van gister en vandag spreek vanself. Die mense van die Verenigde State het reeds hul opinies gevorm en verstaan ​​die implikasies vir die lewe en veiligheid van ons land goed.

As opperbevelhebber van die weermag en vloot het ek beveel dat alle maatreëls getref word ter verdediging. Maar ons hele nasie sal altyd die karakter van die aanslag teen ons onthou.

Maak nie saak hoe lank dit ons kan neem om hierdie voorbedagte inval te oorkom nie, die Amerikaanse volk in hul regverdige mag sal die absolute oorwinning behaal.

Ek glo dat ek die wil van die kongres en die mense interpreteer as ek beweer dat ons ons nie net tot die uiterste sal verdedig nie, maar dat ons baie seker sal maak dat hierdie vorm van verraad ons nooit weer in gevaar sal stel nie.

Vyandighede bestaan. Daar word nie geknipoog dat ons mense, ons gebied en ons belange in groot gevaar is nie.

Met vertroue in ons gewapende magte, met die onbeperkte vasberadenheid van ons mense, sal ons die onvermydelike triomf behaal, en help ons God.

Ek vra dat die kongres verklaar dat daar sedert die onuitgelokte en afskuwelike aanval deur Japan op Sondag 7 Desember 1941 'n oorlogstoestand bestaan ​​het tussen die Verenigde State en die Japanse ryk.

Pearl Harbor Warbirds bied die beste Hawai'i -vlugavontuurtoere wat beskikbaar is. Laat u verdiep in die besonderhede van die berugte aanval op Pearl Harbor en sweef bo die belangrike plekke wat 'n rol gespeel het in die 'Day of Infamy'. Herleef die geskiedenis terwyl u die trappe van die weermag- en vlootvliegtuie volg in die dae na die bombardement. Vlieg op dieselfde roetes wat die Japannese aanvallers op die vliegvelde by Wheeler, Kāne‘ohe en Bellows gebruik het. Daar is baie lugreise in Hawaii, maar slegs een warbird -vliegtuigvlug. Hawai'i Pearl Harbor Warbirds is in Honolulu geleë en bied 'n persoonlike historiese ervaring, wat dit een van die beste O'ahu -aantreklikhede maak.

Ervaar 'n opwindende avontuur van twee uur waarmee u die geskiedenis as 'n vlootvliegtuig kan herleef en Pearl Harbor kan vlieg soos op 10 Desember 1941. Kom meer te wete oor die Admiral's Warbird Adventure.


Staatsrede (1942)

By die nakoming van my plig om verslag te doen oor die stand van die Unie, is ek trots om aan u te sê dat die gees van die Amerikaanse volk nooit hoër was as vandag nie - die Unie was nooit nouer saam nie - hierdie land was nooit dieper nie vasbeslote om die plegtige take voor hom die hoof te bied.

Die reaksie van die Amerikaanse volk was onmiddellik, en dit sal voortduur totdat ons veiligheid verseker is.

Vandag presies 'n jaar gelede het ek vir hierdie kongres gesê: “Wanneer die diktators. . . bereid is om oorlog teen ons te voer, sal hulle nie wag vir 'n oorlogsdaad van ons kant nie. . . . Hulle - nie ons nie - sal die tyd en die plek en die metode van hul aanval kies. ”

Ons ken nou hul keuse van die tyd: 'n rustige Sondagoggend - 7 Desember 1941.

Ons ken hul keuse van die plek: 'n Amerikaanse buitepos in die Stille Oseaan.

Ons ken hul keuse van die metode: die metode van Hitler self.

Die veroweringsplan van Japan strek 'n halfeeu terug. Dit was nie net 'n beleid om woonkamer te soek nie: dit was 'n plan wat die onderwerping van al die mense in die Verre Ooste en op die eilande van die Stille Oseaan insluit, en die oorheersing van die oseaan deur Japannese militêre en vlootbeheer van die westelike kus van Noord-, Sentraal- en Suid -Amerika.

Die ontwikkeling van hierdie ambisieuse sameswering is gekenmerk deur die oorlog teen China in 1894, die daaropvolgende besetting van Korea, die oorlog teen Rusland in 1904, die onwettige versterking van die mandaat -Stille Oseaan -eilande na die verowering van Mantsjoerije in 1931 en die inval in China in 1937.

'N Soortgelyke beleid vir kriminele verowering is deur Italië aanvaar. Die fasciste het eers hul keiserlike ontwerpe in Libië en Tripoli onthul. In 1935 het hulle Abessinië ingeneem. Hulle doel was die oorheersing van die hele Noord -Afrika, Egipte, dele van Frankryk en die hele Mediterreense wêreld.

Maar die drome van die ryk van die Japannese en fascistiese leiers was beskeie in vergelyking met die enorme aspirasies van Hitler en sy Nazi's. Nog voordat hulle in 1933 aan die bewind gekom het, is hul planne vir die verowering getrek. Daardie planne maak voorsiening vir die uiteindelike oorheersing, nie van enige deel van die wêreld nie, maar van die hele aarde en al die oseane daarop.

Toe Hitler sy alliansie tussen Berlyn en Rome en Tokio organiseer, het al hierdie veroweringsplanne 'n enkele plan geword. Onder hierdie, behalwe haar eie veroweringsplanne, was Japan se rol natuurlik om ons voorraad oorlogswapens teen Brittanje en Rusland en China af te sny - wapens wat toenemend die dag van Hitler se ondergang versnel het. Die daad van Japan by Pearl Harbor was bedoel om ons te verdoof - om ons in so 'n mate te skrik dat ons ons industriële en militêre krag na die Stille Oseaan -gebied, of selfs na ons eie kontinentale verdediging, sou lei.

Die plan het sy doel misluk. Ons is nie verstom nie. Ons was nie bang of verward nie. Hierdie herassemblage van die sewe-en-sewentigste kongres van vandag is 'n bewys daarvan, vir die stemming van 'n stil, grimmige resolusie wat hier heers, is sleg vir diegene wat saamgesweer en saamgewerk het om wêreldvrede te vermoor.

Die stemming is sterker as enige begeerte om wraak te neem. Dit gee uiting aan die wil van die Amerikaanse volk om baie seker te maak dat die wêreld nooit weer so sal ly nie.

Ons moet weliswaar voor moeilike keuses te staan ​​kom. Dit was byvoorbeeld bitter om nie die heroïese en historiese verdedigers van Wake Island te kon verlig nie. Dit was vir ons bitter om nie 'n miljoen man op duisend skepe op die Filippynse eilande te kon land nie.

Maar dit dra net by tot ons vasberadenheid om toe te sien dat die Stars and Stripes weer oor Wake en Guam sal vlieg. Ja, sorg dat die dapper mense van die Filippyne van die Japanse imperialisme ontslae sal raak en in vryheid, veiligheid en onafhanklikheid sal lewe.

Kragtige en aanstootlike optrede moet en sal betyds geneem word. Die konsolidasie van die Verenigde Nasies se totale oorlogspoging teen ons gemeenskaplike vyande word bereik.

Dit was en is die doel van konferensies wat die afgelope twee weke in Washington en Moskou en Chungking gehou is. Dit is die primêre doel van die solidariteitsverklaring wat op 1 Januarie 1942 in Washington onderteken is deur 26 nasies wat verenig is teen die asmagte.

Moeilike keuses moet in die komende maande gemaak word. Ons skroom nie van sulke besluite nie. Ons en diegene wat met ons verenig is, sal die besluite met moed en vasberadenheid neem.

