the president gave an interesting speech at the european meeting

Help inform the discussion

Presidential Speeches

August 19, 1914: message on neutrality, about this speech.

Woodrow Wilson

August 19, 1914

President Wilson preaches the importance of remaining neutral during the initial stages of World War I, and asks the American people to “be impartial in thought as well as in action.” The President also recognizes the difficulty of impartiality in this widespread European conflict, especially considering the large percentage of Americans with European heritage. 

My Fellow-Countrymen:

I suppose that every thoughtful man in America has asked himself, during these last troubled weeks, what influence the European war may exert upon the United States, and I take the liberty of addressing a few words to you in order to point out that it is entirely within our own choice what its effects upon us will be and to urge very earnestly upon you the sort of speech and conduct which will best safeguard the Nation against distress and disaster.

The effect of the war upon the United States will depend upon what American citizens say and do. Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned. The spirit of the Nation in this critical matter will be determined largely by what individuals and society and those gathered in public meetings do and say, upon what newspapers and magazines contain, upon what ministers utter in their pulpits, and men proclaim as their opinions on the street.

The people of the United States are drawn from many nations, and chiefly from the nations now at war. It is natural and inevitable that there should be the utmost variety of sympathy and desire among them with regard to the issues and circumstances of the conflict. Some will wish one nation, others another, to succeed in the momentous struggle. It will be easy to excite passion and difficult to allay it. Those responsible for exciting it will assume a heavy responsibility, responsibility for no less a thing than that the people of the United States, whose love of their country and whose loyalty to its Government should unite them as Americans all, bound in honor and affection to think first of her and her interests, may be divided in camps of hostile opinion, hot against each other, involved in the war itself in impulse and opinion if not in action.

Such divisions among us would be fatal to our peace of mind and might seriously stand in the way of the proper performance of our duty as the one great nation at peace, the one people holding itself ready to play a part of impartial mediation and speak the counsels of peace and accommodation, not as a partisan, but as a friend.

I venture, therefore, my fellow countrymen, to speak a solemn word of warning to you against that deepest, most subtle, most essential breach of neutrality which may spring out of partisanship, out of passionately taking sides. The United States must be neutral in fact as well as in name during these days that are to try men's souls. We must be impartial in thought as well as in action, must put a curb upon our sentiments as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.

My thought is of America. I am speaking, I feel sure, the earnest wish and purpose of every thoughtful American that this great country of ours, which is, of course, the first in our thoughts and in our hearts, should show herself in this time of peculiar trial a Nation fit beyond others to exhibit the fine poise of undisturbed judgment, the dignity of self-control, the efficiency of dispassionate action; a Nation that neither sits in judgment upon others nor is disturbed in her own counsels and which keeps herself fit and free to do what is honest and disinterested and truly serviceable for the peace of the world.

Shall we not resolve to put upon ourselves the restraints which will bring to our people the happiness and the great and lasting influence for peace we covet for them?

More Woodrow Wilson speeches

Skip to Main Content of WWII

Winston churchill’s iron curtain speech—march 5, 1946.

Churchill’s famed “Iron Curtain” speech ushered in the Cold War and made the term a household phrase.

Top image courtesy of America’s National Churchill Museum.

The dying embers of World War II still cast a shadow long over the postwar world when Winston Churchill arrived in the small Midwestern town of Fulton, Missouri in the spring of 1946. Westminster College seemed an unlikely place for the former British Prime Minister to deliver a speech of global importance. President Harry Truman penned a note at the bottom of the college’s invitation: “This is a wonderful school in my home state. If you come, I will introduce you. Hope you can do it.”

Winston Churchill stands with US President Harry S Truman at Westminster College where Churchill gave his now famous speech. Image courtesy of America’s National Churchill Museum.

Churchill, who had won the war in Europe, only to lose in the British general election in July 1945, eagerly accepted the invitation to appear on the same platform with the President of the United States.

Churchill knew that while the world looked forward to putting the horrors of war behind, events at the beginning of 1946 portended an even darker future ahead. In the wake of the Allied victory, the Soviet Union had begun shaping Eastern Europe in their image, bringing the governments of many nations into line with Moscow. On February 9, Premier Joseph Stalin gave a speech in which he declared that war between the East and West was inevitable. On February 22, the American Ambassador to Moscow, George F. Kennan, sent the famous “Long Telegram” warning of the Soviet Union’s perpetual hostility towards the West.

Then, on March 5, 1946, at Westminster College in Fulton, Churchill’s famous words “From Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent,” ushered in the Cold War and framed the geo-political landscape for the next 50 years. The former Prime Minister, with President Truman at his side, articulated the threat that the Soviet Union and communism posed to peace and stability in the post-war world. Invoking the spirit of the Atlantic Charter he called for a strengthening of Anglo-American ties and for the United Nations to become a peace-promoting world organization that would succeed where its predecessor the League of Nations had failed.

The historic Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury, originally located in London. The church was moved to the Westminster College campus in the mid-1960s. Image courtesy of America’s National Churchill Museum.

A statue of Churchill stands outside of the historic church on the Westminster College campus, home to America’s National Churchill Museum. Image courtesy of America’s National Churchill Museum.

“ The Sinews of Peace ,” the title Churchill himself gave his address, endures today as one of the statesman’s most significant speeches. It not only made the term “iron curtain” a household phrase, but it coined the term “special relationship,” describing enduring alliance between the United States and Great Britain. It is a speech that offered a blueprint for the west to ultimately wage—and win—the Cold War.

This article is part of a series commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II made possible by the Department of Defense.

Meet the Authors

The author is Stephen Rogers, Westminster College, with input from Timothy Riley, Sandra L, and Monroe E Trout, Director and Chief Curator at America’s National Churchill Museum.

Great Responsibilities and New Global Power

With the rapid rise in power and influence after World War II, the United States had to take on new responsibilities, signaling the beginning of the "American era."

Explore Further

A Bond Broken Only by Death

On June 6, 1944, two brothers from Kansas landed at Omaha Beach in Normandy, France. They promised to meet on the beach after the fighting was done — a promise that would remain unfulfilled.

The First Man on the Beaches of Normandy

US Army Captain Leonard T. Schroeder Jr. was the first man down the ramp and straight into waist-deep water at Utah Beach. As he trudged toward the shoreline, his M-1 helmet stayed firmly affixed to his head as he tried to avoid enemy fire.

Operation Neptune: A Tale of Two Landings

While the Overlord operation was a combined effort of land, sea, and air forces, the amphibious assault plan was given the code name Neptune.

D-Day behind Barbed Wire: Hope for POWs

On June 6, 1944, news of the Normandy invasion spread through German prisoner-of-war camps like wildfire, igniting hope in Allied POWs. 

D-Day Doctrine: Six Elements for a Successful Landing

Planning the Overlord assault didn’t just happen overnight. It was a result of a prewar doctrinal framework built upon six identified components for an amphibious assault.

