罗斯福向国会报告雅尔塔会议情况的演讲

罗斯福向国会报告雅尔塔会议情况的演讲 英文版

Address to Congress on the Yalta Conference

March 1, 1945

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 was attempted. 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 lapses 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 and collaboration.

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 severe. 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 aggressive warfare.

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 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 outlawed.

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, too.

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 whole world.

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 time. 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 set up.

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 people themselves.

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 Poland.

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 east.

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 generations.

I am convinced that this agreement on Poland, under the circumstances, is the most hopeful agreement possible for a free, independent and prosperous Polish state.

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 world. 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 communique 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 it again. 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 work. 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 world conflict.

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.

罗斯福向国会报告雅尔塔会议情况的演讲 中文版

1945年3月1日

希望你们可以原谅，我以这种不寻常的方式坐着来发表演说。但是我知道你们会意识到，对我而言，这远比大腿根部绑上十磅钢筋来得轻松。另外一个原因是我刚刚结束了一次一万四千英里的旅程。

首先，我想说的是，回家的感觉很好。我们已经经历长途跋涉，我希望你们会有同感，到目前为止，成果颇丰。说句老实话，这次会议是否真的硕果累累，很大程度上取决于你们。因为若不是你们在美国人民的支持下，在美国议会的大厅里，同意在雅尔塔达成的诸多决议，并积极支持这些决议，这次会议不会产生持久的效果。

这就是为何我要返程之后第一时间来到你们面前。我想为你们做一个私人报告——同时也是为美国人民。我们面前还有许多个月的艰苦工作要去完成，我想当国际和平结构被放上最后一块基石的时候，这将是我们所有美国人共同坚定无私的工作换来的成果。

我从长途旅行归来，精神振作，信心十足。那段时间我的状态一直都非常好。在我回到华盛顿之前我从未不舒服过。回来之后，我听说了当我不在的时候发生的所有传言。可我旅行回来了，精神振作，信心十足。罗斯福家族的人并不是你们想象的那样不喜欢旅行，恰恰相反我们热爱旅行。

尽管那时我远在他方，但我始终关注在美国所发生的一切。快速通讯的现代奇迹已经让这个世界变得非常小。当我们谈及或考虑国际关系的时候，我们必须时刻牢记这一事实。我定期从华盛顿收到各种消息——我想说不仅是从行政机构的各个部门收到消息，也从立法机构收到。除了一些因为安全因素而需要屏蔽无线电的地方，我可以从世界的任何一个角落不断发送消息。当然，如果在严重紧急情况下，我们甚至可以冒险打破安全规定。

我从克里米亚会议回来，坚信我们已经在通往世界和平的道路上迈出了成功的第一步。

克里米亚会议有两个主要目的。一是以联军可能的最小损失为代价，尽可能快地击败德国。为实现这一目的，现在已经全力以赴。德国部队和德国人民正在感受我们的战士和联军日益增长的实力。我们的部队每个小时都会在德国领土上荣耀地英勇前进，直至与英勇的苏联红军会师。二是继续为恢复战乱后的秩序与安全而制定的国际条约奠定基础，这样可以为全世界国家间的持久和平提供一些保障。也是为了这一目标，我们已经迈出了一大步。

一年多前在德黑兰，世界上最强大的三国总参谋长一起制订了长期的军事计划。然而，那时在德黑兰的平民领袖之中，只能进行想法的交流与意见的表达。没有任何政治安排，也根本就没有尝试过。然而在克里米亚会议上，时机终于到了，大家可以坐下来谈一谈政治领域的具体事宜。这次会议在各个方面大家都积极努力达成一致。

一年前在德黑兰的时候，我们中的所有人已经达成了一种——怎么说呢?一种彼此协商的良好机制，可以用来很好地保障世界和平。我们彼此也都更加了解对方了。我的信念从来没有动摇过。我坚信一个保障世界和平与安全的协议是可以达成的。

我们曾经做的许多事情都是具体的，也是确定的。比如说，在德黑兰与雅尔塔会议之间的这段时间内，没有举行过任何由三个大国平民代表参加的会议。事实证明会议间隔的时间太长了——长达十四个月。在那么长的时间里，地区问题开始凸显，比如波兰、希腊、意大利和南斯拉夫。因此，我们在雅尔塔决定，即使条件不允许三大国首脑将来进行更多的会晤，我们也将保证三大国的国务卿与外交部长之间会有更频繁的私人接触来交流看法。我们安排了每隔三四个月举行一次定期会议。我感到非常有信心，在这样的安排下，像今年冬天这样打搅全世界朋友通力合作的事件不会再次发生。

