Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Seit Monaten leiden wir alle unter der Qual eines Problems, das uns auch der Versailler Vertrag, d.h. das Versailler Diktat, einst beschert hat, eines Problems, das in seiner Ausartung und Entartung für uns unerträglich geworden war. Danzig war und ist eine deutsche Stadt! Der Korridor war und ist deutsch! Alle diese Gebiete verdanken ihre kulturelle Erschließung ausschließlich dem deutschen Volke. Ohne das deutsche Volk würde in all diesen östlichen Gebieten tiefste Barbarei herrschen. Danzig wurde von uns getrennt, der Korridor von Polen annektiert neben anderen deutschen Gebieten des Ostens, vor allem aber die dort lebenden deutschen Minderheiten in der qualvollsten Weise misshandelt. Über eine Million Menschen deutschen Blutes mussten in den Jahren 1919-20 schon damals ihre Heimat verlassen. Wie immer habe ich auch hier versucht, auf dem Wege friedlicher Revisionsvorschläge eine Änderung des unerträglichen Zustandes herbeizuführen. Es ist eine Lüge, wenn in der anderen Welt behauptet wird, dass wir alle unsere Revisionen nur versuchten unter Druck durchzusetzen. 15 Jahre, ehe der Nationalsozialismus zur Macht kam, hatte man Gelegenheit, auf dem Wege friedlichster Abmachungen, auf dem Wege friedlicher Verständigung, die Revisionen durchzuführen. Man tat es nicht. In jedem einzelnen Fall habe ich später dann von mir aus nicht einmal, sondern oftmals Vorschläge gemacht zur Revision unerträglicher Zustände. Alle diese Vorschläge sind, wie Sie wissen, abgelehnt worden. Ich brauche sie hier nicht im einzelnen aufzuzählen: die Vorschläge zur Rüstungsbegrenzung, ja, wenn notwendig, zur Rüstungsbeseitigung, die Vorschläge zur Beschränkung der Kriegsführung, die Vorschläge zur Ausschaltung gewisser, in meinen Augen mit dem Völkerrecht sich schwer zu vereinbarenden Methoden der modernen Kriegsführung. Sie kennen die Vorschläge, die ich machte über die Notwendigkeit der Wiederherstellung der deutschen Souveränität über die deutschen Reichsgebiete. Sie kennen die endlosen Versuche, die ich machte zu einer friedlichen Klärung und zu einer Verständigung über das Problem Österreich, später über das Problem Sudetenland, Böhmen und Mähren. Es war alles vergeblich. Eines ist nun unmoeglich zu verlangen dass ein unmoeglicher Zustand auf dem Weg von friedlichen Revisionen bereinigt wird - und die friedlichen Revisionen konsequent zu verweigern. Es ist auch unmoeglich zu sagen, dass derjenige der in solch einer Lage dann dazu uebergeht, von sich aus diese Revisionen vorzunehmen, gegen ein Gesetzt verstoesst. Denn das Diktat von Versailles ist fuer uns Deutsche kein Gesetz. Es geht nicht an von jemand mit vorgehaltener Pistole und mit der Drohung des Verhungerns von Millionen Menschen eine Unterschrift zu erpressen und dann das Dokument mit dieser erpressten Unterschrift als ein feierliches Gesetzt zu proklamieren. So habe ich auch im Falle Danzigs, des Korridors usw. versucht, durch friedliche Vorschläge auf dem Wege einer friedlichen Diskussion die Probleme zu lösen. Dass die Probleme gelöst werden mussten, das war klar. Und dass der Termin dieser Lösung für die westlichen Staaten vielleicht uninteressant sein kann, ist für uns verständlich. Aber dieser Termin ist nicht uns gleichgültig; und vor allem, er war nicht und konnte nicht gleichgültig sein für die am meisten leidenden Opfer.
