But I do believe that this year of 1943 will give to the United Nations a
very substantial advance along the roads that lead to Berlin and Rome and
Tokyo.
I tell you it is within the realm of possibility that this Seventy-eighth
Congress may have the historic privilege of helping greatly to save the
world 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 is
still ahead of us.
But, as we face that continuing task, we may know that the state of this
Nation is good--the heart of this Nation is sound--the spirit of this Nation
is strong--the faith of this Nation is eternal.
***
State of the Union Address
Franklin D. Roosevelt
January 11, 1944
To the Congress:
This Nation in the past two years has become an active partner in the
world's greatest war against human slavery.
We have joined with like-minded people in order to defend ourselves in a
world that has been gravely threatened with gangster rule.
But I do not think that any of us Americans can be content with mere
survival. Sacrifices that we and our allies are making impose upon us all a
sacred obligation to see to it that out of this war we and our children
will gain something better than mere survival.
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.
When Mr. Hull went to Moscow in October, and when I went to Cairo and
Teheran in November, we knew that we were in agreement with our allies in
our common determination to fight and win this war. But there were many
vital questions concerning the future peace, and they were discussed in an
atmosphere of complete candor and harmony.
In the last war such discussions, such meetings, did not even begin until
the shooting had stopped and the delegates began to assemble at the peace
table. There had been no previous opportunities for man-to-man discussions
which lead to meetings of minds. The result was a peace which was not a
peace.
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 who
are fearful that Mr. Hull or I have made "commitments" for the future which
might pledge this Nation to secret treaties, or to enacting the role of
Santa 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 all
thoroughly conversant with the provisions of our Constitution. And so is
Mr. Hull. And so am I.
Of course we made some commitments. We most certainly committed ourselves
to very large and very specific military plans which require the use of all
Allied forces to bring about the defeat of our enemies at the earliest
possible time.
But there were no secret treaties or political or financial commitments.
The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each
Nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in
one word: Security.
And that means not only physical security which provides safety from
attacks 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 and
Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear that
they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progress
by their own peoples--progress toward a better life. All our allies want
freedom to develop their lands and resources, to build up industry, to
increase education and individual opportunity, and to raise standards of
living.
All our allies have learned by bitter experience that real development will
not be possible if they are to be diverted from their purpose by repeated
wars--or even threats of war.
China and Russia are truly united with Britain and America in recognition
of this essential fact:
The best interests of each Nation, large and small, demand that all
freedom-loving Nations shall join together in a just and durable system of
peace. In the present world situation, evidenced by the actions of Germany,
Italy, and Japan, unquestioned military control over disturbers of the
peace 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 for
all individual men and women and children in all Nations. Freedom from fear
is eternally linked with freedom from want.
There are people who burrow through our Nation like unseeing moles, and
attempt to spread the suspicion that if other Nations are encouraged to
raise their standards of living, our own American standard of living must
of necessity be depressed.
The fact is the very contrary. It has been shown time and again that if the
standard of living of any country goes up, so does its purchasing power--
and that such a rise encourages a better standard of living in neighboring
countries with whom it trades. That is just plain common sense--and it is
the kind of plain common sense that provided the basis for our discussions
at Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran.
Returning from my journeyings, I must confess to a sense of "let-down" when
I found many evidences of faulty perspective here in Washington. The faulty
perspective consists in overemphasizing lesser problems and thereby
underemphasizing the first and greatest problem.
The overwhelming majority of our people have met the demands of this war
with magnificent courage and understanding. They have accepted
inconveniences; they have accepted hardships; they have accepted tragic
sacrifices. And they are ready and eager to make whatever further
contributions are needed to win the war as quickly as possible--if only
they 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 for
special groups. There are pests who swarm through the lobbies of the
Congress and the cocktail bars of Washington, representing these special
groups as opposed to the basic interests of the Nation as a whole. They
have come to look upon the war primarily as a chance to make profits for
themselves at the expense of their neighbors--profits in money or in terms
of political or social preferment.
Such selfish agitation can be highly dangerous in wartime. It creates
confusion. It damages morale. It hampers our national effort. It muddies
the waters and therefore prolongs the war.
If we analyze American history impartially, we cannot escape the fact that
in our past we have not always forgotten individual and selfish and
partisan interests in time of war--we have not always been united in purpose
and direction. We cannot overlook the serious dissensions and the lack of
unity in our war of the Revolution, in our War of 1812, or in our War
Between 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 any
previous war. But that war lasted only a year and a half, and increasing
signs of disunity began to appear during the final months of the conflict.
In this war, we have been compelled to learn how interdependent upon each
other are all groups and sections of the population of America.
Increased food costs, for example, will bring new demands for wage
increases from all war workers, which will in turn raise all prices of all
things including those things which the farmers themselves have to buy.
Increased wages or prices will each in turn produce the same results. They
all have a particularly disastrous result on all fixed income groups.
And I hope you will remember that all of us in this Government represent
the 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 and
dependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old-age pensioners. They and
their families add up to one-quarter of our one hundred and thirty million
people. 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 to
the 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 can
undermine the morale of the brave men ready to die at the front for us
here.
Those who are doing most of the complaining are not deliberately striving
to sabotage the national war effort. They are laboring under the delusion
that the time is past when we must make prodigious sacrifices--that the war
is already won and we can begin to slacken off. But the dangerous folly of
that point of view can be measured by the distance that separates our
troops from their ultimate objectives in Berlin and Tokyo--and by the sum of
all the perils that lie along the way.
Overconfidence and complacency are among our deadliest enemies. Last
spring--after notable victories at Stalingrad and in Tunisia and against the
U-boats on the high seas--overconfidence became so pronounced that war
production fell off. In two months, June and July, 1943, more than a
thousand airplanes that could have been made and should have been made were
not made. Those who failed to make them were not on strike. They were
merely saying, "The war's in the bag--so let's relax."