我们在雅尔塔会晤期间，除了部署我们的战略战术，以最终彻底击败德国之外，还有事关重要政治后果的其他问题。

比如说，首先就是胜利之后如何占领和控制德国的问题。彻底摧毁德国的军事力量，确保纳粹和普鲁士军国主义都无法死灰复燃，从而威胁世界和平与文明。

第二，再举个例子，自敦巴顿橡树园会议以来，关于国际安全组织问题，我们之间存在的一些分歧还有待解决。正如你们记得的，那个时候，我说过我们达成了90%的共识。好吧，这是一个很高的比例。我想在雅尔塔解决剩下的10%。

第三，几乎所有从纳粹奴役下解放出来的地方，普遍存在政治和经济问题。这是一个非常特殊的问题。我们在此发现很难理解境外诸如此类许多问题的细枝末节，但是我们将尽力而为。

第四，在有些国家，比如波兰和南斯拉夫产生了一些特殊问题。

那时，我们每天都会讨论重大事件，并在谈判桌上自由坦率地争辩。然而到最后各方就达成了一致意见而且比字面一致更重要的是，我可以说是我们形成了一整套思想，而且学会了和睦相处的方法。

当然我们知道，希特勒还有德国的战争狂们希望我们不会达成一致。他们希望盟国整体的坚固墙壁会产生一道细微的裂缝，而这道裂缝可以给他以及他的匪帮以逃脱他们注定下场的最后希望。这就是他的宣传机器开动许多个月来的目的。

但是希特勒失败了。

主要盟国从来没有比现在更加团结一致——不仅在战争目标方面，而且也在和平目标方面一致。他们决心继续团结在一起，同时与所有热爱和平的国家团结在一起——这样持久和平的理想就会成为现实。

苏联、英国和美国的总参谋长每天都在一起开会。他们经常与斯大林元帅、丘吉尔首相还有我，一起讨论盟国的战略战术合作问题。他们完成了最后击垮德国的计划。

在德黑兰会议的时候，俄国前线移到距离美英前线很远的地方。尽管某些长期的战略合作是可能的，但是一天一天的战术合作则是不可能的。因为相距实在太远了。但是现在俄军已经穿越了波兰。他们已经在德国东部作战，英美部队现在已经在德国西部靠近莱茵河的地方。

目前的形势与十四个月之前不可同日而语，欧洲战场的更密切的战术合作第一次成为可能。在克里米亚会议上，收获了不一样的成果。在西线作战的艾森豪威尔将军指挥的部队，在漫长东线作战的苏联元帅们指挥的部队，还有我们在意大利的部队，他们现在不需要像从前那样先通过华盛顿或伦敦的总参谋长，就可以每天交流信息。

你们已经看到这种信息交流的好处：最近的美英飞机轰炸直接配合了俄军向柏林推进。从现在开始，每天的战术运用都要算上美英的重型轰炸机——我想，我们已经开始意识到，一边是战术，一边是战略，两者到底是完全不同的。每天的战术运用直接给予了苏军支持，同时也是对西线我们自己部队的支持。他们现在正忙于轰炸和袭击，以阻止德军将来自德国其他地方或意大利的储备和物资运往东线与西线。

已经做好了安排，所有可以搜集的物资与交通工具，被最高效地分配到最需要的地方，以便美军、英军和俄军用于共同的战争努力。

这些计划与安排的细节当然是军事秘密，而所有一切联系在一起是为了加速德国的最后崩溃。让纳粹悲哀的是他们已经吃了些苦头。我想在大会上的三国首脑都感到纳粹明天或后天会吃更多的苦头，天天如此!他们不会得到任何喘息。除非他们无条件投降，否则我们片刻都不会停下来。

你们知道，我时常静静地彻夜思考，感到人还是要讲常识。我想这一点在德国也是正确的，德国人民也包括德国军人，必须认识到他们集体或个人越早投降，他们现在的痛苦就会越早结束。他们必须认识到，只有彻底投降他们才可以重塑他们自己，才可能被世界接受为正派的邻居。

我们在雅尔塔会议上又澄清一次。现在我还要重复一下，无条件投降并不意味着对德国人民实施屠杀或奴役。纳粹领导人故意从德国出版社和电台扣下雅尔塔宣言的那部分内容。他们企图让德国人民相信，《雅尔塔宣言》确实是要奴役并屠杀他们。他们在夜以继日地如此宣传，可见纳粹如何企图安然逃脱，企图哄骗他们的人民继续进行毫无意义的抵抗。然而我们确实在大会上澄清了无条件投降对德国意味着什么。

