Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

German, and Italian descent it considered probable spies and

saboteurs and that they were arrested on December 7 and 8,

1942.

The army ordered the release of all loyal Japanese Amer-

icans in January 1945.

Below are excerpts from the majority opinion by Justice

Black and dissents by Justices Roberts and Murphy. Justice

Frankfurter also concurred, and Justice Jackson also dissented.

________________________

_______________________

Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese

descent, was convicted in a federal district court for

remaining in San Leandro, California, a “Military Area,”

contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Com-

manding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army,

which directed that after May 9, 1942, all persons of

Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No

question was raised as to petitioner’s loyalty to the United

States. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the

importance of the constitutional question involved caused

us to grant certiorari.

It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restric-

tions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group

are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such

restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts

must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing pub-

lic necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such

restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

In the instant case prosecution of the petitioner was

begun by information charging violation of an Act of

Congress, of March 21, 1942 which provides that “. . . who-

ever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any

military area or military zone prescribed, under the

authority of an Executive order of the President, by the

Secretary of War, or by any military commander desig-

nated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions

applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order

of the Secretary of War or any such military commander,

shall . . . be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction

shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to impris-

onment for not more than one year, or both, for each

offense.”

Exclusion Order No. 34, which the petitioner know-

ingly and admittedly violated was one of a number of mil-

itary orders and proclamations, all of which were

substantially based upon Executive Order No. 9066. That

order, issued after we were at war with Japan, declared

that “the successful prosecution of the war requires every

possible protection against espionage and against sabotage

to national-defense material, national-defense premises,

and national-defense utilities. . . .”

One of the series of orders and proclamations, a cur-

few order, which like the exclusion order here was pro-

mulgated pursuant to Executive Order 9066, subjected all

persons of Japanese ancestry in prescribed West Coast mil-

itary areas to remain in their residences from 8 p.m. to 6

a.m. As is the case with the exclusion order here, that prior

curfew order was designed as a “protection against espi-

onage and against sabotage.” In Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v.

United States [320 U.S. 81] we sustained a conviction ob-

tained for violation of the curfew order. The Hirabayashi

conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Con-

gressional Act and the same basic executive and military

orders, all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers

of espionage and sabotage.

The 1942 Act was attacked in the Hirabayashi case as

an unconstitutional delegation of power; it was contended

that the curfew order and other orders on which it rested

were beyond the war powers of the Congress, the military

authorities and of the President, as Commander in Chief

of the Army; and finally that to apply the curfew order

against none but citizens of Japanese ancestry amounted to

a constitutionally prohibited discrimination solely on

account of race. . . . We upheld the curfew order as an

exercise of the power of the government to take steps nec-

essary to prevent espionage and sabotage in an area threat-

ened by Japanese attack.

In the light of the principles we announced in the

Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was

beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to

exclude those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast

war area at the time they did. [Prior to this heads of house-

hold and single individuals were to report to “Assembly

Centers” pursuant to relocation of all those of Japanese

descent.] True, exclusion from the area in which one’s

home is located is a far greater deprivation than constant

confinement to the home 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Nothing short of

apprehension by the proper military authorities of the

gravest imminent danger to the public safety can constitu-

tionally justify either. But exclusion from a threatened

area, no less than curfew, has a definite and close relation-

ship to the prevention of espionage and sabotage. The mil-

itary authorities, charged with the primary responsibility of

defending our shores, concluded that curfew provided

inadequate protection and ordered exclusion. They did so

. . . in accordance with Congressional authority to the mil-

itary to say who should, and who should not, remain in the

threatened areas.

In this case the petitioner challenges the assumptions

upon which we rested our conclusions in the Hirabayashi

case. He also urges that by May 1942, when Order No. 34

was promulgated, all danger of Japanese invasion of the

West Coast had disappeared. After careful consideration of

these contentions we are compelled to reject them.

1442 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

Here, as in the Hirabayashi case we cannot reject as

unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of

Congress that there were disloyal members of that popu-

lation, whose number and strength could not be precisely

and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-mak-

ing branches of the Government did not have ground for

believing that in a critical hour such persons could not

readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and consti-

tuted a menace to the national defense and safety, which

demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken

to guard against it.”

Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was

deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascer-

tained number of disloyal members of the group, most of

whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was

because we could not reject the finding of the military

authorities that it was impossible to bring about an imme-

diate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we

sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to

the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion

of the entire group was rested by the military on the same

ground. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group

was for the same reason a military imperative answers the

contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group

punishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese

origin. That there were members of the group who

retained loyalties to Japan has been confirmed by investi-

gations made subsequent to the exclusion. Approximately

five thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry

refused to swear unqualified allegiance to the United

States and to renounce allegiance to the Japanese Em-

peror, and several thousand evacuees requested repatria-

tion to Japan.

We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was

made and when the petitioner violated it. In doing so, we

are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a

large group of American citizens. But hardships are part of

war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens

alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in

greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibili-

ties as well as its privileges, and in time of war the burden

is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large groups of

citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of

direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic

governmental institutions. But when under conditions of

modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile

forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with

the threatened danger.