Hier en in die ander hoofstede is planne gelê vir gekoördineerde en samewerkende optrede deur al die Verenigde Nasies - militêre optrede en ekonomiese optrede. Ons het reeds, soos u weet, 'n verenigde bevel oor land-, see- en lugmagte in die suidwestelike Stille Oseaan -oorlogsteater gevestig. Daar sal voortgegaan word met konferensies en konsultasies onder militêre personeel, sodat die planne en operasies van elkeen inpas by die algemene strategie wat ontwerp is om die vyand te verpletter. Ons sal nie geïsoleerde oorloë veg nie - elke nasie gaan sy eie gang. Hierdie 26 nasies is verenig - nie alleen in gees en vasberadenheid nie, maar in die breë voering van die oorlog in al sy fases.

Vir die eerste keer sedert die Japannese en die fasciste en die Nazi's in hul bloedbevlekte veroweringsproses begin het, staar hulle nou in die gesig dat supermagte teen hulle saamkom. Die dae dat die aanvallers hul slagoffers een vir een kan aanval en vernietig, is vir ewig verby sonder eenheid van verset. Ons van die Verenigde Nasies sal ons magte so beskik dat ons op die gemeenskaplike vyand kan toeslaan waar die grootste skade hom aangerig kan word.

Die militariste van Berlyn en Tokio het hierdie oorlog begin. Maar die menigte, woede magte van die algemene mensdom sal dit voltooi.

Vernietiging van die materiële en geestelike sentrums van die beskawing - dit was en is nog steeds die doel van Hitler en sy Italiaanse en Japannese skaakmanne. Hulle sou die mag van die Britse Gemenebest en Rusland en China en Nederland verwoes - en dan al hul magte kombineer om hul uiteindelike doel, die verowering van die Verenigde State, te bereik.

Hulle weet dat oorwinning vir ons oorwinning vir vryheid beteken.

Hulle weet dat oorwinning vir ons oorwinning beteken vir die instelling van demokrasie - die ideaal van die gesin, die eenvoudige beginsels van algemene ordentlikheid en menslikheid.

Hulle weet dat oorwinning vir ons oorwinning vir godsdiens beteken. En hulle kon dit nie verdra nie. Die wêreld is te klein om 'n voldoende woonkamer vir Hitler en God te bied. As bewys hiervan het die Nazi's nou hul plan aangekondig om hul nuwe Duitse, heidense godsdiens regoor die wêreld af te dwing - 'n plan waarmee die Heilige Bybel en die Kruis van Barmhartigheid verplaas sou word deur Mein Kampf en die hakekors en die blote swaard .

Ons eie doelwitte is duidelik die doel van die vernietiging van die militarisme wat deur oorlogsheren op hul knegte opgedwing word, om die onderwerpde nasies te bevry - die doel om vryheid van spraak, godsdiensvryheid, vryheid van gebrek en vryheid van vrees oral te vestig en te beveilig in die wêreld.

Ons sal hierdie doelwitte nie ontbreek nie - en ons sal nie net tevrede wees om dit te bereik nie en dit dan 'n dag noem. Ek weet dat ek vir die Amerikaanse volk praat - en ek het goeie rede om te glo dat ek ook praat vir al die ander mense wat met ons veg - as ek sê dat ons hierdie keer vasbeslote is om nie net die oorlog te wen nie, maar ook om handhaaf die veiligheid van die vrede wat sal volg.

Maar ons weet dat moderne oorlogsmetodes dit 'n taak maak, nie net om te skiet en te veg nie, maar om dit selfs dringender te maak om te werk en te produseer.

Oorwinning vereis die werklike oorlogswapens en die middele om dit na 'n dosyn gevegspunte te vervoer.

Dit sal nie voldoende wees vir ons en die ander Verenigde Nasies om 'n effens beter voorraad ammunisie te produseer as dié van Duitsland, Japan, Italië en die gesteelde nywerhede in die lande wat hulle oorskry het nie.

Die superioriteit van die Verenigde Nasies in ammunisie en skepe moet oorweldigend wees - so oorweldigend dat die as -nasies nooit kan hoop om dit in te haal nie. En om hierdie oorweldigende meerderwaardigheid te bereik, moet die Verenigde State vliegtuie en tenks en gewere en skepe bou tot die uiterste grens van ons nasionale kapasiteit. Ons het die vermoë en kapasiteit om nie net wapens vir ons eie magte te vervaardig nie, maar ook vir die leërs, vloote en lugmagte wat aan ons kant veg.

En ons oorweldigende bewapende superioriteit moet voldoende wees om oorlogswapens op die regte tyd in die hande te lê van die manne in die verowerde Nasies wat gereed staan ​​om die eerste geleentheid aan te gryp om in opstand te kom teen hul Duitse en Japanse onderdrukkers, en teen die verraaiers in hulle eie geledere, bekend onder die reeds berugte naam van “Quislings. ” En ek dink dat dit 'n eerlike profesie is om te sê dat, terwyl ons gewere na die patriot in daardie lande kry, hulle ook skote sal skiet die wereld.

Hierdie produksie van ons in die Verenigde State moet ver bo die huidige vlakke verhoog word, alhoewel dit die ontwrigting van die lewens en beroepe van miljoene ons eie mense sal beteken. Ons moet ons visier oral op die produksielyn rig. Laat niemand sê dat dit nie gedoen kan word nie. Dit moet gedoen word - en ons het onderneem om dit te doen.

Ek het pas 'n opdragbrief gestuur aan die toepaslike departemente en agentskappe van ons regering, waarin gelas word dat onmiddellike stappe gedoen moet word:

Eerstens, om ons produksietempo van vliegtuie so vinnig te verhoog dat ons in hierdie jaar, 1942, 60 000 vliegtuie gaan produseer, 10 000 meer as die doelwit wat ons anderhalf jaar gelede gestel het. Dit sluit 45 000 gevegsvliegtuie in - bomwerpers, duikbomwerpers, agtervolgvliegtuie. Die stygingstempo sal gehandhaaf en voortgesit word, sodat ons volgende jaar, 1943, 125.000 vliegtuie sal produseer, waaronder 100,000 gevegsvliegtuie.

Tweedens, om ons produksietempo van tenks so vinnig te verhoog dat ons in hierdie jaar, 1942, 45.000 tenks gaan vervaardig en om die toename voort te sit, sodat ons volgende jaar, 1943, 75.000 tenks sal produseer.

Ten derde, om ons produksietempo van lugafweergewere so vinnig te verhoog dat ons in hierdie jaar, 1942, 20 000 daarvan sal produseer en die verhoging sal voortsit sodat ons volgende jaar, 1943, 35 000 lugafweergewere kan vervaardig.

En ten vierde, om ons produksietempo van handelskepe so vinnig te verhoog dat ons in hierdie jaar, 1942, 6.000.000 dooiegewig ton sal bou in vergelyking met 'n voltooide produksie van 1941 van 1.100.000. En laastens gaan ons voort met die toename sodat ons volgende jaar, 1943, 10 000 000 ton seevaart sal bou.

Hierdie syfers en soortgelyke syfers vir 'n magdom ander oorlogsimplemente sal die Japannese en die Nazi's 'n idee gee van wat hulle bereik het tydens die aanval op Pearl Harbor.

En ek hoop eerder dat al hierdie syfers wat ek gegee het, algemene kennis sal word in Duitsland en Japan.

Ons taak is moeilik - ons taak is ongekend - en die tyd is kort. Ons moet elke bestaande wapenvervaardigingsfasiliteit tot die uiterste beperk. Ons moet elke beskikbare aanleg en gereedskap in oorlogsproduksie omskakel. Dit gaan van die grootste fabrieke tot die kleinste - van die groot motorbedryf tot die dorpsmasjien.

Produksie vir oorlog is gebaseer op mans en vroue - die menslike hande en brein wat ons gesamentlik Arbeid noem. Ons werkers staan ​​gereed om lang ure te werk om meer uit te kom in 'n dag se werk om die wiele te laat draai en die vure wat vier en twintig uur per dag en sewe dae per week brand. Hulle besef goed dat die lewens van hul seuns en hul broers afhang van die spoed en doeltreffendheid van hul werk op die vegfront.