'At Last We Have Come to D-Day'

In her June 7, 1944, newspaper column series My Day , First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt reflected on the news of the D-Day landings in Normandy and the long path ahead to victory in Europe.

'A Long Thin Line of Personal Anguish'

This column is the last of three D-Day columns written by war correspondent Ernie Pyle describing the Allied invasion of Normandy. 

The Friendly Invasion

Often referred to as the “Friendly Invasion”, the mixing of Yanks with British subjects often made for a clash of cultures.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

‘European Sovereignty’ on the Menu as Macron and Scholz Meet for Lunch

The new German chancellor made his first foreign stop in Paris, where the two leaders discussed a more independent, bolder Europe.

By Roger Cohen and Katrin Bennhold

PARIS — On the face of it, President Emmanuel Macron, a showman, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a study in reserve, would not be natural companions. But the world has changed, and for France and Germany the imperative of building what they call a “sovereign Europe” has become overwhelming.

So Mr. Scholz, who took over from Angela Merkel on Wednesday, chose France as his first foreign destination, not only because that tends to be what newly installed German chancellors do, but also because, as he said standing beside Mr. Macron in Paris on Friday, “We want to reinforce Europe, work together for European sovereignty.”

The two men, who first met in Hamburg, Germany, in 2014, held a working lunch at the presidential palace that reflected “the essential need to meet quickly,” as Mr. Scholz put it afterward at a 20-minute news conference. “Our first exchanges demonstrated a solid convergence of views,” Mr. Macron said.

Their tone was serious but convivial, with Mr. Macron referring repeatedly to “dear Olaf” and using the less formal “tu,” rather than “vous,” when addressing the chancellor. At the end of the news conference they fist-bumped — a far cry from the image of President François Mitterrand and Chancellor Helmut Kohl holding hands on the battlefield of Verdun in 1984, but a Covid-era indication of friendship.

Mr. Scholz’s embrace of “European sovereignty” was surely music to Mr. Macron’s ears, as the French president prepares to take over the rotating six-month presidency of the European Union on Jan. 1. The bloc faces an immediate crisis as Russia builds up troops on the Ukrainian border and the pandemic refuses to wane.

Asked about the Russian buildup, Mr. Scholz said, “It is clear to all of us that there is no alternative to de-escalation.” Mr. Macron, who seemed skeptical of any imminent Russian threat, said, “We must avoid all useless tension.”

Mr. Macron’s vision for a Europe of “power,” backed by real European military and technological capacity, tends toward the grandiose. Mr. Scholz may not like that style — his German government coalition prefers the more prosaic “enhancing European capacity to act” — but the general goal is intensely shared, perhaps more so than in the later Merkel years or at any time since the Cold War.

The distance from shared goals to shared action in the European Union is always great because 27 countries have to be aligned. Still, the trauma of Covid-19 and its accompanying economic challenges have brought urgency, as has a sense of European vulnerability in a more unstable world where American leadership is no longer assured.

“I’m more optimistic than I was with Ms. Merkel toward the end,” said Wolfgang Ischinger, a veteran German diplomat. “We have a window of opportunity.”

That window may be narrow. Any joint Franco-German plans could be rudely interrupted in April if Mr. Macron is defeated in the French presidential election. He is the favorite, but if France lurched toward the ascendant nationalist hard right, all bets would be off.

A German priority in the coming months will be to avoid that outcome, making accommodating gestures toward Mr. Macron more likely.

France and Germany have always been the motor of European integration; when they stall, so does the whole project. Although the need to confront the pandemic brought budgetary breakthroughs, Europe has found itself in the shadow of Brexit and internal division while China rose and the United States turned its attention elsewhere.

The 177-page coalition agreement of Mr. Scholz’s three-party government alludes to ultimate evolution toward a “federal European state.” Mr. Macron, with the election in mind, has not gone that far — the French attachment to the nation is fierce — but the mere German mention of a United States of Europe suggests new boldness and revived ambition.

Still, there are differences. Where Mr. Macron speaks of European “strategic autonomy,” Mr. Scholz prefers “strategic sovereignty.” The difference is not small.

“Germans do not want strategic autonomy if that means independence from the United States,” said Cathryn Clüver, the director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

The French president offered some de rigueur praise of NATO when laying out his European presidency program on Thursday. He said it had proved its “usefulness.” But he broadly views European independence as an emancipation from the United States.

Germany, intensely attached for historical reasons to the American anchor of European security, is wary of any strategic distancing from Washington. This view is broadly shared in several European Union states, including Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, especially at a time when Russian troops are massed on the Ukrainian border.

All this complicates both the meaning and the attainability of whatever European sovereignty may be.

France and Germany share the view that they preserved a multilateral global system based on the rule of law and Western values while the United States, under former President Donald J. Trump, embraced nationalism and disparaged Europe.

They have not been reassured by what they see as paltry consultation from the Biden administration on Afghanistan and the sale of nuclear submarines to Australia. They see a growing ideological and economic threat from China. Hence the determination to make a more independent and innovative Europe count.

“The last big European innovation was the euro,” said Mr. Ischinger, the German diplomat. “Since then we have rested on our laurels. It’s time for the next round of innovation.”

The euro was introduced almost two decades ago.

Healing the pandemic-battered economy will be central to any European leap forward. Both leaders intimated on Friday that they are prepared to build on the European Union’s groundbreaking $750 billion recovery fund, created 18 months ago to fight the ravages of the coronavirus.

The deal broke with longstanding German economic orthodoxy by backing collective European debt, indicating a new willingness in Berlin to embrace greater fiscal flexibility.

“The recovery and reconstruction fund is a formidable example of what we can accomplish,” Mr. Scholz said. “At the same time we must work on the solidity of our finances. This is not contradictory in my view.”

Mr. Macron, as is his inclination, was bolder. He said Europe must adopt new rules, or find new flexibility, to ensure that the union moves toward full employment and “builds the channels of innovation and industry that will allow Europe to have a greener, more digital, and more sovereign economy, all of which implies massive investments.”

On Thursday, before meeting Mr. Scholz, the French president argued that the European Union’s stringent ceiling on annual budget deficits — 3 percent of a country’s gross domestic product — should not stand in the way of ambitious investment strategies.

“We have to leave old taboos and old fetishes behind,” Mr. Macron said.

Germany, whose perennial specters include the hyperinflation of the 1920s, would tend to regard fiscal discipline as a useful fetish.

In general, while French proposals for a more powerful Europe tend toward soaring rhetoric, Germany is focused on the practical.

Mr. Scholz’s coalition agreement calls for the introduction of qualified majority voting on foreign policy decisions — a step that would likely make Europe far more effective in emergencies. France has not been prepared to accept this because of its attachment to national sovereignty and because its army — the most capable in the bloc after Britain’s departure — might be left with responsibility for a decision France did not endorse.

