Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1947)

1

eleanor1945
eleanor1945191×297 94.9 KB

MY DAY
By Eleanor Roosevelt

January 1, 1947

HYDE PARK, Tuesday – I am writing this on New Year’s Eve and a few of us will gather together here in this little cottage at Hyde Park and on the stroke of midnight, as the new year comes in, we will follow my husband’s custom of toasting first “The United States of America.”

Then we shall toast the members of our family and our friends who live with us in memory, even though they can never again be actually present. Finally, we shall toast those others whom we love who may be far away now but whom we can look forward to seeing soon again.

As we toast each other and wish one another health and happiness in the new year, we still keep in the minds of the older people present – and I hope in the minds of the younger ones, no matter how young they may be – the thought that it is their country, the United States of America, to which they pledged their first allegiance for 1947.

From our citizenship in the United States springs all that makes life worth living to us as private citizens. The freedom, the justice, and the opportunity that we have stem from the development of a country in which our forebears struggled to create something new and better for mankind.

The fact that we drink this toast every year has a significance, and one that I hope every family in the country who drinks a similar toast bears in mind. That vital significance is that building a democracy is a never-ending occupation. It can be harmed by one generation of indifferent, selfish and narrow-minded individuals, for inherent in democracy is a sense of responsibility for the brotherhood of man.

When this feeling is a motivating force in any generation, democracy forges ahead. We cannot really have a democracy without a sense of the responsibility that every citizen has for the well-being of his neighbor. Democracy is never real unless it gives every man a chance, first to develop his abilities and then to function according to those abilities.

So, on this New Year’s Day, as we wish each other a happy new year, let us resolve to perform our duties as citizens with the thought of all our fellow citizens constantly in mind.

This country of ours must not be a country where any group or any special individuals receive benefits to which they do not contribute. Modern society has come to recognize, I think, that every citizen is entitled to an opportunity for growth. And when that growth and development is attained all citizens, male and female, have an obligation to make returns to their society, not for their own good alone, but for the benefit of all those among whom they live.

Thinking today can no longer be so narrow that it embraces only one community or one nation. We live in close proximity to the world as a whole, and therefore our adventure in living is enhanced by the interest and the possible fellowship with the people of the world. May we, through our daily lives and our way of thinking, come to our next New Year’s Eve with a sense that we have accomplished something for the world as a whole.

2

January 2, 1947

HYDE PARK, Wednesday – I want again to thank the innumerable friendly people who sent me cards and messages this Christmas season. And I would also like to say “thank you” for Fala to dog lovers in every part of the country who have remembered him. One kind person sent him a stocking full of toys, someone else sent him a collar, and even dog candy was in his array of gifts.

My Texas grandchildren, who are here, tell me that the last movie done of Fala is just now being shown in Fort Worth, and I think it must have been shown in a good many places, for it has brought him so much fan mail. He is most grateful for all his gifts, though he is not quite certain whether the various squeaky toys are meant for play or for immediate destruction! He is still, I fear, primitive enough to think that a mouse, even though its color is light yellow, should be caught and destroyed, just in the way he digs for moles along the banks of the brook and runs after rabbits, which, I am grateful to say, he never catches. All of his mail will be sent to the library to swell his collection there, and the grandchildren have started to sort the Christmas cards.

We have had a wonderful variety of days – clear, cold weather and blue sky against which the bare trees etched themselves; then snow, thaw and rain, soft end-of-the-year kind of weather – hard on people who had to drive their cars, because the roads were covered with ice even under the thawed snow, but very pleasant for walking in the woods, where the snow was still intact. I love the crunchy sound of going through the crust as I walk, though I confess that when I come out on the icy places I am a little more careful than my grandchildren, who slide along gleefully, tumble down, then continue to slide with no thought of bumps or bruises. I do not think I can take it quite so easily as they do!

Tea and lunch and dinner guests have arrived with tales of adventure. The car of two guests who drove up from New York City to spend the night turned completely around on the icy parkway; they were lucky enough to run off on a grassy stretch, then started off again much more slowly. I begin to think that a winter in the country, when you must move about and cannot just hole in and wait until the weather changes, is rather an adventurous proceeding.

Nevertheless, I like it better than the city. Even when the snow melts and it is muddy underfoot, there is none of the dirt of New York City. I can pat Fala without immediately having to wash my hands, as I do in the city, where they become black from the dirt which he collects from the streets.

There is a serenity about land that is sleeping. Even the pheasant which crosses the road in front of our car does so in perfect security – the hunting season is over and he can show his bright feathers without fear. This is the kind of life in which one can really imagine that people may learn to live in peace.

3

January 3, 1947

HYDE PARK, Thursday – I have received a letter which voices a strong protest against some of our policies in regard to the Germans.

The nine signers of the letter are worried, first, about the relaxing of many controls in our zone of occupation in Germany which tends to allow the Germans to run their own country. In answer to this, I would say that the Germans eventually will have to run their own country, and we have to prepare them for the time when they will be left without an army of occupation.

Our safeguard in Germany should be the insistence that there shall be no rebuilding of heavy industry of the kind which would permit Germany again to become a great industrial nation and rebuild a war machine. Small industries needed for export purposes and for the daily life of the people should, of course, be permitted. The one thing to be viewed with alarm is any policy on the part of the United States or Great Britain, no matter what the reason, which would allow Germany again to become a potential war breeder.