That attitude on the part of anyone--Government or management or labor--can
lengthen this war. It can kill American boys.
Let us remember the lessons of 1918. In the summer of that year the tide
turned 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 limits
were broadened from 21-31 to 18-45. The President called for "force to the
utmost," 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 on
the 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 on
winning the war, and to maintain a fair and stable economy at home, I
recommend that the Congress adopt:
(1) A realistic tax law--which will tax all unreasonable profits, both
individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our
sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress
does not begin to meet this test.
(2) A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts--which
will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government.
For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits
out of war.
(3) A cost of food law--which will enable the Government (a) to place a
reasonable 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 for
the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require
public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent
of the present annual cost of the war.
(4) Early reenactment of the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This
expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the
country might just as well expect price chaos by summer.
We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive
action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar.
(5) A national service law--which, for the duration of the war, will
prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make
available for war production or for any other essential services every
able-bodied adult in this Nation.
These five measures together form a just and equitable whole. I would not
recommend a national service law unless the other laws were passed to keep
down the cost of living, to share equitably the burdens of taxation, to
hold the stabilization line, and to prevent undue profits.
The Federal Government already has the basic power to draft capital and
property of all kinds for war purposes on a basis of just compensation.
As you know, I have for three years hesitated to recommend a national
service act. Today, however, I am convinced of its necessity. Although I
believe that we and our allies can win the war without such a measure, I am
certain that nothing less than total mobilization of all our resources of
manpower and capital will guarantee an earlier victory, and reduce the toll
of suffering and sorrow and blood.
I have received a joint recommendation for this law from the heads of the
War Department, the Navy Department, and the Maritime Commission. These are
the men who bear responsibility for the procurement of the necessary arms
and 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 for
service is common to all men and women. In such a time there can be no
discrimination between the men and women who are assigned by the Government
to its defense at the battlefront and the men and women assigned to
producing the vital materials essential to successful military operations.
A prompt enactment of a National Service Law would be merely an expression
of the universality of this responsibility."
I believe the country will agree that those statements are the solemn
truth.
National service is the most democratic way to wage a war. Like selective
service for the armed forces, it rests on the obligation of each citizen to
serve his Nation to his utmost where he is best qualified.
It does not mean reduction in wages. It does not mean loss of retirement
and seniority rights and benefits. It does not mean that any substantial
numbers of war workers will be disturbed in their present jobs. Let these
facts be wholly clear.
Experience in other democratic Nations at war--Britain, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand--has shown that the very existence of national service
makes unnecessary the widespread use of compulsory power. National service
has proven to be a unifying moral force based on an equal and comprehensive
legal obligation of all people in a Nation at war.
There are millions of American men and women who are not in this war at
all. It is not because they do not want to be in it. But they want to know
where they can best do their share. National service provides that
direction. It will be a means by which every man and woman can find that
inner satisfaction which comes from making the fullest possible
contribution to victory.
I know that all civilian war workers will be glad to be able to say many
years hence to their grandchildren: "Yes, I, too, was in service in the
great war. I was on duty in an airplane factory, and I helped make hundreds
of fighting planes. The Government told me that in doing that I was
performing my most useful work in the service of my country."
It is argued that we have passed the stage in the war where national
service is necessary. But our soldiers and sailors know that this is not
true. We are going forward on a long, rough road--and, in all journeys, the
last miles are the hardest. And it is for that final effort--for the total
defeat of our enemies--that we must mobilize our total resources. The
national war program calls for the employment of more people in 1944 than
in 1943.
It is my conviction that the American people will welcome this win-the-war
measure 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 standing
four-square behind our soldiers and sailors. And it will give our enemies
demoralizing assurance that we mean business--that we, 130,000,000
Americans, are on the march to Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo.
I hope that the Congress will recognize that, although this is a political
year, national service is an issue which transcends politics. Great power
must be used for great purposes.
As to the machinery for this measure, the Congress itself should determine
its nature--but it should be wholly nonpartisan in its make-up.
Our armed forces are valiantly fulfilling their responsibilities to our
country and our people. Now the Congress faces the responsibility for
taking those measures which are essential to national security in this the
most decisive phase of the Nation's greatest war.
Several alleged reasons have prevented the enactment of legislation which
would preserve for our soldiers and sailors and marines the fundamental
prerogative of citizenship--the right to vote. No amount of legalistic
argument can becloud this issue in the eyes of these ten million American
citizens. Surely the signers of the Constitution did not intend a document
which, even in wartime, would be construed to take away the franchise of
any of those who are fighting to preserve the Constitution itself.
Our soldiers and sailors and marines know that the overwhelming majority of
them will be deprived of the opportunity to vote, if the voting machinery
is left exclusively to the States under existing State laws--and that there
is no likelihood of these laws being changed in time to enable them to vote
at the next election. The Army and Navy have reported that it will be
impossible effectively to administer forty-eight different soldier voting
laws. It is the duty of the Congress to remove this unjustifiable
discrimination against the men and women in our armed forces--and to do it
as quickly as possible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One of the great American industrialists of our day--a man who has rendered
yeoman service to his country in this crisis--recently emphasized the grave
dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking
businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop--if
history 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 have
conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to
the spirit of Fascism here at home.
I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill
of rights--for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to
do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in
the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate
with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event
that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the
Nation will be conscious of the fact.
Our fighting men abroad--and their families at home--expect such a program
and have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that this
Government should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfish
pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are
dying.
