Fireside Chat 16: On the 'Arsenal of Democracy' (12-29-40)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D-NY)

My friends:

This is not a fireside chat on war. It is a talk on national security; because the nub of the whole purpose of your President is to keep you now, and your children later, and your grandchildren much later, out of a last-ditch war for the preservation of American independence, and all of the things that American independence means to you and to me and to ours.

Tonight, in the presence of a world crisis, my mind goes back eight years to a night in the midst of a domestic crisis. It was a time when the wheels of American industry were grinding to a full stop, when the whole banking system of our country had ceased to function. I well remember that while I sat in my study in the White House, preparing to talk with the people of the United States, I had before my eyes the picture of all those Americans with whom I was talking. I saw the workmen in the mills, the mines, the factories, the girl behind the counter, the small shopkeeper, the farmer doing his spring plowing, the widows and the old men wondering about their life’s savings. I tried to convey to the great mass of American people what the banking crisis meant to them in their daily lives.

Tonight, I want to do the same thing, with the same people, in this new crisis which faces America. We met the issue of 1933 with courage and realism. We face this new crisis, this new threat to the security of our nation, with the same courage and realism. Never before since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock has our American civilization been in such danger as now. For on September 27, 1940 – this year – by an agreement signed in Berlin, three powerful nations, two in Europe and one in Asia, joined themselves together in the threat that if the United States of America interfered with or blocked the expansion program of these three nations – a program aimed at world control – they would unite in ultimate action against the United States.

The Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world. It was only three weeks ago that their leader stated this: “There are two worlds that stand opposed to each other.” And then in defiant reply to his opponents he said this: “Others are correct when they say: ‘With this world we cannot ever reconcile ourselves.’‘’ I can beat any other power in the world.” So said the leader of the Nazis.

In other words, the Axis not merely admits but the Axis proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy – their philosophy of government – and our philosophy of government. In view of the nature of this undeniable threat, it can be asserted, properly and categorically, that the United States has no right or reason to encourage talk of peace until the day shall come when there is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all thought of dominating or conquering the world.

At this moment the forces of the States that are leagued against all peoples who live in freedom are being held away from our shores. The Germans and the Italians are being blocked on the other side of the Atlantic by the British and by the Greeks, and by thousands of soldiers and sailors who were able to escape from subjugated countries. In Asia the Japanese are being engaged by the Chinese nation in another great defense. In the Pacific Ocean is our fleet.

Some of our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are of no concern to us. But it is a matter of most vital concern to us that European and Asiatic war-makers should not gain control of the oceans which lead to this hemisphere. One hundred and seventeen years ago the Monroe Doctrine was conceived by our government as a measure of defense in the face of a threat against this hemisphere by an alliance in Continental Europe. Thereafter, we stood guard in the Atlantic, with the British as neighbors. There was no treaty. There was no “unwritten agreement.” And yet there was the feeling, proven correct by history, that we as neighbors could settle any disputes in peaceful fashion. And the fact is that during the whole of this time the Western Hemisphere has remained free from aggression from Europe or from Asia.

Does anyone seriously believe that we need to fear attack anywhere in the Americas while a free Britain remains our most powerful naval neighbor in the Atlantic? And does anyone seriously believe, on the other hand, that we could rest easy if the Axis powers were our neighbors there? If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the Continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Austral-Asia, and the high seas. And they will be in a position to bring enormous military and naval resources against this hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that all of us in all the Americas would be living at the point of a gun – a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic as well as military. We should enter upon a new and terrible era in which the whole world, our hemisphere included, would be run by threats of brute force. And to survive in such a world, we would have to convert ourselves permanently into a militaristic power on the basis of war economy.

Some of us like to believe that even if Britain falls, we are still safe, because of the broad expanse of the Atlantic and of the Pacific. But the width of those oceans is not what it was in the days of clipper ships. At one point between Africa and Brazil the distance is less than it is from Washington to Denver, Colorado, five hours for the latest type of bomber. And at the north end of the Pacific Ocean, America and Asia almost touch each other. Why, even today we have planes that could fly from the British Isles to New England and back again without refueling. And remember that the range of the modern bomber is ever being increased.