Produksie vir oorlog is gebaseer op metale en grondstowwe - staal, koper, rubber, aluminium, sink, tin. Groter en groter hoeveelhede daarvan sal na oorlogsdoeleindes herlei moet word. Die burgerlike gebruik daarvan moet verder en nog verder verminder word - en in baie gevalle heeltemal uitgeskakel word.

Oorlog kos geld. Tot dusver het ons amper nie eers daarvoor begin betaal nie. Ons het slegs 15 persent van ons nasionale inkomste aan nasionale verdediging bestee. Soos môre in my begrotingsboodskap verskyn, kos ons oorlogsprogram vir die komende boekjaar 56 miljard dollar, oftewel meer as die helfte van die beraamde jaarlikse nasionale inkomste. Dit beteken belasting en effekte en effekte en belasting. Dit beteken om luukshede en ander nie-noodsaaklikhede te verminder. In 'n woord beteken dit 'n “all-out ” oorlog deur individuele inspanning en gesinspoging in 'n verenigde land.

Slegs hierdie totale produksieskaal sal die uiteindelike algehele oorwinning bespoedig. Spoed sal tel. Verlore grond kan altyd herwin word - nooit verlore tyd nie. Spoed sal lewens red spoed sal hierdie volk red wat in gevaarlike spoed is, ons vryheid en ons beskawing sal red - en traagheid was nog nooit 'n Amerikaanse eienskap nie.

Terwyl die Verenigde State sy volle vaart neem, moet ons altyd op ons hoede wees vir wanopvattings wat sal ontstaan, sommige natuurlik, of wat deur ons vyande onder ons geplant sal word.

Ons moet waak teen selfvoldaanheid. Ons moenie die vyand onderskat nie. Hy is kragtig en listig - en wreed en genadeloos. Hy sal by niks stop wat hom die kans gee om dood te maak en te vernietig nie. Hy het sy mense opgelei om te glo dat hul hoogste volmaaktheid bereik word deur oorlog te voer. Vir baie jare het hy hom op hierdie einste konflik voorberei - beplanning, en planne, en opleiding, bewapening en gevegte. Ons het al 'n nederlaag geproe. Ons kan verdere terugslae ondervind. Ons moet die feit van 'n harde oorlog, 'n lang oorlog, 'n bloedige oorlog, 'n duur oorlog in die gesig staar.

Ons moet daarenteen waak teen nederlaag. Dit was een van die belangrikste wapens van Hitler se propagandamasjien - wat telkens met dodelike gevolge gebruik is. Dit sal nie suksesvol op die Amerikaanse volk gebruik word nie.

Ons moet waak teen verdeeldheid onder ons en tussen al die ander Verenigde Nasies. Ons moet veral waaksaam wees teen rassediskriminasie in enige van die lelike vorms daarvan. Hitler sal weer probeer om wantroue en agterdog te kweek tussen een individu en 'n ander, een groep en 'n ander, een ras en 'n ander, een regering en 'n ander. Hy sal dieselfde tegniek van valsheid en gerugte probeer gebruik waarmee hy Frankryk van Brittanje geskei het. Hy probeer dit selfs nou saam met ons doen. Maar hy sal 'n eenheid van wil en doel teen hom vind, wat sal volhard tot die vernietiging van al sy swart ontwerpe op die vryheid en veiligheid van die mense van die wêreld.

Ons kan nie hierdie oorlog in 'n verdedigende gees voer nie. Namate ons krag en ons hulpbronne volledig gemobiliseer is, sal ons die aanval op die vyand voer - ons sal hom slaan en weer slaan, waar en wanneer ons hom ook al kan bereik.

Ons moet hom ver van ons kus hou, want ons is van plan om hierdie stryd op sy eie tuisveld na hom toe te bring.

Amerikaanse gewapende magte moet op enige plek in die wêreld gebruik word waar dit raadsaam lyk om die magte van die vyand te betrek. In sommige gevalle sal hierdie operasies verdedigend wees om sleutelposisies te beskerm. In ander gevalle sal hierdie operasies aanstootlik wees om die gemeenskaplike vyand aan te val met die oog op sy volledige omsingeling en uiteindelike totale nederlaag.

Amerikaanse gewapende magte sal op baie punte in die Verre Ooste opereer.

Amerikaanse gewapende magte sal op alle oseane wees en help om die noodsaaklike kommunikasie wat noodsaaklik is vir die Verenigde Nasies te bewaak.

Amerikaanse land- en lug- en seemagte sal stasies inneem op die Britse Eilande - wat 'n noodsaaklike vesting in hierdie groot wêreldstryd vorm.

Amerikaanse gewapende magte sal help om hierdie halfrond te beskerm - en ook om basisse buite hierdie halfrond te beskerm, wat gebruik kan word vir 'n aanval op die Amerikas.

As een van ons vyande, uit Europa of uit Asië, langafstand-aanvalle onderneem deur selfmoord- en#8221 eskaders bombardevliegtuie, sal hulle dit slegs doen in die hoop om ons mense te terroriseer en ons moraal te ontwrig. Ons mense is nie bang daarvoor nie. Ons weet dat ons moontlik 'n duur prys moet betaal vir vryheid. Ons sal hierdie prys met 'n testament betaal. Wat ook al die prys, dit is duisend keer die moeite werd. Maak nie saak wat ons vyande in hul desperaatheid aan ons probeer doen nie - ons sal sê, soos die mense van Londen gesê het, “We kan dit vat. ” En wat meer is, ons kan dit teruggee en ons sal gee dit terug - met saamgestelde rente.

Toe ons vyande ons land uitdaag om op te staan ​​en te veg, daag hulle elkeen van ons uit. En elkeen van ons het die uitdaging aanvaar - vir homself en vir sy nasie.

Daar was slegs ongeveer 400 Amerikaanse mariniers wat in die heroïese en historiese verdediging van Wake Island die vyand sulke groot verliese aangerig het. Sommige van die mans is in aksie doodgemaak en ander is nou krygsgevangenes. As die oorlewendes van die groot geveg bevry en in hul huise herstel word, sal hulle leer dat honderd en dertig miljoen van hul medeburgers geïnspireer is om hul eie volle diens en opoffering te lewer.

Ons kan goed sê dat ons manne op die vegfront reeds bewys het dat Amerikaners vandag net so robuust en net so taai is as enige van die helde wie se prestasies ons vier op die vierde Julie.

Baie mense vra: “ Wanneer eindig hierdie oorlog? ” Daarop is daar net een antwoord. Dit eindig net sodra ons dit beëindig, deur ons gesamentlike pogings, ons gesamentlike krag, ons gesamentlike vasberadenheid om deur te veg en deur te werk tot die einde - die einde van militarisme in Duitsland en Italië en Japan. Ons sal beslis nie met minder tevrede wees nie.

Dit is die gees waarin gesprekke gevoer is tydens die besoek van die Britse premier aan Washington. Mnr. Churchill en ek verstaan ​​mekaar, ons motiewe en ons doelwitte. Saam het ons die afgelope twee weke die groot militêre en ekonomiese probleme van hierdie grootste wêreldoorlog vierkantig ondervind.

Almal in ons land is opgewonde oor die besoek van mnr. Churchill. Ons is diep ontroer deur sy groot boodskap aan ons. Hy is welkom in ons midde, en ons verenig hom om 'n veilige terugkeer na sy huis toe te wens.

Want ons veg aan dieselfde kant met die Britse volk, wat lang, verskriklike maande alleen geveg het, en die vyand met sterkte en volharding en vaardigheid weerstaan ​​het.

Ons veg aan dieselfde kant met die Russiese mense wat die Nazi -hordes tot by die poorte van Moskou sien swerm het, en wat met byna bomenslike wil en moed die indringers teruggetrek het.

