Peace or War - 1941

November 5, 1941 - HIRAM W. JOHNSON, U. S. Senator from California

In this 1941 broadcast and Senate speech, U. S. Senator Hiram W. Johnson, fiercely argues against the erosion and potential repeal of the Neutrality Act and what he views as the administration's deceptive march toward war. Johnson expresses outrage that a bill once praised by President Roosevelt and the State Department is now being vilified to justify interventionist policies, particularly criticizing the Lend-Lease bill and aid directed toward Russia. The Senator systematically quotes Roosevelt's past promises of peace and non-intervention to highlight the President's alleged shift toward a warmongering stance that threatens the nation's safety and economic stability. Ultimately, Johnson pleads with his colleagues to avoid war and maintain an American-centric policy, decrying the notion that the country must fight in foreign conflicts to spread the "Four Freedoms."

For a detailed podcast discussion on this speech, see here: 

For a quick video summary see below:

The original speech text is provided below:

Peace or War

By HIRAM W. JOHNSON, U. S. Senator from California

Broadcast over the National Broadcasting Co., November 5, 1941 and before the U. S. Senate, November 7, 1941

IN the subject which is now being debated by the Senate.

there have been more uncomplimentary expressions by

the members of the national administration than upon

any other subject during my long term in office. Commenc-

ing a few years ago the expressions of the President were

perfectly clear, and apparently, frank. And I may remark

parenthetically that the neutrality bill, which has been kicked

about like a football by the administration men, was an ad-

ministration measure, concurred in alike by the President

and the Secretary of State, when first it was before the Con-

gress, and by both of them jammed through the legislative

body. It was their measure, acclaimed by them, praised by

them, and for some years pointed to with pride by both, as

one of their great achievements. It is but fair, therefore,

that during any discussion of the measure now pending

before the Senate to remember that the neutrality bill was a

measure, approved by the Secretary of State, fought for by

both departments, and passed finally as the crowning glory

of the administration. It is only now after all the years of

praise and panegyrics the bill is held up to our people as

a monster that hampers and prevents the full exercise of the

strength of the Nation and of the good right arm of the

President.

No law has come before the Senate with such a singular

history as the neutrality bill. No measure has been so vilified

and abused as this neutrality law; and the ills that will

result from our failure to eliminate it from the statute books

are so manifold, so terrible in their consequences, so say our

interventionists, that all of us shudder to think that this

beneficent measure, that has been so long a law of the land,

and has met with such universal acclaim, suddenly has

changed and become an instrument without merit, and if we

aren't watchful, will bring ruin on our country.

Let us look for just an instance at the repeated promises

made by the President in relation to his specific intentions,

and as we proceed we can see how those specific intentions

finally grew into the monster they have become a monster

that threatens the peace of this land and its very existence.

I pass the earlier statements that "the definite policy of the

United States from now on is one opposed to armed interven-

tion" in December 1933, and that of 1934 that he has "made

it clear that the United States cannot take part in political

arrangements in Europe." Why, he talked then like a wicked

isolationist-whatever that means. Shame on him!

In June 1935 he said:

"As a nation we have been fortunate in our geographic

isolation, which in itself has partially protected our bound-

less resources. It is in full appreciation of our advantageous

position and of our own devotion to the cause of peace that

our Nation's defensive system has always reflected the single

purpose that that name implies."

In October of that year he reiterated his doctrine:

"The American people can have but one concern and

speak but one sentiment: Despite what happens in continents

overseas, the United States of America shall and must re-

main, as long ago the Father of our Country prayed that it

might remain, unentangled and free.

'As President of the United States I say to you most

earnestly once more that the people of America and the

Government of those people intend and expect to remain at

peace with all the world.

"I have pledged myself to do my part in keeping America

free of those entanglements that move us along the road

to war."

How about these sonorous sentiments? I can almost hear

a distressed isolationist again talking.

And on our Armistice Day, 1935, he said:

"The primary purpose of this Nation is to avoid being

drawn into war.

"The new generation, unlike us, have no direct knowledge

of the meaning of war. They are not immune to the glamor

of war.

Fortunately, there is evidence on every hand

that the youth of America, as a whole, is not trapped by

that delusion. They know that elation and prosperity which

may come from a new war must lead—for those who survive

it to economic and social collapse more sweeping than any

we have experienced in the past.

