Obviously they must proceed along practical, peaceful lines.  But the mere fact that we rightly decline to intervene with arms to prevent acts of aggression does not mean that we must act as if there were no aggression at all.  Words may be futile, but war is not the only means of commanding a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.  There are many methods short of war, but stronger and more effective than mere words, of bringing home to aggressor governments the aggregate sentiments of our own people.

At the very least, we can and should avoid any action, or any lack of action, which will encourage, assist or build up an aggressor.  We have learned that when we deliberately try to legislate neutrality, our neutrality laws may operate unevenly and unfairly—­may actually give aid to an aggressor and deny it to the victim.  The instinct of self-preservation should warn us that we ought not to let that happen any more.

And we have learned something else—­the old, old lesson that probability of attack is mightily decreased by the assurance of an ever ready defense.  Since 1931, nearly eight years ago, world events of thunderous import have moved with lightning speed.  During these eight years many of our people clung to the hope that the innate decency of mankind would protect the unprepared who showed their innate trust in mankind.  Today we are all wiser—­and sadder.

Under modern conditions what we mean by “adequate defense”—­a policy subscribed to by all of us—­must be divided into three elements.  First, we must have armed forces and defenses strong enough to ward off sudden attack against strategic positions and key facilities essential to ensure sustained resistance and ultimate victory.  Secondly, we must have the organization and location of those key facilities so that they may be immediately utilized and rapidly expanded to meet all needs without danger of serious interruption by enemy attack.

In the course of a few days I shall send you a special message making recommendations for those two essentials of defense against danger which we cannot safely assume will not come.

If these first two essentials are reasonably provided for, we must be able confidently to invoke the third element, the underlying strength of citizenship—­the self-confidence, the ability, the imagination and the devotion that give the staying power to see things through.

A strong and united nation may be destroyed if it is unprepared against sudden attack.  But even a nation well armed and well organized from a strictly military standpoint may, after a period of time, meet defeat if it is unnerved by self-distrust, endangered by class prejudice, by dissension between capital and labor, by false economy and by other unsolved social problems at home.

In meeting the troubles of the world we must meet them as one people—­with a unity born of the fact that for generations those who have come to our shores, representing many kindreds and tongues, have been welded by common opportunity into a united patriotism.  If another form of government can present a united front in its attack on a democracy, the attack must and will be met by a united democracy.  Such a democracy can and must exist in the United States.