* * *

The Assembly Center was conceived as a part of the

machinery for group evacuation. The power to exclude

includes the power to do it by force if necessary. And any

forcible measure must necessarily entail some degree of

detention or restraint whatever method of removal is

selected. But whichever view is taken, it results in holding

that the order under which petitioner was convicted was

valid.

. . . Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were

this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in

a concentration camp because of racial prejudice.

Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and reloca-

tion centers–and we deem it unjustifiable to call them

concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that

term implies–we are dealing specifically with nothing but

an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial

prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers

which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Kore-

matsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of

hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we

are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the prop-

erly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of

our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper secu-

rity measures, because they decided that the military

urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of

Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast

temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its

confidence in this time of war in our military leaders–as

inevitably it must–determined that they should have the

power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on

the part of some, the military authorities considered that

the need for action was great, and time was short. We

cannot–by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of

hindsight–now say that at that time these actions were

unjustified.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts.

I dissent, because I think the indisputable facts exhibit

a clear violation of Constitution rights.

. . . It is the case of convicting a citizen as a punish-

ment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentra-

tion camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his

ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loy-

alty and good disposition towards the United States. If this

be a correct statement of the facts disclosed by this record,

and facts of which we take judicial notice, I need hardly

labor the conclusion that Constitutional rights have been

violated.

* * *

The petitioner . . . is a native of the United States of Japan-

ese ancestry who, according to the uncontradicted evi-

dence, is a loyal citizen of the nation.

A chronological recitation of events will make it plain

that the petitioner’s supposed offense did not, in truth,

World War II at Home and Abroad 1443

consist in his refusal voluntarily to leave the area which

included his home in obedience to the order excluding

him therefrom. . . .

. . . [Chronology]

May 3, 1942, General DeWitt issued Civilian Exclu-

sion Order No. 34 providing that, after 12 o’clock May 8,

1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-

alien, were to be excluded from a described portion of Mil-

itary Area No. 1, which included the County of Alameda,

California. . . . The obvious purpose of the orders made,

taken together, was to drive all citizens of Japanese ances-

try into Assembly Centers within the zones of their resi-

dence, under pain of criminal prosecution.

. . . An Assembly Center was a euphemism for a

prison. No person within such a center was permitted to

leave except by Military Order.

In the dilemma that he dare not remain in his home,

or voluntarily leave the area, without incurring criminal

penalties, and that the only way he could avoid punish-

ment was to go to an Assembly Center and submit himself

to military imprisonment, the petitioner did nothing.

. . . We further know that, on March 18, 1942, the

President had promulgated Executive Order No. 9102

establishing the War Relocation Authority under which

so-called Relocation Centers, a euphemism for concentra-

tion camps, were established pursuant to cooperation

between the military authorities of the Western Defense

Command and the Relocation Authority, and that the peti-

tioner has been confined either in an Assembly Center,

within the zone in which he had lived or has been removed

to a Relocation Center where, as the facts disclosed in Ex

parte Mitsuye Endo demonstrate, he was illegally held in

custody.

. . .The [Government’s] opinion refers to the

Hirabayashi case, supra, to show that this court has sus-

tained the validity of a curfew order in an emergency.

The argument then is that exclusion from a given area

of danger, while somewhat more sweeping than a curfew

regulation, is of the same nature—a temporary expedient

made necessary by a sudden emergency. . . . The liberty of

every American citizen freely to come and to go must fre-

quently, in the face of sudden danger, be temporarily lim-

ited or suspended. . . . But the facts . . . show that the

exclusion was but a part of an over-all plan for forceable

detention. This case cannot, therefore, be decided on any

such narrow ground as the possible validity of a Temporary

Exclusion Order. . . . To make the case turn on any such

assumption is to shut our eyes to reality.

* * *

I would reverse the judgement of conviction.

Mr. Justice Murphy, dissenting.

This exclusion of “all persons of Japanese ancestry,

both alien and non-alien,” from the Pacific Coast area on a

plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law

ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over “the

very brink of constitutional power” and falls into the ugly

abyss of racism.

In dealing with matters relating to the prosecution and

progress of a war, we must accord great respect and con-

sideration to the judgments of the military authorities who

are on the scene and who have full knowledge of the mili-

tary facts. The scope of their discretion must, as a matter

of necessity and common sense, be wide. And their judge-

ments ought not to be overruled lightly by those whose

training and duties ill-equip them to deal intelligently with

matters so vital to the physical security of the nation.

At the same time, however, it is essential that there be

definite limits to military discretion, especially where mar-

tial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be left

impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of mil-

itary necessity that has neither substance nor support.

Thus, like other claims conflicting with the asserted con-

stitutional rights of the individual, the military claim must

subject itself to the judicial process of having its reason-

ableness determined and its conflicts with other interest

reconciled. . . .

The judicial test of whether the Government, on a

plea of military necessity, can validly deprive an individual

of any of his constitutional rights is whether the depriva-

tion is reasonably related to a public danger that is so

“immediate, imminent, and impending” as not to admit of

delay and not to permit the intervention of ordinary

constitutional processes to alleviate the danger. Civilian

Exclusion Order No. 34 . . . clearly does not meet that test.

