When the Republic was threatened, first by the Nazi clutch for world conquest back in 1940 – ’39 – and then by the Japanese treachery in ‘41, partisanship and politics were laid aside by nearly every American; and every resource was dedicated to our common safety. The same consecration to the cause of peace will be expected, I think, by every patriotic American, by every human soul overseas, too.
The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation. It cannot be just an American peace, or a British peace, or a Russian, or a French or a Chinese peace. It cannot be a peace of large nations – or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.
It must be a structure of complete-- cannot be what some people think a structure of complete perfection at first. But it can be a peace, and it will be a peace, based on the sound and just principles of the Atlantic Charter – on the concept of the dignity of the human being, and on the guarantees of tolerance and freedom of religious worship.
As the Allied Armies have marched to military victory, they have liberated peoples whose liberties had been crushed by the Nazis for four long years, whose economy had been reduced to ruin by Nazi despoilers.
There have been instances of political confusion and unrest in these liberated areas – that is not unexpected – as in Greece or in Poland or in Yugoslavia, and there may be more. Worse than that, there actually began to grow in some of these places queer ideas of, for instance, “spheres of influence” which were incompatible with the basic principles of international collaboration. If allowed to go on unchecked, these developments might have had tragic results in time.
It is fruitless to try to place the blame for this situation on one particular nation or another. It is the kind of development which is almost inevitable unless the major powers of the world continue without interruption to work together and assume joint responsibility for the solution of problems which may arise to endanger the peace of the world.
We met in the Crimea determined to settle this matter of liberated areas. Things that might happen that we can’t foresee at this moment might happen suddenly, unexpectedly, next week or next month. And I am happy to confirm to the Congress that we did arrive at a settlement – and incidentally, a unanimous settlement.
The three most powerful nations have agreed that the political and economic problems of any area liberated from Nazi conquest, or any former Axis satellite, are a joint responsibility of all three governments. They will join together during the temporary period of instability, after hostilities, to help the people of any liberated area, or of any former satellite state, to solve their own problems through firmly established democratic processes.
They will endeavor to see – to see to it that interim governing, and the people who carry on the interim government between occupation by Germany and true independence – that such an interim government will be as representative as possible of all democratic elements in the population, and that free elections are held as soon as possible thereafter.
Responsibility for political conditions thousands of miles away can no longer be avoided, I think, by this great nation. Certainly, I don’t want to live to see another war. As I have said, the world is smaller – smaller every year. The United States now exerts a tremendous influence in the cause of peace.
What we people over here are thinking and talking about is in the interest of peace, because it’s known all over the world. The slightest remark in either house of the Congress is known all over the world the following day. We will continue to exert that influence only if we are willing to continue to share in the responsibility for keeping the peace. It would be our own tragic loss, I think, if we were to shirk that responsibility.
Final decisions in these areas are going to be made jointly, therefore, and therefore they will often be a result of give-and-take compromise.
The United States will not always have its way a hundred percent, nor will Russia, nor Great Britain. We shall not always have ideal answers, solutions to complicated international problems, even though we are determined continuously to strive toward that ideal. But I am sure that under the agreements reached at Yalta there will be a more stable political Europe than ever before.
Of course, once there has been a true expression of the people’s will in any country, our immediate responsibility ends, with the exception only of such action as may be agreed on by the International Security Organization that we hope to set up…
The United Nations must also begin to help these liberated areas adequately to reconstruct their economy – I don’t want them starving to death – so that they are ready to resume their places in the world. The Nazi war machine has stripped them of raw materials and machine tools, and trucks and locomotives and things like that. They have left the industry of these places stagnant, and much of the agricultural areas are unproductive – the Nazis have left a complete ruin, or a partial ruin, in their wake.
To start the wheels running again is not a mere matter of relief. It is to the national interest that all of us see to it that these liberated areas are again made self-supporting and productive, so that they do not need continuous relief from us. I should say that was an argument based on plain common sense.
