speech on world war 1

Help inform the discussion

• X (Twitter)

Presidential Speeches

April 17, 1917: message regarding world war i, about this speech.

Woodrow Wilson

April 16, 1917

President Wilson addresses the nation regarding the beginning of World War I.

My Fellow-Countrymen: The entrance of our own beloved country into the grim and terrible war for democracy and human rights which has shaken the world creates so many problems of national life and action which call for immediate consideration and settlement that I hope you will permit me to address to you a few words of earnest counsel and appeal with regard to them. We are rapidly putting our navy upon an effective war footing and are about to create and equip a great army, but these are the simplest parts of the great task to which we have addressed ourselves. There is not a single selfish element, so far as I can see, in the cause we are fighting for. We are fighting for what we believe and wish to be the rights of mankind and for the future peace and security of the world. To do this great thing worthily and successfully we must devote ourselves to the service without regard to profit or material advantage and with an energy and intelligence that will rise to the level of the enterprise itself. We must realize to the full how great the task is and how many things, how many kinds and elements of capacity and service and self-sacrifice, it involves. These, then, are the things we must do, and do well, besides fighting, the things without which mere fighting would be fruitless: We must supply abundant food for ourselves and for our armies and our seamen not only, but also for a large part of the nations with whom we have now made common cause, in whose support and by whose sides we shall be fighting. We must supply ships by the hundreds out of our shipyards to carry to the other side of the sea, submarines or no submarines, what will every day be needed there, and abundant materials out of our fields and our mines and our factories with which not only to clothe and equip our own forces on land and sea but also to clothe and support our people for whom the gallant fellows under arms can no longer work, to help clothe and equip the armies with which we are coordinating in Europe, and to keep the looms and manufactories there in raw material; coal to keep the fires going in ships at sea and in the furnaces of hundreds of factories across the sea; steel out of which to make arms and ammunition both here and there; rails for worn-out railways back of the fighting fronts; locomotives and rolling stock to take the place of those every day going to pieces; mules, horses, cattle for labor and for military service; everything with which the people of England and France and Italy and Russia have usually supplied themselves but cannot now afford the men, the materials, or the machinery to make. It is evident to every thinking man that our industries, on the farms, in the shipyards, in the mines, in the factories, must be made more prolific and more efficient than ever and that they must be more economically managed and better adapted to the particular requirements of our task than they have been; and what I want to say is that the men and the women who devote their thought and their energy to these things will be serving the country and conducting the fight for peace and freedom just as truly and just as effectively as the men on the battlefield or in the trenches. The industrial forces of the country, men and women alike, will be a great national, a great international, Service Army, a notable and honored host engaged in the service of the nation and the world, the efficient friends and saviors of free men everywhere. Thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands, of men otherwise liable to military service will of right and of necessity be excused from that service and assigned to the fundamental, sustaining work of the fields and factories and mines, and they will be as much part of the great patriotic forces of the nation as the men under fire. I take the liberty, therefore, of addressing this word to the farmers of the country and to all who work on the farms: The supreme need of our own nation and of the nations with which we are coordinating is an abundance of supplies, and especially of food-stuffs. The importance of an adequate food supply, especially for the present year, is superlative. Without abundant food, alike for the armies and the peoples now at war, the whole great enterprise upon which we have embarked will break down and fail. The world's food reserves are low. Not only during the present emergency but for some time after peace shall have come both our own people and a large proportion of the people of Europe must rely upon the harvests in America. Upon the farmers of this country, therefore, in large measure, rests the fate of the war and the fate of the nations. May