The second protest is against granting licenses to G.I.’s to marry German girls and allowing them to bring their wives to this country. I was asked about this question when I was in Germany last year. I said then that I felt that any boy in love with a girl over there should not be allowed to marry until he came home and had sufficient time to be quite sure that his love was not born of loneliness and propinquity in a strange country. Many young soldiers were annoyed with me, but they saw the point. And I still believe that a rule requiring a boy to be home for at least four months before he could bring over the girl he wished to marry would be a safeguard to our present young army in Germany.

These boys are not the boys who fought the war. Many of them have no real feeling against the Germans and do not understand the background of the two World Wars. And as the German girls are quite ready to be friendly, the soldiers are apt to be carried away.

There are exceptions, of course. One boy told me he had been engaged to a girl for years and she had gone to Germany before the war to visit members of her family. Then, the war broke, preventing her return to this country. Now, he had finally found her again in Germany. Naturally, he wanted to marry her, but the wartime rule prevented it. He stuck to his purpose and succeeded. In that case, the boy was right.

The third protest of my correspondents is against the bringing of German scientists and their families to this country. I am trying to find out the reason for this. I thought we were bringing over certain scientists who never were Nazis, but I do not really understand the reasons for doing this.

My correspondents fear that we are building up “a strong nucleus” of Nazi spies in this country and are “strengthening the Nazi cause all over the world.” This is a consideration which should not be taken lightly. I think there is no question but that any Germans coming into this country should be very carefully screened. Their background should be examined and tested in every possible way.

4

January 4, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – I wrote yesterday about a letter to me which expressed fears as to our attitude towards Germans in Germany and over here. I think that letter pointed up what I have tried to say in regard to the invitation to Pastor Martin Niemoeller to come and lecture in this country.

Since the war was not fought in our land and since no cruelties were ever perpetrated here by the fascists, it is entirely natural that we do not feel the same bitterness towards fascists as is felt by people who actually saw what was done in their own countries by invading fascist armies. We know that the Jews and some other groups in Germany suffered persecution, and we know that Pastor Niemoeller himself, because of his religious stand, suffered in Hitler’s concentration camps.

However, we must try to prevent easy forgetfulness of where responsibility really lies for the coming to power of the Hitlers and the Mussolinis of the world. In a country where education is as widely spread as it was in Germany, the people cannot escape responsibility. We must be aware of this lest we let those who love Germany, because they are the sons of Germany, lull us into forgetting that a nation which accepted Hitler must prove itself before it is again received on an equal basis in the family of nations.

We do not have to ignore the many and great contributions made by the Germans in the fields of music, literature and science. We do not have to ignore the fact that there were Germans who struggled against cruelty. But we have to remember the results of the coming to power of the type of men who brought on a war that devastated many lands; and we must guard against forgetting where the responsibility lies when, in any nation, such men are allowed to become dominant.

Anyone who comes to this country and, through a religious or an intellectual appeal, makes us forget this – even temporarily – does harm to the policy which must prevail if everywhere we are going to watch out for another rise of fascism. The people must remain conscious of their responsibility to prevent the recurrence in the world of the ideas which led us nearly to the brink of destruction.

It is impossible to feel a dislike for individual Germans whom you have known or will know in the future – just because they are German. But I think that Germans who are public figures in any field should not come to our shores at the present time unless they have a record of having fought the Nazi policies every step of the way. And if that was the case, I fear they would not be alive to come here today.

5

January 6, 1947

WASHINGTON, Sunday – The first thing I want to do today is to express my thanks to Mr. Bernard Baruch for the work which he has done for his country. Every citizen of the United States must feel he has made a real contribution, not only to our own safety but to the safety of the peoples of the world in the future.

I hope that Russia will agree to the atomic plan as it is now proposed. I have never seen why there should be any objection to giving up the veto once a treaty was signed and agreed to. There must be embodied in that treaty the right of inspection in all parts of the world, as well as the authority which is deemed essential to the control both of materials and of the ultimate skills or mechanisms required for the military use of atomic energy. These controls must be carefully thought out and specified. Naturally, if any nation violates the provisions of the treaty there must also be penalties which the authority can apply immediately. Inspection and penalty would be invalid if any nation could use a veto.

It therefore seems to me self-evident that, having once agreed to a treaty, on this particular subject no nation can ever again use a veto. I understand the principle underlying the veto right, which is the desire for unity. I understand the feeling that only when the great nations can agree is it possible really to exercise their full strength for the benefit of all nations. But in the case of atomic control, this point does not have to be considered.

I spent the whole day yesterday from 9:30 in the morning till after five in the afternoon with a group of people, many of whom I have known before, who were trying to set up a liberal and progressive organization. They chose as their name, “Americans United for Democratic Action.” If they live up to that name, they will not only lay down certain principles, but they will find ways and means to acquaint the people of the country with their program. In addition, they will organize the action which can be taken in any community in the nation if people are in agreement on specific programs.