During the past week many people in all parts of the nation have told me what they wanted me to say tonight. Almost all of them expressed a courageous desire to hear the plain truth about the gravity of the situation. One telegram, however, expressed the attitude of the small minority who want to see no evil and hear no evil, even though they know in their hearts that evil exists. That telegram begged me not to tell again of the ease with which our American cities could be bombed by any hostile power which had gained bases in this Western Hemisphere. The gist of that telegram was: “Please, Mr. President, don’t frighten us by telling us the facts.” Frankly and definitely there is danger ahead – danger against which we must prepare. But we well know that we cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads.

Some nations of Europe were bound by solemn nonintervention pacts with Germany. Other nations were assured by Germany that they need never fear invasion. Nonintervention pact or not, the fact remains that they were attacked, overrun, thrown into modern slavery at an hour’s notice – or even without any notice at all. As an exiled leader of one of these nations said to me the other day, “The notice was a minus quantity. It was given to my government two hours after German troops had poured into my country in a hundred places.” The fate of these nations tells us what it means to live at the point of a Nazi gun.

The Nazis have justified such actions by various pious frauds. One of these frauds is the claim that they are occupying a nation for the purpose of “restoring order.” Another is that they are occupying or controlling a nation on the excuse that they are “protecting it” against the aggression of somebody else. For example, Germany has said that she was occupying Belgium to save the Belgians from the British. Would she then hesitate to say to any South American country: “We are occupying you to protect you from aggression by the United States”? Belgium today is being used as an invasion base against Britain, now fighting for its life. And any South American country, in Nazi hands, would always constitute a jumping off place for German attack on any one of the other republics of this hemisphere.

Analyze for yourselves the future of two other places even nearer to Germany if the Nazis won. Could Ireland hold out? Would Irish freedom be permitted as an amazing pet exception in an unfree world? Or the islands of the Azores, which still fly the flag of Portugal after five centuries? You and I think of Hawaii as an outpost of defense in the Pacific. And yet the Azores are closer to our shores in the Atlantic than Hawaii is on the other side.

There are those who say that the Axis powers would never have any desire to attack the Western Hemisphere. That is the same dangerous form of wishful thinking which has destroyed the powers of resistance of so many conquered peoples. The plain facts are that the Nazis have proclaimed, time and again, that all other races are their inferiors and therefore subject to their orders. And most important of all, the vast resources and wealth of this American hemisphere constitute the most tempting loot in all of the round world.

Let us no longer blind ourselves to the undeniable fact that the evil forces which have crushed and undermined and corrupted so many others are already within our own gates. Your government knows much about them and every day is ferreting them out. Their secret emissaries are active in our own and in neighboring countries. They seek to stir up suspicion and dissension, to cause internal strife. They try to turn capital against labor, and vice versa. They try to reawaken long slumbering racial and religious enmities which should have no place in this country. They are active in every group that promotes intolerance. They exploit for their own ends our own natural abhorrence of war. These trouble-breeders have but one purpose. It is to divide our people, to divide them into hostile groups and to destroy our unity and shatter our will to defend ourselves.

There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the dictators want done in the United States. These people not only believe that we can save our own skins by shutting our eyes to the fate of other nations. Some of them go much further than that. They say that we can and should become the friends and even the partners of the Axis powers. Some of them even suggest that we should imitate the methods of the dictatorships. But Americans never can and never will do that.

The experience of the past two years has proven beyond doubt that no nation can appease the Nazis. No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We know now that a nation can have peace with the Nazis only at the price of total surrender. Even the people of Italy have been forced to become accomplices of the Nazis; but at this moment they do not know how soon they will be embraced to death by their allies.

The American appeasers ignore the warning to be found in the fate of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. They tell you that the Axis powers are going to win anyway; that all of this bloodshed in the world could be saved, that the United States might just as well throw its influence into the scale of a dictated peace and get the best out of it that we can. They call it a “negotiated peace.” Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins? For such a dictated peace would be no peace at all. It would be only another armistice, leading to the most gigantic armament race and the most devastating trade wars in all history. And in these contests the Americas would offer the only real resistance to the Axis power. With all their vaunted efficiency, with all their parade of pious purpose in this war, there are still in their background the concentration camp and the servants of God in chains.