"America must and will protect herself. Under no cir-

cumstances will this policy of self-protection go to lengths

beyond self-protection."

Oh, Oh, Oh-his recent proclamation and messages are

the reverse. We will forgive him because though he doesn't

know it, an isolationist is one who believes in the isolation

of war, unless necessary for our defense.

In January 1936 he said again:

"The United States and the rest of the Americas can

play but one role: through a well-ordered neutrality to do

naught to encourage the contest, through adequate defense to

save ourselves from embroilment and attack, and through

example and all legitimate encouragement and assistance, to

persuade other nations to return to the ways of peace and

good will.

"Within democratic nations the chief concern of the

people is to prevent the continuance or rise of autocratic in-

stitutions that beget slavery at home and aggression abroad."

In August 1936 he made his remarkably eloquent speech

at Chautauqua, and said:

"We shun political commitments which might entangle

us in foreign wars; we avoid connection with the political

activities of the League of Nations.

"I wish I could keep war from all nations; but that is

beyond my power. I can at least make certain that no act of

the United States helps to produce or to promote a war."

"We are not isolationists except as we seek to isolate our-

selves completely from war."

And that there should be no mistake about his motives,

in October 1936 he said, at Wichita, Kans.:

"We have sought for security from war with other nations.

We propose, of course, no interference with the affairs

of other nations."

In October 1937, at Madison Square Garden, he re-

emphasized his foreign policy in these words:

"The Nation knows I hate war, and I know that the

Nation hates war. I submit to you a record of peace.

"Today there is war and rumors of war. We want none

of it. But while we guard our shores against threats of war,

we will continue to remove the causes of unrest and antagon-

ism at home which might make our people easier victims to

those for whom foreign war is profitable. Those who stand

to profit by war are not on our side in this campaign."

In October 1939 there came a change o'er the spirit of his

dreams and while he was yet saying the same words, his

words apparently meant something else.

In October 1940 he got back to the right road and said

with emphasis at Philadelphia:

"We are arming ourselves not for any foreign war. We

are arming ourselves not for any purposes of conquest or

intervention in foreign disputes. I repeat again that I stand

on the platform of our party: 'We will not participate in

foreign wars and will not send our Army, naval, or air forces

to fight in foreign lands outside the Americas except in

case of attack.'

"It is for peace I have labored; and it is for peace that I

shall labor all the days of my life."

In the same month at New York he said regarding neu-

trality, as follows:

"By the Neutrality Act of 1935, and by other steps, we

made it possible to prohibit American citizens from traveling

on vessels belonging to countries at war. Was that right?

We made it clear that American investors who put their

money into enterprises in foreign nations could not call on

American warships or soldiers to bail out their investments.

Was that right?

"We made it clear that ships flying the American flag

could not carry munitions to a belligerent, and that they

must stay out of war zones. Was that right?"

And at Boston in 1940 he gave his very solemn assurance

to the fathers and mothers of the land in these words:

"And while I am talking to you, fathers and mothers, I

give you one more assurance-

-I have said this before, but I

shall say it again and again and again-your boys are not

going to be sent into any foreign wars.

"They are going into training to form a force so strong

that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far

away from our shores. Yes; the purpose of our defense is

defense."

And in announcing his policy at Cleveland, November

1940, he said:

"We know that we are determined to defend our country,

and, with our neighbors, to defend this hemisphere. We are

strong in our defense.

"The first purpose of our foreign policy is to keep our

country out of war."

Senator Pittman, who was the right-hand of the Presi-

dent, and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee up

to the time of his death, had this to say in October 1939:

"Mr. President, we should not allow the repeal of the law

which protects our country in time of war. We should not

allow our citizens to sail on belligerent passenger vessels.

Whether they are killed legally or illegally on such vessels,

when they are killed it arouses a war spirit in this country.

We should never let that happen again. We should make it

a permanent policy that our merchant marine shall not be

armed when engaged in foreign commerce, because it invites

destruction by submarines, prevents search on the surface,

and makes defense practically impossible."

"No one here desires to take the same chance again."

This was the policy then. It should be the policy now,

and until repealed it is the policy of the United States. Just

think of it!—“We should not allow our citizens to sail on

belligerent passenger vessels. *** We should make it a

permanent policy that our merchant marine shall not be

armed when engaged in foreign commerce, because it invites

destruction by submarines, prevents search on the surface,

and makes defense practically impossible."

