Report to Congress by President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Universal Newsreel 36-17 (2/21/63) from National Archives - DVD33
On the Crimea Conference
March 1, 1945
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker and Members of the Congress:
I hope that you will pardon me for the unusual posture of sitting down during
the presentation of what I want to say, but I know that you will realize it
makes it a lot easier for me in not having to carry about ten pounds of steel
around on the bottom of my legs and also because of the fact that I have just
completed a 14,000-mile trip.
First of all, I want to say that it is good to be home. It has been a long journey and I hope you all will agree that it has been, so far, a fruitful one. Speaking in all frankness, the question of whether it is entirely fruitful or not lies to a great extent in your hands. For unless you here, in the halls of the American Congress-with the support of the American people-concur in the general conclusions reached in the place called Yalta, and give them your active
support, the meeting will not have produced lasting results.
And that is why I have come before you at the earliest hour I could after my
return. I want to make a personal report to you, and at the same time to the
people of the country. Many months of earnest work are ahead of us all, and I
should like to feel that when the last stone is laid on the structure of
international peace, it will be an achievement for which all of us in America
have worked steadfastly and unselfishly-together.
I am returning from this trip, which took me so far, refreshed and inspired.
I was well the entire time. I was not ill for a second until I arrived back in
Washington. There I heard all of the rumors which occurred in my absence. Yes, I
returned from the trip refreshed and inspired-the Roosevelts are not, as you may
suspect, averse to travel; we seem to thrive on it.
And far away as I was, I was kept constantly informed of affairs in the
United States. The modern miracle of rapid communications has made this world
very small; we must always bear in mind that fact when we speak or think of
international relations. I received a steady stream of messages from Washington,
I might say not only from the executive branch with all its departments, but
also from the legislative branch-its two departments. And, except where radio
silence was necessary for security purposes, I could continuously send messages
any place in the world. And, of course, in a grave emergency we could even have
risked the breaking of the security rule. I come from the Crimean Conference with a firm belief that we have made a
good start on the road to a world of peace.
There were two main purposes in this Crimean Conference. The first was to
bring defeat to Germany with the greatest possible speed and with the smallest
possible loss of Allied men. That purpose is now being carried out in great
force. The German army, and the German people, are feeling the ever increasing
might of our fighting men and of the Allied armies and every hour gives us added
pride in the heroic advance of our troops in Germany, on German soil, toward a
meeting with the gallant Red Army.
The second purpose was to continue to build the foundation for an
international accord which would bring order and security after the chaos of the
war and would give some assurance of lasting peace among the nations of the
world. In that goal, toward that goal, a tremendous stride was made.
After Teheran, a little over a year ago, there were long-range military plans
laid by the chiefs of staff of the three most powerful nations. Among the
civilian leaders at Teheran, however, at that time, there were only exchanges of
views and expressions of opinion. No political arrangements were made and none
At the Crimean Conference, however, the time had come for getting down to
specific cases in the political field. There was on all sides at this conference
an enthusiastic effort to reach an agreement. Since the time of Teheran, a year
ago, there had developed among all of us a-what shall I call it-a greater
facility in negotiating with each other, which augurs well for the peace of the
world. We know each other better.
I have never for an instant-wavered in my belief that an agreement to insure
world peace and security can be reached. There are a number of things that we
did at the conference that was definite. For instance, the lapse of time between
Teheran and Yalta without conferences of civilian representatives of the three
major powers have proved to be too long-fourteen months. During this long period
local problems were permitted to become acute in places like Poland and Greece
and Italy and Yugoslavia.
Therefore we decided at Yalta that, even if circumstances made it impossible
for the heads of the three Governments to do it, to meet more often in the
future, and to make that sure by arranging that there would be frequent personal
contacts for the exchange of views between the Secretaries of State, the Foreign
Ministers of these three powers. We arranged for periodic meetings, at intervals of three or four months. I
feel very confident that under this arrangement there will be no recurrence of
the incidents which this winter disturbed the friends of world-wide cooperation
When we met at Yalta, in addition to laying our strategic and tactical plans
for the complete, final military victory over Germany, there were other problems
of vital political consequence.
For instance, there were the problems of occupational control of Germany
after victory, the complete destruction of her military power, and the assurance
that neither the Nazis nor Prussian militarism could again be revived to
threaten the peace and civilization of the world.