The history of recent years proves that the shootings and the chains and the concentration camps are not simply the transient tools but the very altars of modern dictatorships. They may talk of a “new order” in the world, but what they have in mind is only a revival of the oldest and the worst tyranny. In that there is no liberty, no religion, no hope. The proposed “new order” is the very opposite of a United States of Europe or a United States of Asia. It is not a government based upon the consent of the governed. It is not a union of ordinary, self-respecting men and women to protect themselves and their freedom and their dignity from oppression. It is an unholy alliance of power and pelf to dominate and to enslave the human race.

The British people and their allies today are conducting an active war against this unholy alliance. Our own future security is greatly dependent on the outcome of that fight. Our ability to “keep out of war” is going to be affected by that outcome. Thinking in terms of today and tomorrow, I make the direct statement to the American people that there is far less chance of the United States getting into war if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack by the Axis than if we acquiesce in their defeat, submit tamely to an Axis victory, and wait our turn to be the object of attack in another war later on.

If we are to be completely honest with ourselves, we must admit that there is risk in any course we may take. But I deeply believe that the great majority of our people agree that the course that I advocate involves the least risk now and the greatest hope for world peace in the future.

The people of Europe who are defending themselves do not ask us to do their fighting. They ask us for the implements of war, the planes, the tanks, the guns, the freighters which will enable them to fight for their liberty and for our security. Emphatically, we must get these weapons to them, get them to them in sufficient volume and quickly enough so that we and our children will be saved the agony and suffering of war which others have had to endure.

Let not the defeatists tell us that it is too late. It will never be earlier. Tomorrow will be later than today.

Certain facts are self-evident.

In a military sense Great Britain and the British Empire are today the spearhead of resistance to world conquest. And they are putting up a fight which will live forever in the story of human gallantry. There is no demand for sending an American expeditionary force outside our own borders. There is no intention by any member of your government to send such a force. You can therefore, nail, nail any talk about sending armies to Europe as deliberate untruth. Our national policy is not directed toward war. Its sole purpose is to keep war away from our country and away from our people.

Democracy’s fight against world conquest is being greatly aided, and must be more greatly aided, by the rearmament of the United States and by sending every ounce and every ton of munitions and supplies that we can possibly spare to help the defenders who are in the front lines. And it is no more un-neutral for us to do that than it is for Sweden, Russia, and other nations near Germany to send steel and ore and oil and other war materials into Germany every day in the week.

We are planning our own defense with the utmost urgency, and in its vast scale we must integrate the war needs of Britain and the other free nations which are resisting aggression. This is not a matter of sentiment or of controversial personal opinion. It is a matter of realistic, practical military policy, based on the advice of our military experts who are in close touch with existing warfare. These military and naval experts and the members of the Congress and the Administration have a single-minded purpose: the defense of the United States.

This nation is making a great effort to produce everything that is necessary in this emergency, and with all possible speed. And this great effort requires great sacrifice. I would ask no one to defend a democracy which in turn would not defend every one in the nation against want and privation. The strength of this nation shall not be diluted by the failure of the government to protect the economic well-being of its citizens. If our capacity to produce is limited by machines, it must ever be remembered that these machines are operated by the skill and the stamina of the workers.

As the government is determined to protect the rights of the workers, so the nation has a right to expect that the men who man the machines will discharge their full responsibilities to the urgent needs of defense. The worker possesses the same human dignity and is entitled to the same security of position as the engineer or the manager or the owner. For the workers provide the human power that turns out the destroyers, and the planes, and the tanks. The nation expects our defense industries to continue operation without interruption by strikes or lockouts. It expects and insists that management and workers will reconcile their differences by voluntary or legal means, to continue to produce the supplies that are so sorely needed. And on the economic side of our great defense program, we are, as you know, bending every effort to maintain stability of prices and with that the stability of the cost of living.

Nine days ago I announced the setting up of a more effective organization to direct our gigantic efforts to increase the production of munitions. The appropriation of vast sums of money and a well-coordinated executive direction of our defense efforts are not in themselves enough. Guns, planes, ships and many other things have to be built in the factories and the arsenals of America. They have to be produced by workers and managers and engineers with the aid of machines which in turn have to be built by hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the land. In this great work there has been splendid cooperation between the government and industry and labor. And I am very thankful.