Yesterday I received a long screed from someone accusing me of forming a third party. I wish emphatically to deny that I am forming a third party, or in fact that I am forming anything. I am joining with other progressives, many of whom are far younger and more active than I am, and far more influential, in an attempt to carry on the spirit of progress. We do not believe that what has been done in the past is the highest attainment that can be hoped for in a democratic nation. We hope to face new situations and find new answers in line with the needs and best interests of our country and its people, never forgetting our relationship to the family of nations. I am a Democrat because that political party has stood during the last 16 years for this type of work and achievement, and I certainly hope the Democratic party will continue to do so.

6

January 7, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – I think that my weekend visit in Washington was the longest time I have spent there since I left in 1945, but my time was very fully taken up. On Friday, I gave a lecture in the State Department on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and afterwards lunched with Assistant Secretary William Benton, under whose division this course of lectures is given.

The luncheon gave me an opportunity to see some of the other people in the department, and also to hear a little more about the meeting of UNESCO in Paris. I saw Archibald MacLeish as I walked through the corridor, and he told me he was very busy on the report. I feel that UNESCO has such great possibilities for creating better international understanding and for constantly building up closer relations among countries that I am deeply interested in this particular division of the United Nations work.

I saw the Secretary of State for a few minutes, and also the President, so that I could say thank you for my opportunity to serve as a delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations. The nominations to the United States delegation, made by the President on recommendation of the State Department, had to be ratified by the Senate, so I felt that I should express my thanks also to that group. I think, however, that I will have to leave that to Senators Vandenberg and Connally, who know that I am deeply grateful for the opportunities which have been given me to work in a body which has potentialities for building peace in the world.

I also spent some time with Miss Charl Williams of the National Education Association. I had seen in the newspapers a blast against the association for supporting what its critics call “company unions” in education. Among the NEA officials I talked to, I found a very keen sense of the crisis in public education and a great desire to support the complaints against the low salaries of teachers in so many places throughout the nation.

With the rise in the cost of living, it is obviously impossible to keep teachers’ salaries at the levels which have existed. There is a real crisis and, if we hope to give our children adequate education, we will have to face the fact that teachers are human beings. We cannot expect them to be more unselfish than other human beings. We cannot expect them to live, as professional people, on less money than they could earn as skilled mechanics.

We have given them very little recognition in our communities, but even if we had given them far more honor and esteem, that could not make up for an impossible economic situation which affects not only the teacher but his or her entire family.

7

January 8, 1947

NEW YORK, Tuesday – When I was up at Hyde Park over the holidays, I had a talk with George Palmer, the superintendent of our old home and also of the government-owned Frederick Vanderbilt estate at Hyde Park. He told me that on Labor Day Sunday the visitors on our grounds had exceeded by several hundred the visitors at Mount Vernon on the biggest day in September, which was Labor Day. However, comparatively few people take advantage of the opportunity to visit also the Vanderbilt estate and the Ogden Mills estate when in that neighborhood.

The Ogden Mills estate, which was given to the State of New York as a memorial, is an old Livingston place. The house and grounds are beautiful, and it seems a great pity that they are not visited by great numbers of people both for historic reasons and for the mere beauty of the place. Much of the land on the Hudson River was owned originally by the famous Livingston family, which was closely tied to the history and development of that part of the state and even of the nation. Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, whose house at Tivoli, N.Y., is still occupied by his descendants, administered the oath of office to George Washington. His brother Edward P. Livingston, also a well-known and respected citizen, was a lawyer and wrote a famous code of law for Louisiana.

The Frederick Vanderbilt house has none of the historic interest of the Mills house, but it was accepted by the United States Government as an example of a home of the millionaire period in this country, and it is undoubtedly a priceless example of that period. It is an enlarged copy of the Petit Trianon of Marie Antoinette fame. In itself it is very beautiful, even though I have never thought that it exactly fitted the Hudson River landscape.

Mrs. Frederick Vanderbilt, who presided over it for many years, had a passion for bows and, with her own hands, used to decorate every bathroom with bows tied on everything in sight. Her bed must once have been used by a queen, for there is a railing all around it and a “prie-dieu” at the side. I can remember one occasion when my mother-in-law, going to see Mrs. Vanderbilt when she was ill, was much impressed by her beautiful black satin sheets, which enhanced the beauty of her white skin and of her pearls!

There are still on the tables some photographs of the kings and queens whom Mrs. Vanderbilt knew in Europe, for it was the era of kings and queens and knowing them made a few of us feel more important. There are also photographs of some of our own famous men. Mr. Vanderbilt’s little study, which is lined with books and has a small fireplace, seems to me the one really intimate, cozy spot in the whole house.

The house should be visited, for I doubt if anyone in this country will again build that kind of home. The Department of Interior has thought it worthwhile to preserve it so that our children may see the actual proof of a period through which we lived and which is now a matter of history.

8

January 9, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – It will be difficult for Gen. George C. Marshall to take over the work of the State Department at just this time, and the average citizen must be a little puzzled at the suddenness of the change which has taken place. One can only hope that retiring Secretary James F. Byrnes is not seriously ill. The country will be grateful to him for his services and, at the same time, everyone will be wishing Gen. Marshall the health and strength to carry through successfully the difficult negotiations that are now before him. We hope that he will have the loyalty of all those aides in the State Department whom he will need so badly as he takes over this complicated and arduous task on such short notice.