Secondly, again for example, there was the settlement of the few differences
which remained among us with respect to the international security organization
after the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. As you remember at that time, I said
afterward we had agreed 90 per cent. A pretty good percentage. I think the other
10 per cent was ironed out at Yalta.
Thirdly, there were the general political and economic problems common to all
of the areas that would be in the future, or which had been, liberated from the
Nazi yoke. There are special problems-we over here find it difficult to
understand the ramifications of many of these problems in foreign lands. But we
are trying to.
Fourth, there were the special problems created by a few instances, such as
Poland and Yugoslavia.
Days were spent in discussing these momentous matters. We argued freely and
frankly across the table. But at the end, on every point, unanimous agreement
was reached. And more important even than the agreement of words, I may say we
achieved a unity of thought and a way of getting along together.
Of course we know that it was Hitler's hope-and German war lords'-that we
would not agree, that some slight crack might appear in the solid wall of Allied
unity, a crack that would give him and his fellow-gangsters one last hope of
escaping their just doom. That is the objective for which his propaganda machine
has been working for many months.
But Hitler has failed. Never before have the major Allies been more closely united-not only in-
their war aims but also in their peace aims. And they are determined to continue
to be united-to be united with each other-and with all peace-loving nations-so
that the ideal of lasting peace will become a reality. The Soviet, British and United States Chiefs of Staff held daily meetings
with each other, they conferred frequently with Marshal Stalin, with Prime
Minister Churchill and with me, on the problem of coordinating the strategic and
tactical efforts of the Allied powers. They completed their plans for the final
knockout blow to Germany.
At the time of the Teheran Conference the Russian front, for instance, was
removed so far from the American and British fronts that, while certain
long-range strategic cooperation was possible, there could be no tactical,
day-by-day coordination. They were too far apart. But Russian troops have now crossed Poland, they are fighting on the eastern
soil of Germany herself, British and American troops are now on German soil
close to the Rhine River in the west. It is a different situation today from
what it was fourteen months ago. A closer tactical liaison has become
possible-for the first time in Europe-and, in the Crimean Conference, that was
something else that was accomplished.
Provision was made for daily exchange of information between the armies under
command of General Eisenhower, on the western front, and those armies under the
command of the Soviet marshals on that long eastern front, and also with our
armies in Italy-without the necessity of going through the Chiefs of Staff in
Washington or London, as in the past. You have seen one result of this exchange of information in the recent
bombing by American and English aircraft of points which are directly related to
the Russian advance on Berlin.
From now on, American and British heavy bombers will be used-in the
day-by-day tactics of the war-and we have begun to realize, I think, that there
is all the difference in the world between tactics on the one side and strategy
on the other. Day by day tactical war, in direct support of Soviet armies, as
well as in the support of our own in the Western Front.
They are now engaged in bombing and strafing in order to hamper the movement
of German reserves, German materials, to the Eastern and Western Fronts from
other parts of Germany or from Italy.
Arrangements have been made for the most effective distribution of all
available material and transportation to the places where they can best be used
in the combined war effort-American, British and Russian.
Details of these plans and arrangements are military secrets. But they are
going to hasten the day of the final collapse of Germany. The Nazis are learning
about some of them already, to their sorrow, and I think all three of us at the
conference felt that they will learn more about them tomorrow and the next
day-and the day after that.
There will be no respite for these attacks. We will not desist for one moment
until unconditional surrender. You know I have always felt that common sense
prevails in the long run, quiet overnight thinking. I think that's true in
Germany, just as much as it is here. The German people, as well as the German
soldier, must realize the sooner they give up and surrender, surrender by groups
or by individuals, the sooner their present agony will be over. They must
realize that only with complete surrender can they begin to re-establish
themselves as people whom the world might accept as decent neighbors.
We made it clear again at Yalta, and I now repeat-that unconditional
surrender does not mean the destruction or the enslavement of the German people.
The Nazi leaders have deliberately withheld that part of the Yalta declaration
from the German press and radio. They seek to convince the people of Germany
that the Yalta declaration does mean slavery and destruction for them-they are
working at it day and night-for that is how the Nazis hope to save their own
skins, how to deceive their people into continued and useless resistance.