American industrial genius, unmatched throughout all the world in the solution of production problems, has been called upon to bring its resources and its talents into action. Manufacturers of watches, of farm implements, of Linotypes and cash registers and automobiles, and sewing machines and lawn mowers and locomotives, are now making fuses and bomb packing crates and telescope mounts and shells and pistols and tanks.

But all of our present efforts are not enough. We must have more ships, more guns, more planes – more of everything. And this can be accomplished only if we discard the notion of “business as usual.” This job cannot be done merely by superimposing on the existing productive facilities the added requirements of the nation for defense. Our defense efforts must not be blocked by those who fear the future consequences of surplus plant capacity. The possible consequences of failure of our defense efforts now are much more to be feared. And after the present needs of our defense are past, a proper handling of the country’s peacetime needs will require all of the new productive capacity, if not still more. No pessimistic policy about the future of America shall delay the immediate expansion of those industries essential to defense. We need them.

I want to make it clear that it is the purpose of the nation to build now with all possible speed every machine, every arsenal, every factory that we need to manufacture our defense material. We have the men, the skill, the wealth, and above all, the will. I am confident that if and when production of consumer or luxury goods in certain industries requires the use of machines and raw materials that are essential for defense purposes, then such production must yield, and will gladly yield, to our primary and compelling purpose.

So I appeal to the owners of plants, to the managers, to the workers, to our own government employees to put every ounce of effort into producing these munitions swiftly and without stint. With this appeal I give you the pledge that all of us who are officers of your government will devote ourselves to the same whole-hearted extent to the great task that lies ahead.

As planes and ships and guns and shells are produced, your government, with its defense experts, can then determine how best to use them to defend this hemisphere. The decision as to how much shall be sent abroad and how much shall remain at home must be made on the basis of our overall military necessities.

We must be the great arsenal of democracy.

For us this is an emergency as serious as war itself. We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice as we would show were we at war.

We have furnished the British great material support and we will furnish far more in the future. There will be no “bottlenecks” in our determination to aid Great Britain. No dictator, no combination of dictators, will weaken that determination by threats of how they will construe that determination. The British have received invaluable military support from the heroic Greek Army and from the forces of all the governments in exile. Their strength is growing. It is the strength of men and women who value their freedom more highly than they value their lives.

I believe that the Axis powers are not going to win this war. I base that belief on the latest and best of information.

We have no excuse for defeatism. We have every good reason for hope – hope for peace, yes, and hope for the defense of our civilization and for the building of a better civilization in the future. I have the profound conviction that the American people are now determined to put forth a mightier effort than they have ever yet made to increase our production of all the implements of defense, to meet the threat to our democratic faith.

As President of the United States, I call for that national effort. I call for it in the name of this nation which we love and honor and which we are privileged and proud to serve. I call upon our people with absolute confidence that our common cause will greatly succeed.

5 Likes

The Pittsburgh Press (December 30, 1940)

ROOSEVELT DENOUNCES AXIS ‘GANG OF OUTLAWS’
Pledges ‘All-Out’ Help for Britain
….
Pleas for U.S. Peace Movement Called Nonsense; Arsenal For Democracy in Making
….
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press Staff Correspondent

Washington, Dec. 30 –
President Roosevelt last night summoned America to an all-out short-of-war to help Great Britain defeat the Axis powers and proclaimed “an emergency as serious as war itself.”

Mr. Roosevelt flatly rejected proposals that this country initiate a movement for a negotiated peace to end the war.

He said it was “nonsense” to believe that peace could be negotiated with “a gang of outlaws.”

Addressing the nation in his first fireside chat since last May, the President called on the United States to turn itself into “the great arsenal of democracy.”

Woven through his address was a promise of more aid to Great Britain and other nations which he said are fighting to uphold democracy. He did not reject the possibility of danger in this course, but said that this course was in the safest interest of the nation.

Mr. Roosevelt’s address drew sparse but angry comment from the Axis powers.

In Rome, the President was called the leader of an undeclared war against the Axis powers; in Berlin, a spokesman said the highest officials would study his speech; in Tokyo, there was no comment, but shortly before he spoke, the Japanese army charged that the United States tried to weaken Japan.