The foreign policy that we have been following--the policy that guided us at
Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran--is based on the common sense principle which was
best expressed by Benjamin Franklin on July 4, 1776: "We must all hang
together, 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 the
hearts of the people at home to the men of our attacking forces in our
farthest outposts. When we speak of our total effort, we speak of the
factory and the field, and the mine as well as of the battleground--we
speak 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 this
Nation in its most critical hour--to keep this Nation great--to make this
Nation greater in a better world.
***
State of the Union Address
Franklin D. Roosevelt
January 6, 1945
To the Congress:
In considering the State of the Union, the war and the peace that is to
follow are naturally uppermost in the minds of all of us.
This war must be waged--it is being waged--with the greatest and most
persistent intensity. Everything we are and have is at stake. Everything we
are and have will be given. American men, fighting far from home, have
already won victories which the world will never forget.
We have no question of the ultimate victory. We have no question of the
cost. 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 toward
victory, even though the year ended with a setback for our arms, when the
Germans launched a ferocious counter-attack into Luxembourg and Belgium
with the obvious objective of cutting our line in the center.
Our men have fought with indescribable and unforgettable gallantry under
most difficult conditions, and our German enemies have sustained
considerable 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 garrison
at Bastogne, and forced a German withdrawal along the whole line of the
salient. The speed with which we recovered from this savage attack was
largely possible because we have one supreme commander in complete control
of all the Allied armies in France. General Eisenhower has faced this
period of trial with admirable calm and resolution and with steadily
increasing success. He has my complete confidence.
Further desperate attempts may well be made to break our lines, to slow our
progress. We must never make the mistake of assuming that the Germans are
beaten until the last Nazi has surrendered.
And I would express another most serious warning against the poisonous
effects of enemy propaganda.
The wedge that the Germans attempted to drive in western Europe was less
dangerous in actual terms of winning the war than the wedges which they are
continually attempting to drive between ourselves and our allies.
Every little rumor which is intended to weaken our faith in our allies is
like an actual enemy agent in our midst--seeking to sabotage our war
effort. There are, here and there, evil and baseless rumors against the
Russians--rumors against the British--rumors against our own American
commanders in the field.
When you examine these rumors closely, you will observe that every one of
them bears the same trade-mark--"Made in Germany."
We must resist this divisive propaganda--we must destroy it--with the same
strength and the same determination that our fighting men are displaying as
they resist and destroy the panzer divisions.
In Europe, we shall resume the attack and--despite temporary setbacks here
or there--we shall continue the attack relentlessly until Germany is
completely defeated.
It is appropriate at this time to review the basic strategy which has
guided us through three years of war, and which will lead, eventually, to
total victory.
The tremendous effort of the first years of this war was directed toward
the concentration of men and supplies in the various theaters of action at
the points where they could hurt our enemies most.
It was an effort--in the language of the military men--of deployment of our
forces. Many battles--essential battles--were fought; many victories--vital
victories--were won. But these battles and these victories were fought and
won to hold back the attacking enemy, and to put us in positions from which
we and our allies could deliver the final, decisive blows.
In the beginning our most important military task was to prevent our
enemies--the strongest and most violently aggressive powers that ever have
threatened civilization--from winning decisive victories. But even while we
were conducting defensive, delaying actions, we were looking forward to the
time when we could wrest the initiative from our enemies and place our
superior resources of men and materials into direct competition with them.
It was plain then that the defeat of either enemy would require the massing
of overwhelming forces--ground, sea, and air--in positions from which we
and our allies could strike directly against the enemy homelands and
destroy the Nazi and Japanese war machines.
In the case of Japan, we had to await the completion of extensive
preliminary operations--operations designed to establish secure supply lines
through the Japanese outer-zone defenses. This called for overwhelming sea
power and air power--supported by ground forces strategically employed
against isolated outpost garrisons.
Always--from the very day we were attacked--it was right militarily as well
as morally to reject the arguments of those shortsighted people who would
have had us throw Britain and Russia to the Nazi wolves and concentrate
against the Japanese. Such people urged that we fight a purely defensive
war against Japan while allowing the domination of all the rest of the
world by Nazism and Fascism.
In the European theater the necessary bases for the massing of ground and
air power against Germany were already available in Great Britain. In the
Mediterranean area we could begin ground operations against major elements
of the German Army as rapidly as we could put troops in the field, first in
North Africa and then in Italy.
Therefore, our decision was made to concentrate the bulk of our ground and
air forces against Germany until her utter defeat. That decision was based
on all these factors; and it was also based on the realization that, of our
two enemies, Germany would be more able to digest quickly her conquests,
the more able quickly to convert the manpower and resources of her
conquered territory into a war potential.
We had in Europe two active and indomitable allies--Britain and the Soviet
Union--and there were also the heroic resistance movements in the occupied
countries, constantly engaging and harassing the Germans. We cannot forget
how Britain held the line, alone, in 1940 and 1941; and at the same time,
despite ferocious bombardment from the air, built up a tremendous armaments
industry 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 destroyed
formidable German armies.
Nor can we forget how, for more than seven long years, the Chinese people
have been sustaining the barbarous attacks of the Japanese and containing
large enemy forces on the vast areas of the Asiatic mainland.
In the future we must never forget the lesson that we have learned--that we
must have friends who will work with us in peace as they have fought at our
side in war.
As a result of the combined effort of the Allied forces, great military
victories were achieved in 1944: The liberation of France, Belgium, Greece,
and parts of The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and
Czechoslovakia; the surrender of Rumania and Bulgaria; the invasion of
Germany itself and Hungary; the steady march through the Pacific islands to
the Philippines, Guam, and Saipan; and the beginnings of a mighty air
offensive against the Japanese islands.