Ons veg aan dieselfde kant as die dapper mense van China - die miljoene wat vier en 'n half jaar lank bomme en hongersnood teëgestaan ​​het en die indringers keer op keer geslaan het ondanks die voortreflike Japannese toerusting en wapens. Ja, ons veg aan dieselfde kant as die ontembare Nederlanders. Ons veg aan dieselfde kant as al die ander ballingsregerings wat Hitler en al sy leërs en al sy Gestapo nie kon oorwin nie.

Maar ons van die Verenigde Nasies bring nie al die opoffering van menslike inspanning en menselewens op om terug te keer na die soort wêreld wat ons gehad het na die laaste wêreldoorlog nie.

Ons veg vandag vir veiligheid, vir vooruitgang en vir vrede, nie net vir onsself nie, maar vir alle mense, nie net vir een geslag nie, maar vir alle geslagte. Ons veg om die wêreld van antieke euwels, ou euwels te reinig.

Ons vyande word gelei deur brutale sinisme, deur onheilige minagting van die mensdom. Ons is geïnspireer deur 'n geloof wat deur al die jare teruggaan na die eerste hoofstuk van die boek Genesis: “ God het die mens na sy beeld geskape. ”

Ons aan ons kant streef daarna om getrou te bly aan die goddelike erfenis. Ons veg, net soos ons vaders, om die leerstelling te handhaaf dat alle mense gelyk is voor God. Diegene aan die ander kant streef daarna om hierdie diep geloof te vernietig en 'n wêreld na hul eie beeld te skep - 'n wêreld van tirannie en wreedheid en diensbaarheid.

Dit is die konflik dat dag en nag nou in ons lewens deurdring.

Geen kompromie kan die konflik beëindig nie. Daar was nooit 'n suksesvolle kompromis tussen goed en kwaad nie. Slegs totale oorwinning kan die kampioene van verdraagsaamheid, ordentlikheid en vryheid en geloof beloon.


FDR en die Holocaust

24 September 2013

Teken in op Die Nasie

Kry Die NasieSe weeklikse nuusbrief

Deur aan te meld, bevestig u dat u ouer as 16 is en stem u in om af en toe promosie -aanbiedings te ontvang vir programme wat ondersteun word Die NasieSe joernalistiek. U kan ons Privaatheidsbeleid hier.

Sluit aan by die Books & the Arts nuusbrief

Deur aan te meld, bevestig u dat u ouer as 16 is en stem u in om af en toe promosie -aanbiedings te ontvang vir programme wat ondersteun word Die NasieSe joernalistiek. U kan ons Privaatheidsbeleid hier.

Teken in op Die Nasie

Ondersteun progressiewe joernalistiek

Sluit vandag nog aan by ons Wynklub.

Washington DC.
& ensp
Vroeg in 1943, op die hoogtepunt van die Holocaust, het 'n prominente joernalis president Franklin Roosevelt en rsquos die reaksie op die Nazi -volksmoord in harde terme veroordeel: & ldquoJy en ek en die president en die kongres en die staatsdepartement is bykomstighede vir die misdaad en deel Hitler se skuld; & rdquo het sy geskryf. & ldquo As ons ons gedra het soos menswaardige en vrygewige mense in plaas van selfvoldane, lafhartige, sou die twee miljoen Jode wat vandag in die aarde van Pole lê en Hitler & rsquos ander oorvol begraafplase lewendig en veilig wees & hellip. Ons het dit in ons vermoë gehad om hierdie gedoemde mense te red, en ons het nie 'n hand opgesteek om dit te doen nie, en miskien sou dit eerliker wees om te sê dat ons net 'n versigtige hand opgesteek het in 'n styfpassende handskoen van kwotas en visums en beëdigde verklarings, en 'n dik laag vooroordeel. & rdquo
& ensp
Hierdie indrukwekkende kritiek op die Joodse vlugtelingbeleid van FDR en rsquos is geskryf deur niemand minder nie as Freda Kirchwey, 'n stoere New Dealer, Roosevelt -ondersteuner en hoofredakteur van Die Nasie. Joernalis Laurence Zuckerman was klaarblyklik nie bewus van die Holocaust -rekord van die tydskrif waarvoor hy geskryf het toe hy & ldquoFDR & rsquos Jewish Problem & rdquo [Aug. 5/12]. Dit weerlê Zuckerman en rsquos se stelling dat kritiek op die FDR en rsquos Holocaust-rekord slegs die handwerk van konserwatiewes en regse sioniste is om steun vir Israel op te knap.

Die Nasie het vroeg en hardop gepraat oor Amerikaanse optrede om Europa en rsquos -Jode te red. Na die 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom, het dit vereis dat minstens 15 000 Duitse Joodse vlugtelingkinders in die Verenigde State toegelaat word. (Die administrasie wou nie die voorstel onderskryf nie.) Die Roosevelt -administrasie en die vlugtelingbeleid en die persoon wat gewoonlik 'n menslike instink moet kry, en Kirchwey het in 1940 geskryf. 'n stuk drywende wrak en laastens om te besluit dat dit nie saak wat hul deugde is nie, maar net 'n paar mag verdrink. & rdquo

In 1941 het die FDR & rsquos -administrasie 'n harde nuwe immigrasieregulasie opgestel wat toegang tot enigiemand met naaste familielede in Europa belet, op grond van die feit dat die Nazi's hulle kan dwing om vir Hitler te spioeneer deur hul familielede te bedreig. Die Nasie veroordeel dit as 'n lordeloos en belaglik. & rdquo

Talle prominente progressiewe het gevolg Die Nasie& rsquos en Kirchwey & rsquos voetstappe deur eerlik te erken FDR & rsquos mislukkings in hierdie verband. Walter Mondale het president Roosevelt en rsquos -vlugtelingkonferensie in 1938 in Evian, Frankryk, gebel, en het gesê dat die deelnemers die toets van die beskawing misluk het. tot vryheid gesluit is en hellipraillyne na die kampe binne kilometers van militêr belangrike teikens ongestoord gelaat is. & rdquo

Nancy Pelosi, in haar outobiografie, onthou met trots hoe haar pa, kongreslid Thomas D & rsquoAlesandro, met FDR gebreek het oor die Holocaust en die Bergson -groep ondersteun, wat die FDR & rsquos -vlugtelingbeleid uitgedaag het. George McGovern, in 'n 2004 -onderhoud oor die missies wat hy naby Auschwitz gevlieg het as 'n jong bomwerper, het gesê: & Franklin Roosevelt was 'n groot man en hy was my politieke held. Maar ek dink hy het twee groot foute begaan: die internering van Japannese Amerikaners en die besluit om na Auschwitz en hellip te gaan. God vergewe ons en hellip. Daar was 'n redelike goeie kans dat ons die spoorlyne van die aarde af kon blaas [en] die vloei van mense na die sterrekamers onderbreek het, en ons het 'n goeie kans om die gasoonde uit te slaan. & Rdquo

Progressiewe mense het 'n lang en bewonderenswaardige rekord van eerlike erkenning van FDR's en rsquos -mislukkings saam met sy prestasies. Roosevelt & rsquos se reaksie op die Holocaust is nie meer verdedigbaar as sy internering van Japannese Amerikaners of sy kommerwekkende rekord oor die regte van Afro-Amerikaners nie. Die erkenning van die feit stel die nalatenskap van die New Deal nie in gevaar nie, of verminder die prestasies van FDR en rsquos om Amerika uit die depressie of sy leierskap in die Tweede Wêreldoorlog te haal. Dit erken bloot ook sy gebreke.