We did, however, make it clear at the Conference just what unconditional
surrender does mean to Germany.
It means the temporary control of Germany by Great Britain, Russia, France
and the United States. Each of these nations will occupy and control a separate
zone of Germany-and the administration of the four zones will be
coordinated-coordinated in Berlin by a control council composed of
representatives of the four nations.
Unconditional surrender means something else. It means the end of nazism and
of the Nazi party-and all of its barbaric laws and institutions.
It means the termination of all militaristic influence in public, private and
cultural life of Germany.
It means for the Nazi war criminals a punishment that is speedy and just-and
It means the complete disarmament of Germany, the destruction of its
militarism, of its military equipment; the end of its production of armament;
the dispersal of all armed forces; the permanent dismemberment of the German
General Staff, which has so often shattered the peace of the world.
It means that Germany will have to make reparations-reparations in kind for
the damage which has been done to the innocent victims of its aggression.
By compelling reparations in kind-in plants, in machinery, in rolling stock
and raw materials-we shall avoid the mistake that we and other people made after
the last war, the demanding of reparations in the form of money, which Germany
could never pay.
We do not want the German people to starve, or to become a burden on the rest
of the world.
Our objective in handling Germany is simple-it is to secure the peace of the
rest of the world, now and in the future. Too much experience has shown that
that objective is impossible if Germany is allowed to retain any ability to wage
Now these objectives will not hurt the German people. On the contrary, it
will protect them from a repetition of the fate which the General Staff and
Kaiserism imposed on them before and which Hitlerism is now imposing upon them
again a hundredfold. It will be removing a cancer from the German body, which
for generations has produced only misery and only pain for the whole world.
During my stay in Yalta I saw the kind of reckless, senseless fury, this
terrible destruction, that comes out of German militarism. Yalta, on the Black
Sea, had no military significance of any kind, and no defenses.
Before the last war it had been a resort, a resort for people like czars,
princes and aristocracy, and their hanger-one. However, after the war, after the
Red Revolution, until the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitler a few years ago,
the palaces, the villas of Yalta had been used as a rest and recreation center
by the Russian people.
The Nazi officers took these former palaces and villas, took them over for
their own use. They are the only reasons that the so-called former palace of the
Czar was still habitable when we got there. It had been given, or had thought to
have been given, to a German general for his own property and his own use. And
when Yalta was so destroyed he kept soldiers there to protect what he thought
would become his own nice villa.
It was a useful rest and recreation center for hundreds of thousands of
Russian workers, farmers and their families, up to the time it was taken again
by the Germans.
The Nazi officers took these places for their own use, and when the Red Army
forced the Nazis out of the Crimea, just almost a year ago-last April, I think
it was-all the villas were looted by the Nazis, and then nearly all of them were
destroyed by bombs placed on the inside. And even the humblest of homes of Yalta
were not spared.
There was little left in Yalta except blank walls, ruins, destruction.
Sevastopol, that weather-fortified port, about forty or fifty miles
away-there again was a scene of utter destruction-a large city with its great
navy yards, its fortifications. I think less than a dozen buildings were left
intact in the entire city.
I had read about Warsaw and Lidice and Rotterdam and Coventry-but I saw
Sevastopol and Yalta. And I know that there is not room enough on earth for both
German militarism and Christian decency.
Of equal importance with the military arrangements at the Crimean Conference
were the agreements reached with respect to a general international organization
for lasting world peace.
The foundations were laid at Dumbarton Oaks. There was one point, however, on
which agreement was not reached. It involved the procedure of voting, of voting
in the Security Council. I want to try to make it clear by making it simple. It
took me hours and hours to get the thing straight in my own mind. At the Crimea
Conference the Americans made a proposal on this subject which, after full
discussion, I am glad to say, was unanimously adopted by the other two nations.
It is not yet possible to announce the terms of it publicly, but it will be
in a short time.
With respect to voting, I made known, I think and I hope, that you will find
them a fair solution of this complicated and difficult problem. You might almost
say it's a legislative problem. They are founded in justice, and will go far to
assure international cooperation in the maintenance of peace.