Being an obvious racial discrimination, the order deprives

all those within its scope of the equal protection of the laws

as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. It further

deprives these individuals of their constitutional rights to

live and work where they will, to establish a home where

they choose and to move about freely. In excommunicating

them without benefit of hearings, this order also deprives

them of all their constitutional rights to procedural due

process. Yet no reasonable relation to an “immediate,

imminent, and impending” public danger is evident to

support this racial restriction which is one of the most

sweeping and complete deprivations of constitutional

rights in the history of this nation in the absence of martial

law.

It must be conceded that the military and naval situa-

tion in the spring of 1942 was such as to generate a very

real fear of invasion of the Pacific Coast, accompanied by

fears of sabotage and espionage in that area. The military

command was therefore justified in adopting all reason-

able means necessary to combat these dangers. In adjudg-

1444 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

ing the military action taken in light of the then apparent

dangers, we must not erect too high or too meticulous

standards; it is necessary only that the action have some

reasonable relation to the removal of the dangers of inva-

sion, sabotage and espionage. But the exclusion, either

temporarily or permanently, of all persons with Japanese

blood in their veins has no such reasonable relation. And

that relation is lacking because the exclusion order neces-

sarily must rely for its reasonableness upon the assumption

that all persons of Japanese ancestry may have a dangerous

tendency to commit sabotage and espionage and to aid our

Japanese enemy in other ways. It is difficult to believe that

reason, logic of experience could be marshalled in support

of such an assumption.

That this forced exclusion was the result in good mea-

sure of this erroneous assumption of racial guilt rather

than bona fide military necessity is evidenced by the Com-

manding General’s Final Report on the evacuation from

the Pacific Coast area. In it he refers to all individuals of

Japanese descent as “subversive,” as belonging to “an

enemy race” whose “racial strains are undiluted,” and as

constituting “over 112,000 potential enemies . . . at large

today” along the Pacific Coast. In support of this blanket

condemnation of all persons of Japanese descent, however,

no reliable evidence is cited to show that such individuals

were generally disloyal, or had generally so conducted

themselves in this area as to constitute a special menace to

defense installations or war industries, or had otherwise by

their behavior furnished reasonable ground for their exclu-

sion as a group.

Justification for the exclusion is sought, instead,

mainly upon questionable racial and sociological grounds

not ordinarily within the realm of expert military judg-

ment, supplemented by certain semi-military conclusions

drawn from an unwarranted use of circumstantial evi-

dence. Individuals of Japanese ancestry are condemned

because they are said to be “a large, unassimilated, tightly

knit racial group, bound to an enemy nation by strong ties

of race, culture, custom and religion.” They are claimed to

be given to “emperor worshipping ceremonies” and to

“dual citizenship.” Japanese language schools and allegedly

pro-Japanese organizations are cited as evidence of possi-

ble group disloyalty, together with facts as to certain per-

sons being educated and residing at length in Japan. It is

intimated that many of these individuals deliberately

resided “adjacent to strategic points,” thus enabling them

“to carry into execution a tremendous program of sabotage

on a mass scale should any considerable number of them

have been inclined to do so.” The need for protective cus-

tody is also asserted. The report refers without identity to

“numerous incidents of violence” as well as to other admit-

tedly unverified or cumulative incidents. From this, plus

certain other events not shown to have been connected

with the Japanese Americans, it is concluded that the “sit-

uation was fraught with danger to the Japanese population

itself” and that the general public “was ready to take mat-

ters into its own hands.” . . .

The main reasons . . . for the forced evacuation, there-

fore, do not prove a reasonable relation between the group

characteristics of Japanese Americans and the dangers

of invasion, sabotage and espionage. The reasons appear,

instead, to be largely an accumulation of much of the

misinformation, half-truths and insinuations that for

years have been directed against Japanese Americans by

people with racial and economic prejudices–the same peo-

ple who have been among the foremost advocates of the

evacuation. A military judgment based upon such racial

and sociological considerations is not entitled to the great

weight ordinarily given the judgments based upon strictly

military considerations. Especially is this so when every

charge relative to race, religion, culture, geographical

location, and legal and economic status has been substan-

tially discredited by independent studies made by experts

in these matters.

. . . No one denies, of course, that there were some

disloyal persons of Japanese descent on the Pacific Coast

who did all in their power to aid their ancestral land. Sim-

ilar disloyal activities have been engaged in by many per-

sons of German, Italian and even more pioneer stock in

our country. But to infer that examples of individual dis-

loyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory

action against the entire group is to deny that under our

system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for depriva-

tion of rights. Moreover, this inference, which is at the very

heart of the evacuation orders, has been used in support of

the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups

by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now

pledged to destroy. To give constitutional sanction to that

inference in this case . . . is to adopt one of the cruelest of

the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity

of the individual and to encourage and open the door to

discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the

passions of tomorrow.

No adequate reason is given for the failure to treat

these Japanese Americans on an individual basis by hold-

ing investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from

the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of German

and Italian ancestry.

. . . Nearly four months elapsed after Pearl Harbor

before the first exclusion order was issued; nearly eight

months went by until the last order was issued; and the last

of these “subversive” persons was not actually removed

until almost eleven months had elapsed. Leisure and

deliberation seem to have been more of the essence than

speed. And the fact that conditions were not such as to

warrant a declaration of martial law adds strength to the

World War II at Home and Abroad 1445

belief that the factors of time and military necessity were

not as urgent as they have been represented to be.