the nation not count upon them to omit no step that will increase the production of their land or that will bring about the most effectual coordination in the sale and distribution of their products? The time is short. It is of the most imperative importance that everything possible be done and done immediately to make sure of large harvests. I call upon young men and old alike and upon the able-bodied boys of the land to accept and act upon this duty to turn in hosts to the farms and make certain that no pains and no labor is lacking in this great matter. I particularly appeal to the farmers of the South to plant abundant food-stuffs as well as cotton. They can show their patriotism in no better or more convincing way than by resisting the great temptation of the present price of cotton and helping, helping upon a great scale, to feed the nation and the peoples everywhere who are fighting for their liberties and for our own. The variety of their crops will be the visible measure of their comprehension of their national duty. The Government of the United States and the governments of the several States stand ready to coordinate. They will do everything possible to assist farmers in securing an adequate supply of seed, an adequate force of laborers when they are most needed, at harvest time, and the means of expediting shipments of fertilizers and farm machinery, as well as of the crops themselves when harvested. The course of trade shall be as unhampered as it is possible to make it and there shall be no unwarranted manipulation of the nation's food supply by those who handle it on its way to the consumer. This is our opportunity to demonstrate the efficiency of a great Democracy and we shall not fall short of it! This let me say to the middlemen of every sort, whether they are handling our food-stuffs or our raw materials of manufacture or the products of our mills and factories: The eyes of the country will be especially upon you. This is your opportunity for signal service, efficient and disinterested. The country expects you, as it expects all others, to forego unusual profits, to organize and expedite shipments of supplies of every kind, but especially of food, with an eye to the service you are rendering and in the spirit of those who enlist in the ranks, for their people, not for themselves. I shall confidently expect you to deserve and win the confidence of people of every sort and station. To the men who run the railways of the country, whether they be managers or operative employees, let me say that the railways are the arteries of the nation's life and that upon them rests the immense responsibility of seeing to it that those arteries suffer no obstruction of any kind, no inefficiency or slackened power. To the merchant let me suggest the motto, "Small profits and quick service"; and to the shipbuilder the thought that the life of the war depends upon him. The food and the war supplies must be carried across the seas no matter how many ships are sent to the bottom. The places of those that go down must be supplied and supplied at once. To the miner let me say that he stands where the farmer does: the work of the world waits on him. If he slackens or fails, armies and statesmen are helpless. He also is enlisted in the great Service Army. The manufacturer does not need to be told, I hope, that the nation looks to him to speed and perfect every process; and I want only to remind his employees that their service is absolutely indispensable and is counted on by every man who loves the country and its liberties. Let me suggest, also, that everyone who creates or cultivates a garden helps, and helps greatly, to solve the problem of the feeding of the nations; and that every housewife who practices strict economy puts herself in the ranks of those who serve the nation. This is the time for America to correct her unpardonable fault of wastefulness and extravagance. Let every man and every woman assume the duty of careful, provident use and expenditure as a public duty, as a dictate of patriotism which no one can now expect ever to be excused or forgiven for ignoring. In the hope that this statement of the needs of the nation and of the world in this hour of supreme crisis may stimulate those to whom it comes and remind all who need reminder of the solemn duties of a time such as the world has never seen before, I beg that all editors and publishers everywhere will give as prominent publication and as wide circulation as possible to this appeal. I venture to suggest, also, to all advertising agencies that they would perhaps render a very substantial and timely service to the country if they would give it widespread repetition. And I hope that clergymen will not think the theme of it an unworthy or inappropriate subject of comment and homily from their pulpits. The supreme test of the nation has come. We must all speak, act, and serve together!  