There is going to be held-and you know-after we have straightened that voting
matter out, there is going to be held in San Francisco a meeting of all United
Nations of the world, on the 25th of April, next month. There, we all hope, and
confidently expect, to execute a definite charter of organization upon which the
peace of the world will be preserved and the forces of aggression permanently
This time we are not making the mistake of waiting until the end of the war
to set up the machinery of peace. This time, as we fight together to win the war
finally, we work together to keep it from happening again.
As you know, I have always been a believer in the document called the
Constitution of the United States. I spent a good deal of time in educating two
other nations of the world in the Constitution of the United States.
The charter has to be, and should be, approved by the Senate of the United;
States under the Constitution. I think the other nations all know it now-I am
aware of that fact, and now all the other nations are, and we hope that the
Senate will approve of what is set forth as Charter of the United Nations, when
they all come together in San Francisco, next month.
The Senate of the United States, through its appropriate representatives; has
been kept continuously advised of the program of this Government in the creation
of the International Security Organization.
The Senate and the House will both be represented at the San Francisco
Conference. The Congressional delegates will consist of an equal number, and the
Senatorial will consist of an equal number of Republicans and Democratic
members. The American delegation is-in every sense of the word-bipartisan.
But I think that world peace is not exactly a party question-I think that
Republicans want peace just as much as Democrats. It is not a party question any
more than is military victory.
When our Republic was threatened, first by the Nazi clutch for world conquest
back in 1940, and then by the Japanese treachery in 1941, partisanship and
politics were laid aside by nearly every American; and every resource was
dedicated to our common safety. The same consecration to the cause of peace will
be expected, I think, by every patriotic American, by every human soul overseas,
The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or
one nation, it cannot be just an American peace, or British peace, or a Russian,
or a French or a Chinese peace. It cannot be a peace of large nations-or of
small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the
It cannot be what some people think-a structure of complete perfection at
first. But it can be a peace, and it will be a peace, based on the sound and
just principles of the Atlantic Charter-on the concept of the dignity of the
human being-and on the guarantees of tolerance and freedom of religious worship.
As the Allied Armies have marched to military victory, they have liberated
peoples whose liberties had been crushed by the Nazis for four long years, whose
economy had been reduced to ruins by Nazi despoilers.
There have been instances of political confusion and unrest in these
liberated areas-that is not unexpected-as in Greece or in Poland or in
Yugoslavia, and maybe more. Worse than that, there actually began to grow in
some of these places queer ideas of "spheres of influence" which were
incompatible with the basic principles of international collaboration. If
allowed to go on unchecked these developments might have had tragic results, in
It is fruitless to try to place the blame for this situation on one
particular nation or another. It is the kind of development which is almost
inevitable unless the major powers of the world continue without interruption to
work together and assume joint responsibility for the solution of problems which
may arise to endanger the peace of the world.
We met in the Crimea determined to settle this matter of liberated areas.
Things that might happen that we can't see at this moment might happen suddenly,
unexpected, next week or next month. And I am happy to confirm to the Congress
that we did arrive at a settlement-and incidentally, a unanimous settlement.
The three most powerful nations have agreed that the political and economic
problems of any area liberated from Nazi conquest, or any former Axis satellite,
are a joint responsibility of all three Governments. They will join together
during the temporary period of instability after hostilities, to help the people
of any liberated area, or of any former satellite state, to solve their own
problems through firmly established democratic processes.
They will endeavor to see-to see to it that interim governing, and the people
who carry on the interim government between occupation by Germany and true
independence-that such an interim government will be as representative as
possible of all democratic elements in the population, and that free elections
are held as soon as possible thereafter.
Responsibility for political conditions thousands of miles away can no longer
be avoided, I think, by this great nation. Certainly, I don't want to live to
see another war. As I have said, the world is smaller-smaller every year. The
United States now exerts a tremendous influence in the cause of peace.
What we people over here are thinking and talking about is in the interest of
peace, because it's known all over the world. The slightest remark in either
house of the Congress is known all over the world the following day. We will
continue to exert that influence only if we are willing to continue to share in
the responsibility for keeping the peace. It would be our own tragic loss if we
were to shirk that responsibility.
Final decisions in these areas are going to be made jointly, therefore, and
therefore they will often be a result of give-and-take compromise.
The United States will not always have its way 100 per cent, nor will Russia,
nor Great Britain. We shall not always have ideal answers, solutions to
complicated international problems, even though we are determined continuously
to strive toward that ideal. But I am sure that under the agreements reached at
Yalta there will be a more stable political Europe than ever before.