Similarly, at the United Nations, where France has a permanent seat on the Security Council, “it rarely speaks as a European power, it speaks as France,” said Christoph Heusgen, the former chief policy adviser to Ms. Merkel and now president of the Munich Security Conference. “The enthusiasm for Europe to speak with one voice stops there.”

Mr. Scholz will spend the rest of the day in Brussels, at NATO and the European Commission — also stops that are part of established German postelection protocol.

Roger Cohen reported from Paris, and Katrin Bennhold from Berlin. Aurelien Breeden contributed reporting from Paris.

Roger Cohen is the Paris bureau chief of The Times. He was a columnist from 2009 to 2020. He has worked for The Times for more than 30 years and has served as a foreign correspondent and foreign editor. Raised in South Africa and Britain, he is a naturalized American. More about Roger Cohen

Katrin Bennhold is the Berlin bureau chief. Previously she reported from London and Paris, covering a range of topics from the rise of populism to gender. More about Katrin Bennhold

• About George C. Marshall
• The Marshall Plan
• Foreign Assistance Act
• Essays & Speeches
• Pogue Interviews
• Film & Videos
• Bibliography
• Search Collections
• Featured Collections
• Library Frequently Asked Questions
• Library Services
• Marshall Scholars Program
• Articles & Features
• The Marshall Plan History Speech Foreign Assistance Act Resources
• Timeline Essays & Speeches Pogue Interviews Film & Videos Bibliography Quotes
• Collections
• Marshall Foundation Scholars

The Marshall Plan Speech

“the whole world hangs in the balance…”.

When Secretary of State Marshall accepted an invitation from Harvard University to receive an honorary degree during the first week in June 1947, the State Department informed the president of the Alumni Association that Marshall would make a speech for the afternoon meeting of the Harvard Alumni Association but that Marshall did not want it to be a major speech of the occasion. There were no discussions with representatives of other governments; there were no notifications of the American press that an important speech was to be delivered, and even Harvard President James B. Conant did not expect a major address from General Marshall.

The speech was drafted by Chip Bohlen, a Russia specialist and interpreter who used memoranda from the Director of the Policy Planning Staff George F. Kennan and from Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs William Clayton. Bohlen especially benefited from Clayton’s graphic oral descriptions of Europe’s situation. In the memorandum he wrote, “Millions of people in the cities are slowly starving,” if the standard of living continued to deteriorate, “there will be revolution.”

On the day of the speech the capacity crowd of 15,000 in Harvard Yard did not expect to see history made but simply to see one of the most admired public servants in America. However when Secretary Marshall began to read his speech there was a recognition that the carefully worded remarks on the political and economic crisis in Europe marked an important event. In that speech, Marshall outlined the need for an economic aid plan to help the devastated nations of Europe and their citizens to recover from the ravages of World War II. When Marshall said, “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace,” the Secretary of State committed the United States to consider a European recovery plan that would be developed by the Europeans and presented to the United States. Thus was launched The Marshall Plan for which George C. Marshall would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Listen to the speech below:

I need not tell you gentlemen that the world situation is very serious. That must be apparent to all intelligent people. I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. Furthermore, the people of this country are distant from the troubled areas of the earth and it is hard for them to comprehend the plight and consequent reactions of the long-suffering peoples, and the effect of those reactions on their governments in connection with our efforts to promote peace in the world.

In considering the requirements for the rehabilitation of Europe the physical loss of life, the visible destruction of cities, factories, mines and railroads was correctly estimated, but it has become obvious during recent months that this visible destruction was probably less serious than the dislocation of the entire fabric of European economy. For the past ten years conditions have been highly abnormal. The feverish preparation for war and the more feverish maintenance of the war effort engulfed all aspects of national economies. Machinery has fallen into disrepair or is entirely obsolete. Under the arbitrary and destructive Nazi rule, virtually every possible enterprise was geared into the German war machine. Long-standing commercial ties, private institutions, banks, insurance companies and shipping companies disappeared, through loss of capital, absorption through nationalization or by simple destruction. In many countries, confidence in the local currency has been severely shaken. The breakdown of the business structure of Europe during the war was complete. Recovery has been seriously retarded by the fact that two years after the close of hostilities a peace settlement with Germany and Austria has not been agreed upon. But even given a more prompt solution of these difficult problems, the rehabilitation of the economic structure of Europe quite evidently will require a much longer time and greater effort than had been foreseen.

There is a phase of this matter which is both interesting and serious. The farmer has always produced the foodstuffs to exchange with the city dweller for the other necessities of life. This division of labor is the basis of modern civilization. At the present time it is threatened with breakdown. The town and city industries are not producing adequate goods to exchange with the food-producing farmer. Raw materials and fuel are in short supply. Machinery is lacking or worn out. The farmer of the peasant cannot find the goods for sale which he desires to purchase. So the sale of his farm produce for money which he cannot use seems to him an unprofitable transaction. He, therefore, has withdrawn many fields from crop cultivation and is using them for grazing. He feeds more grain to stock and finds for himself and his family an ample supply of food, however short he may be on clothing and the other ordinary gadgets of civilization. Meanwhile people in the cities are short of food and fuel. So the governments are forced to use their foreign money and credits to procure these necessities abroad. This process exhausts funds which are urgently needed for reconstruction. This a very serious situation is rapidly developing which bodes no good for the world. The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down.

The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products–principally from America–are so much greater than her present ability to pay that she must have substantial additional help, or face economic, social and political deterioration of a very grave character.

The remedy lies in breaking the vicious circle and restoring the confidence of the European people in the economic future of their own countries and of Europe as a whole. The manufacturer and the farmer throughout wide areas must be able and willing to exchange their products for currencies the continuing value of which is not open to question.

Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piece-meal basis as various crises develop. Any assistance that this Government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative. Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full cooperation, I am sure, on the part of the United States Government. Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States.

It is already evident that, before the United States Government can proceed much further in its efforts to alleviate the situation and help start the European world on its way to recovery, there must be some agreement among the countries of Europe as to the requirements of the situation and the part those countries themselves will take in order to give proper effect to whatever action might be undertaken by this Government. It would be neither fitting nor efficacious for this Government to undertake to draw up unilaterally a program designed to place Europe on its feet economically. This is the business of the Europeans. The initiative, I think, must come from Europe. The role of this country should consist of friendly aid in the drafting of a European program and of later support of such a program so far as it may be practical for us to do so. The program should be a joint one, agreed to by a number, if not all European nations.

An essential part of any successful action on the part of the United States is an understanding on the part of the people of America of the character of the problem and the remedies to be applied. Political passion and prejudice should have no part. With foresight, and a willingness on the part of our people to face up to the vast responsibility which history has clearly placed upon our country, the difficulties I have outlined can and will be overcome.

Mr. President, Dr. Conant, members of the board of overseers, ladies and gentlemen, I’m profoundly grateful and touched by the distinction and honor and great compliment accorded me by the authorities of Harvard this morning. I’m overwhelmed, as a matter of fact, and I’m rather fearful of my inability to maintain such a high rating as you’ve been generous enough to accord to me. In these historic and lovely surroundings, this perfect day, and this very wonderful assembly, it is a tremendously impressive thing to an individual in my position.