More Woodrow Wilson speeches

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

World War I

By: History.com Editors

Updated: May 10, 2024 | Original: October 29, 2009

World War I, also known as the Great War, started in 1914 after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. His murder catapulted into a war across Europe that lasted until 1918. During the four-year conflict, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire (the Central Powers) fought against Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Canada, Japan and the United States (the Allied Powers). Thanks to new military technologies and the horrors of trench warfare, World War I saw unprecedented levels of carnage and destruction. By the time the war was over and the Allied Powers had won, more than 16 million people—soldiers and civilians alike—were dead.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Tensions had been brewing throughout Europe—especially in the troubled Balkan region of southeast Europe—for years before World War I actually broke out.

A number of alliances involving European powers, the Ottoman Empire , Russia and other parties had existed for years, but political instability in the Balkans (particularly Bosnia, Serbia and Herzegovina) threatened to destroy these agreements.

The spark that ignited World War I was struck in Sarajevo, Bosnia, where Archduke Franz Ferdinand —heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire—was shot to death along with his wife, Sophie, by the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip on June 28, 1914. Princip and other nationalists were struggling to end Austro-Hungarian rule over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Great War

Watch The Great War . Available to stream now.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand set off a rapidly escalating chain of events: Austria-Hungary , like many countries around the world, blamed the Serbian government for the attack and hoped to use the incident as justification for settling the question of Serbian nationalism once and for all.

Kaiser Wilhelm II

Because mighty Russia supported Serbia, Austria-Hungary waited to declare war until its leaders received assurance from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would support their cause. Austro-Hungarian leaders feared that a Russian intervention would involve Russia’s ally, France, and possibly Great Britain as well.

On July 5, Kaiser Wilhelm secretly pledged his support, giving Austria-Hungary a so-called carte blanche, or “blank check” assurance of Germany’s backing in the case of war. The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary then sent an ultimatum to Serbia, with such harsh terms as to make it almost impossible to accept.

World War I Begins

Convinced that Austria-Hungary was readying for war, the Serbian government ordered the Serbian army to mobilize and appealed to Russia for assistance. On July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and the tenuous peace between Europe’s great powers quickly collapsed.

Within a week, Russia, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Serbia had lined up against Austria-Hungary and Germany, and World War I had begun.

The Western Front

According to an aggressive military strategy known as the Schlieffen Plan (named for its mastermind, German Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen ), Germany began fighting World War I on two fronts, invading France through neutral Belgium in the west and confronting Russia in the east.

On August 4, 1914, German troops crossed the border into Belgium. In the first battle of World War I, the Germans assaulted the heavily fortified city of Liege , using the most powerful weapons in their arsenal—enormous siege cannons—to capture the city by August 15. The Germans left death and destruction in their wake as they advanced through Belgium toward France, shooting civilians and executing a Belgian priest they had accused of inciting civilian resistance. 

First Battle of the Marne

In the First Battle of the Marne , fought from September 6-9, 1914, French and British forces confronted the invading German army, which had by then penetrated deep into northeastern France, within 30 miles of Paris. The Allied troops checked the German advance and mounted a successful counterattack, driving the Germans back to the north of the Aisne River.

The defeat meant the end of German plans for a quick victory in France. Both sides dug into trenches , and the Western Front was the setting for a hellish war of attrition that would last more than three years.

Particularly long and costly battles in this campaign were fought at Verdun (February-December 1916) and the Battle of the Somme (July-November 1916). German and French troops suffered close to a million casualties in the Battle of Verdun alone.

HISTORY Vault: World War I Documentaries

Stream World War I videos commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.

World War I Books and Art

The bloodshed on the battlefields of the Western Front, and the difficulties its soldiers had for years after the fighting had ended, inspired such works of art as “ All Quiet on the Western Front ” by Erich Maria Remarque and “ In Flanders Fields ” by Canadian doctor Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae . In the latter poem, McCrae writes from the perspective of the fallen soldiers:

Published in 1915, the poem inspired the use of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance.

Visual artists like Otto Dix of Germany and British painters Wyndham Lewis, Paul Nash and David Bomberg used their firsthand experience as soldiers in World War I to create their art, capturing the anguish of trench warfare and exploring the themes of technology, violence and landscapes decimated by war.

The Eastern Front

On the Eastern Front of World War I, Russian forces invaded the German-held regions of East Prussia and Poland but were stopped short by German and Austrian forces at the Battle of Tannenberg in late August 1914.

Despite that victory, Russia’s assault forced Germany to move two corps from the Western Front to the Eastern, contributing to the German loss in the Battle of the Marne.

Combined with the fierce Allied resistance in France, the ability of Russia’s huge war machine to mobilize relatively quickly in the east ensured a longer, more grueling conflict instead of the quick victory Germany had hoped to win under the Schlieffen Plan .

Russian Revolution

From 1914 to 1916, Russia’s army mounted several offensives on World War I’s Eastern Front but was unable to break through German lines.

Defeat on the battlefield, combined with economic instability and the scarcity of food and other essentials, led to mounting discontent among the bulk of Russia’s population, especially the poverty-stricken workers and peasants. This increased hostility was directed toward the imperial regime of Czar Nicholas II and his unpopular German-born wife, Alexandra.