This is exactly what is sought to be done now.

If ever a policy of a Chief Executive was made plain

it was made so by the words of the President of the United

States. There was no ambiguity about these words, and

unless they were intended for the purpose of deceiving our

people, the people had the right to rely upon them. I make

this statement calmly and without emphasis, and present its

justification in the expressions I have quoted, and in those

which are vivid in our memories, which time precludes me

from specifically presenting. The recent words of the Presi-

dent can be taken in but one sense, that of making war.

To take the last remnant of strength from the neutrality

bill, and remove the inhibition which exists against our ships

going into danger zones, means, if it means anything, war.

All citizens who are not besotted by love of some foreign

country can read them themselves and see themselves exactly

the position of our Chief Executive. I cannot and I would

not, attempt it. Each man, for himself, must determine this;

each individual must decide for himself. It makes little

difference to me because there are not many more years of

service that I can render or for which I shall survive, but

so long as I live, and am a sentient being I shall stand up

just as an American, let the abuse be what it may, and

fight as well as God has given me the ability to fight, with

every fiber of my being for my country.

After the utterances which I have quoted came what is

called the lease-lend bill, a bill which surrendered a large

part of the authority yet left to the Congress, and by which

we gave ample authority to the President to do what he

pleased with the property of the United States. Nobody

objects within appropriate limits aid to Great Britain; no-

body would deny that country in its extremity such assistance

as may be legitimately required; but to make our assistance

dependent upon how we aid Russia is a very different thing.

If when the lease-lend bill was before the Senate there

had been a suggestion of this the author would have been

laughed to scorn. It was only the exigencies of warfare which

finally transmuted Russia from an ally into an enemy of

Hitler that made it possible. Now the greater part of our

relief is being sent to aid Russia, something never contem-

plated until Hitler declared war on Russia, and until the

Russian mission, strutting about our airplane factories came

here and demanded certain aid. I wish that there were time

for me to touch upon this subject tonight, but I lack the

time. Does anybody believe that if bloody Joe Stalin were

successful in his war with Hitler we would go "scot free."

Neither one can be trusted, and each has been guilty of

that treaty breaking, concerning which our departments hold

up their hands in horror until they determine which side is

likely to be successful.

And here comes into play the fate of the little country,

which throws the calcium light of publicity upon the ethics

of Great Britain and ourselves. Finland was the only

country on earth that honored her obligations, that did not

welsh upon her debts, and that paid regularly as the months

rolled 'round. Finland was the only country who was always

our friend, and I well remember the gatherings that were

held in the city of Washington when the very mention of

Finland led to bursts of applause. I remember when the

first aggression of Russia was made upon her sovereignty,

how the little country bravely fought to prevent it. I recall

very vividly the situation in which she found herself at the

beginning of this war, when she hoped to recover, with the

aid of Nazi Germany, the country she had been deprived of

by Russia. I could not find it in my heart to blame this little

nation, but I saw, with indignation, Britain bombing her

ports; and then, just the other day, our country, the great

United States, filled with such yearning to aid small nations,

and rescue them from tyrants, sternly notify her she must

cease her warfare upon Russia or lose the friendship of our

country.

War is a terrible thing that can pardon and condone such

actions; and it is an awful thing in its consequences. Little

Finland, of necessity, must yield.

It is as plain as night follows day we're on the brink of

war. By deceit and subterfuge we have been carried to this

position today. There no longer can be any doubt con-

cerning it. What do you want, my fellow countrymen-

peace or war? It is not a question of deceiving ourselves be-

cause we never have been in war up to this time. All the

perfervid oratory, yarps and yaps about the defense of our

land pale into insignificance when the facts are examined.

There isn't a single expert who sees that we can be success-

fully invaded. There isn't a single military man who even

claims there is the remotest possibility of success in an

attempt to invade us. If this were not so a year ago, the

hope of the invader has faded since the Russian campaign.

We may take it as absolute that danger in that direction

has passed. While, of course, I would do everything that

may be necessary in the way of defense I would do it upon

the theory of protecting our country from any eventuality,

and not because I fear any invasion.

The propaganda has been so extraordinary and our people

have been so crowded with misrepresentation and lies that it

is no wonder they are unable to see the true facts. They

should remember we have not been at war, and we are not

at war now except in the imaginations of those who desire

it, and those who would drive this country into it.