The negotiating of a peace for Europe is not only a diplomatic and political task, but one that requires the best brains in the industrial and agricultural fields. Former Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles points out that the recovery and rehabilitation of France plays a great part in the whole European picture – and anyone with a knowledge of history knows that that fact has long been accepted by many nations. The old balance-of-power politics is still in evidence, but if the peace that is made could come measurably nearer to drawing all of Europe into one economic picture, I think we would have a better atmosphere in which to preserve the peace of that continent.

Like everybody else, I was deeply interested in reading Gen. Marshall’s report on China – issued just before the announcement of his appointment as Secretary of State. It is a very balanced statement. He shows us that the reactionaries in the Nationalist Party as well as the extremists in the Communist Party are impeding progress in China today. He explains that the hope for the future lies in the young, less radical members of the Communist group and in the middle-of-the-road, less conservative Nationalists who have tried for many months to bring the two extremes together.

He states that if Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek will lead this group, he may be able to bring peace in China. Many of us have felt that the Generalissimo frequently vacillated when it came to the point of supporting the moderates – which is natural, since he is an Army man and many of the extreme rightists, according to Gen. Marshall’s report, are in the army.

It is a fair assumption, I think, that the great mass of the people of China want peace. They need a government that will devote itself to industrial and agricultural development, and to doing away with old forms of government which permitted so much corruption and gave to individuals the power to control so many people, with very little concern for the real good of the people.

No part of Gen. Marshall’s report should be taken out of its context. One cannot get a balanced picture unless one reads it as a whole. It is a statesmanlike, concise and honest document. Anyone who reads it carefully can get a better picture of what has been, and still is, a very complicated situation. This document augurs well for the future of open diplomacy.

9

January 10, 1947

NEW YORK, Thursday – Since there is so much discussion in this country on the type of program which could provide adequate medical service for all of our people, whether in rural or urban areas, the story of what has been done in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan is very interesting.

There are about 900,000 residents of this province, which is about the size of the States of Wyoming, Utah and Nevada, where our population is approximately the same. They found it difficult to keep doctors in their rural areas, just as we find it difficult, so they voted to tax themselves locally in order to give their doctors an assured income – a scheme which has attracted and held many doctors.

In their cities, voluntary medical and hospital insurance plans have grown up, just as they have with us, but hospitalization in the rural areas has continued to be difficult. Now their legislature has worked out – with the cooperation of the medical profession, the hospitals and the local governments – the first publicly established complete hospital service on the North American continent. Anyone who has lived in Saskatchewan for six months, or longer, is eligible for this service.

On the recommendation of a doctor, an eligible person may be admitted free of charge into a hospital, and may remain there as long as is required. If the patient needs a private room, he must pay the extra charge, and he must pay for the services of the physician or the surgeon attending him.

The national government in Canada is already responsible for hospital care given veterans, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, soldiers, and some Indian tribes on reservations.

People who are receiving relief from a local government or from the province are entitled to hospital service under the new law. All this is done under a tax plan which requires $5 a year to be paid by every individual, with a maximum payment of $30 as the limit for a family. The law provides that, if the revenue from the special tax should prove insufficient, the province will underwrite the extra cost.

Local hospitals, whether public or voluntary, will continue to be managed independently as before. They will simply be paid rates which have been worked out with the hospital representatives. Every local government registers the people in its area and collects the tax. The administration of the new law is under a special Health Service Planning Commission affiliated with the Saskatchewan Department of Public Health.

I suppose certain sections of our medical profession will consider this program subversive of the best medical practices, but certainly it would seem to provide more care for the people than has ever been within the reach of this particular type of population.

10

January 11, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – In the last few days, I have seen two individuals express diametrically opposite ideas on Communism and Fascism. In Washington last weekend, Louis Fischer, the writer, said that the two were identical. He said that if you fought Fascism, you fought Communism. And I gathered that he felt that Communism and Democracy could not exist in the same world without one dominating the other.

Yesterday I read with interest Max Lerner’s newspaper editorial stating his opinion that there is a world of difference between the Fascism of the right and the Communism of the left. While one may reject American Communist activities, I gather that he feels it is not only possible for us to live in the same world with the USSR, but that it is denying our own belief in Democracy to question the right of people in other countries to hold their own political beliefs.

However, I think that, for most of us, it is not enough to say that there is a difference between the Fascism of the right and the Communism of the left. We would like to have the difference spelled out for us. I, for instance, feel that there are many similarities in these two totalitarian systems. There are also great differences, but I am not yet convinced that I know exactly what these are.

It seems to me that one basic similarity between them is that the individual, as such, is not given supreme importance – and that leads to certain cruelties and to a negation of human rights. On the other hand, the Communism of the left has just fought a war in company with the democracies to do away with the Fascism of the right.

In the USSR, they have established an equality of races which the Fascism of the right, in both Italy and Germany, completely negated in their attitude toward the Jews. None of us in this generation will ever forget the horrors which were committed in Germany.

It seems to me that perhaps one basic difference between the two systems is in the economic aspects. People with a low standard of living see in the economic theories of Communism a better opportunity for them to move up a little in the scale of living. Under Hitler, there were undoubtedly some improvements made in the average living standards, but the people were completely at the mercy of the ruling group. In fact, the participation of the people in the nation’s affairs, politically, economically and spiritually constantly lessened as the power of the few grew. Under Communism it would seem possible that just the opposite might take place.