Russia’s simmering instability exploded in the Russian Revolution of 1917, spearheaded by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks , which ended czarist rule and brought a halt to Russian participation in World War I.

Russia reached an armistice with the Central Powers in early December 1917, freeing German troops to face the remaining Allies on the Western Front.

America Enters World War I

At the outbreak of fighting in 1914, the United States remained on the sidelines of World War I, adopting the policy of neutrality favored by President Woodrow Wilson while continuing to engage in commerce and shipping with European countries on both sides of the conflict.

Neutrality, however, it was increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of Germany’s unchecked submarine aggression against neutral ships, including those carrying passengers. In 1915, Germany declared the waters surrounding the British Isles to be a war zone, and German U-boats sunk several commercial and passenger vessels, including some U.S. ships.

Widespread protest over the sinking by U-boat of the British ocean liner Lusitania —traveling from New York to Liverpool, England with hundreds of American passengers onboard—in May 1915 helped turn the tide of American public opinion against Germany. In February 1917, Congress passed a $250 million arms appropriations bill intended to make the United States ready for war.

Germany sunk four more U.S. merchant ships the following month, and on April 2 Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress and called for a declaration of war against Germany.

Gallipoli Campaign

With World War I having effectively settled into a stalemate in Europe, the Allies attempted to score a victory against the Ottoman Empire, which entered the conflict on the side of the Central Powers in late 1914.

After a failed attack on the Dardanelles (the strait linking the Sea of Marmara with the Aegean Sea), Allied forces led by Britain launched a large-scale land invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The invasion also proved a dismal failure, and in January 1916 Allied forces staged a full retreat from the shores of the peninsula after suffering 250,000 casualties.

Did you know? The young Winston Churchill, then first lord of the British Admiralty, resigned his command after the failed Gallipoli campaign in 1916, accepting a commission with an infantry battalion in France.

British-led forces also combated the Ottoman Turks in Egypt and Mesopotamia , while in northern Italy, Austrian and Italian troops faced off in a series of 12 battles along the Isonzo River, located at the border between the two nations.

Battle of the Isonzo

The First Battle of the Isonzo took place in the late spring of 1915, soon after Italy’s entrance into the war on the Allied side. In the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, also known as the Battle of Caporetto (October 1917), German reinforcements helped Austria-Hungary win a decisive victory.

After Caporetto, Italy’s allies jumped in to offer increased assistance. British and French—and later, American—troops arrived in the region, and the Allies began to take back the Italian Front.

World War I at Sea

In the years before World War I, the superiority of Britain’s Royal Navy was unchallenged by any other nation’s fleet, but the Imperial German Navy had made substantial strides in closing the gap between the two naval powers. Germany’s strength on the high seas was also aided by its lethal fleet of U-boat submarines.

After the Battle of Dogger Bank in January 1915, in which the British mounted a surprise attack on German ships in the North Sea, the German navy chose not to confront Britain’s mighty Royal Navy in a major battle for more than a year, preferring to rest the bulk of its naval strategy on its U-boats.

The biggest naval engagement of World War I, the Battle of Jutland (May 1916) left British naval superiority on the North Sea intact, and Germany would make no further attempts to break an Allied naval blockade for the remainder of the war.

8 Events that Led to World War I

Imperialism, nationalistic pride and mutual alliances all played a part in building tensions that would erupt into war.

World War I Battles: Timeline

For four years, from 1914 to 1918, World War I raged across Europe’s western and eastern fronts after growing tensions and then the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria ignited the war. Trench warfare and the early use of tanks, submarines and airplanes meant the war’s battles were devastatingly bloody, claiming an estimated 40 […]

10 Things You May Not Know About the Battle of Verdun

Explore 10 surprising facts about one of the longest and most brutal campaigns of World War I.

World War I Planes

World War I was the first major conflict to harness the power of planes. Though not as impactful as the British Royal Navy or Germany’s U-boats, the use of planes in World War I presaged their later, pivotal role in military conflicts around the globe.