Members of the President's Cabinet, with few exceptions,

have been indulging in blatant and provocative speeches to

make us the tool of some other country so that we may fight

another country's war, and at its conclusion find ourselves

having paid for the war, having manufactured the instru-

ments necessary to fight it, and then for our sweet allies with

common consent forget the favors that have been done them,

and the assistance that has been rendered them. In the lan-

guage of a distinguished gentleman, what fools we'll find

ourselves to have been, ever to have done it.

You must remember, too, the immense program we have

entered upon, the very mention of which frightens a real

American. We are supposed to fight the war, not only in

our own country, but in the countries south of us, and their

adjacent islands, and we are to go far afield, and be in the

Mediterranean, the Red Sea, Iceland, Greenland, Ireland,

Egypt, Dakar, various parts of Africa and Asia, too. It is a

Napoleonic concept in which we are to carry the Four Free-

doms, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom from

want, and freedom from fear, to all the remote places on

earth. Why should Americans undertake this mad adven-

ture? I do not know what the term isolation may mean to

the people who glibly use it for the purpose of abuse. If

isolation means to keep out of wars in all parts of the earth

where we have no business to be, then I am an isolationist.

This, however, that we are asked to embark upon is a

strange war. It has not been constitutionally declared. The

President alone has declared this war, and declares it in the

various sections of the world. By reiteration the insidious

propaganda has crept upon all of us, and finally we see it so

deftly administered that, like a rare anaesthetic, it almost

overcomes us. In the shock of the poison the jingle has ever

been in my mind:

"Such subtle covenants shall be made

Till peace itself is war in masquerade."

As we look back we can realize how gradual was the de-

velopment, how artfully planned, until now we stand aghast

on the very brink of war. From the time he mentioned

methods "short of war" we heard much until the passage

of the lease-lend bill; and now there is the silence of death

on methods "short of war."

I am an American, and because I am an American I do

not wish to see the last vestige of the neutrality bill liqui-

dated. I want to do everything that I can for the protection

of my own country, and will fight until the death any attack

upon her. This is a time we can pray God to give us men.

-- Just prior to the taking of the final vote Mr. Johnson of

California in the Senate said.--

"Mr President, I join with the Senator from Kentucky in the

encomiums he has pronounced on the Senator from Texas.

I have found him in this trying time to be courteous, kindly

And I think, wholly fair. I can say no more concerning him.

Mr. President, a little over 24 years ago I sat in the House

Chamber, in a joint meeting of the House of Congress,

Listening to a President tell us why it was necessary to enter

Into war. I listened then, first, because, I was new to the

Congress, secondly, because of the words of the President.

I recall his first line. He said:

"It is terrible to take this great, peaceful country of ours

into war"

Then he spoke his reasons for wishing that to be done. His

words had upon me an effect which I have never forgotten.

I spent that night almost sleepless, thinking of war and

what war meant. I feel somewhat in that condition today,

especially after the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Tydings]

delivered his peculiarly apt speech respecting the situation

which we face. I felt 24 years ago it was a terrible thing

to take this country into war. I feel tonight, sir, upon the

eve of that perhaps being accomplished, that it is a terrible

thing to take this country into war.

I speak tonight under some handicaps, but I have the feel-

ing, sir, that no man can do more when the time comes

than to speak as he thinks he should speak in behalf of his

country.

And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds

For the ashes of his fathers

And the temples of his gods?

Tonight I have a feeling, sir, that scarce lets me speak

concerning what we are about to do. I have the feeling,

sir, that we are committing a grave mistake, that we are

placing our country in a peril which I cannot adequately

describe.

I think, sir, that I have heretofore referred very briefly

to the fact that this is a question, after all, of peace and

war. It is a question of peace and war. Other Senators

have the right to have any opinion they see fit to have in

regard to war. I have the right to have my poor opinion in

regard to peace.

I am at an age now, sir, when war is to me, as President

Wilson described it, a terrible thing. I am at an age now,

sir, when I firmly believe that any man who would take

this country into war, when his judgment is against it or his

conscience tells him otherwise, would be doing the greatest

disservice he could do unto this country.