Moreover, there was no adequate proof that the Fed-

eral Bureau of Investigation and the military and naval

intelligence services did not have the espionage and sabo-

tage situation well in hand during this long period. Nor is

there any denial of the fact that not one person of

Japanese ancestry was accused or convicted of espionage

or sabotage after Pearl Harbor while they were still free,

a fact which is some evidence of the loyalty of the vast

majority of these individuals and of the effectiveness

of the established methods of combatting these evils.

It seems incredible that under these circumstances it

would have been impossible to hold loyalty hearings for

the mere 112,000 persons involved—or at least for the

70,000 American citizens—especially when a large part of

this number represented children and elderly men and

women. Any inconvenience that may have accompanied

an attempt to conform to procedural due process cannot

be said to justify violations of constitutional rights of indi-

viduals.

I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism.

Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has

no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life.

It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting

among a free people who have embraced the principles

set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All res-

idents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or cul-

ture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and

necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of

the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all

times as the heirs of the American experiment and as

entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the

Constitution.

See also

FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT

EXECUTIVE ORDER

9066:

THE JAPANESE RELOCATION ACT

, 1942.

Source:

Supreme Court Reporter, Vol. 65, pp. 193–208.

Franklin Roosevelt, Campaign Speech

to the Teamsters Union, 1944

Radio address delivered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt

on September 23, 1944, at a Teamsters union dinner in Wash-

ington, D.C. This was Roosevelt’s first major speech of the

1944 presidential campaign. The president used the speech

to show the American public that their “old” wartime com-

mander in chief could still rouse his audience with traditional

Rooseveltian campaign oratory. He dealt with the issue of his

“advanced age” by saying that it was true that he was actu-

ally four years older than in his last campaign; however, he

asserted that millions of Americans have aged in the 11 years

since the New Deal began “to clean up the mess that was

dumped into our laps in 1933.” Roosevelt then criticized the

Republicans, denouncing their decision to position them-

selves as “labor’s friends” a few months before the election,

after having opposed every prolabor legislation enacted dur-

ing the previous three years and six months. He also

defended the administration’s war record. The most memo-

rable phrase from this address came when he stated: “These

Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on

me, or my wife, or my sons. . . . They now include my little

dog, Fala.”

________________________

_______________________

Mr. Tobin—I should say Dan, I always have—ladies and

gentlemen. I am very much touched, and I am very happy

in your applause, and very happy at the informalities of this

dinner with old friends of mine. You know, this is not the

first time that we have met together on this basis, and I am

particularly happy that this national campaign opens in

your presence as it did four years ago. And I don’t mind

mentioning the fact that Dan Tobin and I are just a little

bit superstitious.

Well, here we are—here we are again—after four

years—and what years they have been! You know, I am

actually four years older—(laughter)—which is a fact that

seems to annoy some people. In fact, in the mathematical

field there are millions of Americans who are more than

eleven years older than when we started in to clear up the

mess that was dumped in our laps in 1933.

We all know that certain people who make it a prac-

tice to depreciate the accomplishments of labor—who

even attack labor as unpatriotic—they keep this up usually

for three years and six months in a row. But then, for some

strange reason— (laughter)—they change their tune—

every four years—just before election day. When votes are

at stake, they suddenly discover that they really love

labor—and that they are anxious to protect labor from its

old friends.

I got quite a laugh, for example—and I am sure that

you did—when I read this plank in the Republican plat-

form adopted at their National Convention in Chicago last

July:

“The Republican party accepts the purposes of the

National Labor Relations Act, the Wage and Hour Act, the

Social Security Act and all other Federal statutes designed

to promote and protect the welfare of American working

men and women, and we promise a fair and just adminis-

tration of these laws.” (laughter)

You know, many of the Republican leaders and Con-

gressmen and candidates, who shouted enthusiastic

approval of that plank in that Convention Hall would not

1446 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

even recognize these progressive laws, if they met them in

broad daylight. Indeed, they have personally spent years of

effort and energy— and much money—in fighting every

one of those laws in the Congress, and in the press, and in

the courts, ever since this Administration began to advo-

cate them and enact them into legislation. That is a fair

example of their insincerity and of their inconsistency.

The whole purpose of Republican oratory these days

seems to be to switch labels. The object is to persuade the

American people that the Democratic party was responsi-

ble for the 1929 crash and the depression, and that the

Republican party was responsible for all social progress

under the New Deal. (continued laughter)

Now, imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery—

but I am afraid that in this case it is the most obvious com-

mon or garden variety of fraud. (more laughter, and

applause)

Of course, it is perfectly true that there are enlight-

ened, liberal elements in the Republican party, and they

have fought hard and honorably to bring the party up to

date and to get it in step with the forward march of Amer-

ican progress. But these liberal elements were not able to

drive the Old Guard Republicans from their entrenched

positions.

Can the Old Guard pass itself off as the New Deal?

(laughter)

I think not.

We have all seen many marvelous stunts in the circus,

but no performing elephant could turn a hand-spring with-

out falling flat on his back. (laughter, cheers and applause)

I need not recount to you the centuries of history

which have been crowded into these four years since I saw

you last.