We who believe that, so far, Democracy is the best form of self-government nevertheless recognize that it is not static and that many changes must come. I think we can see the possibilities of improved cooperation between the Communism of the left and the Democracy of the center, but there can be no cooperation at any point, at any time, between Democracy and the Fascism of the right.

11

January 13, 1947

NEW YORK, Sunday – Thursday night I went to the dinner in honor of Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, given under the auspices of the American Association for the United Nations. Clark Eichelberger welcomed us and Mrs. William Dick Sporborg presided. Professor Shotwell, Thomas J. Watson and I all tried to pay adequate tribute to a woman who, on her eighty-eighth birthday, can look back with a sense of achievement such as comes to few human beings in their lifetime. Mrs. Catt can see the women whom she led in what once seemed a hopeless fight now carrying their full responsibility of citizenship. In addition, she can feel that she has actually laid the foundations in the thinking of women, both here and in many other countries, which has helped bring about such widespread support for the United Nations and which therefore gives us hope for the future.

Mrs. Catt told us an amusing story which, though the papers did not carry it, is one that American women would do well to remember. At the age of about 23, Mrs. Catt and some of her friends decided they would hold a meeting and convert their county to women’s suffrage. They obtained the use of the church in a neighboring town, but only on the condition that the minister could open and close the meeting with prayer. At the end of the meeting – at which, I imagine, Mrs. Catt had made an impassioned speech – the minister arose and said: “Oh, Lord, we pray that what this woman has said will be forgotten, and she will be forgiven.” Mrs. Catt went home trembling, realizing that to be prayed over was probably not going to bring her favor in the eyes of her family!

My one concession to pure pleasure this winter has been to attend the Philadelphia Symphony concerts with Mrs. Henry Morgenthau Jr. Last week we both particularly enjoyed the orchestra’s performance of two Wagnerian selections under George Szell, who was conducting.

Friday night I went to a concert given by Paul Robeson at the Hunter College auditorium for the benefit of Camp Wo-Chi-Ca. This camp was founded during the depression years by a group of workers who saw their children suffering from the hardships of a reduced family income, with both parents away from home whenever work was available. It is founded for all races and creeds, and for ten years has demonstrated that true democracy can work. Paul Robeson, who knows the camp well, was at his best Friday night, giving generously of himself and his voice in many encores.

Much to my sorrow, I had to leave at the intermission because I had been asked to attend the dedication of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial Hall for the Brooklyn Free Music School. I believe some of my husband’s associates in Albany interested him in this school while he was Governor, and he was an honorary member of their board for many years.

12

January 14, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – The Republican leaders, from Stassen to Taft, are demanding slashes in the budget submitted to Congress by the President.

We the people are not very well able to find out for ourselves just what the taxes of the country should be. However, it seems to me that, for a long time, a foolish attitude on local, state and national taxes has been growing throughout the nation. The first question we ask is: “How much do we pay?” It should be: “What do we get for what we pay?”

Having once ascertained what we get for our taxes, we should decide whether we want it. Then we should decide whether there is any way to get what we want for lower taxes. That sequence should bring us to a really sensible conclusion on the fiscal policy of our nation and of our states and localities.

To me as a layman, it seems unwise to cut taxes at the present time, when the national income is high. This seems to me the time when we as a nation could be paying our debts.

The only point in cutting taxes would be to encourage investment in certain things which might be of particular value to the country, such as the development of new industries. This type of experimental production has always been important to our prosperity. Something might be done by which, if a business man could prove that his investment was experimental, the tax on that portion of his income could be remanded. It does not seem to me to make sense to make a general cut at this time, instead of applying whatever we can to the reduction of the debt which we incurred during the years of the depression and the war.

At the present time, too, we have to take a long look at the future and realize that, for our own interest, we cannot curtail the investments we are making in relief and rehabilitation in any part of the world. Those expenditures are not made purely for charitable reasons, but because we are going to need the markets of all those countries. To acquire those markets will require not only getting the countries back on their feet so they can buy from us. It will also require a feeling on the part of the countries that they want to buy from us because our goods are the best and because we have been “friends in need.”

We ended the war with the asset of a wealth of good feelings towards us. For some reason hard to explain, we have frittered away that good feeling until, today, many nations believe that we are not friendly towards them – which quite naturally does not make them more friendly towards us.

13

January 15, 1947

NEW YORK, Tuesday – I read with interest today of the hopes of various nations to obtain definite sums of money from the International Children’s Emergency Fund of the United Nations. I wish very much that one could feel entirely sure that this fund would actually receive sufficient money to provide the sums which these nations are counting upon and which it is essential that children should receive.

I am coming more and more to the belief that the United Nations should begin now and put together, for submission to each nation, the total of subscriptions required from various nations. This is important particularly to the United States, Great Britain and the USSR at the moment.

Whether we supply relief within the framework of an international organization, or whether we do so as an individual country, seems to me very unimportant. What we want to know is the total of foodstuffs, for instance, that we should provide to all the needy nations, since that ought to condition what will be available for use within our country. How much cash will the nations need for purchase of materials or machines either here or in other countries? If we know in advance how much of a cash loan will return to us in purchases made in this country, that will help in making up our appropriations budget.

It is shocking, I think, that the World Bank is having such difficulty in obtaining someone to head it. Various prominent business men are reported to have rejected the post. One can only assume that these men find that the forces of finance in this country, and perhaps in Great Britain and even in some other countries, are making it so difficult to obtain the money needed that no individual sees any chance of success in carrying out this all-important banking undertaking.