无条件投降意味着德国将被英国、俄国、法国和美国临时接管。每一个国家都将占据和控制德国的一块单独区域。这四个区域的管理将由四个国家代表在柏林组成的管控委员会来协调决定。

无条件投降还意味着别的东西。它意味着纳粹主义的末日，意味着纳粹党的末日，以及所有与纳粹有关的野蛮法律机构的末日。它意味着军国主义对德国公众、私人和文化生活影响的终结。它意味着纳粹战犯们将很快会得到其应有的、严厉的惩罚。它意味着德国将被彻底解除武装，军国主义以及所有军事设施将被摧毁，军工厂将停止生产，所有武装力量将解散，不时破坏世界和平的德军总参谋部将被永久瓦解。它意味着德国将必须对那些无辜的受害者进行物质赔偿，他们因为德国的侵略遭受了严重的打击。

通过强制以物质形式进行赔偿，比如赔偿工厂、机器、车辆、原材料等，我们会避免上一次大战之后我们与其他国家犯的错误。那时候我们要求德国以货币形式赔偿，而德国根本付不起这么多钱。我们并不想让德国人民挨饿，或者成为世界其他国家的负担。我们处置德国的目标很简单——就是要捍卫世界目前与未来的和平。太多经验表明如果我们允许德国保留发动侵略战争的能力，那么和平的目标就无法实现。

这些目标不会伤害德国人民。恰恰相反，它们会保护他们不再重复总参谋部和独裁统治曾经强加给他们的命运，也不重复现在希特勒主义成百倍地强加给他们的命运。这将会从德国政体上摘除一个恶性肿瘤。几代人以来，这个肿瘤给整个世界带来的只有悲惨与痛苦。

我在雅尔塔逗留期间，看到了那种鲁莽的无意义的愤怒以及来自于德国军国主义的恐怖袭击。在黑海边上的雅尔塔并没有任何军事意义，它甚至连防线都没有。在一战之前，雅尔塔是一个旅游胜地，专供如沙皇、皇子以及俄国的贵族们和随从游玩。然而，赤色革命之后，在希特勒进攻苏联之前，雅尔塔的宫殿与别墅一直被用作俄国人民的休闲娱乐中心。

纳粹军官占领了这些以前的宫殿和别墅，供他们自己使用。当我们到那里的时候，这些所谓的沙皇故居还是可以住人的。那其中唯一的原因是它已经被赠与，或者是那个德国将军自己认为已经赠与他了，成为他的私人财产，供他私人使用。当雅尔塔已经被破坏得不成样子的时候，德国将军还是让士兵去保护那栋漂亮的别墅，因为他认为那会是自己的东西。

在德国人再次占领别墅之前，它曾是一个实用的休闲娱乐中心，是为几十万的俄国工人、农民和他们的家庭建造的。纳粹军官们占领这些地方供他们自己使用。差不多一年之前，也就是去年四月，在红军将纳粹赶出克里米亚之时，所有这些别墅都被纳粹洗劫一空，几乎所有的别墅都被内部安装的炸弹毁坏，甚至雅尔塔最穷的人家也没有得以幸免。除了光秃秃的墙壁，几乎什么都没留下，到处都是废墟，真是满目疮痍。

塞瓦斯托波尔，距离雅尔塔四十或五十英里以外的一个军事港，是一个拥有大型海军工厂和防御工事的大城市，当时也被彻底毁坏了。我估计整个城市只有不到十栋楼房是完好无损的。我知道华沙、利迪泽、鹿特丹和考文垂，但我亲眼看到了塞瓦斯托波尔和雅尔塔!我知道世界上没有足够的空间让德国的军国主义与基督教的高贵共存。

与在克里米亚会议上进行的军事安排同样重要的是，我们达成了一项协议。此协议涉及了维持世界和平的一般性国际组织。基础工作在敦巴顿橡树园会议上已经完成，然而在敦巴顿橡树园会议上还有一点没有达成一致，这一点是有关安理会的投票程序。我想尽量简单明了些。我耗费了一个又一个小时在我自己的头脑中，也在许多会议上试图弄清楚这件事。在克里米亚会议上，美国人就这个议题提出了建议。我很高兴地说，经过充分讨论，为另两个国家一致接受。