I am sorry that on occasion I have said something publicly in regard to our international situation; I’ve been forced by the necessities of the case to enter into rather technical discussions. But to my mind, it is of vast importance that our people reach some general understanding of what the complications really are, rather than react from a passion or a prejudice or an emotion of the moment. As I said more formally a moment ago, we are remote from the scene of these troubles. It is virtually impossible at this distance merely by reading, or listening, or even seeing photographs or motion pictures, to grasp at all the real significance of the situation. And yet the whole world of the future hangs on a proper judgment. It hangs, I think, to a large extent on the realization of the American people, of just what are the various dominant factors. What are the reactions of the people? What are the justifications of those reactions? What are the sufferings? What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? Thank you very much.

The  remarks by the Honorable George C. Marshall , Secretary of State, at Harvard University on June 5, 1947, delivered at 2:50 PM to a capacity crowd of 15,000 in the Harvard Yard.

Response to the Speech

• The September 22, 1947  Conference Report of the Committee of European Economic Co-Operation , a reply to “Mr. Marshall in response to your speech at Harvard on the 5th June.”
• Read the story of the speech “ Harvard Hears of the Marshall Plan ” published in the May 4, 1962, The Crimson Review and letters from Marshall’s escort,  Harvard Law Professor E. M. Morgan , and  Laird Bell , President of the Alumni Association, who selected Marshall as the speaker for the afternoon meeting of the Harvard Alumni Association.
• Harvard Magazine article, “ Ultimate Commencement Address ” which asserts that the speech is “the most important Commencement address ever given at Harvard.”
• Press-relations officers at the University and the State Department advised reporters that the address as just “ a routine commencement speech … nothing of any importance. “
• BBC Correspondent Leonard Miall and the Marshall Plan Speech  – an interview by Marshall Foundation Librarian Barbara Vandegrift on September 19, 1977

Click for more resources relating to the Marshall Plan

Analysis of the Speech

George C. Marshall at Harvard: A Study of the Origins and Construction of the “Marshall Plan” Speech  – By Ferald J. Bryan. Used with permission.

Results of the Speech

British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin heard a BBC report on the Marshall’s Harvard speech shortly after it was given; the next day he contacted French Foreign Minister Georges Bidault and arranged for a June 17 conference in Paris to consider the ideas Marshall had put forth. The key issue was to define what was the nature of the economic problem in Europe, what Europe could do about it, and what was needed from the U.S. Many in Congress were displeased with the various socialist schemes in Europe and dubious about any self-perpetuating U.S. government welfare programs. The Europeans wanted to know what the U.S. required of Europe, and the Americans wanted the potential recipients of aid to list their resources for self-help.

Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov was invited to the Paris meetings, and some countries in the Soviet sphere of influence (e.g., Poland and Czechoslovakia) expressed an interest in participating. Molotov walked out on July 2, however, labeling the Marshal Plan American economic imperialism; Soviet-dominated countries quickly fell into line. One scholarly estimate is that the Soviet Union extracted some $14 billion from East Europe between 1948 and 1953.

On July 12, 1947, representatives of sixteen nations (called the CEEC–Committee of European Economic Cooperation) began meeting in Paris to discuss reconstruction. When the Truman administration leaders did not like the recommendations the CEEC initially produced, Marshall sent State Department Policy Planning Staff head George F. Kennan to Paris to tell the CEEC representatives how to make their proposals politically acceptable to a majority in Congress. The CEEC reported on September 12, 1947, that the sixteen nations needed $19.1 billion for the period 1948-51 or disaster would strike Europe. President Truman called a special session of Congress on November 17 to get short-term economic funding for France, Italy, and Austria. On December 19 he submitted to Congress the European Recovery Program bill, requesting $17 billion over the next four years.

Marshall began to concentrate his energies on getting the Economic Cooperation Act (authorizing and funding the ERP) passed after returning from the London Foreign Ministers’ meeting in December 1947. He was the lead-off witness in the Senate hearings on January 8, 1948. Marshall insisted that the ERP would reduce the expansion of Soviet influence without the need to resort to overheated rhetoric.

George C. Marshall’s speeches in support of Marshall Plan authorization and funding:

• 19 December 1947 to the nation via radio and television on the results of London Foreign Ministers’ Conference: Soviet obstruction re Germany, need to get German issues settled in order for West Europe to recover from the war
• 8 January 1948 opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ERP hearings
• 12 January 1948 opening statement to the House Foreign Affairs Committee ERP hearings
• 15 January 1948 to the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce
• 22 January 1948 to the National Cotton Council, Atlanta, Georgia
• 13 February 1948 to National Farm Institute, Des Moines, Iowa (by telephone from Knoxville, Tennessee, because of bad flying weather)
• 11 March 1948 to the Federal Council of Churches, Washington Cathedral
• 28 May 1948 to the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, Portland Oregon

Europe’s communists helped Congress decide. In addition to the specter of their growing power in West European countries (especially Italy and France), in October 1947 the communists issued a manifesto reviving Comintern (later called Cominform), their international organization pledged to destroying world capitalism. In February 1948 the coup that gave the communists control of the government of Czechoslovakia–a country whose 1938 fate was linked to Western appeasement of the insatiable Hitler–undermined the last important congressional opposition to the Marshall Plan.

The vote in favor of authorization for the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 was: Senate 69-17 (March 13); House, 329-74 (April 2). The bill authorized an appropriation of $5.3 billion for the program’s first twelve months. In his testimonies, Marshall had insisted that the program should be administered by an autonomous agency headed by a single person (i.e., something like Dwight Eisenhower’s 1944-45 Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces Europe). Congress was determined to have an important businessman head the Economic Cooperation Administration that was to implement the Marshall Plan. Paul Hoffman, head of the Studebaker Corporation and a favorite of Vandenberg’s, was chosen. Marshall never interfered with the ECA after Hoffman took command.

Speech at the Informal Meeting of Heads of State and Government

Ladies and gentlemen,

In 1951, after war-torn Europe had seen millions of people displaced - a convention was drawn up in Geneva which stated that if a person in their country had a "well-founded fear of being persecuted” they were to be granted protection as a refugee. Now, we are called upon to make good that pledge. For too long, we have turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Syrian people. For too long, we have turned our backs to the refugees embarking on a very dangerous journey to reach our shores. Compassion compels us to lend them a helping hand. But moral duty and international law do too.

With migration flows unseen in recent history, Europe is faced with an epochal challenge. After the financial crisis we are now confronted again with a challenge where the first step towards its solution is accepting that global problems cannot be solved by nation-states acting on their own. Worse, the centrifugal forces of national egotism threaten to tear our union apart. Beggar thy neighbour policies will destroy our European project. Europe is built on de facto solidarity - out of necessity, not romanticism. Finding solutions through dialogue and compromise, between small and big, rich and modest, South and North, East and West; solutions which are in the common interest - that is in the best interest of everyone. In a globalized world some challenges are just too big for any of our Member States to cope with on their own. European challenges need European responses.