The only real excuse for opposing it would be that, if it were done on a private basis, the profits to individuals or to firms would probably be much higher. This institution, however, is the one which will be lending money to governments for rehabilitation purposes, and it certainly cannot function without a head, or without the support of the great financial interests throughout the world.

It seems always to be possible during a war, when insecurity surrounds every nation, to find among a country’s citizens a spirit of disinterested self-sacrifice, but the minute a war comes to an end, the justification for self-interest is easy to find. Good public servants are as scarce as hen’s teeth in our democracy! Disinterested cooperation on the part of business on a national and international plane is even scarcer. The long look into the future is conspicuously lacking!

14

January 16, 1947

NEW YORK, Wednesday – Today I received the notice of the cancellation of my driving license for reckless driving in connection with the accident I had last summer. I am a little sad about this, since it takes away one of the things that I enjoy, but I recognize fully the justice of punishment for endangering other people. And while I hope that someday the license may be restored to me, I shall certainly not ask for any special consideration. I can only be deeply grateful that no one was permanently injured in the accident.

Perhaps at my age, in any case, it is wise to curtail one’s activities. One thing is sure – that if you give up any activity, it is much more difficult to start in again. And since the accident, I have done no long-distance driving, not even from Hyde Park to New York City.

It will be distinctly awkward to have to walk everywhere around Hyde Park place, instead of driving. However, at all times and as long as one lives, life administers disciplines, and it is in accepting and obeying them that one learns.

I have seen the play “Temper the Wind” – a good name for a play. It is well cast, well staged, well-acted and well written. Of course, as must happen in all theatres, the condensation of situations makes it at times seem unreal. But if, in your mind, you spread it over a reasonable space of time, you realize that this play tells the truth.

We are not conditioned by our experiences to be an occupying force. If only more of the men who fought the war, who saw the Battle of the Bulge, and Dachau and Belsen, were now in Germany, or in responsible positions in the economic and political fields over here, it might be a different story. Sometimes I am tempted to believe that the real answer to the prevention of a future war lies in leaving the settlement in the hands of the people who suffered the most from the Germans.

People will not go to this play for a pleasant evening. They will come home and spend sleepless hours, I think, wondering how the European situation can be explained to the people of the United States. Our very good fortune makes it difficult for us to see this situation realistically in the light of policies to prevent future war.

I heard a man in front of me say, “Well, in this play the Germans ended united and the Americans all finished up differing with each other.” Misfortune unites people. But when you have no one paramount objective, you split up, as we do, on different interests. The businessman is actuated by one kind of interest, the philanthropist by another, the politician by another, the military man by still another. In fact, within these groups, you will get a varying number of points of view which makes a consistent policy difficult unless you put one paramount objective over everything else.

I do not envy General Marshall coming into the State Department at the present time. One thing is certain, he will receive a medley of advice. The politician, the military man, the businessman, the philanthropist – these and others – all will come knocking at his door with suggested solutions for our international problems.

It will take wisdom, patience and courage to find the right answers. We know that Gen. Marshall has all of these qualities, but our wish for him must be that he will have them in the superlative degree which the problems and situations confronting him will require.

15

January 17, 1947

NEW YORK, Thursday – In a paper yesterday, I came across a remarkable headline – “Roosevelt Sons Divide Sharply on Red Issue.” And on reading further, I found that one of my sons was called anti-Communist and another was supposed to be pro-Communist.

As a matter of fact, I don’t think it has ever occurred to any of my sons to be pro-Communist, any more than it has ever occurred to me. And yet, in the course of my career, I have at times been severely criticized for what were called pro-Communist leanings, until I have learned to take what I read in the newspapers with a grain of salt.

For instance, when I read in the papers that my son Elliott was supposed to have said some utterly ridiculous things in Moscow, particularly as regards the United States’ activities within the United Nations, I knew without even asking any questions that the whole story was false. I took it for granted that some conversation had occurred, and that someone – not too anxious to avoid trouble for the Roosevelt family – had “quoted” a few things which were pure imagination and others which were only half-truths. Taken out of the conversation as a whole, these conveyed a wrong impression.

There is no member of my family who has not proved his or her loyalty to the United States – the men in battle in various parts of the world, the women in work as citizens at home. It is quite true that there may be disagreements as to whether the things which we believe and advocate are correct or incorrect, but that we live by our own beliefs as American citizens is a fact which I think the majority of people who know us will concede.

As far as I am concerned, I realize, of course, that these things are said only when people are hard up for copy, and I cannot take them very seriously. Once in a long life, however, it is well to speak out and state the truth – not on my own account, because what may be said about me matters very little. However, I hope the younger members of my family may be active as citizens of the United States of America for a good many years to come, and for their sake such silly nonsense should be refuted. Any question of their basic loyalty to the United States and a democratic form of government should be settled once and for all.

That they will differ from each other and stand for different methods and objectives in the course of their lives, I do not question, for life would be dull if everybody had the same ideas. That is a very different thing, however, from being accused of adherence to either Communism or Fascism.