RAFAEL MEDOFF, stigter direkteur,
Die David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies

Laurence Zuckerman stel voor dat die kritici van Roosevelt en rsquos hom hard beoordeel met die voordeel van agterna. Hy skryf dat hy, toe hy geleer het oor die moord op miljoene Jode, geen begrip gehad het van die Holocaust nie, wat later gekom het en nou so in ons bewussyn is, dat dit moeilik is om te dink hoe dit was om sonder sulke kennis te lewe . & rdquo

Maar dit weerspieël destyds nie die publieke bewustheid akkuraat nie. 'N Mens hoef net Freda Kirchwey te lees: & ldquo Jode in Europa word vermoor omdat hulle Jode is. Hitler het hul totale likwidasie beloof. Daar is berig oor die maniere waarop die slagting uitgevoer word. Die getalle is geverifieer en hellip. Ek en jy en die president en die kongres en die staatsdepartement is 'n bykomstigheid by die misdaad en deel Hitler se skuld. & Rdquo

Zuckerman verklein ook die bydraes van die Bergson -groep in die stigting van die War Refugee Board en sê dat die groep & rsquos & ldquobiggest -prestasie iets is wat Roosevelt geskep het. & Rdquo Die Bergson -groep het wetgewing in die kongres geborg om 'n reddingsagentskap te stig. Dit is waarskynlik dat die staatsdepartement tydens die verhore oor die wetsontwerp die belemmering van pogings deur Amerikaanse Joodse groepe om hul Europese broers te red, openbaar sou word. Gekonfronteer met 'n skandaal, het Roosevelt die situasie vooruitgegaan deur die skep van die WRB en dit was nie 'n morele ontwaking nie, maar 'n politieke berekening.

Met betrekking tot die bombardement van Auschwitz: die WRB het ondersoek ingestel na die bombardering van die spoorlyne, gaskamers en krematoriums, maar amptenare beweer dat bombardemente op Auschwitz die lug sal gebruik wat elders nodig is. Amerikaanse vliegtuie het egter die I.G. Farben -kompleks by die nabygeleë Monowitz. Tussen Julie en November 1944 het meer as 2800 Amerikaanse vliegtuie die oliefabrieke gebombardeer en soms regoor die Birkenau -doodskamp gevlieg.

Militêre kenners en historici gaan voort oor die kwessie. Kon presisiebomaanvalle plaasgevind het sonder om lewens van gevangenes en lewens te verloor? En sou die bombardering van die gaskamers die uitwissing werklik belemmer het? Historikus Richard Breitman wys daarop: & historici debatteer & hellip ontken die hoofprobleem & hellip: [the War Department] was gekant teen die hele idee van 'n militêre missie vir humanitêre doeleindes & hellipand het die [WRB] gekeer om dit te volg. & Rdquo Natuurlik kan 'n mens nooit weet of bombardemente Auschwitz sou die gewenste resultate gehad het. Maar soos Breitman tot die gevolgtrekking kom: & gdquobombing van die gaskamers sou 'n kragtige simbool van Amerikaanse kommer vir Europese Jode gewees het. & Rdquo

MARK GERSTEIN, voormalige instrukteur in Holocaust Studies, Universiteit van Massachusetts

In reaksie op die goeie artikel van Laurence Zuckerman en rsquos, kan ons die denke agter ons boek verduidelik FDR en die Jode. Ons het die boek geskryf, want eerstens is geleerdheid tipies gepolariseer tussen die lof van FDR as die redder van die Jode en hom as 'n omstander of nog erger vir die Holocaust te veroordeel. Tweedens het ons probeer om die FDR & rsquos -benadering tot Joodse kwessies te analiseer vanuit die perspektief van sy hele lewe en loopbaan. Derdens het ons probeer om die geskiedenis nie agteruit te skryf en om nie -verifieerbare teenfaktuele aannames te maak nie.

Die ware verhaal van FDR en die Jode is hoe 'n menslike, maar pragmatiese president die mededingende prioriteite tydens die Groot Depressie, buitelandse beleidskrisisse en die Tweede Wêreldoorlog opgevolg het. Ons maak FDR nie afwit nie. Vir die grootste deel van sy presidentskap het Roosevelt min gehelp om die Jode in Duitsland en Europa in die gedrang te bring, en ons het geskryf. Tog was FDR nie monolities in sy beleidsrigtings nie en het hy beslis beslissend opgetree om Jode te red, wat dikwels weerstaan ​​het teen die druk van die Amerikaanse publiek, die kongres en sy eie staatsdepartement. huis of enige ander wêreldleier van sy tyd. Our loudest critic has been Rafael Medoff, a longstanding FDR critic who assails all those who do not follow his party line.

Political decisions during the Holocaust had a moral dimension that still elicits an emotional response. But some judgments&mdashthat FDR blithely sent passengers on the St. Louis to their death in the gas chambers, or that he refused to order the bombing of Auschwitz out of indifference or anti-Semitism&mdashare historical distortions. We hope our readers will be able to judge with more and better information than they had.

RICHARD BREITMAN, ALLAN J. LICHTMAN, Distinguished Professors, American University

Zuckerman Replies

I am familiar with Freda Kirchwey and the articles from which Rafael Medoff quotes. But is he aware of this quote: &ldquoPresident Roosevelt has been a man whose greatness shines brightly in times of crisis. He is the only possible leader for the next four years.&rdquo It is from Kirchwey&rsquos endorsement of Roosevelt&rsquos historic bid for a fourth term, in The Nation of July 22, 1944, long after the condemnations of FDR&rsquos refugee policies that Medoff cites&mdashshowing that the picture of FDR is more complex than Medoff would have us believe. It is disturbing that in his latest book, FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith, Medoff quotes Kirchwey&rsquos criticisms of FDR at length while failing to mention that she still supported him. Emphasizing the former while ignoring the latter illustrates his flawed approach to writing history.

Neither my article nor the book FDR and the Jews, as its authors Richard Breitman and Allan Lichtman point out, portrayed FDR as beyond criticism for his handling of the Holocaust. But neither was he a total villain. Medoff&rsquos articles and latest book contain a litany of criticisms of Roosevelt but virtually nothing about his achievements. One can read Medoff and forget that during FDR&rsquos presidency the country was suffering through the worst economic catastrophe in its history, that the fates of Great Britain and the Soviet Union were hanging by a thread, and that America had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Japanese in Asia. In his letter, Medoff writes approvingly that &ldquoprogressives have a long and admirable record of honestly acknowledging FDR&rsquos failings alongside his achievements.&rdquo If only Medoff were equally fair-minded. As I wrote in my article, over the last thirty years a group of ideologically driven activists, of whom Medoff is the most energetic, have made it their business to cast Roosevelt&rsquos handling of the Holocaust in the harshest possible light. These activists have largely had the field to themselves, and so a distorted image of FDR has become widely accepted. It is easy for politicians of all stripes to go along. Their homilies curry favor with Jewish supporters at little or no political cost.

One of my goals for the article was to re-balance the scales and expose the agenda of FDR&rsquos most vociferous critics. Medoff does not address the central question of my piece: What contemporary purpose does it serve to portray Roosevelt as complicit in the Holocaust? Why do so many of Medoff&rsquos articles link Roosevelt to current events in Israel, a country that didn&rsquot exist during FDR&rsquos lifetime? At a time when our country&rsquos leaders and many of its citizens are agonizing over how to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, we might all agree that figuring out the best way to stop mass murder overseas has never been an easy task.

Our Readers Letters to the editor submitted by our readers.

Laurence Zuckerman Laurence Zuckerman, a former New York Times reporter, is an adjunct professor at Columbia&rsquos Graduate School of Journalism.


The Realignment Project

Introduction:

In the spirit of the best 4th of July speeches, which like Frederick Douglass’ peerless effort seek not to satiate with platitudes but rather to challenge and provoke, today I offer a reflection on America’s past and its future.