Now, as this Seventy-ninth Congress meets, we have reached the most
critical phase of the war.
The greatest victory of the last year was, of course, the successful breach
on June 6, 1944, of the German "impregnable" seawall of Europe and the
victorious sweep of the Allied forces through France and Belgium and
Luxembourg--almost to the Rhine itself.
The cross-channel invasion of the Allied armies was the greatest amphibious
operation in the history of the world. It overshadowed all other operations
in this or any other war in its immensity. Its success is a tribute to the
fighting courage of the soldiers who stormed the beaches--to the sailors
and merchant seamen who put the soldiers ashore and kept them supplied--and
to the military and naval leaders who achieved a real miracle of planning
and execution. And it is also a tribute to the ability of two Nations,
Britain and America, to plan together, and work together, and fight
together in perfect cooperation and perfect harmony.
This cross-channel invasion was followed in August by a second great
amphibious operation, landing troops in southern France. In this, the same
cooperation and the same harmony existed between the American, French, and
other Allied forces based in North Africa and Italy.
The success of the two invasions is a tribute also to the ability of many
men and women to maintain silence, when a few careless words would have
imperiled the lives of hundreds of thousands, and would have jeopardized
the whole vast undertakings.
These two great operations were made possible by success in the Battle of
the Atlantic.
Without this success over German submarines, we could not have built up our
invasion forces or air forces in Great Britain, nor could we have kept a
steady stream of supplies flowing to them after they had landed in France.
The Nazis, however, may succeed in improving their submarines and their
crews. They have recently increased their U-boat activity. The Battle of
the Atlantic--like all campaigns in this war--demands eternal vigilance. But
the British, Canadian, and other Allied navies, together with our own, are
constantly on the alert.
The tremendous operations in western Europe have overshadowed in the public
mind the less spectacular but vitally important Italian front. Its place in
the strategic conduct of the war in Europe has been obscured, and--by some
people 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 our
strategy in Europe, now aimed at only one objective--the total defeat of
the Germans. These valiant forces in Italy are continuing to keep a
substantial portion of the German Army under constant pressure--including
some 20 first-line German divisions and the necessary supply and transport
and replacement troops--all of which our enemies need so badly elsewhere.
Over very difficult terrain and through adverse weather conditions, our
Fifth Army and the British Eighth Army--reinforced by units from other
United Nations, including a brave and well equipped unit of the Brazilian
Army--have, in the past year, pushed north through bloody Cassino and the
Anzio beachhead, and through Rome until now they occupy heights overlooking
the valley of the Po.
The greatest tribute which can be paid to the courage and fighting ability
of these splendid soldiers in Italy is to point out that although their
strength is about equal to that of the Germans they oppose, the Allies have
been 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--should
remember that the Italian front has not lost any of the importance which it
had in the days when it was the only Allied front in Europe.
In the Pacific during the past year, we have conducted the fastest-moving
offensive in the history of modern warfare. We have driven the enemy back
more than 3,000 miles across the Central Pacific. A year ago, our conquest
of Tarawa was a little more than a month old.
A year ago, we were preparing for our invasion of Kwajalein, the second of
our great strides across the Central Pacific to the Philippines.
A year ago, General MacArthur was still fighting in New Guinea almost 1,500
miles from his present position in the Philippine Islands.
We now have firmly established bases in the Mariana Islands, from which our
Super fortresses bomb Tokyo itself--and will continue to blast Japan in
ever-increasing numbers.
Japanese forces in the Philippines have been cut in two. There is still
hard fighting ahead--costly fighting. But the liberation of the Philippines
will mean that Japan has been largely cut off from her conquests in the
East Indies.
The landing of our troops on Leyte was the largest amphibious operation
thus far conducted in the Pacific.
Moreover, these landings drew the Japanese Fleet into the first great sea
battle which Japan has risked in almost two years. Not since the night
engagements around Guadalcanal in November-December, 1942, had our Navy
been able to come to grips with major units of the Japanese Fleet. We had
brushed against their fleet in the first battle of the Philippine Sea in
June, 1944, but not until last October were we able really to engage a
major portion of the Japanese Navy in actual combat. The naval engagement
which raged for three days was the heaviest blow ever struck against
Japanese sea power.
As a result of that battle, much of what is left of the Japanese Fleet has
been driven behind the screen of islands that separates the Yellow Sea, the
China Sea, and the Sea of Japan from the Pacific.
Our Navy looks forward to any opportunity which the lords of the Japanese
Navy will give us to fight them again.
The people of this Nation have a right to be proud of the courage and
fighting ability of the men in the armed forces--on all fronts. They also
have a right to be proud of American leadership which has guided their sons
into battle.
The history of the generalship of this war has been a history of teamwork
and cooperation, of skill and daring. Let me give you one example out of
last year's operations in the Pacific.
Last September Admiral Halsey led American naval task forces into
Philippine waters and north to the East China Sea, and struck heavy blows
at 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 Halsey
reported that a direct attack on Leyte appeared feasible. When General
MacArthur received the reports from Admiral Halsey's task forces, he also
concluded that it might be possible to attack the Japanese in the
Philippines directly--bypassing islands A, C, and E.
Admiral Nimitz thereupon offered to make available to General MacArthur
several divisions which had been scheduled to take the intermediate
objectives. These discussions, conducted at great distances, all took place
in one day.
General MacArthur immediately informed the Joint Chiefs of Staff here in
Washington that he was prepared to initiate plans for an attack on Leyte in
October. Approval of the change in plan was given on the same day.
Thus, within the space of 24 hours, a major change of plans was
accomplished which involved Army and Navy forces from two different
theaters of operations--a change which hastened the liberation of the
Philippines and the final day of victory--a change which saved lives which
would have been expended in the capture of islands which are now
neutralized far behind our lines.