One outstanding example of joint action by the three major Allied powers was the solution reached on Poland. The whole Polish question was a potential source of trouble in post-war Europe, as it had been sometimes before, and we came to the conference determined to find a common ground for its solution, and we did – even though everybody does not agree with us, obviously.
Our objective was to help create a strong, independent and prosperous nation. That’s the thing we must always remember, those words, agreed to by Russia, by Britain and by me, the objective of making Poland a strong, independent and prosperous nation, with a government ultimately to be selected by the Polish people themselves.
To achieve that objective, it is necessary to provide for the formation of a new government, much more representative than had been possible while Poland was enslaved. There were, as you know, two governments – one in London, one in Lublin – practically in Russia. Accordingly, steps were taken at Yalta to reorganize the existing provisional government in Poland on a broader democratic basis, so as to include democratic leaders now in Poland and those abroad. This new reorganized government will be recognized by all of us as the temporary government of Poland. Poland needs a temporary government in the worst way – an ad interim government, I think is another way of putting it.
However, the new Polish Provisional Government of National Unity will be pledged to hold a free election as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and a secret ballot.
Throughout history, Poland has been the corridor through which attacks on Russia have been made. Twice in this generation, Germany has struck Russia through this corridor. To insure European security and world peace, a strong and independent Poland is necessary to prevent that from happening again.
The decision with respect to the boundaries of Poland was, frankly, a compromise. I didn’t agree with all of it, by any means, but we didn’t go as far as Britain wanted in certain areas, go as far as Russia wanted in certain areas and we didn’t go as far as I wanted in certain areas. It was a compromise. The decision is-- not only a compromise-- it’s one, however, under which the Poles will receive compensation in territory in the north and west in exchange for what they lose by the Curzon Line in the east.
The limits of the western border will be permanently fixed in the final peace conference. We know roughly that it will include in the new strong Poland quite a large slice of what is now called Germany. And it was agreed also that the new Poland will have a large and long coastline and many a new harbor. Also that East Prussia, most of it, will go to Poland and a corner of it will go to Russia. Also – what shall I call it – that the anomaly of the Free State of Danzig, I think Danzig would be a lot better if it were Polish.
It is well known that the people east of the Curzon Line – just for example, here is why I compromised – the people east of the Curzon Line are predominantly White Russian and Ukrainian. They are not Polish, to a very great majority. And the people west of the line are predominantly Polish, except in that part of East Prussia and eastern Germany, which will go to new Poland. As far back as 1919, representatives of the Allies agreed that the Curzon Line represented a fair boundary between the two peoples. You must remember also that there was no Poland, there hadn’t been any Polish government, before 1919, for a great many generations.
I am convinced that this agreement on Poland, under the circumstances, is the most hopeful agreement possible for a free, independent and prosperous Polish state.
Now the Crimea conference was a meeting of the three major military powers on whose shoulders rest the chief responsibility and burden of the war. Although, for this reason, another nation was not included – France was not a participant in the conference – no one should detract from the recognition that was accorded there to her role in the future of Europe and the future of the world.
France has been invited to accept a zone of control in Germany, and to participate as a fourth member of the Allied Control Council of Germany.
She has been invited to join as a sponsor of the international conference at San Francisco next month.
She will be a permanent member of the International Security Council together with the other four major powers.
And, finally, we have asked France that she be associated with us in our joint responsibility over the liberated areas of Europe.
Of course, there are a number of smaller things that I haven’t got time to go into – on which agreement was had, and we hope that things will straighten out.
Agreement was reached on Yugoslavia, as announced in the communiqué, and we hope that it is in process of fulfillment. But it is not only that, but in some other places we have to remember there are a great number of prima donnas in the world, all of them wish to be heard before anything becomes final, so we may have a little delay while we listen to more prima donnas.
Quite naturally, this conference concerned itself only with the European war and with the political problems of Europe, and not with the Pacific war.