At the end of “Resurrecting Henry George,” I argued that a national housing assistance program would “help to make one more of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, “the right of every family to a decent home,” a legal reality. I would argue, and I will argue in future posts, that the longer-term mission of the progressive movement in America is (and has unconsciously been) the realization of the Second Bill of Rights.” So today I intend to explain what I meant.

January 11, 1944:

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944, the United States was engaged in the largest two-front war of its, or any nation’s history. In the European theater, Allied forces were bogged down in Italy south of Monte Cassino and Operation Overlord was still in the planning stage. In the Pacific, Allied forces were advancing through New Guinea following the bloody Battle of Tarawa.

And yet, in the middle of a crucial address at a time when the successful outcome of the war was still very much in doubt, FDR spoke instead to what would come after, in what might have been the last New Deal speech he ever gave. The theme began with him pledging that:

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

Roosevelt continued by re-framing the objectives of the war as “ not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security.” The invocation of Social Security, the seemingly jarring transition from foreign to domestic policy was the opening movement of a speech whose moral center was the home front. In the bridge of his speech, FDR decried the “ uproar of demands for special favors for special groups,” and recognized that “ we have not always forgotten individual and selfish and partisan interests in time of war,” a rather unusual tone for a period we prefer to remember in glowing, sepia tones.

Even more unusually, he went on to challenge an even more sacred cow than national unity – individualism. Far from being an expression of American rugged independence, Roosevelt argued that “ In this war, we have been compelled to learn how interdependent upon each other are all groups and sections of the population of America,” following the thread of prices and wages from farmers and workers and factory owners to “ teachers, clergy, policemen, firemen, widows and minors on fixed incomes, wives and dependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old-age pensioners.”

Shifting to explicitly addressing the issue of the post-war world, FDR explicitly returned to the theme of his 1936 Inaugural Address, the theme that more than any other idea than “security” defined the New Deal – “one third of a nation.” The first condition for a new America, the first war aim would be not merely the achievement of economic prosperity but rather the leveling upwards of the poorest of Americans towards a universal minimum standard of living. (Sadly, the first, more anodyne goal of GDP growth would become the standard for post-war liberalism, while the second and higher aim would be marginalized)

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.

America could not be content with a return to prosperity because of the re-discovery of economic interdependence, he argued. This economic reality, once hidden behind the veil of the free market, was being made plain to Americans, and just as the recognition of political community had reshaped an America in 1776, he believed that the recognition of economic community in 1944 would engender similar results in the post-war America:

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

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

Linking the Depression to the rise of the Nazi ideology and movement that it empowered, FDR here linked the cause of economic security to the cause of the war, bringing the theme of the home front into unity with the reality of a world war against fascism.

And then he introduced the Second Bill of Rights:

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

Among these are:

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

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation

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

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad

The right of every family to a decent home

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health

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

The right to a good education.

It has been argued in the past that America has been exceptional in defining rights solely as legal and political in nature, and avoiding the economic and social rights spelled out in later 20th century constitutions. FDR’s speech stands as a powerful rebuttal to this argument, a momentary glimpse of another America. Because Roosevelt did not intend this Second Bill of Rights to be a mere legal letter there was instead a legislative movement to enact them into law, through the combination of the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill (universal health care plus a national cradle-to-grave welfare state), the Full Employment Bill (establishing full employment and the right to a job through Keynesian planning and the government as employer of last resort), and what would later be the Housing Act of 1949. This political drive was blocked in Congress, but for a moment in 1944, the United States seemed to be moving to a new recognition of human rights.

And for Roosevelt, the Second Bill of Rights really were about the United States and the world at the same time. We often forget that American politics and public policy doesn’t happen in a vacuum, that there is a conversation that goes on across oceans and national borders. And 1944 was a time when there was a Trans-Atlantic conversation about what the post-war world should look like. In the United Kingdom, John Meynard Keynes had established his economic theories into government practice and William Beveridge was in the process of writing his two famous reports, the 1942 Beveridge Plan for a National Health Service and a cradle-to-grave welfare state, and Full Employment in a Free Society (1944). In Sweden, Gunnar Myrdal and the Stockholm School were solidifying the intellectual foundations for the Swedish social-democratic model. Throughout every occupied country in Europe waiting for Operation Overlord, people imagined a new, better world to come. And here was FDR, speaking with the world.

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

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

July 4, 2009:

In the sixty-five years since FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, the larger historical mission of the progressive movement in America has really been the adoption of the Second Bill of Rights for all Americans, regardless of race, class, and gender. Truman’s failed Fair Deal was built from the intellectual foundations of the Second Bill of Rights. The Great Society and the War on Poverty were incomplete attempts to establish health care, education, and protection from poverty the Civil Rights Movement’s call for “Jobs and Freedom” and the 1963 “Freedom Budget” echoed even more deeply the spirit of Roosevelt. And even in the darkest years of the left’s nadir, when America seemed to be permanently the land of Reagan, the “dream that will never die” that kept people going ultimately is that same dream.


One thought on &ldquo FDR’s BHAG &rdquo

A quiet shoutout (is that an oxymoron?) to those behind the scenes who make possible eventual public access to documents (digital or analog) at NARA. Behind each record that becomes available online are members of a NARA team. Their actions are so important whether they contributed to civic literacy in the past or are contributing now. The NARA team includes the records appraisal archivists who work with federal departments and agencies to help identify permanently valuable records for which the law requires retention and preservation. Without the important yet complicated process of records management for paper and electronic records, there could not be accountability of any kind. Records would be destroyed at will in the agencies for any number of reasons and never survive to be taken in by NARA, much less be shared online. And on the projects side of NARA, a nod of appreciation to those who handle disclosure review of the records the agency takes in. Not just of classified information, but unclassified and declassified records, as well. I so admire those who ensure that NARA releases what it can, protects what it must. Having done both appraisal of federal records and disclosure review while employed by NARA, the low key, dedicated public servants who work quietly behind the scenes to #makeithappen will always have a special place in my heart.


The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself

Where did the line in FDR’s First Inaugural Address, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” come from? Did he write it?

Antwoord

Columbia University professor Raymond Moly wrote most of Roosevelt’s speech, and talked over his initial drafts with the president-elect. Several days before the inauguration, Moly delivered a typescript of his final draft to Roosevelt, who was staying at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Roosevelt went over the speech then with Moly and copied it out in longhand. The line about “fear itself” was not in the speech at that point. Before leaving FDR’s hotel suite, Moly burned his typewritten draft in the fireplace.

The next day, former newspaperman and Roosevelt’s long-time close confidante, Louis McHenry Howe, arrived in Washington. According to Howe’s assistant Lela Stiles, a few days previously, Howe had talked with a newspaperman and friend about difficulties that the country faced, and during the conversation Howe told his friend, “I don’t care what else Franklin says in his inaugural address as long as he tells the people that the only thing they have to fear is fear.”

When Howe arrived in Washington, FDR gave him his handwritten draft of the speech. Howe made his own changes and additions and had a secretary type a new draft. One of Howe’s changes had been to add the line, “So first of all let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes the needed effort to bring about prosperity once again.” FDR liked Howe’s addition, but then, on the draft, changed the end of the sentence, from “to bring about prosperity once again” to “needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” These were the words he used when he delivered the speech several days later at the inauguration, on March 4, 1933.

Roosevelt’s revision of Howe’s sentence was in keeping with the revisions that he and Moly had made to earlier drafts. One of the guiding metaphors in the first versions of the speech had turned on comparing the country’s economic condition to a sickness, but Moly had ultimately decided that Roosevelt would be better able to inspire the nation to profound and wide-ranging action if he did not compare it to an invalid, but rather to an army preparing for war. The imagery of sickness in the early drafts yielded therefore to martial language in the last drafts. FDR’s change of Howe’s sentence followed along with this.