I spoke the other day of the colossal military disaster which occurred when the French High Command failed to withdraw the northern Armies from Belgium at the moment when they knew that the French front was decisively broken at Sedan and on the Meuse. I spoke the other day of the colossal military disaster which occurred when the French High Command failed to withdraw the northern Armies from Belgium at the moment when they knew that the French front was decisively broken at Sedan and on the Meuse. This delay entailed the loss of fifteen or sixteen French divisions and threw out of action for the critical period the whole of the British Expeditionary Force. Our Army and 120,000 French troops were indeed rescued by the British Navy from Dunkirk but only with the loss of their cannon, vehicles and modern equipment. This loss inevitably took some weeks to repair, and in the first two of those weeks the battle in France has been lost. When we consider the heroic resistance made by the French Army against heavy odds in this battle, the enormous losses inflicted upon the enemy and the evident exhaustion of the enemy, it may well be the thought that these 25 divisions of the best-trained and best-equipped troops might have turned the scale. However, General Weygand had to fight without them. Only three British divisions or their equivalent were able to stand in the line with their French comrades. They have suffered severely, but they have fought well. We sent every man we could to France as fast as we could re-equip and transport their formations. I am not reciting these facts for the purpose of recrimination. That I judge to be utterly futile and even harmful. We cannot afford it. I recite them in order to explain why it was we did not have, as we could have had, between twelve and fourteen British divisions fighting in the line in this great battle instead of only three. Now I put all this aside. I put it on the shelf, from which the historians, when they have time, will select their documents to tell their stories. We have to think of the future and not of the past. This also applies in a small way to our own affairs at home. There are many who would hold an inquest in the House of Commons on the conduct of the Governments-and of Parliaments, for they are in it, too-during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This also would be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it. Let each man search his conscience and search his speeches. I frequently search mine. Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. Therefore, I cannot accept the drawing of any distinctions between Members of the present Government. It was formed at a moment of crisis in order to unite all the Parties and all sections of opinion. It has received the almost unanimous support of both Houses of Parliament. Its Members are going to stand together, and, subject to the authority of the House of Commons, we are going to govern the country and fight the war. It is absolutely necessary at a time like this that every Minister who tries each day to do his duty shall be respected; and their subordinates must know that their chiefs are not threatened men, men who are here today and gone tomorrow, but that their directions must be punctually and faithfully obeyed. Without this concentrated power we cannot face what lies before us. I should not think it would be very advantageous for the House to prolong this Debate this afternoon under conditions of public stress. Many facts are not clear that will be clear in a short time. We are to have a secret Session on Thursday, and I should think that would be a better opportunity for the many earnest expressions of opinion which Members will desire to make and for the House to discuss vital matters without having everything read the next morning by our dangerous foes. The disastrous military events which have happened during the past fortnight have not come to me with any sense of surprise. Indeed, I indicated a fortnight ago as clearly as I could to the House that the worst possibilities were open; and I made it perfectly clear then that whatever happened in France would make no difference to the resolve of Britain and the British Empire to fight on, '~f necessary for years, if necessary alone." During the last few days we have successfully brought off the great majority of the troops we had on the line of communication in France; and seven-eighths of the troops we have sent to France since the beginning of the war-that is to say, about 350,000 out of 400,000 men-are safely back in this country. Others are still fighting with the French, and fighting with considerable success in their local encounters against the enemy. We have also brought back a great mass of stores, rifles and munitions of all kinds which had been accumulated in France during the last nine months.
[1] Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress: [2] I address you, the Members of the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union. I use the word “unprecedented,” because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today. [3] Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And fortunately, only one of these-the four-year War Between the States-ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, one hundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity. [4] It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often had been disturbed by events in other Continents. We had even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence. [5] What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition, clear, definite opposition, to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas. [6] That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, in the early days during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution. [7] While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain, nor any other nation, was aiming at domination of the whole world. [8] And in like fashion from 1815 to 1914-ninety-nine years-no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation. [9] Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this Hemisphere; and the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength. It is still a friendly strength. [10] Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of danger to our own American future. But, as time went on, as we remember, the American people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy. [11] We need not overemphasize imperfections in the Peace of Versailles. We need not harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember that the Peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of “pacification” which began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces against that tyranny. [12] I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world-assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace. [13] During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small. [14]Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to “give to the Congress information of the state of the Union,” I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders. [15] Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and Australasia will be dominated by conquerors. And let us remember that the total of those populations in those four continents, the total of those populations and their resources greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere-yes, many times over. [16] In times like these it is immature-and incidentally, untrue-for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world. [17] No realistic American can expect from a dictator’s peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion-or even good business. [18] Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. “Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” [19] As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed. [20] We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the “ism” of appeasement. [21] We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests. [22] I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war. [23] There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate. [24] But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe-particularly the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a series of years. [25] The first phase of the invasion of this Hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by their dupes- and great numbers of them are already here, and in Latin America. [26] As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they-not we-will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack. [27] And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger. [28] That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history. [29] That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility and great accountability. [30] The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily-almost exclusively-to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency. [31] Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all of our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.
Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle (/də ˈɡoʊl, -ˈɡɔːl/; French pronunciation: [ʃaʁl də ɡol] (listen);[1] 22 November 1890 - 9 November 1970), commonly known in France simply as "le général" ("the general"), was a French army officer and statesman who led Free France against Nazi Germany in World War II and chaired the Provisional Government of the French Republic from 1944 to 1946 in order to restore democracy in France. In 1958, he came out of retirement when appointed President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister) by President René Coty. He rewrote the Constitution of France and founded the Fifth Republic after approval by referendum. He was elected President of France later that year, a position to which he was reelected in 1965 and held until his resignation in 1969. Born in Lille, he graduated from Saint-Cyr in 1912. He was a decorated officer of the First World War, wounded several times and later taken prisoner by the Germans at Verdun. During the interwar period, he advocated mobile armoured divisions. During the German invasion of May 1940, he led an armoured division which counterattacked the invaders; he was then appointed Undersecretary for War. Refusing to accept his government's armistice with Germany, de Gaulle fled to England and exhorted the French to resist occupation and to continue the fight in his Appeal of 18 June. He led the Free French Forces and later headed the French National Liberation Committee against the Axis. Despite frosty relations with the United States, he generally had Winston Churchill's support, and emerged as the undisputed leader of Free France. He became head of the Provisional Government of the French Republic in June 1944, the interim government of France following its liberation. As early as 1944, de Gaulle introduced a dirigiste economic policy, which included substantial state-directed control over a capitalist economy, which was followed by 30 years of unprecedented growth, known as the Trente Glorieuses. Frustrated by the return of petty partisanship in the new Fourth Republic, he resigned in early 1946, but continued to be politically active as founder of the Rassemblement du Peuple Français (RPF; "Rally of the French People"). He retired in the early 1950s and wrote his War Memoirs, which quickly became a staple of modern French literature.
i like that Dally's tan is so strong from the dessert that it's just lasted for years.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
I feel like you're a bot
Уссоп соло
Seit Monaten leiden wir alle unter der Qual eines Problems, das uns auch der Versailler Vertrag, d.h. das Versailler Diktat, einst beschert hat, eines Problems, das in seiner Ausartung und Entartung für uns unerträglich geworden war. Danzig war und ist eine deutsche Stadt! Der Korridor war und ist deutsch!
Alle diese Gebiete verdanken ihre kulturelle Erschließung ausschließlich dem deutschen Volke. Ohne das deutsche Volk würde in all diesen östlichen Gebieten tiefste Barbarei herrschen.
Danzig wurde von uns getrennt, der Korridor von Polen annektiert neben anderen deutschen Gebieten des Ostens, vor allem aber die dort lebenden deutschen Minderheiten in der qualvollsten Weise misshandelt. Über eine Million Menschen deutschen Blutes mussten in den Jahren 1919-20 schon damals ihre Heimat verlassen.
Wie immer habe ich auch hier versucht, auf dem Wege friedlicher Revisionsvorschläge eine Änderung des unerträglichen Zustandes herbeizuführen. Es ist eine Lüge, wenn in der anderen Welt behauptet wird, dass wir alle unsere Revisionen nur versuchten unter Druck durchzusetzen. 15 Jahre, ehe der Nationalsozialismus zur Macht kam, hatte man Gelegenheit, auf dem Wege friedlichster Abmachungen, auf dem Wege friedlicher Verständigung, die Revisionen durchzuführen. Man tat es nicht. In jedem einzelnen Fall habe ich später dann von mir aus nicht einmal, sondern oftmals Vorschläge gemacht zur Revision unerträglicher Zustände.
Alle diese Vorschläge sind, wie Sie wissen, abgelehnt worden. Ich brauche sie hier nicht im einzelnen aufzuzählen: die Vorschläge zur Rüstungsbegrenzung, ja, wenn notwendig, zur Rüstungsbeseitigung, die Vorschläge zur Beschränkung der Kriegsführung, die Vorschläge zur Ausschaltung gewisser, in meinen Augen mit dem Völkerrecht sich schwer zu vereinbarenden Methoden der modernen Kriegsführung. Sie kennen die Vorschläge, die ich machte über die Notwendigkeit der Wiederherstellung der deutschen Souveränität über die deutschen Reichsgebiete. Sie kennen die endlosen Versuche, die ich machte zu einer friedlichen Klärung und zu einer Verständigung über das Problem Österreich, später über das Problem Sudetenland, Böhmen und Mähren. Es war alles vergeblich.