Of course, once there has been a true expression out of the people's will in
any country, our immediate responsibility ends, with the exception only of such
action as may be agreed on by the international security organization we will
The United Nations must also begin to help these liberated areas adequately
to reconstruct their economy-I don't want them starving to death-so that they
are ready to resume their places in the world. The Nazi war machine has stripped
them of raw materials and machine tools, and trucks and locomotives and things
like that. They have left the industry of these places stagnant, and much of the
agricultural areas are unproductive-the Nazis have left a complete ruin, or a
partial ruin, in their wake.
To start the wheels running again is not a mere matter of relief. It is to
the national interest that all of us see to it that these liberated areas are
again made self-supporting and productive, so that they do not need continuous
relief from us. I can say that as an argument based on plain common sense.
One outstanding example of joint action by the three major Allied powers was
the solution reached on Poland. The whole Polish question was a potential source
of trouble in post-war Europe, as it had been some time before, and we came to
the conference determined to find a common ground for its solution, and we did.
Our objective was to help create a strong, independent and prosperous nation.
That's the thing we must always remember, those words, agreed to by Russia, by
Britain and by me, the objective of making Poland a strong, independent and
prosperous nation, with a Government ultimately to be selected by the Polish
To achieve that objective it is necessary to provide for the formation of a
new government, much more representative than had been possible while Poland was
enslaved. Accordingly, steps were taken at Yalta to reorganize the existing
provisional government in Poland on a broader democratic basis, so as to include
democratic leaders now in Poland and those abroad. This new reorganized
government will be recognized by all of us as the temporary government of
However, the new Polish provisional government of national unity will be
pledged to hold a free election as soon as possible on the basis of universal
suffrage and a secret ballot.
Throughout history Poland has been the corridor through which attacks on
Russia have been made. Twice in this generation Germany has struck Russia
through this corridor. To insure European security and world peace a strong and
independent Poland is necessary to prevent that from happening again.
The decision with respect to the boundaries of Poland was quite a compromise.
I didn't agree with all of it by any means, but we could go as far as Britain
wanted in certain areas, go as far as Russia wanted in certain areas and we
could go as far as I wanted in certain areas. It was a compromise. The decision
was a compromise under which the Poles will receive compensation in territory in
the north and west in exchange for what they lose by the Curzon Line in the
The limits of the western border will be permanently fixed in the final peace
conference. We know roughly that it will include in the new strong Poland quite
a large slice of what is now called Germany. And it was agreed also that the new
Poland will have a large and long coastline and many a new harbor. Also that
East Prussia, most of it, will go to Poland and the corner of it will go to
Russia. Also (what shall I call it) that the "amanuensis" of the Free
State of Danzig, I think Danzig would be a lot better if it were Polish.
It is well known that the people east of the Curzon Line are predominantly
White Russian and Ukrainian. They are not Polish, to a very great majority. And
the people west of the line are predominantly Polish, except in that part of
East Prussia and East Germany which will go to new Poland. As far back as 1919
the representatives of the Allies agreed that the Curzon Line represented a fair
boundary between the two peoples. You must also remember there was no Poland,
there had not been any Polish Government, before 1919, for a great many
I am convinced that this agreement on Poland, under the circumstances, is the
most hopeful agreement possible for a free, independent and prosperous Polish
Now the Crimean conference was a meeting of the three major military powers
on whose shoulders rest the chief responsibility and burden of the war.
Although, for this reason, another nation was not included-France was not a
participant in the conference-no one should detract from the recognition that
was accorded there to her role in the future of Europe and the future of the
France has been invited to accept a zone of control in Germany, and to
participate as a fourth member of the Allied control council of Germany.
She has been invited to join as a sponsor of the international conference at
San Francisco next month
She will be a permanent member of the International Security Council together
with the other four major powers.
And, finally, we have asked that France be associated with us in our joint
responsibility over the liberated areas of Europe.
Agreement was reached on Yugoslavia, as announced in the communiqué and we
hope that it is in process of fulfillment. But it is not only that, but in some
other places we have to remember there are a great number of prima donnas in the
world, all who wish to be heard. Before anything will be done we may have a
little delay while we listen to more prima donnas
Quite naturally, this conference concerned itself only with the European war
and with the political problems of Europe, and not with the Pacific war.