Great Britain hailed the speech as the most logical indictment of Nazism ever uttered.

The chief divergence of domestic opinion concerned the extent this country should aid Britain.

Alf M. Landon, 1936 Republican presidential nominee, said:

I think the President made a fair statement of our statement of our situation.

William Allen White, chairman of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, said:

His statement was calm and magnificent.

Verne Marshall, chairman of the No Foreign War Committee, said:

The President called for a greater weakening of our own defenses by giving them to some European belligerent.

Senators and representatives generally agreed with the President’s premise that America should aid Great Britain and her Allies but there was disagreement as to method and extent.

President Roosevelt is “tremendously pleased” by the response to his address, the White House said today.

Presidential Secretary Stephen T. Early said the chief executive was especially pleased because some Republican as well as Democratic leaders agreed with him. He made no comment on the angry reaction to the President’s speech by spokesmen for the Axis powers.

Mr. Roosevelt followed up his pledge of more aid to Britain by inviting Arthur B. Purvis, head of the British Purchasing Mission in this country, to the White House for a luncheon conference today.

The White House said Mr. Purvis would be accompanied by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., but officials said they did not know any advance details on the purpose of the visit.

Mr. Early said that within 40 minutes after Mr. Roosevelt had concluded his address last night, 600 messages were received. The President was pleased because the trend of these messages “ran 100 to 1 in favor of the speech in general,” he added.

Asked if the President might be more specific in his annual message to Congress next Monday than he was last night regarding the general defense setup, Mr. Early told reporters that if they were talking about statistics he felt certain that the President planned “no statistical review” for Congress.

Commenting on the President’s reference to the possibility of having to cut down on production of “luxury goods” and turn factories making them into defense plants, Mr. Early said that he had no idea of what particular goods the President might have had in mind.

Mr. Roosevelt spoke to a huge audience from the Oval Room of the White House last night. His “fireside chat” had been widely publicized in advance to out as many Americans before their radios as possible. He talked on all radio networks and his words were relayed by shortwave throughout the world.

He rejected suggestions that he take the initiative toward a negotiated peace and spurned German and Italian threats that certain types of aid to Britain might be considered war-like acts.

He took note of the German-Italian-Japanese military alliance which he said was aimed at the United States.

Mr. Roosevelt said an expeditionary force – movement of troops outside our borders – was neither sought nor contemplated.

But he said Great Britain must have “more of everything.”

If luxury productive facilities are needed for emergency munitions, he said, the manufacture of those luxuries will have to stop.

Declaring a British victory vital to American security and the cause of freedom, he called for more and more speed and “every ounce of effort” in producing the planes and tanks and ships that Britain needs. He summoned capital and labor to forego lockouts and strikes, He promised continued protection for labor’s rights.

We must supply Great Britain with cargo vessels, he said, but did not detail the method. It was talk of putting laid up German and Italian vessels to British use that brought Axis warnings against “war-like acts.”

Mr. Roosevelt abruptly charged that “American appeasers” ignore the warning fates of Poland, Norway, Belgium and France. He said they were playing the Axis game – willingly or not.

…“negotiated peace.” Nonsense!

It would be a gun-at-the-head dictated peace – only another armistice – and no peace at all, he continued.

No nation can appease the Nazis.

Mr. Roosevelt sketched the breadth and depth of our emergency. No fears of post emergency surplus plant capacity should be permitted to interfere with our rearmament, he urged.

We must be the great arsenal of democracy. For us this is an emergency as serious as war itself.

We have furnished the British great material support and we will furnish far more in the future. We have furnished the British great material support and we will furnish far more in the future. There will be no “bottlenecks” in our determination to aid Great Britain. No dictator, no combination of dictators, will weaken that determination by threats of how they will construe that determination.

And then, a lusty note of hope:

I believe that the Axis powers are not going to win this war. I base that belief on the latest and best of information.

He said there was risk in the aid-to-Britain policy he proposed, but argued that it was the lesser risk in a world aflame. He cited the agreement of September 27, 1940, among Germany, Italy and Japan to join the “threat that if the United States interfered with or blocked the expansion program of these three nations they would unite in ultimate action against the United States.”

In view of that threat, he said, the United States has neither right nor reason to encourage peace talk.

‘Send An Army – No!’