There were some—in the Congress and out—who

raised their voices against our preparations for defense—

before and after 1939—objected to them, raised their

voices against them as hysterical war mongering, who cried

out against our help to the Allies as provocative and dan-

gerous. We remember the voices. They would like to have

us forget them now. But in 1940 and 1941—my, it seems a

long time ago—they were loud voices. Happily they were

a minority and—fortunately for ourselves, and for the

world—they could not stop America.

There are some politicians who kept their heads

buried deep in the sand while the storms of Europe and

Asia were headed our way, who said that the lend-lease bill

“would bring an end”—and I am quoting—“to free gov-

ernment in the United States,” and who said, and I am

quoting, “only hysteria entertains the idea that Germany,

Italy or Japan contemplate war on us.” These men—these

very men are now asking the American people to intrust to

them the conduct of our foreign policy and our military

policy.

What the Republican leaders are now saying in effect

is this: “Oh, just forget what we used to say, we have

changed our minds now—we have been reading the pub-

lic opinion polls about these things—(laughter)—and now

we know what the American people want.” And they say:

“Don’t leave the task of making the peace to those old men

who first urged it and who have already laid the founda-

tions for it, and who have had to fight all of us inch by inch

during the last five years to do it. Why, just turn it all over

to us. We’ll do it so skillfully—that we won’t lose a single

isolationist vote or a single isolationist campaign contribu-

tion.” (laughter, cheers and applause)

I think there is one thing that you know, I am too old

for that. I cannot talk out of both sides of my mouth at the

same time.

The Government of the United States welcomes all

sincere supporters of the cause of effective world collabo-

ration in the making of a lasting peace. Millions of Repub-

licans all over the nation are with us—and have been with

us—in our unshakable determination to build the solid

structure of peace. And they too will resent this cam-

paign—this campaign talk by those who first woke up to

the facts of international life a few short months ago—

(laughter)—when they began to study the polls of public

opinion. (more laughter, cheers and applause)

Those who today have the military responsibility for

waging this war in all parts of the globe are not helped by

the statements of men who, without responsibility and

without the knowledge of the facts, lecture the Chiefs of

Staff of the United States as to the best means of dividing

our armed forces and our military resources between the

Atlantic and Pacific, between the Army and the Navy, and

among the Commanding Generals of the different theatres

of war. And I may say that those Commanding Generals

are making good in a big way. (cheers and applause)

When I addressed you four years ago, I said this. I

said, “I know that America will never be disappointed in its

expectation that labor will always continue to do its share

of the job—the job we now face, and do it patriotically and

effectively and unselfishly.”

Today we know that America has not been disap-

pointed. In his Order of the Day when the Allied Armies

first landed in Normandy two months ago, General Eisen-

hower said: “Our home fronts have given us overwhelming

superiority in weapons and munitions of war.” (cheers and

applause)

The country knows that there is a breed of cats, luck-

ily not too numerous, called labor-baiters. I know that

those labor-baiters among the opposition are there, who

instead of calling attention to the achievements of labor in

this war, prefer to pick on the occasional strikes that have

occurred—strikes that have been condemned by every

responsible national labor leader. I ought to say, paren-

World War II at Home and Abroad 1447

thetically, all but one [John L. Lewis of the United Mine

Workers]. And that one labor leader, incidentally, is not

conspicuous among my supporters. (more laughter)

Labor-baiters forget that at our peak American labor

and management have turned out airplanes at the rate of

109,000 a year; tanks—57,000 a year; combat vessels—573

a year; landing vessels, to get the troops ashore—31,000 a

year; cargo ships—19 million tons a year—(cheers and

applause)—and Henry Kaiser is here tonight, I am glad to

say—(more cheers and applause); and small arms ammu-

nition—oh, I can’t understand it, I don’t believe you can,

either—23 billion rounds a year.

But a strike is news, and generally appears in shriek-

ing headlines—and, of course, they say labor is always to

blame. The fact is that since Pearl Harbor only one-tenth

of one percent of manhours have been lost by strikes. Can

you beat that? (prolonged cheers and applause)

But, you know, even those candidates who burst out in

election-year affection for social legislation and for labor in

general, still think that you ought to be good boys and stay

out of politics. (laughter) And above all, they hate to see

any working man or woman contribute a dollar bill to any

wicked political party. (more laughter) Of course, it is all

right for large financiers and industrialists and monopolists

to contribute tens of thousands of dollars—but their solic-

itude for that dollar which the men and women in the

ranks of labor contribute is always very touching.

They are, of course, perfectly willing to let you vote—

unless you happen to be a soldier or a sailor overseas, or a

merchant seaman carrying the munitions of war. In that

case they have made it pretty hard for you to vote at all—

for there are some political candidates who think that they

may have a chance of election, if only the total vote is small

enough. (laughter and applause)

And while I am on the subject of voting, let me urge

every American citizen—man and woman—to use your

sacred privilege of voting, no matter which candidate you

expect to support. Our millions of soldiers and sailors and

merchant seamen have been handicapped or prevented

from voting by those politicians, those candidates who

think that they stand to lose by such votes. You here at

home have the freedom of the ballot. Irrespective of party,

you should register and vote this November. I think that is

a matter of plain good citizenship.

Words come easily, but they do not change the record.