现在还不可能公布协议的具体条款，但是很快就会。一旦大家知道了涉及安理会投票的有关决议，我想，同时也希望你们会发现这个复杂且困难的问题有了一个合理的解决方案。这些决议是公正的，它们将长期保证在维持和平前提下的国际合作。

1945年4月25日将在旧金山召开全世界范围的联合国大会。在那里我们希望，也自信地期望，将执行一种确定的组织章程。在这个章程的规定下，世界和平将得以维持，而侵略武装将永远被禁止。

这一次我们再不犯错，不会等到战争结束才着手建立和平机制。这一次，既然我们一起战斗来最终打赢这场战争，那么就让我们一起努力，让这样的战争不要再次发生。

正如你们所知，我一直是《美国宪法》文本的信徒。我花了好多时间向世界其他两个大国阐释《美国宪法》。章程必须也应该在《宪法》规定下，得到美国参议院的批准。我想其他国家现在都已经知道了这一情况。我意识到了这一事实，现在其他国家也是如此。我们希望当过几个月联合国宪章在旧金山出炉的时候，参议院会予以批准。

在创立国际安全组织方面，美国参议院的合法代表们一直在不间断地通报参议院美国政府的计划。美国的参议院和众议院都将参加旧金山大会。参加旧金山大会的议会代表团成员中共和党人与民主党人的人数将持平。美国代表团可谓真正意义上的两党制。

世界和平不是政党问题。我认为共和党人与民主党人一样渴望和平。这不是政党问题，就像军事上的胜利，赢得这场战争也不是政党问题。共和国曾受到过威胁。第一次是纳粹1940年瞬间发动战争要征服世界，再次是1941年日本人的背叛。那时，党派斗争与政治几乎被每个美国人搁置一边，所有资源都用以保障我们共同的安全。我认为每一个爱国的美国人，每一个海外的人类灵魂都将为和平事业做出相同的贡献。

世界和平格局的建立不会是为一个人，或者一个政党，或者一个国家服务的任务。它不可能只是美国的和平，或者英国的和平，或者俄国的和平，或者法国的和平，或者中国的和平。它不是大国的和平，也不是小国的和平。它是要依靠全世界合作努力来实现的和平。

它也不可能一开始就成为完善的结构。但它可以也将是一种建立在《大西洋宪章》合理的公正的原则上的和平，建立在人类尊严概念上的和平，建立在宽容的保障和宗教信仰自由之上的和平。

随着盟军部队向军事胜利推进，他们解放了被纳粹剥夺自由长达四年的人民，他们的经济已经被纳粹掠夺者毁灭殆尽。不曾料想，在这些解放区，比如希腊、波兰或者南斯拉夫，或许还有更多地方，发生了政治混乱和动荡。比这更糟的是，有些地方还滋长了古怪的念头，比如什么“势力范围”，这些都不符合国际合作的基本原则。如果这样的现象不能得到遏止，发展下去恐怕迟早会酿成悲剧。试图把造成目前情况的责任推到某一个国家身上是毫无意义的。除非世界上主要大国继续不受干扰地一起努力，共同承担解决可能危及世界和平的难题，否则这样的悲剧结果几乎是无法避免的。

我们在克里米亚聚首，决定解决解放区的问题。很多我们现在无法预料的事情可能就会在下周或下月突然间意外地发生。我很高兴能与国会保持一致，我们确实找到了解决之道，而且非常巧，又是一致通过。

三个大国已经同意，任何从纳粹铁蹄下解放出来的地区，或者任何轴心国的前附庸地区，它们的政治和经济问题将由三国共同承担。三国政府将在战后短暂的不稳定期内携手合作，通过稳固建立的民主程序，去帮助解放区人民，或者前附庸国人民，以解决他们自身的难题。他们将尽力做到，从被德国占领到真正独立期间的临时政府成员具有代表性，体现人民民主，此后则会尽快举行自由竞选。

我们这个伟大的国家不能再对几千英里之外的政治形势不闻不问。当然，我不想我有生之年再看到另一场战争。正如我说过的，世界变小了，每年都在变小。美国现在已经在全世界和平事业中发挥巨大的影响力。我们这里的人所思所言都是为了和平，因为举世皆知。在国会任何院中随便说上一句，第二天都会传遍全世界。只要我们愿意继续分担维持和平的责任，我们就要继续发挥这种影响。我想，如果我们逃避这样的责任，那么这将是我们自己巨大的损失。