In Malta, however, our combined British and American staffs made their plans to increase the attack against Japan.
The Japanese warlords know that they are not being overlooked. They have felt the force of our B-29s, and our carrier planes.; they have felt the naval might of the United States, and do not appear very anxious to come out and try it again.
The Japs know what it means to hear that “The United States Marines have landed.” And I think I can add, having Iwo Jima in mind, that “The situation is well in hand.”
They also know what is in store for the homeland of Japan now that Gen. MacArthur has completed his magnificent march back to Manila, and that Adm. Nimitz is establishing his air bases right in their own backyard.
But, lest somebody else lay off work in the United States, I can repeat what I have said, a short sentence, even in my sleep, “We haven’t won the wars yet,” with an “s” on “wars.”
It’s a long tough road to Tokyo. It is longer to go to Tokyo than it is to Berlin, in every sense of the word.
The defeat of Germany will not mean the end of the war against Japan. On the contrary, we must be prepared for a long and costly struggle in the Pacific. But the unconditional surrender of Japan is as essential as the defeat of Germany. I say that advisedly, with the thought in mind that that is especially true if our plans for world peace are to succeed. For Japanese militarism must be wiped out as thoroughly as German militarism.
On the way back from the Crimea, I made arrangements to meet personally King Farouk of Egypt, Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia, and King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. Our conversations had to do with matters of common interest. They will be of great mutual advantage because they gave me, and a good many of us, an opportunity of meeting and talking face to face, and of exchanging views in personal conversation instead of formal correspondence.
For instance, on the problems of Arabia, I learned more about that whole problem – the Moslem problem, the Jewish problem – by talking with Ibn Saud for five minutes than I could have learned in exchange of two or three dozen letters.
On my voyage, I had the benefit of seeing the Army and Navy and the Air Force at work.
All Americans, I think, would feel proud, as proud of our Armed Forces as I am, if they could see and hear what I did.
Against the most efficient professional leaders and sailors and airmen of all history, our men stood and fought and won.
I think that this is our chance to see to it that the sons and grandsons of these gallant fighting men do not have to do it all over again in a few years.
The conference in the Crimea was a turning point, I hope, in our history, and therefore in the history of the world. There will soon be presented to the Senate and the American people, a great decision which will determine the fate of the United States, and I think therefore the fate of the world, for generations to come.
There can be no middle ground here. We shall have to take the responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict.
I know that the word “planning” is not looked upon with favor in some circles. In domestic affairs, tragic mistakes have been made by reason of lack of planning, and, on the other hand, many great improvements in living, and many benefits to the human race, have been accomplished as a result of adequate, intelligent planning – reclamations of desert areas, developments of whole river valleys, provision for adequate housing and-- a dozen different topics.
The same will be true in relations between nations. For the second time in the lives of most of us, this generation is face to face with the objective of preventing wars. To meet that objective, the nations of the world will either have a plan or they will not. The groundwork of a plan has now been furnished, and has been submitted to humanity for discussion and decision. No plan is perfect. Whatever is adopted at San Francisco will doubtless have to be amended time and again over the years, just as our own Constitution has been.
No one can say exactly how long any plan will last. Peace can endure only so long as humanity really insists upon it, and is willing to work for it, and sacrifice for it.
Twenty-five years ago, American fighting men looked to the statesmen of the world to finish the work of peace for which they fought and suffered. We failed them then. We cannot fail them again, and expect the world to survive again.
I think the Crimea Conference was a successful effort by the three leading nations to find a common ground of peace. It spells, it ought to spell, the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries, and have always failed.
We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join.
And I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the results of this conference as the beginnings of a permanent structure of peace upon which we can begin to build, under God, that better world in which our children and grandchildren, yours and mine, the children and grandchildren of the whole world, must live and can live.
And that, my friends, is the only message I can give you, but I feel it very deeply, and I know that all of you are feeling it today and are going to feel it in the future.