Tonight we speak the last word. It is the last word that

deals with this subject of war. If Senators upon this side of

the Chamber-I am in a place where I ought not to be

perhaps can be cajoled or can be threatened or in any other

way induced to vote for war against their better instincts

and their better manhood, then I say they will do something

unto their country they can never undo, and I say that at 75

years of age I do not want upon my soul the infamy of

taking this country into war when I believe fully it ought not

to be taken into war.

Mr. President, we have heard the question of what war

means and what peace means so often broached on both sides

of this controversy that it would be a work of supererogation

for me to discuss it further; it would be idle for me to tell

the Senate what war means or what peace means. It would

be useless for me to say to any of my colleagues that they are

ruining their country. They do not want to ruin it any

more than I do. Their motives are just as pure as mine, I

take it. They ought to be. If they are not, they should be

ashamed of themselves. But I believe their motives are just

as pure as mine, and they ought not to want to take their

country into any path at the end of which is ruin, and ruin

is at the end of this vote which is about to be cast tonight.

Mr. President, yesterday we gave to Russia $1,000,000,-

000. We gave her the greatest loan ever given to any

nation, I think, within the memory of man. We gave Russia

$1,000,000,000 to do with just as she saw fit. Then, can

Senators say that there is no danger in what they do?

I shall not now argue the right or the wrong of the sinking

of any particular vessel. The chairman of the Naval Affairs

Committee [Mr. Walsh] has the records. They show no

wrong, perhaps, upon one side of this controversy. They

speak for themselves. Senators can see them if they wish to.

If they do not wish to, they can close their eyes and say

nothing concerning them.

I speak now of money, and I speak of it in the secondary

aspect alone. The money we have expended in our prepara-

tion for war and the money we have loaned to other coun-

tries is an amount large enough to ruin any country on the

face of the earth. I do not see how our country is ever

going to repay the money to those from whom it has been

borrowed or get back that which we have loaned to others.

Money has been loaned to almost every country that can be

thought of. The administration fights in every sea of the

world. The administration permits our ships to pass through

every ocean and every bay, and then expects to get off

scot free.

But, Senators, it is war, war, it is war that you cannot

afford, that I cannot afford, that none of us as Americans can

afford. I am simply an American. I care not for Great

Britain or "Bundles for Britain." I care not for Germany

and Hitler's crimes. I care not for Russia and Russia's

greed. I care not for any of those countries. I am only an

American, claiming the right to speak as an American in an

American Congress. There have been too few words spoken

in the American fashion.

Take these things by themselves; put down in a column

of figures exactly what the liabilities of this country are

today. Write them down and tell them of, and then say to

the people of this land, "There is no danger of war; there

is no danger of any kind or character." Write them down

in any fashion you choose; write them with all the peculiar

ambiguities which are established by the White House; and

when you are through, there is a staggering amount of

money due this people, which we never again can pay.

What do you say to it? You say, "We have the freedom

of the seas." Do you not realize that Wilson surrendered

the freedom of the seas in his last campaign? Do you not

realize that when he, the greatest man in the world at that

time, acclaimed by the common people in every country on

earth, and whose meetings were greater than those ever held

by man before, asked for the freedom of the seas he was told

instanter by Great Britain, "You cannot have freedom of

the seas"?

I do not know why we are talking about freedom of the

seas. Freedom of the seas will always be denied by Great

Britain. I do not care whether she squinted at it in the papers

which were drawn up between the Prime Minister and our

President. She will never surrender freedom of the seas.

Control of the seas is the cornerstone of her prosperity and

her empire. She once refused to grant freedom of the seas;

we acquiesced, and that was the end of it. When the time

comes she will again refuse, we will acquiesce, and that will

be the end of it.

It is hard for me to talk. I am an emotional old man. I

feel very keenly the great things of life. I feel more keenly

than I can say what befalls us in our daily walks. Declare

war tonight and, under the Providence of God, every man

who votes to do so will live to regret it to the last day of

his life.

war.

Recall again the whole system of war. War is not a play-

thing. It is not something for you or me or somebody else

to play with. War is a brutal actuality. We cannot afford

cannot afford it. None of us can afford it. In the

name of God, in the name of all the mothers of this land, and

in the name of all those who have been asking our assistance

and intervention in this controversy, I appeal to the better

part of the nature of all Senators. Do not declare war.

Do not plunge this country into that sort of holocaust.