In Malta, however, our combined British and American staffs made their plans
to increase the attack against Japan.
The Japanese war lords know that they are not being overlooked. They have
felt the force of our B-29's, and our carrier planes. They have felt the naval
might of the United States, and do not appear very anxious to come out and try
The Japs know what it means to hear that "The United States Marines have
landed." And we can add, having Iwo Jima in mind, "that the situation
is well in hand."
They also know what is in store for the homeland of Japan now that General
MacArthur has completed his magnificent march back to Manila, and that Admiral
Nimitz is establishing his air bases right in their own back yard.
But, lest somebody else lay off work in the United States, I can repeat what
I have said, even in my sleep, a short sentence, "We haven't won the wars
yet," with an "s" on wars.
It is a long tough road to Tokyo. It is longer to go to Tokyo than it is to
Berlin, in every sense of the word.
The defeat of Germany will not mean the end of the war against Japan. On the
contrary, we must be prepared for a long and costly struggle in the Pacific. But
the unconditional surrender of Japan is as essential as the defeat of Germany. I
say that advisedly, with the thought in mind that that is especially true if our
plans for world peace are to succeed. For Japanese militarism must be wiped out
as thoroughly as German militarism.
On the way back from the Crimea I made arrangements to meet personally King
Farouk of Egypt, Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, and King Ibn Saud of Saudi
Arabia. Our conversations had to do with matters of common interest. They will
be of great mutual advantage because they gave us an opportunity of meeting and
talking face to face, and of exchanging views in personal conversation instead
of formal correspondence.
Of the problems of Arabia, I learned more about that whole problem, the
Moslem problem, the Jewish problem, by talking with Ibn Saud for five minutes
than I could have learned in exchange of two or three dozen letters.
On my voyage, I had the benefit of seeing our Army and Navy and Air Force at
All Americans, I think would feel proud, as proud of our armed forces as I
am, if they could see and hear what I did.
Against the most efficient professional leaders, sailors and airmen of an
history, our men stood and fought and won.
I think that this is our chance to see to it that the sons and grandsons of
these gallant fighting men do not have to do it all over again in a few years.
The conference in the Crimea was a turning point, I hope, in our history, and
therefore in the history of the world. It will soon be presented to the Senate
and the American people, a great decision which will determine the fate of the
United States, and I think therefore of the world, for generations to come.
There can be no middle ground here. We shall have to take the responsibility
for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another
I know that the word "planning" is not looked upon with favor in
some circles. In domestic affairs, tragic mistakes have been made by reason of
lack of planning, and, on the other hand, many great improvements in living, and
many benefits to the human race, have been accomplished as a result of adequate,
intelligent planning-reclamations of desert areas, developments of whole river
valleys, provision for adequate housing.
The same will be true in relations between nations. For the second time in
the lives of most of us, this generation is face to face with the objective of
preventing wars. To meet that objective, the nations of the world will either
have a plan or they will not. The groundwork of a plan has now been furnished,
and has been submitted to humanity for discussion and decision. No plan is
perfect. Whatever is adopted at San Francisco will doubtless have to be amended
time and again over the years, just as our own Constitution has been.
No one can say exactly how long any plan will last. Peace can endure only so
long as humanity really insists upon it, and is willing to work for and
sacrifice for it.
Twenty-five years ago American fighting men looked to the statesmen of the
world to finish the work of peace for which they fought and suffered. We failed
them then. We cannot fail them again, and expect the world to survive again.
I think the Crimean Conference was a successful effort by the three leading
nations to find a common ground of peace. It spells, it ought to spell, the end
of the system of unilateral action and exclusive alliances and spheres of
influence and balances of power and all the other expedients that have been
tried for centuries, and have always failed.
We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all
peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join;
And I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the
results of this conference as the beginning of a permanent structure of peace
upon which we can begin to build, under God, that better world in which our
children and grandchildren, yours and mine, the children and grandchildren of
the whole world, must live and can live.
And that, my friends, is the only message I can give you, for I feel very
deeply, and I know that all of you are feeling it today and are going to feel it
in the future.
World War II Timeline for Yalta and Franklin D. Roosevelt