He invited his hearers to nail any talk of sending an army to Europe as “deliberate untruth” because the anti-Axis nations do not ask us to do their fighting.

They ask us for the implements of war, the planes, the tanks, the guns, the freighters which will enable them to fight for their liberty and for our security. Emphatically, we must get these weapons to them, get them to them in sufficient volume and quickly enough so that we and our children will be saved the agony and suffering of war which others have had to endure.

Let not the defeatists tell us that it is too late. It will never be earlier. Tomorrow will be later than today.

‘We Cannot Escape Danger’

Frankly and definitely there is danger ahead – danger against which we must prepare. But we well know that we cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads.

Many persons made suggestions to the President regarding last night’s speech – what they wanted him to say or what they wanted to know. Most of them expressed what the President described as a courageous desire to know the plain truth. But one message urged him not to repeat an earlier statement of how American cities could be bombed by a hostile power from bases in this hemisphere. So Mr. Roosevelt warned that Germany might strike at this hemisphere to obtain such a base, citing this year’s invasions of Norway, Belgium and Holland where Germany has powerful bases now.

Asserting that the Nazis justified those invasions by various “pious frauds” such as restoring order or protection from aggression, Mr. Roosevelt asked:

Would she then hesitate to say to any South American country: “We are occupying you to protect you from aggression by the United States”?

Danger – If Hitler Wins

Any South American country, in Nazi hands, would always constitute a jumping off place for German attack on any one of the other republics of this hemisphere.

Analyze for yourselves the future of two other places even nearer to Germany if the Nazis won. Could Ireland hold out? Would Irish freedom be permitted as an amazing pet exception in an unfree world? Or the islands of the Azores, which still fly the flag of Portugal after five centuries? You and I think of Hawaii as an outpost of defense in the Pacific. And yet the Azores are closer to our shores in the Atlantic than Hawaii is on the other side.

To those who say the Axis powers would never desire to attack the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Roosevelt replied:

Wishful thinking.

‘Evil Within Our Gates’

The plain facts are that the Nazis have proclaimed, time and again, that all other races are their inferiors and therefore subject to their orders. And most important of all, the vast resources and wealth of this American hemisphere constitute the most tempting loot in all of the round world.

The evil forces are within our gates, Mr. Roosevelt warned, both here and in South America. Secret emissaries, he said, seek to cause internal strife. They would turn capital against labor and labor against capital, arouse racial and religious enmities, promote intolerance and exploit our natural abhorrence of war. The purpose: to divide our people, destroy our unity, prevent our self-defense. The government is aware of these secret forces, the President said, and daily is ferreting them out.

There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the dictators want done in the United States.

Some of these Americans, he added, believed we should shut our eyes to the fate of other nations and others that we should become friends and partners of the Axis powers or even imitate their dictatorial methods.

‘Nazis Can’t Be Appeased’

The experience of the past two years has proven beyond doubt that no nation can appease the Nazis. No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We know now that a nation can have peace with the Nazis only at the price of total surrender. Even the people of Italy have been forced to become accomplices of the Nazis; but at this moment they do not know how soon they will be embraced to death by their allies.

The American appeasers ignore the warning to be found in the fate of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. They tell you that the Axis powers are going to win anyway; that all of this bloodshed in the world could be saved, that the United States might just as well throw its influence into the scale of a dictated peace and get the best out of it that we can. They call it a “negotiated peace.” Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins? For such a dictated peace would be no peace at all.

Our Policy: Peace

Our own future security and our ability to keep out of war, Mr. Roosevelt believes, is greatly dependent on the fight Great Britain is making and there is far less chance of our becoming a belligerent if we do all we can now to aid the British and other anti-Axis belligerents.

I would ask no one to defend a democracy which in turn would not defend everyone in the nation against want and privation. The strength of this nation shall not be diluted by the failure of the government to protect the economic well-being of its citizens.

As the government is determined to protect the rights of the workers, so the nation has a right to expect that the men who man the machines will discharge their full responsibilities to the urgent needs of defense.

The nation expects our defense industries to continue operation without interruption by strikes or lockouts. It expects and insists that management and workers will reconcile their differences by voluntary or legal means, to continue to produce the supplies that are so sorely needed.