President Tusk, let me thank you for the text of your invitation letter, which clearly illustrates the dramatic situation we are in. You have also warned us recently at the Ambassador’s Conference in the European Parliament about a “divide between the East and West of the EU”. We must avoid such a split at all costs. Because divided we are weak. But united we are strong. We learned this lesson the hard way during the financial crisis. And this time, the stakes are even higher. While the financial crisis was about money and the stability of our banking system, this time it is about saving lives and our vision of society and humanity.

The challenge is big, the numbers are impressive. Some of our citizens are worried by them, others are even afraid. This is understandable if you look at the sheer magnitude of the crisis. But fear is not a good basis for politics. So let us overcome fear, stop the blame-game, stop this day-by-day reactive politics and instead anticipate solutions. The internal and external dimensions of our asylum and migration policy are inextricably linked and must be tackled together and head-on. We will solve this crisis if we show de facto solidarity within Europe and de facto solidarity beyond Europe: By working for a ceasefire in Syria. By supporting Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey in their task of hosting refugees. By fairly sharing the refugees within Europe.

Last Thursday, the European Parliament gave in record time and with an overwhelming majority the go-ahead to re-locate 120.000 persons in clear need of international protection from Greece, Italy and Hungary to other Member States of the EU, on top of the 40.000 to be relocated according to a scheme approved only a few days earlier. This second emergency scheme was adopted in the Home Affairs Council yesterday thanks to the tireless efforts of the Luxembourg Presidency and the Commissioner for Home Affairs and that is an important step forward – which by the way must now be put into practice without delay. Now the European Parliament insists, and has already started work on, the Commission's proposed binding permanent relocation mechanism for all Member States, which is based on objective and verifiable distribution criteria and which takes into account asylum seekers’ needs, family situation and skills, but also the situation of each member state including its different circumstances in terms of population, GDP, unemployment rate and number of refugees already in the country.

Why does Parliament insist so much on this binding solidarity mechanism?

For two main reasons. Firstly, the challenge is huge. Some claim that too many people are coming to Europe. That it is no longer manageable. However, Parliament is convinced that by sharing the task, it becomes manageable. Some communities and regions are indeed faced with an over-proportionate duty putting a strain on them. To distribute a few hundred thousand among 507 million in 28 countries should not pose a problem. This is neither a “German problem”, nor a “Greek problem” nor a “Hungarian problem” - it is our common task. Until everyone around this table gains awareness of this reality, we will not reach satisfactory solutions.

Secondly, we have created a single area without internal borders, the Schengen area, but we left the management and the policing of the external borders in the hands of the individual Member States. This imbalance is now causing problems, problems which are putting one of our most striking achievements – freedom of movement - in danger.

Those who close borders permanently in a common market destroy that common market. Because the free movement of goods and services entail the free movement of persons. A Schengen Area where citizens are stopped at the borders while thousands of lorries carrying goods for the "just-in-time economy" pass without a check would not survive more than a day.

Please allow me to be very open and clear on this issue: closing internal borders is permissible as a very short term measure in certain circumstances. But it does not solve anything. People running for their lives from the violence of Assad or the so-called Islamic State will not be deterred by fences or walls. It is not a crime to cross a border to seek asylum. This is why the refugee crisis needs to be properly managed.

One essential measure to help manage this crisis and express European solidarity with countries on the frontline is the concept of “hotspots” to bring together all actors on the ground to better register new arrivals. I consider four points to be key to make these hotspots a success. - implementation should take place urgently starting with those “hotspots” and EU Regional Task Forces in Italy and Greece where preparations are already underway. - hotspots must have a strong Union identity under the coordination of EU Agencies whilst benefiting from the broadest possible range of support. - information must be shared at all appropriate levels to avoid a duplication of tasks. - staffing and operational means of these Agencies must be sufficient, using all available flexibility contained in the Multi-annual Financial Framework Regulation.

It is welcome that the Commission has adopted further operational measures today, including infringement procedures where 19 out of 28 Member States have not applied agreed standards on time. There is no point in agreeing laws if these are not applied on the ground.

The European Parliament will now engage as a matter of priority with the Council on the whole range of proposals presented by President Juncker on 9 September, and indeed present its own further proposals, including all short and long-term aspects of asylum and migration policy.

Now we need a comprehensive debate with citizens, with both the academic and political sphere, on what kind of Europe based on what kind of values and principles we want for the future. The migration crisis and the highly diverging reactions to it - and we find prominent representatives of these antipodal reactions around this very table - compel us to find an answer the question what kind of Europe do we want and what role do we want Europe to play in the world?

Arrivals are spiking this summer as violence again explodes in Syria. With the eruption of the so-called Islamic State, Syrians are losing hope. More than 200.000 have lost their lives. Almost eight million have been displaced internally. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are hosting more than four million registered refugees.

During my visits to refugee camps in the region over the past years, I was impressed by the generosity displayed by the hosting countries, but I also noticed that the situation is growing ever more desperate. This impression was confirmed to me in a phone call by H.M. the King of Jordan, Abdullah II bin al-Hussein last week, who very openly told me that his country is reaching its limits. On top of that, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Guterres informed the European Parliament that the UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies are running out of money - they are at a breaking point. If their funding is not soon increased they will have to reduce services drastically in basic need services. The World Food Programme already saw itself forced to halve the assistance to almost 1.3 million vulnerable Syrian refugees in the region. Most of them now live off 50 cents a day.

Underfunding is affecting assistance to refugees, testing the resilience of refugees to its limits and driving more people towards Europe. Faced with such harsh conditions who can blame people for seeking a safe haven in Europe?

Since the outbreak of the Syrian conflict, the European Union and its Member States are collectively leading the international response. But more efforts are urgently needed. The UN appeals for the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015 are covered only up to 40% and this gap is one of the main reasons for the increasing migration flows we are facing today. I urge you to increase your contributions to humanitarian and development assistance. Pledges must be fulfilled in the coming days. The EU has already set up a Trust Fund for the refugees and host countries; this Trust Fund has the advantage of flexibility and speedy delivery. The EU and its Member States, the USA and the Gulf countries must immediately make more funds available - and act. As far as the EU side is concerned, you must decide here and now.

European solidarity must be backed by EU budget resources. In December 2013 we agreed on the Multiannual Financial Framework Regulation which provides for flexibility in order to face challenges such as the current refugee crisis. The European Parliament is willing and ready to use this flexibility and make funds from the EU budget available.

It is of utmost importance to tackle the root causes of the crisis. As long as the war in Syria continues, people will continue to flee and won't be able to return home. A ceasefire must be brokered urgently. And we can build on a recent success of our EU diplomacy: building an international deal on the Iranian nuclear programme. This deal opens new opportunities to stop the bloodshed together with other big powers and influential regional players.