Eines ist nun unmoeglich zu verlangen dass ein unmoeglicher Zustand auf dem Weg von friedlichen Revisionen bereinigt wird - und die friedlichen Revisionen konsequent zu verweigern.
Es ist auch unmoeglich zu sagen, dass derjenige der in solch einer Lage dann dazu uebergeht, von sich aus diese Revisionen vorzunehmen, gegen ein Gesetzt verstoesst. Denn das Diktat von Versailles ist fuer uns Deutsche kein Gesetz.
Es geht nicht an von jemand mit vorgehaltener Pistole und mit der Drohung des Verhungerns von Millionen Menschen eine Unterschrift zu erpressen und dann das Dokument mit dieser erpressten Unterschrift als ein feierliches Gesetzt zu proklamieren.
So habe ich auch im Falle Danzigs, des Korridors usw. versucht, durch friedliche Vorschläge auf dem Wege einer friedlichen Diskussion die Probleme zu lösen. Dass die Probleme gelöst werden mussten, das war klar. Und dass der Termin dieser Lösung für die westlichen Staaten vielleicht uninteressant sein kann, ist für uns verständlich. Aber dieser Termin ist nicht uns gleichgültig; und vor allem, er war nicht und konnte nicht gleichgültig sein für die am meisten leidenden Opfer.
I spoke the other day of the colossal military disaster which occurred when the French High Command failed to withdraw the northern Armies from Belgium at the moment when they knew that the French front was decisively broken at Sedan and on the Meuse.
I spoke the other day of the colossal military disaster which occurred when the French High Command failed to withdraw the northern Armies from Belgium at the moment when they knew that the French front was decisively broken at Sedan and on the Meuse. This delay entailed the loss of fifteen or sixteen French divisions and threw out of action for the critical period the whole of the British Expeditionary Force. Our Army and 120,000 French troops were indeed rescued by the British Navy from Dunkirk but only with the loss of their cannon, vehicles and modern equipment. This loss inevitably took some weeks to repair, and in the first two of those weeks the battle in France has been lost. When we consider the heroic resistance made by the French Army against heavy odds in this battle, the enormous losses inflicted upon the enemy and the evident exhaustion of the enemy, it may well be the thought that these 25 divisions of the best-trained and best-equipped troops might have turned the scale. However, General Weygand had to fight without them. Only three British divisions or their equivalent were able to stand in the line with their French comrades. They have suffered severely, but they have fought well. We sent every man we could to France as fast as we could re-equip and transport their formations.
I am not reciting these facts for the purpose of recrimination. That I judge to be utterly futile and even harmful. We cannot afford it. I recite them in order to explain why it was we did not have, as we could have had, between twelve and fourteen British divisions fighting in the line in this great battle instead of only three. Now I put all this aside. I put it on the shelf, from which the historians, when they have time, will select their documents to tell their stories. We have to think of the future and not of the past. This also applies in a small way to our own affairs at home. There are many who would hold an inquest in the House of Commons on the conduct of the Governments-and of Parliaments, for they are in it, too-during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This also would be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it. Let each man search his conscience and search his speeches. I frequently search mine.
Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. Therefore, I cannot accept the drawing of any distinctions between Members of the present Government. It was formed at a moment of crisis in order to unite all the Parties and all sections of opinion. It has received the almost unanimous support of both Houses of Parliament. Its Members are going to stand together, and, subject to the authority of the House of Commons, we are going to govern the country and fight the war. It is absolutely necessary at a time like this that every Minister who tries each day to do his duty shall be respected; and their subordinates must know that their chiefs are not threatened men, men who are here today and gone tomorrow, but that their directions must be punctually and faithfully obeyed. Without this concentrated power we cannot face what lies before us. I should not think it would be very advantageous for the House to prolong this Debate this afternoon under conditions of public stress. Many facts are not clear that will be clear in a short time. We are to have a secret Session on Thursday, and I should think that would be a better opportunity for the many earnest expressions of opinion which Members will desire to make and for the House to discuss vital matters without having everything read the next morning by our dangerous foes.