16

January 18, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – The goings-on in Georgia don’t sound like the smoothly running processes of our established democracy. But neither the late Governor-elect Eugene Talmadge’s speeches nor his son’s, with their emphasis on white supremacy, sound much like the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, under which we are supposed to be running our republic.

I noticed the other day that one of our newly elected Congresswomen, who is a lady of much erudition, in making a speech to other equally erudite ladies, emphasized the difference between our republic and a republican form of government, and the rather careless way in which we often come to describe ourselves as a democracy. I wonder just exactly which of the two theories fits best the situation as it exists at present in Georgia.

It appears to the outsider that a growing division is shaping up in the Southern states and that this present lusty upheaval is only the sign of much ferment, which may indicate that some people are becoming aware of the thinking which is going on in the rest of the world. Changes have to come from within, so perhaps they are on the way.

I wish I could adequately use the amount of information which individuals bring me daily, or which comes to me by mail or pamphlet or in books. Two days ago, I was visited by two people who gave me a picture of the Greek situation. One of them, a correspondent for a Greek paper, asked a number of pointed questions to which I am afraid he got very unsatisfactory answers, for my knowledge of the situation in Greece is very limited. I have one conviction, however, and that is that the people of Greece need our help if they are going to have adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical supplies in the course of the next year.

When I turned on my radio the other morning at 7:30, I got the welcome news that in 30 days I may apply for a new driver’s license. Apparently, I have to take a test just as though I had never had a license before, and it is so many years since I took one that I have forgotten what is required! I can only hope that, when I do apply, I shall pass the test, but I shall certainly wait until spring so that driving conditions will be favorable!

If any of you happen to have young children, get a little book called “My Mother Is the Most Beautiful Woman in the World,” written by Becky Reyher, and illustrated by Ruth Gannett. I feel sure that, if you are reading to your children, you will find it a charming tale. It is based on the old Russian proverb that it is those we love who seem to us beautiful.

17

January 20, 1947

NEW YORK, Sunday – In the past few days I have had a number of visitors who brought me information about various parts of the world. Last Thursday I saw, first, two gentlemen from Trieste and then a gentleman from China. Later I saw two ladies, one of whom talked about radio programs and the other about the needs of a great woman’s college. Finally I talked to a young American woman who, with her four children, has just returned from Germany, where she lived through the years of the war even though she was divorced from her husband in 1942 and he has remarried.

At luncheon I was joined by Jan Struther, who wrote “Mrs. Miniver” and who is back in the United States, Mrs. Genevieve Forbes Herrick, who is just back from Germany with a very interesting report on WAC activities, and Miss Helen Ferris, editor of the Junior Literary Guild.

In the afternoon I went to the Town Hall for a half hour of wonderful music by three singers who are just starting out on concert tours in this country. One of them was the Danish baritone, Frank Wennerholm, who has already made his reputation in opera in Stockholm; a very charming young soprano, Miss Lucy Kelston, sang two duets with him; and I was also impressed by Kenneth Spencer, a young Negro baritone who has sung in “Show Boat” and who is now starting to give concerts. To be privileged to listen to them was a pleasant break in a busy day and gave me a sense of exhilaration, because you felt new talent was going out to give inspiration to the people of our country.

To finish up a busy day, I attended the American Veterans Committee’s foreign correspondents’ dinner. These young foreign correspondents spoke on the theme of “The Search for World Order.” Eric Sevareid, who was chairman of the sponsoring committee, made a deep impression upon me because of his very evident sincerity. Speaking on “Prospects for Peace,” he pointed out that the war had come about not because of any one thing, but because of many things; and achieving the peace therefore was not going to be simple, but complicated.

Oliver Harrington spoke on colonies and the colored races. He dealt, of course, with one of the subjects which will affect peace very greatly in the future, for if we cannot learn to live on a basis of mutual understanding and respect with the colored races of the world, the white race, being far less numerous, has a rather serious problem before it.

Unfortunately, I had to leave before the last four speeches were made. But I have a feeling that as the evening developed there were certainly different points of view among these “men of thought,” and I am sorry that I could not hear them all. A dinner of this kind is a contribution to the thinking of the country, and I hope the AVC will sponsor others.

18

January 21, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – I was very much interested in John Foster Dulles’ speech on our foreign policy before the National Publishers Association. I certainly hope with him that the habit of welcoming a new Secretary of State every year will end now. But I agree with him that, if there had to be a change, it is fortunate that someone like Gen. George C. Marshall is taking over, for his intimate knowledge of every wartime conference of the Big Four, besides his recent experience in the Far East, makes it possible for him to have a global viewpoint.

Mr. Dulles is so able an analyst that one always reads with respect and care whatever he writes. And since he submitted this speech to both Gov. Thomas E. Dewey of New York and Sen. Arthur H. Vandenberg, and received their endorsement of it, it has the added interest of bearing the Republican Party’s stamp of approval on its analysis of the past and its picture of the present.

As I read it, however, I could not help wondering whether at Potsdam, when the war in Europe was over, there was really any need for some of the changes which were made in former agreements. And I wonder how well our people as a whole understood the “American idealism” which, Mr. Dulles points out, had a “rebirth” at the first conference of the Council of Foreign Ministers in London in the autumn of 1945.

I cannot help feeling that one of our troubles, for some time, has been that the American people have been more confused about our foreign policy than is absolutely necessary. The reason may lie in the fact that, even in high places, there may be some differences of opinion and therefore some confusion among those who otherwise could tell the story to the people in very simple terms.