Our over-all strategy has not neglected the important task of rendering all
possible aid to China. Despite almost insuperable difficulties, we
increased this aid during 1944. At present our aid to China must be
accomplished by air transport--there is no other way. By the end of 1944,
the Air Transport Command was carrying into China a tonnage of supplies
three times as great as that delivered a year ago, and much more, each
month, than the Burma Road ever delivered at its peak.
Despite the loss of important bases in China, the tonnage delivered by air
transport has enabled General Chennault's Fourteenth Air Force, which
includes many Chinese flyers, to wage an effective and aggressive campaign
against the Japanese. In 1944 aircraft of the Fourteenth Air Force flew
more than 35,000 sorties against the Japanese and sank enormous tonnage of
enemy shipping, greatly diminishing the usefulness of the China Sea lanes.
British, Dominion, and Chinese forces together with our own have not only
held the line in Burma against determined Japanese attacks but have gained
bases of considerable importance to the supply line into China.
The Burma campaigns have involved incredible hardship, and have demanded
exceptional fortitude and determination. The officers and men who have
served with so much devotion in these far distant jungles and mountains
deserve high honor from their countrymen.
In all of the far-flung operations of our own armed forces--on land, and sea
and in the air--the final job, the toughest job, has been performed by the
average, easy-going, hard-fighting young American, who carries the weight
of battle on his own shoulders.
It is to him that we and all future generations of Americans must pay
grateful tribute.
But--it is of small satisfaction to him to know that monuments will be
raised to him in the future. He wants, he needs, and he is entitled to
insist 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, before
the upward trend was once more resumed.
Because of increased demands from overseas, the Army Service Forces in the
month of October, 1944, had to increase its estimate of required production
by 10 percent. But in November, one month later, the requirements for 1945
had to be increased another 10 percent, sending the production goal well
above anything we have yet attained. Our armed forces in combat have
steadily increased their expenditure of medium and heavy artillery
ammunition. As we continue the decisive phases of this war, the munitions
that we expend will mount day by day.
In October, 1944, while some were saying the war in Europe was over, the
Army was shipping more men to Europe than in any previous month of the
war.
One of the most urgent immediate requirements of the armed forces is more
nurses. 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 has
tried to raise the additional 10,000. Active recruiting has been carried
on, but the net gain in eight months has been only 2,000. There are now
42,000 nurses in the Army.
Recent estimates have increased the total number needed to 60,000. That
means that 18,000 more nurses must be obtained for the Army alone and the
Navy now requires 2,000 additional nurses.
The present shortage of Army nurses is reflected in undue strain on the
existing force. More than a thousand nurses are now hospitalized, and part
of this is due to overwork. The shortage is also indicated by the fact that
11 Army hospital units have been sent overseas without their complement of
nurses. At Army hospitals in the United States there is only 1 nurse to 26
beds, instead of the recommended 1 to 15 beds.
It is tragic that the gallant women who have volunteered for service as
nurses should be so overworked. It is tragic that our wounded men should
ever want for the best possible nursing care.
The inability to get the needed nurses for the Army is not due to any
shortage of nurses; 280,000 registered nurses are now practicing in this
country. It has been estimated by the War Manpower Commission that 27,000
additional nurses could be made available to the armed forces without
interfering too seriously with the needs of the civilian population for
nurses.
Since volunteering has not produced the number of nurses required, I urge
that the Selective Service Act be amended to provide for the induction of
nurses into the armed forces. The need is too pressing to await the outcome
of further efforts at recruiting.
The care and treatment given to our wounded and sick soldiers have been the
best known to medical science. Those standards must be maintained at all
costs. We cannot tolerate a lowering of them by failure to provide adequate
nursing for the brave men who stand desperately in need of it.
In the continuing progress of this war we have constant need for new types
of weapons, for we cannot afford to fight the war of today or tomorrow with
the weapons of yesterday. For example, the American Army now has developed
a new tank with a gun more powerful than any yet mounted on a fast-moving
vehicle. The Army will need many thousands of these new tanks in 1945.
Almost every month finds some new development in electronics which must be
put into production in order to maintain our technical superiority--and in
order to save lives. We have to work every day to keep ahead of the enemy
in radar. On D-Day, in France, with our superior new equipment, we located
and then put out of operation every warning set which the Germans had along
the French coast.
If we do not keep constantly ahead of our enemies in the development of new
weapons, 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 them
is for every American engaged in war work to stay on his war job--for
additional American civilians, men and women, not engaged in essential
work, to go out and get a war job. Workers who are released because their
production is cut back should get another job where production is being
increased. 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 this
Nation must pay for all those who leave their essential jobs--or all those
who 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 now
seriously hampered by manpower shortages. The most important Army needs are
artillery ammunition, cotton duck, bombs, tires, tanks, heavy trucks, and
even B-29's. In each of these vital programs, present production is behind
requirements.
Navy production of bombardment ammunition is hampered by manpower
shortages; so is production for its huge rocket program. Labor shortages
have also delayed its cruiser and carrier programs, and production of
certain types of aircraft.
There is critical need for more repair workers and repair parts; this Jack
delays the return of damaged fighting ships to their places in the fleet,
and prevents ships now in the fighting line from getting needed
overhauling.
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 who
are at work in war industry. The armed forces must have an assurance of a
steady flow of young men for replacements. Meeting this paramount need will
be difficult, and will also make it progressively more difficult to attain
the 1945 production goals.
Last year, after much consideration, I recommended that the Congress adopt
a national service act as the most efficient and democratic way of insuring
full production for our war requirements. This recommendation was not
adopted.