LANDON AGREES; ASKS MORE ASSURANCE
Stafford, Kansas, Dec. 30 (UP) –
Alf M. Landon, 1936 Republican presidential nominee, said President Roosevelt’s fireside chat was “a fair statement of our situation,” but that better assurance was needed that aid to Britain would not necessitate sending an American expeditionary force to Europe.

There is one thing in all this talk of helping England that I am afraid too many of us are overlooking, and that is regardless of our intentions, the inevitable effort of our actions might necessitate sending an expeditionary force to Europe.

In the President’s statement…he virtually guaranteed that this would not occur. On what basis can he substantiate this guarantee? If people were sure, that would remove the greatest obstacle to a united public opinion in this country.

As far as my personal sympathies are concerned, they are all with England. I feel that across the water my kind of men are dying for the kind of things I believe in. But I don’t want to write a blank check by favoring helping England in every way because that might well mean eventually sending an expeditionary force to Europe.

CHALLENGE TO AXIS POWERS, SAYS MARSHALL
Cumberland, Maryland, Dec. 30 (UP) –
Verne Marshall, chairman of the No Foreign War Committee, said today that President Roosevelt’s speech was a “challenge to the Axis powers.”

The President indulged in a bomber flight to Denver this time. He will not be condemned for it as Orson Welles for bringing to the Eastern Seaboard an imaginary enemy from Mars.

The people of Denver need not feel serious alarm. Hitler hasn’t crossed the English Channel yet.

Marshall, editor of The Cedar Rapids Gazette, declared that President Roosevelt had suggested “greater weakening of our own defenses by giving them to some European belligerent.” He said he would have preferred that the President had mentioned the number of telegrams received asking him “to keep the United States out of this war without sending our own defensive equipment abroad.”

‘CALM, MAGNIFICENT,’ SAYS W. A. WHITE
Emporia, Kansas, Dec. 30 (UP) –
William Allen White, chairman of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, said President Roosevelt’s speech was “calm and magnificent.”

He said that:

…all over this earth liberty-loving men have taken new hope, not the hope that we shall send soldiers into the European conflict, but the President made a nobler promise when he declared America shall be the arsenal for democracy.

We need not fear that she shall send our boys to war if we keep our men at home on the assembly belt. This war will be won for world democracy if we give the President our support and trust to him to keep America at peace.

4 Likes

‘MAN IN THE STREET’ OFFERS VARIED OPINIONS OF SPEECH
By United Press

United Press reporters in New York, Chicago, Washington, Kansas City, and Los Angeles wen to the main streets of their respective cities and asked the first five men or women they met what they thought of President Roosevelt’s speech. These opinions of the “man in the street” in all sections of the country follow:

NEW YORK

W. J. J. Rice, Naval employee:

I was heartily in favor of the President’s ideas. All the democracies should stand together.

D. Franzelau, clerk:

The man was absolutely right. I was impressed in the President’s remark that the democracies will win the war.

B. L. Landsberg, Baltimore businessman:

The most significant thing in the speech, in my opinion, was that any move we make involves the risk that we might get into the war.

Leah Rosenblatt, Baltimore:

The speech was what I expected. I am very much in favor of aid to Britain.

William Taft, workman:

I’m in favor of what he said about not sending troops to Europe, but sending all aid possible to Britain.

CHICAGO

Charles Hammer, taxi driver:

I stopped 45 minutes at a busy time to hear Roosevelt. I agreed with him on everything, especially on giving more aid to the British, but under no circumstances would I favor sending American men over there to fight.

Dr. R. Brown, Beatrice, Nebraska:

Mr. Roosevelt hinted of war very strongly when he said we must see that war supplies reach England. In my view, that means convoys and convoys mean war.

Frank Herz, Charlotte, N.C, orchestra manager:

I think Roosevelt realizes that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and a good national defense is that bird. His speech will serve as a unifying influence, I hope. I hate to predict it, but I think we’ll be in war by April.

Lawrence Larsen, chef:

Roosevelt’s speech sounded a little radical to me. It made me think he wants us to go to war. Why, he must be an Englishman!

Elliott Thurston, Detroit manufacturer:

That speech was just the thing we needed, and now everybody should get behind the President and push. I’m in agreement with everything he said and even would favor sending troops to Churchill and the British in their battle.