Nevertheless, the new version of the sentence still refers to fear and a rejection of being "paralyzed." Whatever else FDR conveyed to his listeners with this sentence, a message of reassurance about his own health was surely part of what they heard. Concerns about whether his polio had incapacitated him had sometimes surfaced during the election campaign and two weeks before the inauguration he had avoided the bullets of a would-be assassin.

Frances Perkins, who served as FDR’s Secretary of Labor, reminisced in 1946, more than a decade after the speech, about Roosevelt coming to terms with his having contracted polio in 1921. She wrote, “He learned in that period and began to express firm belief that the ‘only thing to fear is fear itself.’ He never displayed the slightest bitterness over his misfortune.” Perkins was a little unclear here about whether she was referring specifically to Roosevelt in the decade before he became president, and whether she really meant to place the exact phrase “the only thing to fear is fear itself” in his mouth during that time.

If Roosevelt had in fact often expressed those words, it is difficult to understand why his closest colleagues and even his wife Eleanor did not assume that he had thought them up himself and inserted them into the inaugural address, but looked elsewhere for the ultimate source of the expression. When FDR’s associate and sometimes-speechwriter Samuel Rosenman asked Eleanor about the expression, she ventured that her husband may have found something very much like it in a volume of Henry David Thoreau’s writings, which she thought he must have had with him in his hotel suite in Washington.

Thoreau had written the sentence, “Nothing is so much to be feared as fear,” in his journal entry for September 7, 1851, in passing, as part of his comment on his contemporaries’ criticisms of Harriet Martineau’s arguments for atheism in her just-published Letters on the Laws of Man’s Nature and Development. Ralph Waldo Emerson later quoted his young friend approvingly, and the phrase was indeed included in later collections of Thoreau’s writings.

Professor Moly, however, pointed directly at Louis Howe as the proximate source, and doubted that Howe—whose reading habits focused on detective novels—had found the Thoreau quote. He later told William Safire, “I do clearly remember that the phrase appeared in a department store’s newspaper advertisement some time earlier in February. I assume that Howe, an inveterate newspaper reader, saw it too. …" To Howe’s everlasting credit, he realized that the expression fully fitted the occasion.”

Moly's reference to department store advertisements sounds like the campaign used by Wanamaker’s. During the first few months of 1933, Wanamaker’s department store placed large display ads in Die New York Times. The ads included a small box with inspirational messages of business and commercial platitudes or sentiments “from the founder’s writings,” those of John Wanamaker, who sometimes quoted people like Benjamin Franklin or George Washington. I do not see any of ads for the first two months of 1933 in which Wanamaker quoted Thoreau or anyone else expressing precisely the statement about “fear itself,” nor do I see a quote of Wanamaker venturing the phrase himself. However there are many platitudes there about confidence, cheerfulness, a positive attitude, persistence, honesty, and integrity. Perhaps Professor Moly saw an ad that I have been unable to locate.

The phrase “The only thing to fear is fear” did have some currency at the time among businessmen. Julius Barnes, the Chairman of the Board of the National Chamber of Commerce, for example, gave a news conference in early February announcing the organization’s effort to promote efforts to stabilize business suffering during the depression. The conference was reported by Die New York Times on February 9. One of the subheadings of the article was “Fears Most Fear Itself,” and quoted Barnes as saying, “In a condition of this kind, the thing to be feared most is fear itself. Confidence, tempered with prudence, is necessary to the operation of even the most perfect business mechanism. The retarding effect of a sense of insecurity is promptly communicated from worker to consumer, from consumer to producer and the whole machine stalls, and the anticipated evil becomes.”

Many in the business community were in fact convinced that the country was suffering from a kind of psychic sickness, caused not by systemic problems in industry or banking, but by the nation’s irrational lapse into fear, which had caused an economic paralysis. It was the fear itself that needed to be exorcised. FDR’s predecessor, Herbert Hoover, also often spoke in this way.

By this metaphor, the nation was an invalid who had been afflicted with a mental problem, a paralysis of action. Its thinking somehow had to be turned around, toward a positive confidence. By changing the patient’s thinking, his body would naturally recover his mobility. The nation needed a mental healer.

This sounds rather like the frame of reference of the quasi-religious “New Thought” or “Mind-Cure” or “Mental Science” Movement that blossomed in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As William James described it in his 1929 work, The Varieties of Religious Experience, “The leaders of this faith have had an intuitive belief in the all-saving power of healthy-minded attitudes as such, in the conquering efficacy of courage, hope, and trust, and a correlative contempt for doubt, fear, worry, and all nervously precautionary states of mind.” The movement was defined not so much by an organizational form as by the common assumptions and themes of a group of writers who specialties included what we would today called “alternative medicine,” speculative psychology, and inspirational literature. Their writings are dominated by perorations on healing and success. The business community, then as now, had a fondness for “motivational” speaking and writing, especially as it might make a sales force more effective. It is likely not an accident, therefore, that the head of the Chamber of Commerce would be diagnosing the chief of the nation’s problems as fear.

In fact, the precise phrase, “The only thing to fear is fear,” occurs in the 1908 book, Thought Vibration or, the law of attraction in the thought world, written by New Thought writer William Walker Atkinson. He counseled, “Remember, the only thing to fear is Fear, and—well, don’t even fear Fear, for he’s a cowardly chap at the best, who will run if you show a brave front.” In 1918, Atkinson wrote The Power of Concentration under the pseudonym of Theron Q. Dumont, in which he declared, “There is no justification for the loss of courage. The evils by which you will almost certainly be overwhelmed without it are far greater than those which courage will help you to meet and overcome. Right, then, must be the moralist who says that the only thing to fear is fear.”

Another “New Thought” writer, the “naturopathic doctor,” Henry Lindlahr, wrote in his 1919 book, Practice of Natural Therapeutics, “Avoid fear in all its forms of expression it is responsible for the greater part of human suffering. The only thing to fear is fear.”

Businesses had invoked these precise sentiments around the time they were published, during the domestic economic pinch prevalent during World War I, for example. On the 4th of July, 1917, the musical instrument firm of Edward Droop and Sons in Washington, D.C., paid for a large display ad in Die Washington Post, under the large headline, “The Only Thing to Fear Is Fear.” The firm’s ad continued:

We refuse to be perturbed by the alarmists, the pessimists and by the timid who see things at night. As prophets in the past they have a batting average of about .001. The only times they have hit the truth is when they themselves created the conditions they feared by fearing them. Our slogan during these earnest times is “Keep Business Going.” We shall retrench in nothing, cancel nothing, fear nothing. Our faith in the existing and eternal prosperity of the United States of America is immovable. … We believe that this is the very time of all times that you should buy what you want—whether it be in our line or in any other. The only way to stop your business is to stop the other fellow’s. The only thing to fear is fear.

The phrase “The only thing to fear is fear” and its variants, therefore, were demonstrably “out there” in circulation within the business community during the first few decades of the 20th century. William Safire makes the point that it does not really matter where the phrase came from because it was FDR that used it during his speech to inspire the nation and it was he, therefore, who transmuted the linguistic coin into rhetorical gold.

For more information

Text and audio of FDR's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933, at History Matters.

Bibliografie

William Walker Atkinson, Thought Vibration: or, The law of attraction in the thought world, Chicago: The Library Shelf, 1908, pp. 46-49.

“Business to Make Stabilization Study: National Commerce Chamber Is Forming Committee to Work Out Formal Program,” New York Times, February 9, 1931, p. 3.

Theron Q. Dumont (William Walker Atkinson), The Power of Concentration. Chicago: Advanced Thought Publishing Company, 1918.

Davis W. Houck, FDR and Fear Itself: The First Inaugural Address. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002, pp. 119-120.

William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: 1929, p. 93.

Henry Lindlahr, Practice of Natural Therapeutics. Chicago: The Lindlahr publishing company, 1919, p. 447.