I now again call upon the Congress to enact this measure for the total
mobilization of all our human resources for the prosecution of the war. I
urge that this be done at the earliest possible moment.
It is not too late in the war. In fact, bitter experience has shown that in
this kind of mechanized warfare where new weapons are constantly being
created by our enemies and by ourselves, the closer we come to the end of
the war, the more pressing becomes the need for sustained war production
with 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 the
right places at the right times.
Second, it would provide supreme proof to all our fighting men that we are
giving them what they are entitled to, which is nothing less than our total
effort.
And, third, it would be the final, unequivocal answer to the hopes of the
Nazis and the Japanese that we may become halfhearted about this war and
that they can get from us a negotiated peace.
National service legislation would make it possible to put ourselves in a
position to assure certain and speedy action in meeting our manpower
needs.
It would be used only to the extent absolutely required by military
necessities. In fact, experience in Great Britain and in other Nations at
war indicates that use of the compulsory powers of national service is
necessary only in rare instances.
This proposed legislation would provide against loss of retirement and
seniority rights and benefits. It would not mean reduction in wages.
In adopting such legislation, it is not necessary to discard the voluntary
and cooperative processes which have prevailed up to this time. This
cooperation has already produced great results. The contribution of our
workers to the war effort has been beyond measure. We must build on the
foundations that have already been laid and supplement the measures now in
operation, in order to guarantee the production that may be necessary in
the critical period that lies ahead.
At the present time we are using the inadequate tools at hand to do the
best we can by such expedients as manpower ceilings, and the use of
priority and other powers, to induce men and women to shift from
non-essential to essential war jobs.
I am in receipt of a joint letter from the Secretary of War and the
Secretary of the Navy, dated January 3, 1945, which says:
"With the experience of three years of war and after the most thorough
consideration, we are convinced that it is now necessary to carry out the
statement made by the Congress in the joint resolutions declaring that a
state of war existed with Japan and Germany: That 'to bring the conflict to
a successful conclusion, all of the resources of the country are hereby
pledged by the Congress of the United States.'
"In our considered judgment, which is supported by General Marshall and
Admiral King, this requires total mobilization of our manpower by the
passage of a national war service law. The armed forces need this
legislation to hasten the day of final victory, and to keep to a minimum
the cost in lives.
"National war service, the recognition by law of the duty of every citizen
to do his or her part in winning the war, will give complete assurance that
the need for war equipment will be filled. In the coming year we must
increase the output of many weapons and supplies on short notice. Otherwise
we shall not keep our production abreast of the swiftly changing needs of
war. At the same time it will be necessary to draw progressively many men
now engaged in war production to serve with the armed forces, and their
places in war production must be filled promptly. These developments will
require the addition of hundreds of thousands to those already working in
war industry. We do not believe that these needs can be met effectively
under present methods.
"The record made by management and labor in war industry has been a notable
testimony to the resourcefulness and power of America. The needs are so
great, nevertheless, that in many instances we have been forced to recall
soldiers and sailors from military duty to do work of a civilian character
in war production, because of the urgency of the need for equipment and
because 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 be
effective in using the services of the 4,000,000 men now classified as IV-F
in whatever capacity is best for the war effort.
In the field of foreign policy, we propose to stand together with the
United Nations not for the war alone but for the victory for which the war
is fought.
It is not only a common danger which unites us but a common hope. Ours is
an association not of Governments but of peoples--and the peoples' hope is
peace. Here, as in England; in England, as in Russia; in Russia, as in
China; in France, and through the continent of Europe, and throughout the
world; wherever men love freedom, the hope and purpose of the people are
for peace--a peace that is durable and secure.
It will not be easy to create this peoples' peace. We delude ourselves if
we believe that the surrender of the armies of our enemies will make the
peace we long for. The unconditional surrender of the armies of our enemies
is the first and necessary step--but the first step only.
We have seen already, in areas liberated from the Nazi and the Fascist
tyranny, what problems peace will bring. And we delude ourselves if we
attempt to believe wishfully that all these problems can be solved
overnight.
The firm foundation can be built--and it will be built. But the continuance
and assurance of a living peace must, in the long run, be the work of the
people themselves.
We ourselves, like all peoples who have gone through the difficult
processes of liberation and adjustment, know of our own experience how
great the difficulties can be. We know that they are not difficulties
peculiar to any continent or any Nation. Our own Revolutionary War left
behind it, in the words of one American historian, "an eddy of lawlessness
and disregard of human life." There were separatist movements of one kind
or another in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and
Maine. There were insurrections, open or threatened, in Massachusetts and
New Hampshire. These difficulties we worked out for ourselves as the
peoples of the liberated areas of Europe, faced with complex problems of
adjustment, will work out their difficulties for themselves.
Peace can be made and kept only by the united determination of free and
peace-loving peoples who are willing to work together--willing to help one
another--willing to respect and tolerate and try to understand one another's
opinions and feelings.
The nearer we come to vanquishing our enemies the more we inevitably become
conscious of differences among the victors.
We must not let those differences divide us and blind us to our more
important common and continuing interests in winning the war and building
the peace.
International cooperation on which enduring peace must be based is not a
one-way street.
Nations like individuals do not always see alike or think alike, and
international cooperation and progress are not helped by any Nation
assuming that it has a monopoly of wisdom or of virtue.
In the future world the misuse of power, as implied in the term "power
politics," must not be a controlling factor in international relations.
That is the heart of the principles to which we have subscribed. We cannot
deny that power is a factor in world politics any more than we can deny its
existence as a factor in national politics. But in a democratic world, as
in a democratic Nation, power must be linked with responsibility, and
obliged to defend and justify itself within the framework of the general
good.
