The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-09-22

In my candid Judgment, we
shall succeed In these efforts.
We are proud Of the historical
record Of the United States and
Of all the Americans during all
these years because we have
thrown every ounce of our In
fiuence for peace into the scale Of
peace.
! note in passing that you win
all remember - the. long debates
on the subject of what constitutes
aggression, on the methods Of de-
termining who the aggressor
might be, and on who the ag-
gressor in past wars had been.
Accidentally, this may have been
instructive as it may have been
of interest to historians to dis
cuss the pros and cons and the
rights and wrongs Of the World
War during the decade that fol-
lowed 1t.
But in the light of problems Of
today and tomorrow responsibility
for acts of aggression is not con-
cealed, and the writing Of the rec
ord can safely be left to future
historians.
There has been sufficient real.
ism In the United States to see
how close to our own shores came
dangerous paths which were being
followed on other continents.
Last January I told the Con-
gress that "a war which threat
ened to envelop the world in
flames has been averted, but it
has become increasingly clear that
peace Is not assured" BY April
new tensions had developed; a
new crisis was in the making.
Several nations with whom we
had friendly, diplomatic and COM
mercial relations had lost, or were
in the process of losing, their in
dependent identity and sover-
eighty.
During the spring and summer
the trend was definitely toward
further acts of military conquest
and away from peace. AS late as
the end Of July I spoke to mem.
bers of the Congress about the
definite possibility of war. I should
have called 1t the probability Of
war.
New Threats
Last January, also. I spoke to
this Congress Of the need for
further warning of new threats of
conquest, military and economic:
Of challenge to religion, to de-
mocarcy and to international good
faith, I said: Gan ordering of So
ciety which relegates religion,
democracy and good faith among
nations to the background can
find no place within 1t for the
ideals of the Prince Of Peace. The
United States rejects such an Or
dering and retains its ancient
faith.
1--WE know what might happen
to us of the United States If the
new philosophers of. force were to
encompass the other continents
and invade our own. We, no more
than other nations, can afford to
be surrounded by the enemies of
our faith and our humanity. For
tunate it is, therefore, that in this
Western Hemisphere we have,
under a common ideal of demo-
cratic government, a rich diversity
of resources and Of people func-
tioning together in mutual respect
and peace"
Last January, IN the same mes
sage, also said: I'VE have learn
ed that when we deliberately try
to legislate neutrality, our neu-
trality laws may operate uneven
ly and unfairly-may actually give
aid to an aggressor and deny 1t to
the victim. The instinct of self
preservation should warn us that
we ought not to let that happen
any more"
1t was because of what I fore
saw last January from watching
the trend of foreign affairs and
their probable effect upon US that
I recommended to the Congress in
July of this year that changes be
enacted In our neutrality law.
determination
The essentials for American
peace in the world have not
changed since January. That Is