对这些地区的最终决定是共同制定的，所以说这些决定常常是互相妥协的结果。美国并不总是能实现它的做法，俄国或者英国也是如此。尽管我们决心继续朝着理想努力，但并不总能得到理想的答案，或者说并不总能找到解决复杂国际问题的方法。但是我相信，在雅尔塔所达成的协议下，欧洲政治将会比以往更加稳定。

当然，一旦在任何国家人民都可以自由表达意愿，我们现在的责任就结束了，除了那些要由我们所希望建立的国际安全组织来做决议的行动。

联合国也必须很快开始行动，充分帮助这些解放区恢复经济，这样它们就可以在世界上重新恢复它们的地位。纳粹战争机器从它们身上掠夺了原材料、机床、卡车和杌车。它们所到之处，工业停滞不前，许多农业区成了不毛之地。纳粹所到之处，留下的就是一堆废墟。

让车轮重新开动起来并不仅仅是一种救援。举国关注的是我们所有人都期盼让这些解放区再次自立，拥有生产能力，这样他们就不需要我们持续不断的救援了。我想说，这一观点是基于常识的。

三个主要盟国对解放区采取了联合行动，其中一个突出例子就是对波兰问题的解决方案。整个波兰问题是战后欧洲潜在麻烦的源头，一直都是如此。我们在大会上决定找寻共同的解决方案，显然我们做到了，尽管不是每个人都和我们的意见一致。我们的目标是帮助创建一个强大的、独立的、繁荣的国家。我们必须始终记住俄、英、美三国曾一致同意：要将波兰建成一个强大的、独立的、繁荣的国家，波兰政府最终应由波兰人民自己选举产生。

为了实现这个目标，有必要形成一个新的政府，比起波兰被奴役时期，具有更广泛的代表性。因此，在雅尔塔，我们要在更广泛的民主基础上，采取行动来重组现在的波兰临时政府，这样就可以将波兰国内外的民主领袖都容纳进去。我们都会将这个新重组的政府视为波兰的临时政府。

然而，新的统一的波兰临时政府保证将尽快以全民选举和无记名投票的形式来举行自由选举。

在历史上，波兰一直是袭击俄国的必经之路。这代人以来，德国已经两次通过这条走廊袭击俄国。为了保障欧洲安全和世界和平，一个强大和独立的波兰有助于避免这种事情再次发生。

坦率地说，有关波兰边境的决议是妥协的产物。无论如何，我不是完全同意这一决议，然而在某些地方，决议与英国意见不同;在某些地方，决议与俄国意见分歧;在某些地方，决议不符合我的意愿。这就是妥协。然而，决议规定波兰人可以在北部和西部得到领土上的补偿，以交换因东部寇松线损失的领土。

西部边界的界限将在最终和平大会上勘定并长久保持下去。我们大概知道，新的强大的波兰将会包括一大片现在属于德国的领土，也允许新的波兰拥有漫长的海岸线和许多新建的港口。同时，大部分东普鲁士会并入波兰。东普鲁士的一个角落则会并入俄国。另外，比较特殊的但泽自由国将会消失，我想对但泽而言，成为波兰的一部分，会比现在好得多。

大家都知道住在寇松线东侧的人民——我就举个例子说明为何我会妥协——大多是白俄罗斯人和乌克兰人，他们不是波兰人;而寇松线两侧的人民，除了东普鲁士和东部德国那部分(将会并人新波兰)之外，大部分都是波兰人。早在1919年，盟国的代表就一致认为寇松线很好地为两侧的人民划定了界限。你们也必须记住，在1919年以前，很多代人以来，根本就不存在任何波兰政府。

我相信，在目前情况下，在波兰问题上达成的协议对于建立一个自由、独立和繁荣的波兰是一个最富希望的协议。

克里米亚会议由三大军事强国参加，他们承担着战争主要责任和负担。尽管因为这一原因，法国没有参会，但没有人可以不承认，她在未来的欧洲和世界会发挥应有的作用。法国受邀接受一块德国控制区，因而成为盟国对德控制委员会的第四个成员国。法国还受邀作为赞助国参加下个月在旧金山举行的国际大会。法国会和其他四大国成为安理会的常任理事国。最后，我们请求法国与我们一同对欧洲所有解放区承担共同责任。

正如在公报中宣布的那样，南斯拉夫问题达成了协议。我们希望协议会被执行。但是，我们必须记住，不仅在那里，世界上还有其他地方有着许许多多自负的人。他们希望什么事情定下来之前都能听听他们的意见，所以要是听了更多那些人的意见，我们就要耽误一些时间了。