You are, most of you, old enough to remember what things

were like for labor in 1932.

You remember the closed banks and the breadlines

and the starvation wages; the foreclosures of homes and

farms, and the bankruptcies of business; the “Hoover-

villes,” and the young men and women of the nation facing

a hopeless, jobless future; the closed factories and

mines and mills; the ruined and abandoned farms; the

stalled railroads, the empty docks; the blank despair of a

whole nation—and the utter impotence of the Federal

Government.

You remember the long hard road, with its gains and

its setbacks, which we have traveled together ever since

those days.

Now there are some politicians who do not remember

that far back—(laughter)—and there are some who

remember but find it convenient to forget. No, the record

is not to be washed away that easily.

The opposition in this year has already imported into

this campaign a very interesting thing, because it is for-

eign. They have imported the propaganda technique

invented by the dictators abroad. Remember, a number of

years ago, there was a book Mein Kampf written by Hitler

himself. The technique was all set out in Hitler’s book—

and it was copied by the aggressors of Italy and Japan.

According to that technique, you should never use a small

falsehood; always a big one for its very fantastic nature

would make it more credible—if only you keep repeating

it over and over and over again.

Well, let us take some simple illustrations that come to

mind. For example, although I rubbed my eyes when I

read it, we have been told that it was not a Republican

depression, but a Democratic depression from which this

nation was saved in 1933—that this Administration—this

one—today—is responsible for all the suffering and misery

that the history books and the American people have

always thought had been brought about during the twelve

ill-fated years when the Republican party was in power.

Now, there is an old and somewhat lugubrious adage

which says: “Never speak of a rope in the house of a man

who has been hanged.” (laughter) In the same way, if I

were a Republican leader speaking to a mixed audience,

the last word in the whole dictionary that I think I would

use is that word “depression.” (more laughter, and

applause)

You know, they pop up all the time. For another exam-

ple, I learned—much to my amazement—that the policy

of this Administration was to keep men in the Army when

the war was over, because there might be no jobs for them

in civil life.

Well, the very day that this fantastic charge was first

made, a formal plan for the method of speedy discharge

from the Army had already been announced by the War

Department—a plan based on the wishes of the soldiers

themselves.

This callous and brazen falsehood about demobiliza-

tion did, of course, a very simple thing, it was an effort to

stimulate fear among American mothers and wives and

sweethearts. And, incidentally, it was hardly calculated to

bolster the morale of our soldiers and sailors and airmen

who are fighting our battles all over the world.

1448 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

But perhaps the most ridiculous of these campaign

falsifications is the one that this Administration failed to

prepare for the war that was coming. I doubt whether even

Goebbels would have tried that one. (laughter and

applause) For even he would never have dared hope that

the voters of America had already forgotten that many of

the Republican leaders in the Congress and outside the

Congress tried to thwart and block nearly every attempt

that this Administration made to warn our people and arm

our nation. (cheers and applause) Some of them called our

50,000 airplane program fantastic. Many of those very

same leaders who fought every defense measure that we

proposed are still in control of the Republican party—look

at their names—were in control of its National Convention

in Chicago, and would be in control of the machinery of

the Congress and of the Republican party, in the event of

a Republican victory this fall.

These Republican leaders have not been content with

attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content

with that they now include my little dog, Fala. (prolonged

laughter, cheers and applause) Well, of course, I don’t

resent attacks, and my family don’t resent attacks, but

Fala does resent them. (more laughter, cheers and ap-

plause) You know—you know, Fala is Scotch, and being a

Scottie, as soon as he learned that the Republican fiction-

writers in Congress and out had concocted a story that I

had left him behind on the Aleutian Islands and had sent

a destroyer back to find him—at a cost to the taxpayers of

two or three, or eight or twenty million dollars—his

Scotch soul was furious. (continued laughter and

applause) He has not been the same dog since. (more

laughter and applause) I am accustomed to hearing mali-

cious falsehoods about myself—such as that old, worm-

eaten chestnut that I have represented myself as

indispensable. But I think I have a right to resent, to

object to libelous statement about my dog. (more laughter

and applause)

Well, I think we all recognize the old technique. The

people of this country know the past too well to be

deceived into forgetting. Too much is at stake to forget.

There are tasks ahead of us which we must now complete

with the same will and the same skill and intelligence and

devotion that have already led us so far along the road to

victory.

There is the task finishing victoriously this most terri-

ble of all wars as speedily as possible and with the least cost

in lives.

There is the task of setting up international machinery

to assure that the peace, once established, will not again be

broken.

And there is the task that we face here at home—the

task of reconverting our economy from the purposes of

war to the purposes of peace.

These peace-building tasks were faced once before,

nearly a generation ago. They were botched by a Republi-

can administration. That must not happen this time. We

will not let it happen this time.

Fortunately, we do not begin from scratch. Much has

been done. Much more is under way. The fruits of victory

this time will not be apples sold on street corners. (cheers

and applause)

Many months ago this Administration set up necessary

machinery for an orderly peace-time demobilization. The

Congress has passed much more legislation continuing the

agencies needed for demobilization—with additional pow-

ers to carry out their functions.