We should be proud that Europe has become a beacon of hope for men, women, children, old and young fleeing from wars. They are seeking shelter in Europe hoping to find solace in our European values of freedom, justice and respect for human rights. European values which are put into practice every day by our citizens, who in train stations, market places and at border-crossings are handing out water and food to the refugees, clothes and toys. Not fear, but compassion and human decency demonstrated by our citizens must motivate our political decisions. Because today the whole world is looking at us and one day we will have to answer our grandchildren, when they ask us: "And what did you do when the Syrian people were running for their life from war?"

Thank you for your attention.

For further information:

[email protected]

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Remarks by President   Biden, President of the European Council Charles Michel, and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen Before the U.S.-EU   Summit

Europa Building, European Council Brussels, Belgium

12:13 P.M. CEST

PRESIDENT MICHEL:  Well, Mr. President, dear Joe, we are so pleased to welcome you in Brussels.  You are back in Brussels, and America is back on the global scene.  It’s great news.  It’s great news for our Alliance.  It’s also great news for the world.  And we are really delighted to work with you in order to tackle, together, some important global challenges.

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Well, I think we have a great opportunity to work both with the EU, as well as NATO.  And we’re — we’re feeling very good about it.  We found the reception to be good, and I — and America is back.  

We are — (inaudible) we’ve never fully left, but we are reasserting the fact that it’s overwhelmingly in the interest of the United States of America to have a great relationship with NATO and with the EU.  I have a very different view than my predecessor did.  

So, I’m looking forward to talking with you all about what we’re about to do, and — and I’m anxious to begin.

PRESIDENT VON DER LEYEN:  And a very warm welcome for my part, too.  What a pleasure to have you here.  What an honor to have you here.  

So, the fact that you are coming so early in your mandate, I think, underlines your personal attachment to Europe, and we really appreciate that.

And indeed, the last four years have not been easy.  The world has dramatically changed.  Europe has changed.  But we wanted to reassure you: We are friends and allies and we are very much looking forward to working together.  (Inaudible.) 

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Well, what a great opportunity.  (Inaudible.)  Thank you.

Q    Mr. President, did you agree on a Turkish presence in Afghanistan?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Did I agree on a — what?

Q    Turkish presence in Afghanistan, after you met with Mr. Erdoğan yesterday. 

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Did I agree on a Turkish —

Q    Did you discuss or agree on any kind of Turkish presence in Afghanistan after your withdrawal?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Oh, we had — we had long discussions, and I feel very good about our meeting.  And I’ll let the — I’ll let the Turks tell you about it.

Q    Mr. President, do you have an agreement on Airbus and Boeing?

(The President crosses his fingers.)

Q    Mr. President, what do you like about EU the most?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  I like the presidents.  (Laughter.) 

12:16 P.M. CEST

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

Macron urges defence of democracy on rare state visit to Germany as EU elections loom

Emmanuel Macron began Sunday the first state visit to Germany by a French president in a quarter-century, bringing a plea to defend democracy against nationalism at coming European Parliament elections.

Issued on: 26/05/2024 - 07:28 Modified: 26/05/2024 - 21:22

Macron made his first stop a democracy festival in Berlin, where he warned of a "form of fascination for authoritarianism which is growing" in the two major EU nations.

"We forget too often that it's a fight" to protect democracy, Macron said, accompanied by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

If nationalist parties had been in power in Europe in recent years, "history would not have been the same", he said, pointing to decisions on the coronavirus pandemic or Russia 's invasion of Ukraine .

Steinmeier said: "We need an alliance of democrats in Europe."

Macron "has rightly pointed out that the conditions today before the European elections are different from the previous election, a lot has happened," he added.

'Europe is mortal' 

The trip comes two weeks ahead of European Union elections in which polls are indicating a major potential embarrassment for Macron, with his centrist coalition trailing behind the far right .

It could even struggle to reach a third-place finish.

In Germany too, all three parties in Chancellor Olaf Scholz 's coalition are polling behind the far-right AfD in surveys, despite a series of scandals embroiling the anti-immigration party.

At a press conference, Macron said he would work to "unmask" France 's far-right National Rally (RN), saying that "nothing in their rhetoric holds water".

Watch more Macron and Scholz are 'dividing' Europe over Ukraine, EPP chief Manfred Weber says

"Unlike many, I'm not getting used to the idea that the National Rally is just another party. And so when it's at the top of the surveys, I see this party and its ideas as a threat to Europe," he said.

In a keynote address on foreign policy last month, Macron warned about the threats to Europe in the wake of Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

"Our Europe, today, is mortal and it can die," he said. "It can die, and this depends only on our choices."

Ramping up his warning in Berlin, Macron urged Europeans "to go vote for the party that we back and a party that defends Europe".

Hosting a state banquet later Sunday for Macron, Steinmeier also referred to the threat posed by Russia.

"Together we must learn again to better protect ourselves against aggressors, and to make our societies more resilient against attacks from within and without," he said.

After the talks with Steinmeier, Macron is due to bring his message to Dresden in the former East German state of Saxony, where the AfD has a strong support base.

On Tuesday, Macron will visit the western German city of Munster and later Meseberg, outside Berlin, for talks with Scholz and a joint Franco-German cabinet meeting.

German caution 

Beyond making joint appeals for the European elections, Macron's three-day visit will seek to emphasise the historic importance of the postwar relationship between the key EU states.

France next month commemorates 80 years since the D-Day landings that marked the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany 's World War II occupation.

But all has not been smooth in a relationship often seen as the engine of the EU, and German officials are said to be uneasy at times about Macron's perceived theatrical style of foreign policy.

Macron's refusal to rule out sending troops to Ukraine sparked an unusually acidic response from Scholz that Germany had no such plans. Germany also does not share Macron's enthusiasm for a European strategic autonomy less dependent on the United States.

But Macron sought to dismiss talk about discord, saying that coordination with Germany had been key over the years.

He cited agreements on sanctions against Russia over its war on Ukraine and action to spur European economic growth and innovation after the Covid pandemic.

"The Franco-German relationship is about disagreeing and trying to find ways of compromise," said Helene Miard-Delacroix, specialist in German history at the Sorbonne university in Paris .

While Macron is a frequent visitor to Berlin, the trip is the first state visit in 24 years, since a trip by Jacques Chirac in 2000, and the sixth since the first postwar state visit by Charles de Gaulle in 1962.

Daily newsletter Receive essential international news every morning

Take international news everywhere with you! Download the France 24 app

• Emmanuel Macron
• Olaf Scholz
• European elections
• European Union

The content you requested does not exist or is not available anymore.

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?