Perfectionism, no less than isolationism or imperialism or power politics,
may obstruct the paths to international peace. Let us not forget that the
retreat to isolationism a quarter of a century ago was started not by a
direct attack against international cooperation but against the alleged
imperfections of the peace.
In our disillusionment after the last war we preferred international
anarchy to international cooperation with Nations which did not see and
think exactly as we did. We gave up the hope of gradually achieving a
better peace because we had not the courage to fulfill our responsibilities
in an admittedly imperfect world.
We must not let that happen again, or we shall follow the same tragic road
again--the road to a third world war.
We can fulfill our responsibilities for maintaining the security of our own
country only by exercising our power and our influence to achieve the
principles in which we believe and for which we have fought.
In August, 1941, Prime Minister Churchill and I agreed to the principles of
the Atlantic Charter, these being later incorporated into the Declaration
by United Nations of January 1, 1942. At that time certain isolationists
protested vigorously against our right to proclaim the principles--and
against the very principles themselves. Today, many of the same people are
protesting against the possibility of violation of the same principles.
It is true that the statement of principles in the Atlantic Charter does
not provide rules of easy application to each and every one of this
war-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 secure
so far as is humanly possible the fulfillment of the principles of the
Atlantic Charter. We have not shrunk from the military responsibilities
brought on by this war. We cannot and will not shrink from the political
responsibilities which follow in the wake of battle.
I do not wish to give the impression that all mistakes can be avoided and
that many disappointments are not inevitable in the making of peace. But we
must not this time lose the hope of establishing an international order
which will be capable of maintaining peace and realizing through the years
more perfect justice between Nations.
To do this we must be on our guard not to exploit and exaggerate the
differences between us and our allies, particularly with reference to the
peoples who have been liberated from Fascist tyranny. That is not the way
to secure a better settlement of those differences or to secure
international machinery which can rectify mistakes which may be made.
I should not be frank if I did not admit concern about many situations--the
Greek and Polish for example. But those situations are not as easy or as
simple to deal with as some spokesmen, whose sincerity I do not question,
would have us believe. We have obligations, not necessarily legal, to the
exiled Governments, to the underground leaders, and to our major allies who
came much nearer the shadows than we did.
We and our allies have declared that it is our purpose to respect the right
of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live
and to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have
been forcibly deprived of them. But with internal dissension, with many
citizens of liberated countries still prisoners of war or forced to labor
in Germany, it is difficult to guess the kind of self-government the people
really want.
During the interim period, until conditions permit a genuine expression of
the 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 provisional
authorities in the liberated countries block the eventual exercise of the
peoples' right freely to choose the government and institutions under
which, 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 dislike
irresponsible. And our task is not helped by stubborn partisanship, however
understandable on the part of opposed internal factions.
It is our purpose to help the peace-loving peoples of Europe to live
together as good neighbors, to recognize their common interests and not to
nurse their traditional grievances against one another.
But we must not permit the many specific and immediate problems of
adjustment connected with the liberation of Europe to delay the
establishment of permanent machinery for the maintenance of peace. Under
the threat of a common danger, the United Nations joined together in war to
preserve their independence and their freedom. They must now join together
to make secure the independence and freedom of all peace-loving states, so
that 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, can
be secured only through institutions capable of life and growth.
Many of the problems of the peace are upon us even now while the conclusion
of the war is still before us. The atmosphere of friendship and mutual
understanding and determination to find a common ground of common
understanding, which surrounded the conversations at Dumbarton Oaks, gives
us reason to hope that future discussions will succeed in developing the
democratic and fully integrated world security system toward which these
preparatory conversations were directed.
We and the other United Nations are going forward, with vigor and
resolution, in our efforts to create such a system by providing for it
strong and flexible institutions of joint and cooperative action.
The aroused conscience of humanity will not permit failure in this supreme
endeavor.
We believe that the extraordinary advances in the means of
intercommunication between peoples over the past generation offer a
practical method of advancing the mutual understanding upon which peace and
the institutions of peace must rest, and it is our policy and purpose to
use these great technological achievements for the common advantage of the
world.
We support the greatest possible freedom of trade and commerce.
We Americans have always believed in freedom of opportunity, and equality
of opportunity remains one of the principal objectives of our national
life. What we believe in for individuals, we believe in also for Nations.
We are opposed to restrictions, whether by public act or private
arrangement, 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 the
prosperity of the world, that trade and commerce and access to materials
and markets may be freer after this war than ever before in the history of
the world.
One of the most heartening events of the year in the international field
has been the renaissance of the French people and the return of the French
Nation to the ranks of the United Nations. Far from having been crushed by
the terror of Nazi domination, the French people have emerged with stronger
faith than ever in the destiny of their country and in the soundness of the
democratic ideals to which the French Nation has traditionally contributed
so greatly.
During her liberation, France has given proof of her unceasing
determination to fight the Germans, continuing the heroic efforts of the
resistance groups under the occupation and of all those Frenchmen
throughout the world who refused to surrender after the disaster of 1940.
Today, French armies are again on the German frontier, and are again
fighting shoulder to shoulder with our sons.
Since our landings in Africa, we have placed in French hands all the arms
and material of war which our resources and the military situation
permitted. And I am glad to say that we are now about to equip large new
French forces with the most modern weapons for combat duty.
In addition to the contribution which France can make to our common
victory, her liberation likewise means that her great influence will again
be available in meeting the problems of peace.
We fully recognize France's vital interest in a lasting solution of the
German problem and the contribution which she can make in achieving
international security. Her formal adherence to the declaration by United
Nations a few days ago and the proposal at the Dumbarton Oaks discussions,
whereby France would receive one of the five permanent seats in the
proposed Security Council, demonstrate the extent to which France has
resumed her proper position of strength and leadership.