“The Only Thing to Fear Is Fear,” Display ad for E. F. Droop & Sons, Company, Washington Post, July 4, 1917, p. 2.

Frances Perkins, Die Roosevelt wat ek geweet het. New York: Viking Press, 1946, p. 29.

William Safire, “Nothing to fear but fear itself,” Safire’s Political Dictionary, rev. edition. Oxford: University Press, 2008, pp. 481-483.

Lela Stiles, The Man Behind Roosevelt: The Story of Louis McHenry Howe. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1954, p. 235.

“The Value of a Silver Tongue,” Bankers’ Magazine (May 1927): 666.


The “Four Freedoms” speech remastered

There is only one speech in American history that inspired a multitude of books and films, the establishment of its own park, a series of paintings by a world famous artist, a prestigious international award and a United Nation’s resolution on Human Rights.

That speech is Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union Address, commonly known as the “Four Freedoms” speech. In it he articulated a powerful vision for a world in which all people had freedom of speech and of religion, and freedom from want and fear. It was delivered on January 6, 1941 and it helped change the world. The words of the speech are enshrined in marble at Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island in New York, are visualized in the paintings of Norman Rockwell, inspired the international Four Freedoms Award and are the foundation for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

On the 50 th anniversary of the speech in 1991 a ceremony was held in the U.S. Capitol featuring a remarkable bi-partisan group of leaders including Sen. Bob Dole, Rep. Richard Gephardt, Anne Roosevelt and President George H.W. Bush. President Bush said this about FDR’s Four Freedoms:

“Two hundred years ago, perhaps our greatest political philosopher, Thomas Jefferson, defined our nation’s identity when he wrote “All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Fifty years ago, our greatest American political pragmatist, Roosevelt, refined that thought in his Four Freedoms when he brilliantly enunciated our 20 th century vision of our founding fathers’ commitment to individual liberty.”

To honor the 75 th anniversary of this historic presidential address, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum joined forces with the National Archives Motion Picture Preservation Labs to create new enhanced versions of the speech in HD and Ultra-HD (4K) file formats. These new versions were transferred directly from the original 35mm film stock. Audio from the original disk recordings were then synced with the new video files to create an entirely new resource. The new HD video is now available to the public here, and the 4K video is available upon special request from the Library.

(Copyright Sherman Grinberg Film Library – http://www.shermangrinberg.com/)

It is important to fully understand the historic context of this speech. On November 5 th , 1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president for an unprecedented third term. It was a dark time as the world faced unprecedented danger, instability, and war. Much of Europe had fallen to the Nazis and Great Britain was barely holding its own. The Japanese Empire brutally occupied much of China and East Asia. A great number of Americans remained committed to isolationism and the belief that the United States should stay out of the war. President Roosevelt understood Britain’s desperate need for American support and attempted to convince the American people to come to the aid of their closest ally.

In his address on January 6, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt presented his reasons for American involvement, making the case for continued aid to Great Britain and greater production of war industries at home. In helping Britain, President Roosevelt stated, the United States was fighting for the universal freedoms that all people deserved.

As America entered the war these “four freedoms” – the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear – symbolized America’s war aims and gave hope in the following years to a war-wearied people because they knew they were fighting for freedom.

The ideas enunciated in Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms were the foundational principles that evolved into the Atlantic Charter declared by Winston Churchill and FDR in August 1941 the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942 President Roosevelt’s vision for an international organization that became the United Nations after his death and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948 through the work of Eleanor Roosevelt.

As tyrannical leaders once again resort to brutal oppression and terrorism to achieve their goals, as democracy and journalism are under attack from extremists across the globe, and as surveillance and technology threaten individual liberties and freedom of expression, FDRs bold vision for a world that embraces these four fundamental freedoms is as vital today as it was 75 years ago.

Special thanks to the New York Community Trust for their ongoing support of the Pare Lorentz Film Center.


This 4th of July, let’s remember to honor FDR’s 4 Freedoms | Opinion

1936: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882 - 1945) the 32nd President of the United States from 1933-45. A Democrat, he led his country through the depression of the 1930's and World War II, and was elected for an unprecedented fourth term of office in 1944. (Photo by Keystone Features/Getty Images)

By Charles D. Allen

As America crosses the midway point of 2020, we can agree that it has been one heck of a year. Following the news and social media, we see ongoing and emerging challenges in the international arena. Domestically, we continue to struggle with this great experiment called democracy for our society and its culture, which defines the daily experience of Americans.

Col. Charles Allen (U.S. Armt, ret.). (Image via Facebook)

This weekend we will celebrate Independence Day to mark our declaration of intention to separate from a government that tread on our unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What American colonists sought then was freedom from an oppressive system and subsequently demonstrated they were willing to fight and die for such freedom.

In the closing minutes of his January 1941 State of the Union Address and weeks after the nation’s entrance World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke of four freedoms as values of democratic societies.

In preceding years, totalitarian and fascist regimes of Germany, Japan, and Italy continually demonstrated disregard for such values. In his exhortation, FDR was building the case for U.S. intervention for the sake of others—that is, the security of allied governments and their people:

“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world 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 own way — everywhere in the world.

“The third is freedom from want. Which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.

“The fourth is freedom from fear. Which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.”

The themes of FDR’s speech are poignantly captured by the imagery of Norman Rockwell’s series of paintings, “The Four Freedoms” featured in Die Saterdagaand Pos.

For each issue, the respective painting was accompanied by an essay from a renowned American writer.

As I read each one this weekend, the essay that spoke to me most in the current context of our American struggles was penned in March 1943 by Pulitzer Prize-winner Stephen Vincent Benét.

“What do we mean when we say ‘freedom from fear?’ It isn’t just a formula or a set of words. It’s a look in the eyes and a feeling in the heart and a thing to be won against odds. It goes to the roots of life — to a man and a woman and their children and the home they can make and keep.

“Since our nation began, men and women have come here for just that freedom — freedom from the fear that lies at the heart of every unjust law, of every tyrannical exercise of power by one man over another man….

“We do not mean freedom from responsibility — freedom from struggle and toil, from hardship and danger. We do not intend to breed a race wrapped in cotton wool, too delicate to stand rough weather. In any world of man that we can imagine, fear and the conquest of fear must play a part.

“But we have the chance, if we have the brains and the courage, to destroy the worst fears that harry man today — the fear of starving to death, the fear of being a slave, the fear of being stamped into the dust because he is one kind of man and not another, the fear of unprovoked attack and ghastly death for himself and for his children because of the greed and power of willful and evil men and deluded nations.”

Nearly eight decades later, the case for fear still exists in 2020 as Americans are facing a global pandemic, the potential collapse of international economies, and social, as well as political challenges to its democratic institutions.

We cannot be afraid to address injustice within our nation.

Benét also pointed back the Declaration of Independence when “… we, as a nation, asserted that all men were created equal, that all men were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those were large assertions, but we have tried to live up to them. We have not always succeeded we have often failed. But our will and desire as a nation have been to live up to them.”

In the months ahead, and for the remainder of 2020, it is my hope that we so resolve and pursue freedom from fear for others in our American society and, in doing so, for ourselves.


This Week in Roosevelt History: July 15-21

July 18, 1940: FDR was nominated for an unprecedented third term as president.

ER addressing the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
July 18, 1940
FDR Library Photo Collection. NPx. 69-96.

The New Deal Estore is a great place to shop for Roosevelt related books, gifts, and other treasures from the New Deal Store at the Roosevelt Library. Available at www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu, the Estore features everything from a selection of the latest books on the Roosevelts and their times, to T-shirts, ties and caps, multimedia, campaign memorabilia, and museum replicas. For items related to this week’s blog post, follow the links below:


Kyk die video: Franklin Delano Roosevelt talking about the liberation of Italy