Biden’s speech at the Holocaust remembrance ceremony, annotated

By Zachary B. Wolf and Annette Choi , CNN

Published May 7, 2024

President Joe Biden talked about the documented increase of antisemitism in the United States during the annual US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Days of Remembrance ceremony at the US Capitol building. Every recent president has made remarks at least once at the event, but Biden’s remarks came as pro-Palestinian protests have disrupted classes and commencements at multiple US universities . At times, rhetoric at those protests has veered into antisemitism, offended Jewish students and sparked a fierce debate about free speech.

Biden talked in-depth about the Hamas terror attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, and the Israeli hostages that remain in captivity . He did not mention Israel’s heavy-handed response, which has not only destroyed much of Gaza and cost tens of thousands of lives but has also driven a wedge between Biden and many progressives, particularly on college campuses. See below for what he said , along with context from CNN.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you, Stu Eizenstat, for that introduction, for your leadership of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum . You are a true scholar and statesman and a dear friend.

Speaker Johnson , Leader Jeffries, members of Congress and especially the survivors of the Holocaust. If my mother were here, she’d look at you and say, “God love you all. God love you all.”

Abe Foxman and all other survivors who embody absolute courage and dignity and grace are here as well.

During these sacred days of remembrance we grieve, we give voice to the 6 million Jews who were systematically targeted and murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II. We honor the memory of victims, the pain of survivors, the bravery of heroes who stood up to Hitler's unspeakable evil. And we recommit to heading and heeding the lessons that one of the darkest chapters in human history to revitalize and realize the responsibility of never again.

The Days of Remembrance commemoration has been an annual event since 1982. Every US president since Bill Clinton has spoken at least once at a remembrance event.

House Speaker Mike Johnson spoke shortly before Biden and tried to compare the situation on college campuses today with that on college campuses in Germany in the 1930s.

Never again, simply translated for me, means never forget, never forget. Never forgetting means we must must keep telling the story, we must keep teaching the truth, we must keep teaching our children and our grandchildren. And the truth is we are at risk of people not knowing the truth.

That's why, growing up, my dad taught me and my siblings about the horrors of the Shoah at our family dinner table.

Shoah is the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

That's why I visited Yad Vashem with my family as a senator, as vice president and as president. And that's why I took my grandchildren to Dachau , so they could see and bear witness to the perils of indifference, the complicity of silence in the face of evil that they knew was happening.

Biden visited Yad Vashem , Israel’s Holocaust remembrance site, in 2022 as president.

As vice president, he toured the Nazi concentration camp outside Munich in 2015 with his granddaughter during a trip for an annual security conference.

Germany, 1933, Hitler and his Nazi party rise to power by rekindling one of the world's oldest forms of prejudice and hate — antisemitism.

His rule didn't begin with mass murder. It started slowly across economic, political, social and cultural life — propaganda demonizing Jews, boycotts of Jewish businesses, synagogues defaced with swastikas, harassment of Jews in the street and in the schools, antisemitic demonstrations, pogroms, organized riots.

With the indifference of the world, Hitler knew he could expand his reign of terror by eliminating Jews from Germany, to annihilate Jews across Europe through genocide the Nazis called the final solution. Concentration camps, gas chambers, mass shootings. By the time the war ended, 6 million Jews, one out of every three Jews in the entire world, were murdered.

This ancient hatred of Jews didn't begin with the Holocaust. It didn't end with the Holocaust either, or after, even after our victory in World War II. This hatred continues to lie deep in the hearts of too many people in the world and requires our continued vigilance and outspokenness.

The Holocaust survivor Irene Butter wrote for CNN Opinion in 2021 about Adolf Hitler’s rise and echoes of Nazism in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

That hatred was brought to life on October 7th in 2023. On the sacred Jewish holiday, the terrorist group Hamas unleashed the deadliest day of the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

Read mo re about Hamas .

Driven by ancient desire to wipe out the Jewish people off the face of the Earth, over 1,200 innocent people — babies, parents, grandparents — slaughtered in their kibbutz, massacred at a music festival, brutally raped, mutilated and sexually assaulted .

Evidence of sexual violence has been documented. Here’s the account of one Israeli woman who has spoken publicly about her experience.

Thousands more carrying wounds, bullets and shrapnel from the memory of that terrible day they endured. Hundreds taken hostage, including survivors of the Shoah.

Now here we are, not 75 years later but just seven-and-a-half months later and people are already forgetting, are already forgetting that Hamas unleashed this terror. That it was Hamas that brutalized Israelis. It was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages. I have not forgotten, nor have you, and we will not forget.

On May 7, 1945, the German High Command agreed to an unconditional surrender in World War II, 79 years ago.

And as Jews around the world still cope with the atrocities and trauma of that day and its aftermath, we've seen a ferocious surge of anti s emitism in America and around the world.

In late October, FBI Director Christopher Wray said reports of antisemitism in the US were reaching “ historic ” levels.

Vicious propaganda on social media, Jews forced to keep their — hide their kippahs under baseball hats, tuck their Jewish stars into their shirts.

On college campuses, Jewish students blocked, harassed, attacked while walking to class . Antisemitism, antisemitic posters , slogans calling for the annihilation of Israel, the world's only Jewish state.

Many Jewish students have described feeling intimidated and attacked on campuses. Others have said they support the protests , citing the situation in Gaza.

Last month, the dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School described antisemitic posters that targeted him.

Too many people denying, downplaying, rationalizing, ignoring the horrors of the Holocaust and October 7th, including Hamas' appalling use of sexual violence to torture and terrorize Jews. It's absolutely despicable and it must stop.

Silence. Silence and denial can hide much but it can erase nothing.

Some injustices are so heinous, so horrific, so grievous they cannot be married – buried, no matter how hard people try.

In my view, a major lesson of the Holocaust is, as mentioned earlier, is it not, was not inevitable.

We know hate never goes away. It only hides. And given a little oxygen, it comes out from under the rocks.

We also know what stops hate. One thing: All of us. The late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks described antisemitism as a virus that has survived and mutated over time.

Together, we cannot continue to let that happen. We have to remember our basic principle as a nation. We have an obligation. We have an obligation to learn the lessons of history so we don't surrender our future to the horrors of the past. We must give hate no safe harbor against anyone. Anyone.

From the very founding, our very founding, Jewish Americans , who represented only about 2% of the US population , have helped lead the cause of freedom for everyone in our nation. From that experience we know scapegoating and demonizing any minority is a threat to every minority and the very foundation of our democracy.

As of 2020, Jewish Americans made up about 2.4% of the US population, according to the Pew Research Center , or about 5.8 million people.

So moments like this we have to put these principles that we're talking about into action.

I understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world .

In America we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech, to debate and disagree, to protest peacefully and make our voices heard . I understand. That's America.

The complaint of many protesters is that Israel’s response to the terror attack has claimed more than 30,000 lives and destroyed much of Gaza .

But there is no place on any campus in America, any place in America, for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind.

Whether against Jews or anyone else, violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. It's against the law and we are not a lawless country. We're a civil society. We uphold the rule of law and no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves.

To the Jewish community, I want you to know I see your fear, your hurt and your pain.