I know that the American people—business and labor

and agriculture—have the same will to do for peace what

they have done for war. (cheers and applause) And I know

that they can sustain a national income that will assure

full production and full employment under our demo-

cratic system of private enterprise, with Government

encouragement and aid whenever and wherever that is

necessary.

The keynote back of all this literature that we read, the

keynote of all that we propose to do in reconversion can be

found in the one word Jobs.

We shall lease or dispose of our Government-owned

plants and facilities and our surplus war property and land,

on the basis of how they can best be operated by private

enterprise to give jobs to the greatest number. (cheers and

applause)

We shall follow a wage policy that will sustain the pur-

chasing power of labor—for that means more production

and more jobs.

You and I know that the present policies on wages and

prices were conceived to serve the needs of the great

masses of the people. They stopped inflation. They kept

prices on a relatively stable level. Through the demobiliza-

tion period, policies will be carried out with the same

objective in mind—to serve the needs of the great masses

of the people.

This is not the time in which men can be forgotten as

they were in the Republican catastrophe that we inherited.

The returning soldiers, the workers by their machines, the

farmers in the field, the miners, the men and women in

offices and shops, do not intend to be forgotten. (cheers

and applause)

No, they know that they are not surplus. Because they

know that they are America.

We must set targets and objectives for the future

which will seem impossible—like the airplanes—to those

who live in and are weighted down by the dead past.

And for months—and today and in the future we are

working and will continue to put forth the logistics of the

peace, just as Marshall and King and Arnold, MacArthur,

World War II at Home and Abroad 1449

Eisenhower and Nimitz are organizing the logistics of

this war.

I think that the victory of the American people and

their Allies in this war will be for more than a victory

against fascism and reaction and the dead hand of despo-

tism of the past. The victory of the American people and

their Allies in this war will be a victory for democracy. It

will constitute such an affirmation of the strength and

power and vitality of government by the people as history

has never before witnessed.

And so, my friends, with that affirmation of the vital-

ity of democratic government behind us, that demonstra-

tion of its resilience and its capacity for decision and for

action—with that knowledge of our own strength and

power—we move forward with God’s help to the greatest

epoch of free achievement by free men that the world has

ever known or imagined possible.

Source:

Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Public Papers of the Presidents of the

United States. New York: Random House, 1938–50.

Report of Decorations Board,

1st Lt. Annie G. Fox, 1944

First Lieutenant Annie G. Fox was one of more than 59,000

American nurses who served in the Army Nurse Corps during

World War II. They served under fire in field hospitals and

evacuation hospitals, on hospital trains and hospital ships, and

as flight nurses on medical transport planes. Because of their

contribution, fewer than 4 percent of the American soldiers

who received medical care in the field or underwent evacua-

tion died from wounds or disease.

Annie G. Fox served as head nurse at Hickam Field near

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in 1941. She supervised the treatment of

those wounded in the Japanese attack on December 7. Initially

awarded the Purple Heart, which was normally reserved for

those who were wounded, Fox was later given the Bronze Star

medal, one of 565 women to receive that honor, which was

considered more appropriate. At least four army nurses re-

ceived Silver Stars for extraordinary courage in Italy.The Army

Nurse Corps was one of several forces in which women served

during World War II. As part of the armed services they could

join the Women’s Army Corps (WACS), as did some 350,000

by the end of the war. Applicants had to be U.S. citizens

between the ages of 21 and 45 with no dependents, at least five

feet tall, and weigh 100 pounds or more. After Pearl Harbor,

more than 35,000 women from all over the country applied for

less than 1,000 anticipated positions. In addition, they could

become navy WAVES (Women Accepted for Voluntary Emer-

gency Service), Coast Guard SPARS (from the service’s motto

Semper Paratus

), marines (who gave no specific name to their

women’s units), or fly in the Women’s Auxiliary Service Pilots

(WASPS). Until close to the end of the war, only the WACS and

navy nurses were permitted to serve overseas, the navy nurses,

limited to ships and planes. After the war, many of the military

and naval women had to fight to receive veteran’s benefits, but

not all succeeded. The WASPs, who flew planes and were

among the casualties, were not considered military. The 38

women who died in the line of duty were buried without mili-

tary honors, and the living WASPs did not share any veterans’

privileges such as the G.I. Bill to pay for schooling, low-inter-

est housing loans, or health benefits. In 1977, Congress

declared that the WASPs were indeed World War II veterans

and the air force formally recognized them as such in 1979.

Finally, in 1984, each WASP was awarded the Victory Medal,

and those who served for more than one year received the

American Theater medal. In the report of the Decorations

Board, signed by the board’s president, a major general, noted

that the pronoun “him” is used by mistake in the last para-

graph. Although the board recommends rescinding the Purple

Heart, as of March 30, 1945, it had not been acted upon.

________________________

_______________________

1. The board having been properly convened and

organized, has considered the record of the case of [Annie

G. Fox].

2. By decision of a majority of the board, the above-

named individual is recommended for the award of the

BRONZE STAR MEDAL with citation substantially as

follows:

First Lieutenant Annie G. Fox, N 700454, Army

Nurse Corps, Station Hospital, United States Army. For

heroic and meritorious service in military operations

against the enemy during the attack on Hickam Field by

Japanese forces (aircraft) on 7 December 1941. During

the attack Lieutenant Fox, in an exemplary manner, per-

formed her duties as Head Nurse of the Station Hospital,

Hickam Field, T. H. [Territory of Hawaii]. In addition, she

administered anaesthesia to patients during the heaviest

part of the bombardment, assisted in dressing the

wounded, taught civilian volunteer nurses to make and

wrap dressings, and worked ceaselessly with coolness and

efficiency, and her fine example of calmness, courage and

leadership was of great benefit to the morale of all with

whom she came in contact. The loyalty and devotion to

duty displayed by Lieutenant Fox on this occasion

reflected great credit upon herself and the military service.