很自然，这次大会只与欧洲战争以及欧洲的政治问题有关，与太平洋战争无关。

然而在马耳他，我们的英美联军在制订加强对日本进攻的计划。日本军阀们知道他们并没有被忽视。他们已经感受到我们B-29的远程轰炸，我们航空母舰的威力;他们已经感受到美国海军的实力，他们不那么着急再出来尝试一次。日本人现在知道听到“美国海军陆战队已经登录”意味着什么。我想我可以再加上一句，如果算上硫磺岛，“形势尽在掌握之中”。

既然麦克阿瑟将军已经成功反攻马尼拉，尼米兹将军正在日本的后院硫磺岛上建立空军基地，那么他们也知道将会对自己的祖国——日本采取什么行动。然而，为了避免有人要终止美国的工作，我要重复我经常说的，甚至在梦里会说的那句话：“我们还没有赢得战争，我们还没有在战争上写上胜利。”通往东京之路仍是漫长而艰辛的。从任何意义上讲，通往东京的路要比通往柏林的路更加漫长。打败德国并不意味着对日战争的结束。相反，我们必须做好在太平洋上进行漫长而又代价高昂的斗争的准备。

但是日本必须无条件投降，就像德国战败了，也必须无条件投降。谨慎点说，如果我们的世界和平计划成功的话，这一想法肯定是正确的。因为日本军国主义必须像德国军国主义一样被彻底摧毁。

在我从克里米亚回来的路上，我做了安排，私人会见埃及国王法鲁克、埃塞俄比亚皇帝海尔·塞拉西和沙特阿拉伯国王伊本·沙特。我们的谈话不得不涉及我们共同感兴趣的话题。这些安排将会带来巨大的共同利益，因为这样的安排给予我，也给予我们许多人一个机会来见面并面对面交谈，也可以用私交方式代替正式通信来交换看法。比如说，对于阿拉伯问题，通过与伊本·沙特交谈五分钟，我知道了所有的问题，包括穆斯林的，犹太人的。这比我从二三十封书信中了解得更多。

在远航中，我看到了工作中的海陆空军队，我从中受益匪浅。我想，如果他们看到我所看的，听到我所听到的，所有美国人会和我一样为我们的军队感到骄傲。凭借史上最高效的职业陆军、海军和空军，我们的战士顽强战斗直到胜利。这是我们要把握的机会，让这些英勇战士的子孙在几年内不要重新卷入战争。

我希望克里米亚会议将是我们历史上，也是世界历史上的转折点。很快将有一个重要的决议被提交给美国参议院与美国人民，它将决定美国乃至世界未来几代人的命运。我们没有中间道路可走。我们要么就承担世界合作的责任，要么就承担又一次世界冲突的责任。

我知道“计划”这个词在某些圈子里不受欢迎。在国内事务中，正是缺乏计划导致了悲剧性错误;而在另一方面，充分的明智的计划也带来了生活水平的提高和许多利益，如对沙漠地区的开垦，对所有河谷的开发，以及提供足够的住房。国际关系也是如此。我们这代人中的许多人正第二次面对着避免战争的目标。为了实现这个目标，全世界的国家要么将制订计划，要么没有计划。

计划的基础工作现在已经完成了，已经可以让人们讨论和决定了。没有什么计划是完美的。毫无疑问，无论在旧金山将采取什么计划，此计划必须在多年里反复地修改，就像我们自己的宪法曾被修改过多次那样。没有人可以确切说出任何计划可以维持多久。

只要人类真正坚持和平，愿意为和平而努力，为和平而牺牲，和平就可以继续下去。二十五年前，美国战士指望全世界的政治家来结束他们为了和平而战斗和受苦的工作。那时候我们失败了。我们不能再失败，却期望世界可以再次幸存。

克里米亚会议是三个主要国家寻求共同和平的一次成功努力。它将导致单边行动、排他联盟、势力范围、权力平衡，以及所有其他作为权宜之计体系的终结。这些权宜之计用了几个世纪，但都失败了。我们建议以一个世界性组织去取代所有这些体系，让世界上所有热爱和平的国家最终都有机会加入进来。

我相信国会和美国人民会将这次大会的结果作为建立永久和平机制的开端。在这样的机制下，我们可以开始在上帝的指引下，建设一个更好的世界。让我们的子孙后代，你的和我的，全世界人民的子孙后代，生活下去，也可以生活下去。

朋友们，这就是我要传达给你们的主要信息。然而我为之深深感动，正如我知道今天你们所有人也为之深深感动，将来你也会为之深深感动。