Let me reassure you as your president, you're not alone. You belong. You always have and you always will.

And my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, the security of Israel and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad, even when we disagree.

My administration is working around the clock to free remaining hostages, just as we have freed hostages already, and will not rest until we bring them all home.

My administration, with our second gentleman's leadership, has launched our nation's first national strategy to counter antisemitism. That's mobilizing the full force of the federal government to protect Jewish communities.

But we know this is not the work of government alone or Jews alone. That's why I’m calling on all Americans to stand united against antisemitism and hate in all its forms.

My dear friend — and he became a friend — the late Elie Wiesel said, quote, “One person of integrity can make a difference.”

Elie Wiesel , the Holocaust survivor, writer and activist, died in 2016.

We have to remember that, now more than ever.

Here in Emancipation Hall in the US Capitol, among the towering statues of history is a bronze bust of Raoul Wallenberg . Born in Sweden as a Lutheran, he was a businessman and a diplomat. While stationed in Hungary during World War II, he used diplomatic cover to hide and rescue about 100,000 Jews over a six-month period.

Read more about Wallenberg , the Holocaust hero and Swedish diplomat who was formally declared dead in 2016, 71 years after he vanished.

Among them was a 16-year-old Jewish boy who escaped a Nazi labor camp. After the war ended, that boy received a scholarship from the Hillel Foundation to study in America. He came to New York City penniless but determined to turn his pain into purpose. Along with his wife, also a Holocaust survivor, he became a renowned economist and foreign policy thinker, eventually making his way to this very Capitol on the staff of a first-term senator.

That Jewish refugee was Tom Lantos and that senator was me. Tom and his wife and Annette and their family became dear friends to me and my family. Tom would go on to become the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to Congress, where he became a leading voice on civil rights and human rights around the world. Tom never met Raoul, who was taken prisoner by the Soviets, never to be heard from again.

Read more about Lantos , the longtime congressman and Holocaust survivor who died in 2008. Lantos worked for Biden early in his career.

But through Tom's efforts, Raoul’s bust is here in the Capitol. He was also given honorary US citizenship, only the second person ever after Winston Churchill. The Holocaust Museum here in Washington is located in a road in Raoul’s name.

The story of the power of a single person to put aside our differences, to see our common humanity, to stand up to hate and its ancient story of resilience from immense pain, persecution, to find hope, purpose and meaning in life, we try to live and share with one another. That story endures.

Let me close with this. I know these days of remembrance fall on difficult times. We all do well to remember these days also fall during the month we celebrate Jewish American heritage, a heritage that stretches from our earliest days to enrich every single part of American life today.

There are important topics Biden did not address. He referenced the October 7 attacks on Israel but not Israel’s controversial response, which has drawn furious protests. He failed to mention Gaza, where Israel’s military campaign has killed so many, and which has led the World Food Programme to warn of a “full-blown famine .”

A great American — a great Jewish American named Tom Lantos — used the phrase “the veneer of civilization is paper thin.” We are its guardians, and we can never rest.

My fellow Americans, we must, we must be those guardians. We must never rest. We must rise Against hate, meet across the divide, see our common humanity. And God bless the victims and survivors of the Shoah.

May the resilient hearts, the courageous spirit and the eternal flame of faith of the Jewish people forever shine their light on America and around the world, pray God.

Thank you all.

• My View My View
• Following Following
• Saved Saved

Biden highlights US commitment to Israel, Ukraine, Indo-Pacific in West Point speech

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; additional reporting by Moira Warburton in Washington; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Berkrot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Slovak Prime Minister Fico taken home from hospital, media reports

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was released from a hospital in the central city of Banska Bystrica, where he had been recovering from an assassination attempt, and taken to his apartment in Bratislava on Thursday, Slovak media reported.

Ukraine's military said on Thursday it had damaged two ferries in Russian-held Crimea and halted their operations between the peninsula and the Russian mainland.

Sweden's security service said on Thursday that the Iranian government had been using criminal networks within Sweden to carry out violent acts against other states, groups and individuals.

Jerome Powell recalls the moment that changed his life forever: ‘A little initiative can make all the difference in anyone’s career’

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell made a pitch for public service to recently minted graduates at Georgetown University Law Center, his alma mater, on Sunday.

The former investment banker left the practice of law a few years after receiving his degree, but he emphasized that his education opened up many potential paths, including the opportunity to work in government. 

“Each of you has the capability to achieve success in any field you choose; it is important that you also consider how to give back and use your gifts to make a difference,” he said in prepared remarks, encouraging the graduates to “think beyond yourselves.”

The Fed chief delivered the address by prerecorded video at the school’s commencement ceremony in Washington, after testing positive for Covid-19 late Thursday. A spokesperson said Powell was experiencing symptoms and isolating at home.

Taking Initiative

Powell recounted how, as a junior employee at investment bank Dillon Read & Co., he mustered the courage to tell his then-boss Nicholas Brady that he was eager to serve in government if the opportunity ever arose. 

Brady later sought Powell’s help defending an oil company from a hostile takeover attempt, he said, and the two spent months traveling back and forth to Washington. When Brady became Treasury secretary several years later, he asked Powell to join him there, “which opened the door for me to  higher levels  of public service.”

“The point is this: if I had not forced myself to get up from my desk, taken the stairs up to the 15th floor, and presented myself to his office that day, the rest of my life would have been very different, and I would not be standing here today,” he said. 

“Mustering that little bit of initiative changed my life,” he said. “A little initiative can make all the difference in anyone’s career.”

Latest in Success

Managers are dealing with a massive blind spot, and it feeds right into CEOs’ worst nightmare

Scouting America CEO: Our name change was long overdue—and today’s divisions prove the role we have to play is more important than ever

Wizz Air CEO defends his $127 million bonus cap, saying it will help everyone—including its employees

Desperate for millennial talent, Germany launches ‘Opportunity Card’ giving migrants a year to look for a job

The U.K. is bucking the trend as Europe bleeds foreign direct investment. Here’s why

Reality star Judge Judy says Gen Z are difficult to work with because they got too many trophies: ‘When I grew up, you ran a race, you came in first, you got a trophy’

Most popular.

Amazon, Walmart, and Target finally realize their colossal pricing mistake—now they’re slashing costs to win back customers

A 35-year-old Chinese man has been tagged as the alleged mastermind behind a gargantuan botnet used to steal billions from zombie computers

Gen Z really are the hardest to work with—even managers of their own generation say they’re difficult. Instead bosses plan to hire more of their millennial counterparts

Toyota’s bet on hybrids was mocked, then vindicated. Now it’s trying to repeat the trick with an unlikely bet on the combustion engine

American Airlines CEO fired top exec after controversial ‘modern retailing’ strategy infuriated corporate clients

‘How can you tell me it won’t lead to stagflation?’ Jamie Dimon says ‘extraordinary’ government spending has him bracing for high inflation and unemployment