Hoover was amazing

I have no need to recite the malevolent forces rampant in the world. In twenty nations desperate peoples have surrendered personal liberty for some form of authoritarian government. They are placing their trust in dictatorship clothed in new ideologies of Utopia. Some of them are making war or are aggressively threatening other nations. The world is taut with fear. Five times more men are under arms than before the Great War. We in America are indignant at the brutalities of these systems and their cruel wrongs to minorities. We are fearful of the penetration of their ideologies. We are alarmed at their military preparations and their aggressiveness. . . . We have need to strip emotion from these questions as much as we can. They are questions of life or death not only to men but also to nations. We have need to appraise coolly these dangers. We have need of sober, analytical debate upon the policies of government toward them. We must do so without partisanship. . . .

 Mr. Roosevelt . . . says we must use methods stronger than words and short of war. He asks for armament to back his extensions. . . . . . . The only known effective methods short of war and more than words are that we either support one side with supplies of food, raw materials, finance and munitions, or that we deny these to the other side by embargoes, boycotts or other economic sanctions. . . . . . . These proposals to use some sort of coercion against nations are of course a complete departure from neutrality in other peoples’ wars.

It is the method of coercion, not persuasion. It is in direct violation of Secretary Hull’s reaffirmation, on which the ink is but sixty days dry, of an old American policy that “the intervention of any state in the internal and external affairs of another is inadmissible. . . . ” . . . Such policies are provocative of reprisals and must be backed by armament far beyond that required for defense of the Western Hemisphere. If we are to provoke we must be prepared to enforce. . . . Economic pressures inevitably run into pressures upon civil populations. Civil populations are mostly women and children. The morals of starvation by force rank no higher than killing from the air. . . .

Let me say at once than any form of direct or indirect coercion of nations is force and is the straight path to war itself. No husky nation will stand such pressures without bloody resistance. Those who think in terms of economic sanctions should also think in terms of war. It will be said that these measures will preserve peace; that if nations know we will throw our weight into the balance they will not transgress on others. That is world-wide power politics. That is the exact theory of joining in the balance of power throughout the world.

That setting has in the long and tragic history of Europe inevitably exploded in war. All this becomes the most momentous change in American policies of peace and war since we entered the Great War. Moreover the European democracies have accepted it as a complete change of national policy by the United States. If it is not a proposal to change radically our policies then they are under a misapprehension. But to determine the issue, let me propose some questions that the American people deserve to have answered.

Shall we reverse our traditional policies at this time? Shall we set ourselves up to determine who the aggressor is in the world? Shall we engage in embargoes, boycotts, economic sanctions against aggressor nations? Shall we do this where the Western Hemisphere is not attacked? Shall we provide an armament greater than that necessary to protect the Western Hemisphere from military invasion? Shall we take collective action with other nations to make these more than words and short of war policies effective? Are we to be the policeman of the world?

Certainly it is due to Mr. Roosevelt, to the Congress, and to the American people that we know exactly what all this means. The Congress should have this adventure clarified before we go blindly into great increases in armament.

The Dangers of the Western Hemisphere

Before we answer these questions and before we venture into these paths of force and conflict, even short of war, we should realistically examine how serious the so-called imminent dangers are from aggressive nations. Our dangers are obviously in two forms—the penetration of their ideologies, which would destroy democracies, and their military aggressiveness.

 And their military aggressiveness has to be appraised in two aspects. First, the direct dangers to the Western Hemisphere, and second, our further concern in the dangers to our sister democracies in Europe and Asia. Penetration of Ideologies The first segment of this danger is the ideologies. The penetration of these ideologies, whether it be the Communism of Russia, the National Socialism of Germany, or the Fascism of Italy, is an internal problem for each country where they penetrate. Ideas cannot be cured with battleships or aeroplanes. I say this as I do not assume that we intend to attack dictators or extirpate ideologies in their home sources. That would lead the world to worse destruction than the religious wars of the Middle Ages.

Our job of defense against these un-American ideologies is to eliminate Communist, Socialist and Fascist ideas and persons from our own institutions. It is to maintain the ideals of free men, which make this unprofitable soil for such alien seed. I am confident that if the lamp of liberty can be kept alight these ideologies will yet die of their own falsity. They spring not from moral and spiritual inspirations but from the cupidity of men. In any event no additional appropriations for arms will settle those problems.