I am clear in my own mind that, as an essential factor in the maintenance
of peace in the future, we must have universal military training after this
war, and I shall send a special message to the Congress on this subject.
An enduring peace cannot be achieved without a strong America--strong in
the 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 considered
to be an American economic bill of rights.
I said then, and I say now, that these economic truths represent 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.
Of these rights the most fundamental, and one on which the fulfillment of
the others in large degree depends, is the "right to a useful and
remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the
Nation." In turn, others of the economic rights of American citizenship,
such as the right to a decent home, to a good education, to good medical
care, 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 become
realities--with the help of States, municipalities, business, labor, and
agriculture.
We have had full employment during the war. We have had it because the
Government has been ready to buy all the materials of war which the country
could produce--and this has amounted to approximately half our present
productive capacity.
After the war we must maintain full employment with Government performing
its peacetime functions. This means that we must achieve a level of demand
and purchasing power by private consumers--farmers, businessmen, workers,
professional men, housewives--which is sufficiently high to replace wartime
Government demands; and it means also that we must greatly increase our
export trade above the prewar level.
Our policy is, of course, to rely as much as possible on private enterprise
to provide jobs. But the American people will not accept mass unemployment
or mere makeshift work. There will be need for the work of everyone willing
and able to work--and that means close to 60,000,000 jobs.
Full employment means not only jobs--but productive jobs. Americans do not
regard 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 stifling
presence of monopolies and cartels.
During the war we have guaranteed investment in enterprise essential to the
war effort. We should also take appropriate measures in peacetime to secure
opportunities for new small enterprises and for productive business
expansion for which finance would otherwise be unavailable.
This necessary expansion of our peacetime productive capacity will require
new facilities, new plants, and new equipment.
It will require large outlays of money which should be raised through
normal investment channels. But while private capital should finance this
expansion program, the Government should recognize its responsibility for
sharing part of any special or abnormal risk of loss attached to such
financing.
Our full-employment program requires the extensive development of our
natural resources and other useful public works. The undeveloped resources
of this continent are still vast. Our river-watershed projects will add new
and fertile territories to the United States. The Tennessee Valley
Authority, which was constructed at a cost of $750,000,000--the cost of
waging this war for less than 4 days--was a bargain. We have similar
opportunities in our other great river basins. By harnessing the resources
of these river basins, as we have in the Tennessee Valley, we shall provide
the same kind of stimulus to enterprise as was provided by the Louisiana
Purchase and the new discoveries in the West during the nineteenth
century.
If we are to avail ourselves fully of the benefits of civil aviation, and
if we are to use the automobiles we can produce, it will be necessary to
construct thousands of airports and to overhaul our entire national highway
system.
The provision of a decent home for every family is a national necessity, if
this country is to be worthy of its greatness--and that task will itself
create great employment opportunities. Most of our cities need extensive
rebuilding. Much of our farm plant is in a state of disrepair. To make a
frontal attack on the problems of housing and urban reconstruction will
require thoroughgoing cooperation between industry and labor, and the
Federal, State, and local Governments.
An expanded social security program, and adequate health and education
programs, must play essential roles in a program designed to support
individual productivity and mass purchasing power. I shall communicate
further with the Congress on these subjects at a later date.
The millions of productive jobs that a program of this nature could bring
are jobs in private enterprise. They are jobs based on the expanded demand
for the output of our economy for consumption and investment. Through a
program of this character we can maintain a national income high enough to
provide for an orderly retirement of the public debt along with reasonable
tax reduction.
Our present tax system geared primarily to war requirements must be revised
for peacetime so as to encourage private demand.
While no general revision of the tax structure can be made until the war
ends on all fronts, the Congress should be prepared to provide tax
modifications at the end of the war in Europe, designed to encourage
capital to invest in new enterprises and to provide jobs. As an integral
part of this program to maintain high employment, we must, after the war is
over, reduce or eliminate taxes which bear too heavily on consumption.
The war will leave deep disturbances in the world economy, in our national
economy, in many communities, in many families, and in many individuals. It
will require determined effort and responsible action of all of us to find
our way back to peacetime, and to help others to find their way back to
peacetime--a peacetime that holds the values of the past and the promise of
the future.
If we attack our problems with determination we shall succeed. And we must
succeed. 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 not
the direct assertion, that this Administration and the Congress could never
work together harmoniously in the service of the Nation.
It cannot be denied that there have been disagreements between the
legislative and executive branches--as there have been disagreements during
the past century and a half.
I think we all realize too that there are some people in this Capital City
whose task is in large part to stir up dissension, and to magnify normal
healthy disagreements so that they appear to be irreconcilable conflicts.
But--I think that the over-all record in this respect is eloquent: The
Government of the United States of America--all branches of it--has a good
record of achievement in this war.
The Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary have worked together for the
common good.
I myself want to tell you, the Members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives, how happy I am in our relationships and friendships. I
have not yet had the pleasure of meeting some of the new Members in each
House, 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 with
realism and courage.
This new year of 1945 can be the greatest year of achievement in human
history.
Nineteen forty-five can see the final ending of the Nazi-Fascist reign of
terror in Europe.
Nineteen forty-five can see the closing in of the forces of retribution
about the center of the malignant power of imperialistic Japan.
Most important of all--1945 can and must see the substantial beginning of
the organization of world peace. This organization must be the fulfillment
of the promise for which men have fought and died in this war. It must be
the justification of all the sacrifices that have been made--of all the
dreadful misery that this world has endured.
We Americans of today, together with our allies, are making history--and I
hope it will be better history than ever has been made before.
We pray that we may be worthy of the unlimited opportunities that God has
given us.