I am surprised that Mr. Dulles thinks that the Soviets, at the recent United Nations Assembly, succeeded in persuading many that this nation ought to be the first to disarm itself in the interests of world peace. I think the Soviets are much too realistic to expect us to be as stupid as that. They would not give up the atom bomb if they had it. They know that we believe we are not going to misuse our power, and they know that it is not to the advantage of any nation to start a new war.

I think that when they ask for a discussion of general disarmament, they are entirely realistic. Since the atom bomb is part of our armament – and one of the only weapons which will help us to persuade the world to disarm – they realize that we will not do anything until we are sure all the nations are going to do it at the same time. We will have to agree on an overall picture of control before any of us will destroy whatever military strength we may have.

I agree completely with Mr. Dulles in his estimate as to the rise of Communist influence in Europe and in South America and elsewhere. But I should like to point out that, though Nazism may be subdued in Germany for the moment, it is very active in some of the same places where Communism is active. Democracy will have to prove its worth with an equal belief in itself and a deeper sacrificial devotion to its standards, in order to attain the moral and spiritual and intellectual leadership which, I entirely agree with Mr. Dulles, is our only hope of salvation.

19

January 22, 1947

NEW YORK, Tuesday – I mentioned casually the other day that I was going to fly back from a trip which I was taking, and to my surprise, several women around me said: “Aren’t you afraid to fly after all the accidents?” That thought had never occurred to me. We go right on travelling by automobile, yet many more people are killed by automobiles every year than by almost any other method of transportation.

The railroads, by patient work, have achieved a very high percentage of safety, but there have been of late, and there always will be, a certain number of accidents. Ships, on the whole, are a very safe method of transportation, but even in ordinary travel, sinkings occur.

Our domestic carrier airplanes in 1940 flew 108,800,436 revenue miles. In 1945, they flew 214,959,855 miles; and in 1946, 328,644,764 miles. The overseas lines in 1940 flew 10,716,827 miles; in 1945, 32,630,552; and in 1946, 67,950,557. With this increase in mileage flown and a great increase in the number of passengers carried, there was naturally an increase in the number of accidents involving fatalities.

The domestic scheduled airlines had a total of 3 accidents involving fatalities in 1940, 8 in 1945, and 9 in 1946. The overseas operators had no fatal accidents in 1940, 2 in 1945, and 2 in 1946. Some 1946 figures on traffic are still on an estimated basis, but the others are accurate. On a percentage basis, therefore, passenger fatalities have not greatly increased. In 1940, 35 passengers were killed on domestic airlines; in 1945, 76 were killed; and in 1946, 73. The fatalities for overseas passengers were none in 1940, 17 in 1945, and 40 in 1946.

The airlines are spending a tremendous amount of money in studying and putting into effect methods of improving schedule reliability, bettering passenger service and insuring safety.

I must say that the thing which bothers me in winter flying is the fact that one is never sure if fog or ice or snow is going to impede one’s progress. For that reason, if I am going somewhere to keep a lecture engagement, I nearly always go by train in the winter months, then return by air.

I am enormously interested in the installing of radar units which enable planes to be landed safely even in fog. The Army and CAA developed some of these mechanisms during the war, and the private airlines are working in cooperation with them now.

20

January 23, 1947

NEW YORK, Wednesday – During the war we became more and more conscious of the fact that the children of today are put under extraordinary mental and emotional strain. Whether it is the speeding up of life, or the concentration in big cities, or the general machine age in which we live, the fact is very evident that mental and emotional breakdown among young people is more frequent today than it was even one generation ago.

This has led to the attacking of the problem at different levels. Able psychiatrists who, during the war, had charge of men in the armed forces traced their troubles back to childhood days, and realized that psychiatric care, to be effective, should start at an early age.

For this purpose, here in New York City, there has been established a center for psychiatric treatment for pre-day nursery school children, in the Halsey Day Nursery building at 227 East 59th Street. It is supported by the National Council of Jewish Women. In this building there will also be established a center to be known as the Council for the Child Development Center, where training and advice will be available to parents and nursery-school teachers, child psychiatrists and psychiatric case workers.

Anyone who has had experience with delinquent children realizes that the old adage, “Give me a child until it is seven, and you can have him for the rest of his life,” was based on a great truth, for it is in these early formative years that character is made or broken.

It seems very remote from this treatment of children to the consideration of how nations shall get on together. However, the other day, in talking to Dr. Frank Fremont-Smith of the Josiah Macy Foundation, I realized that the attitude which we held as children might very easily obstruct our ability to create a family of nations. Our subconscious prejudices, our reactions which we cannot even explain, might create antagonisms which we do not consciously desire and for which we cannot even account. This is particularly important, of course, in the case of diplomatic representatives. And I begin to think that our next great study should be made in the use of psychiatry by people who wish to deal in public relations at home or abroad.

We have just put the first signature on a peace treaty with Italy which seems to have brought about the resignation of Premier Alcide de Gasperi and his government. One cannot help wondering whether this abdication in the face of a hard situation is the right or the wrong way to meet it. I feel that every treaty should provide for reconsideration of its clauses as time goes on. But when this reconsideration should take place would have to be decided very largely as changes took place within the countries involved.