The Military Dangers

The second segment of danger is that of military attack of the dictatorships upon democracies. And we may first explore the imminent dangers of military attack upon the Western democracies. And again we should consider it in the light of realism rather than the irritating words that emanate from world capitals. Our people must realize that even if there were no dictators present, the blunders in the peace treaties, the pressures of population, the impoverishment of peoples will create periodic European crises. That has been the history of Europe since long before America was born.

As terrifying as these crises look in the morning paper, there are more realistic pressures for peaceful adjustments than for war. Since the Great War land fortifications for defense have increased in power faster than offensive land weapons. The dictatorships know that if they were to attack the Western democracies they would probably find their land and sea defenses impregnable. Attack from the air offers hideous destruction, but it also brings sobering reprisals. It stiffens resolution and it does not capture capital cities.

It is my belief that the Western democracies of Europe can amply defend themselves against military attack. And in this connection we must not close our eyes to one condition under which the American people, disregarding all other questions, might join in European war. We are a humane people, and our humanity can be overstrained by brutality. That was one of the causes of our entry into the last war.

For instance, if wholesale attack were made upon women and children by the deliberate destruction of cities from the air, then the indignation of the American people might not be restrained from action. I do not believe officials of any nation have become so foolish or dare the depth of barbarism of such an undertaking. The indignation in the United States today at such killings in Spain and China, where it is excused as the accident of attempt to demoralize munitions supply, should be warning of the temper which would be raised. There are other realistic forces which weigh against military attack by the dictatorships on the democracies.

Despite so-called “demands” the dictatorships are in reality mainly interested elsewhere. The face of Germany is turned more East than toward Western Europe. The face of Japan is turned West into Asia. The Russians are amply engaged at home. The Italians claim grievances with England and France arising out of the treaties under which they came into the Great War, but these are not impossible of solution. Beyond all this, every one of the totalitarian states has its own grave internal weaknesses. Above all, the common people in no country in Europe want war. They are terrified of it. Do not think I believe the situation is not dangerous in Europe. Far from it. But it is not so imminent as the speeches abroad might make it appear. And what is not imminent is often preventable.

Obviously our dangers are much less than those of the overseas democracies. The Western Hemisphere is still protected by a moat of 3000 miles of ocean on the East and 6000 miles on the West. No aeroplane has yet been built that can come one-third the way across the Atlantic and one-fifth of the way across the Pacific with destructive bombs and fly home again. In any event, these dictatorships have nothing to gain by coming 3000 miles or 6000 miles to attack the Western Hemisphere. So long as our defenses are maintained they have everything to lose. That any of these dictatorships, whether Japan, Germany, Italy, or Russia, or all of them together, have the remotest idea of military attack upon the Western Hemisphere is sheer hysteria.

It will be said that we must be prepared to go across the seas and enforce lawful rights for American trade by military action. I do not agree with that thesis. There always comes a time, with patience, when such ends can be accomplished by the processes of peace.

 Some Ultimate Possible Consequences

 There are other factors that we need to consider also before we decide to use force beyond protection of the Western Hemisphere. We must not refuse to look at the possible ultimates before we start down these paths.

If we join with force in Europe or Asia, even though it be short of war, we must consider its consequences should it lead to war. For that is the most probable result. The call to join is based upon the preservation of human liberty in the world. Our first purpose is to maintain liberty in America. If civilization based on liberty fails in the United States it is gone from the earth. We must safeguard that, not only in our own interest but in the interest of the world. . . .

This world can never reach peace by threats and force. If this is to be the blind leadership of men, nothing can save the world from a catastrophe to civilization. No nation has alone built this civilization. We all live by heritages which have been enriched by every nation and every century. And to save this civilization there must be a changed attitude of men. Our country standing apart can make a contribution of transcendent service in holding aloft the banner of moral relationships.

If we are to hold that banner of morals aloft the people of America should express unhesitatingly their indignation against wrong and persecution. They should extend aid to the suffering.

We should not be isolationists in promoting peace by the methods of peace. We should not be isolationists in proposals to join in the most healing of all processes of peace—economic cooperation to restore prosperity.

But surely all reason, all history, all our own experience show that wrongs cannot be righted and durable peace cannot be imposed on nations by force, threats, economic pressures, or war. I want America to stand against that principle if it is the last nation under that banner. I want it to stand there because it is the only hope of preserving liberty on this continent. That is America’s greatest service to mankind.6