The disastrous military events which have happened during the past fortnight have not come to me with any sense of surprise. Indeed, I indicated a fortnight ago as clearly as I could to the House that the worst possibilities were open; and I made it perfectly clear then that whatever happened in France would make no difference to the resolve of Britain and the British Empire to fight on, '~f necessary for years, if necessary alone." During the last few days we have successfully brought off the great majority of the troops we had on the line of communication in France; and seven-eighths of the troops we have sent to France since the beginning of the war-that is to say, about 350,000 out of 400,000 men-are safely back in this country. Others are still fighting with the French, and fighting with considerable success in their local encounters against the enemy. We have also brought back a great mass of stores, rifles and munitions of all kinds which had been accumulated in France during the last nine months.
You're a bot
[1] Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Seventy-seventh Congress:
[2] I address you, the Members of the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union. I use the word “unprecedented,” because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.
[3] Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And fortunately, only one of these-the four-year War Between the States-ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, one hundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity.
[4] It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often had been disturbed by events in other Continents. We had even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence.
[5] What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition, clear, definite opposition, to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas.
[6] That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, in the early days during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution.
[7] While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain, nor any other nation, was aiming at domination of the whole world.
[8] And in like fashion from 1815 to 1914-ninety-nine years-no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation.
[9] Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this Hemisphere; and the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength. It is still a friendly strength.
[10] Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of danger to our own American future. But, as time went on, as we remember, the American people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy.
[11] We need not overemphasize imperfections in the Peace of Versailles. We need not harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember that the Peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of “pacification” which began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces against that tyranny.
[12] I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world-assailed either by arms, or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace.
[13] During sixteen long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.
[14]Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to “give to the Congress information of the state of the Union,” I find it, unhappily, necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.
[15] Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and Australasia will be dominated by conquerors. And let us remember that the total of those populations in those four continents, the total of those populations and their resources greatly exceeds the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere-yes, many times over.
[16] In times like these it is immature-and incidentally, untrue-for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.
[17] No realistic American can expect from a dictator’s peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion-or even good business.
[18] Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. “Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
[19] As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed.
[20] We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the “ism” of appeasement.
[21] We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.
[22] I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war.
[23] There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate.
[24] But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe-particularly the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a series of years.
[25] The first phase of the invasion of this Hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by their dupes- and great numbers of them are already here, and in Latin America.
[26] As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they-not we-will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.
[27] And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger.
[28] That is why this Annual Message to the Congress is unique in our history.
[29] That is why every member of the Executive Branch of the Government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility and great accountability.
[30] The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily-almost exclusively-to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.
[31] Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all of our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.
сыр что?
сыр преседал
где видео
скоро
Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle (/də ˈɡoʊl, -ˈɡɔːl/; French pronunciation: [ʃaʁl də ɡol] (listen);[1] 22 November 1890 - 9 November 1970), commonly known in France simply as "le général" ("the general"), was a French army officer and statesman who led Free France against Nazi Germany in World War II and chaired the Provisional Government of the French Republic from 1944 to 1946 in order to restore democracy in France. In 1958, he came out of retirement when appointed President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister) by President René Coty. He rewrote the Constitution of France and founded the Fifth Republic after approval by referendum. He was elected President of France later that year, a position to which he was reelected in 1965 and held until his resignation in 1969.
Born in Lille, he graduated from Saint-Cyr in 1912. He was a decorated officer of the First World War, wounded several times and later taken prisoner by the Germans at Verdun. During the interwar period, he advocated mobile armoured divisions. During the German invasion of May 1940, he led an armoured division which counterattacked the invaders; he was then appointed Undersecretary for War. Refusing to accept his government's armistice with Germany, de Gaulle fled to England and exhorted the French to resist occupation and to continue the fight in his Appeal of 18 June. He led the Free French Forces and later headed the French National Liberation Committee against the Axis. Despite frosty relations with the United States, he generally had Winston Churchill's support, and emerged as the undisputed leader of Free France. He became head of the Provisional Government of the French Republic in June 1944, the interim government of France following its liberation. As early as 1944, de Gaulle introduced a dirigiste economic policy, which included substantial state-directed control over a capitalist economy, which was followed by 30 years of unprecedented growth, known as the Trente Glorieuses. Frustrated by the return of petty partisanship in the new Fourth Republic, he resigned in early 1946, but continued to be politically active as founder of the Rassemblement du Peuple Français (RPF; "Rally of the French People"). He retired in the early 1950s and wrote his War Memoirs, which quickly became a staple of modern French literature.