WASHINGTON

G. A. Rathgeber, cashier:

Mr. Roosevelt forcefully presented the position of this nation and I agree in full with every statement he made.

Rose Dorothy Sienkiewicz, housekeeper:

I believe we should give Britain as much aid as possible but I fear that if we send “more planes, more ships and more of everything” as Mr. Roosevelt proposes, it may eventually lead to war.

Clyde H. Long, news vendor:

I heartily agree with Mr. Roosevelt when he says that all possible aid short of an expeditionary force will be made available to the British.

Leonard Mikules, Rural Electrification Administration employee:

I am highly in accord with Mr. Roosevelt’s assurances that he is doing his utmost to keep us and our future generations out of a “last-ditch war” for the preservation of democracy here at home.

Collis O. Reed, retired:

I think the President has now definitely put America into the war. The best way to end the European and Asiatic wars is to attempt to negotiate a peace through the cooperation of both neutral and belligerent nations of the world.

KANSAS CITY

Edward Crowley, retired farmer:

I think he’s just right. And what he says about those people helping Hitler unconsciously – there are plenty who are doing it consciously.

Dan Stephens, hotel manager:

I think we ought to lend every assistance to England we can, short of manpower. If we send men, we are liable to have a shortage of manpower here, and I think that we would be in danger then of a Communist or Nazi uprising.

Betty Haiden, waitress:

If Hitler ever takes England, the United States will go, like Mr. Roosevelt says. And I think there are many people here who are helping Hitler, and know it.

Harry Jones, taxi driver:

I think we put it off (all possible aid to England) too damned long as it is. We should give them everything we can. We cab drivers hear a lot of people talk, and most of them think the same thing.

Fred H. Rowan, restaurant manager:

The United States should give England all the aid it can in the way of boats, ammunition, gins and airplanes. And if it becomes necessary to dave democracy, we should get in.

LOS ANGELES

Marvin Rucker, janitor:

The speech hit the point. We’ve got to give Britain all the aid we can and it looks as if material won’t be enough. We’re going to have to send manpower, too.

Mae Harrington, amateur playwright:

I am not in agreement with President Roosevelt. I have no prejudices against any people but I have against governments that keep people in slavery. I think we ought to do something to help our own people financially before we start giving away things to the British.

Harold Klusman, taxi driver:

I think we should sell or give anything we can to the English and let them fight the battle. I think eventually we will get into war but helping Britain now will let us hold off until we are better prepared.

Mrs. Harry Comm, bakery employee:

Any peace overtures should not be made now. We have started on the right policy and should continue.

Arthur Avila, graduate student at UCLA:

We must go ahead on our policy of helping Britain unless we are prepared to change our economic system to a totalitarian one.

CLARK GABLE, WIFE WITH ROOSEVELT
Washington, Dec. 30 (UP) –
Clark Gable and his wife, Carole Lombard, were Sunday evening guests at the White House and were among the 19 persons who were with President Roosevelt while he delivered his fireside chat.

Mr. Gable stopped here during the weekend en route to Baltimore where he enters Johns Hopkins Hospital today for examination of a shoulder injury suffered a long time ago.

Mr. Roosevelt usually has no one present during such intimate broadcasts to the nation except the necessary radio announcers and technicians. Last night, in addition of the Gables, the following were with the President in the diplomatic reception room at the White House while he spoke:

  • Mrs. Sara Delano Roosevelt, his mother;
  • Secretary of State Cordell Hull;
  • Secretary of the Navy and Mrs. Frank Knox;
  • Attorney General and Mrs. Robert H. Jackson;
  • Secretary of the Treasury and Mrs. Henry Morgenthau Jr., and their son, Robert Morgenthau;
  • Secretary of Agriculture and Mrs. Claude R. Wickard;
  • Major Harry Hooper, an old friend of the Roosevelt family;
  • Senate Democratic Leader and Mrs. Alben W. Barkley;
  • Mrs. Edwin M. Watson, wife of one of the President’s secretaries;
  • White House Secretary and Mrs. Stephen T. Early.
5 Likes

This is possibly the most influential foreign policy speech ever given.

5 Likes

Audio of the fireside chat:

2 Likes