The Bronze Star Medal is in lieu of the Purple Heart

awarded him [sic] in General Orders No. 33, Headquar-

ters Seventh Air Force Base Command, 23 September

1942. Since Lieutenant Fox was not wounded in action.

[sic] Cancellation of the award of the Purple Heart is also

recommended.

1450 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

Source:

National Archives and Records Administration. “A People at

War.” Available on-line. www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/

a_people_at_war/women_who_served/annie_g_fox.html.

Accessed November 2003.

Yalta Agreement, 1945

Agreements signed on February 11, 1945, by the “Big Three”

Allied leaders: U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt, British

prime minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet premier Joseph

Stalin. The conference took place at Yalta, in the USSR, from

February 4 to 11, 1945. (Roosevelt was ill and weak at the

time; he died on April 12.) This meeting was convened in the

final months of World War II to discuss strategies for the inva-

sion and final defeat of Nazi Germany and the terms of settle-

ment. The three powers agreed to demand Germany’s

unconditional surrender, and they planned to divide Germany

into four zones of occupation; they would each take one zone,

and France would be the fourth occupying power. The leaders

also finalized the dates of the meeting in San Francisco to draft

the United Nations Charter, and the Soviet Union promised to

enter the war against Japan after the German surrender.

The Soviets also agreed to allow European countries to

settle their political and economic problems by democratic

means. Instead, when the war ended, the Soviets dominated

the countries of their zone, and they all became communist.

Since that time, critics of Roosevelt have accused him of sell-

ing out to the Soviets. However, the president considered

Soviet help essential in defeating the Japanese, and he had no

control over the fate of the areas of eastern Europe already

occupied by the Russian army.

The Yalta provisions were discussed further by the new

U.S. president, Harry S. Truman, Churchill, and Stalin at Pots-

dam, outside of Berlin. The Allied powers’ declaration of July

26, 1945, contained their plans for the future of Germany.

Their intention, they clarified, was not “to destroy or enslave

the German people,” but to ensure that Germany would never

again threaten world peace. Therefore, they sought to abolish

Germany’s armed forces and prohibit the manufacture of

armaments, bring war criminals to trial, destroy Nazism and

its institutions, and give German education a new direction.

Germany was divided into four zones, administered by

France, Germany, Britain, and the United States. Germany

had to surrender territory to Poland and the Soviet Union, and

its economy would be decentralized and industrial strength

severely limited. War reparations payable to the Allies were

also discussed. A council of foreign ministers was formed to

negotiate settlements with Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary,

and Finland.

________________________

_______________________

YALTA AGREEMENT

The Defeat of Germany

We have considered and determined the military plans of

the three Allied powers for the final defeat of the common

enemy. The military staffs of the three Allied Nations have

met in daily meetings throughout the Conference. These

meetings have been most satisfactory from every point of

view and have resulted in closer coordination of the mili-

tary effort of the three Allies than ever before. The fullest

information has been interchanged. The timing, scope,

and coordination of new and even more powerful blows to

be launched by our armies and air forces into the heart of

Germany from the East, West, North, and South have

been fully agreed and planned in detail.

Our combined military plans will be made known only

as we execute them, but we believe that the very close

working partnership among the three staffs attained at this

Conference will result in shortening the war. Meetings of

the three staffs will be continued in the future whenever

the need arises.

Nazi Germany is doomed. The German people will

only make the cost of their defeat heavier to themselves by

attempting to continue a hopeless resistance.

The Occupation and Control of Germany

We have agreed on common policies and plans for enforc-

ing the unconditional surrender terms which we shall

impose together on Nazi Germany after German armed

resistance has been finally crushed. These terms will not

be made known until the final defeat of Germany has been

accomplished. Under the agreed plan, the forces of the

three powers will each occupy a separate zone of Germany.

Coordinated administration and control has been provided

for under the plan through a central control commission

consisting of the Supreme Commanders of the three pow-

ers with headquarters in Berlin. It has been agreed that

France should be invited by the three powers, if she

should so desire, to take over a zone of occupation, and to

participate as a fourth member of the control commission.

The limits of the French zone will be agreed by the four

Governments concerned through their representatives on

the European Advisory Commission.

It is our inflexible purpose to destroy German mili-

tarism and Nazism and to ensure that Germany will never

again be able to disturb the peace of the world. We are

determined to disarm and disband all German armed

forces; break up for all time the German General Staff that

has repeatedly contrived the resurgence of German mili-

tarism; remove or destroy all German military equipment;

eliminate or control all German industry that could be

used for military production; bring all war criminals to just

and swift punishment and exact reparation in kind for the

destruction wrought by the Germans; wipe out the Nazi

World War II at Home and Abroad 1451