At the dawn of World War I, aviation was a relatively new field; the Wright brothers took their first sustained flight just eleven years before, in 1903. Aircraft were initially used primarily for reconnaissance missions. During the First Battle of the Marne, information passed from pilots allowed the allies to exploit weak spots in the German lines, helping the Allies to push Germany out of France.

The first machine guns were successfully mounted on planes in June of 1912 in the United States, but were imperfect; if timed incorrectly, a bullet could easily destroy the propeller of the plane it came from. The Morane-Saulnier L, a French plane, provided a solution: The propeller was armored with deflector wedges that prevented bullets from hitting it. The Morane-Saulnier Type L was used by the French, the British Royal Flying Corps (part of the Army), the British Royal Navy Air Service and the Imperial Russian Air Service. The British Bristol Type 22 was another popular model used for both reconnaissance work and as a fighter plane.

Dutch inventor Anthony Fokker improved upon the French deflector system in 1915. His “interrupter” synchronized the firing of the guns with the plane’s propeller to avoid collisions. Though his most popular plane during WWI was the single-seat Fokker Eindecker, Fokker created over 40 kinds of airplanes for the Germans.

The Allies debuted the Handley-Page HP O/400, the first two-engine bomber, in 1915. As aerial technology progressed, long-range heavy bombers like Germany’s Gotha G.V. (first introduced in 1917) were used to strike cities like London. Their speed and maneuverability proved to be far deadlier than Germany’s earlier Zeppelin raids.

By the war’s end, the Allies were producing five times more aircraft than the Germans. On April 1, 1918, the British created the Royal Air Force, or RAF, the first air force to be a separate military branch independent from the navy or army. 

Second Battle of the Marne

With Germany able to build up its strength on the Western Front after the armistice with Russia, Allied troops struggled to hold off another German offensive until promised reinforcements from the United States were able to arrive.

On July 15, 1918, German troops launched what would become the last German offensive of the war, attacking French forces (joined by 85,000 American troops as well as some of the British Expeditionary Force) in the Second Battle of the Marne . The Allies successfully pushed back the German offensive and launched their own counteroffensive just three days later.

After suffering massive casualties, Germany was forced to call off a planned offensive further north, in the Flanders region stretching between France and Belgium, which was envisioned as Germany’s best hope of victory.

The Second Battle of the Marne turned the tide of war decisively towards the Allies, who were able to regain much of France and Belgium in the months that followed.

The Harlem Hellfighters and Other All-Black Regiments

By the time World War I began, there were four all-Black regiments in the U.S. military: the 24th and 25th Infantry and the 9th and 10th Cavalry. All four regiments comprised of celebrated soldiers who fought in the Spanish-American War and American-Indian Wars , and served in the American territories. But they were not deployed for overseas combat in World War I. 

Blacks serving alongside white soldiers on the front lines in Europe was inconceivable to the U.S. military. Instead, the first African American troops sent overseas served in segregated labor battalions, restricted to menial roles in the Army and Navy, and shutout of the Marines, entirely. Their duties mostly included unloading ships, transporting materials from train depots, bases and ports, digging trenches, cooking and maintenance, removing barbed wire and inoperable equipment, and burying soldiers.

Facing criticism from the Black community and civil rights organizations for its quotas and treatment of African American soldiers in the war effort, the military formed two Black combat units in 1917, the 92nd and 93rd Divisions . Trained separately and inadequately in the United States, the divisions fared differently in the war. The 92nd faced criticism for their performance in the Meuse-Argonne campaign in September 1918. The 93rd Division, however, had more success. 

How World War I Changed Literature

World War I altered the world for decades, and writers and poets reflected that shift in literature, novels and poetry.

Was Germany Doomed in World War I by the Schlieffen Plan?

The Schlieffen Plan, devised a decade before the start of World War I, was a failed strategy for Germany to win World War I.

A Harlem Hellfighter’s Searing Tales from the WWI Trenches

Blue clouds of poisonous gas. Relentless shelling and machine gun fire. Horace Pippin's art‑filled journals recorded life in ‘them lonely, cooty, muddy trenches.'

With dwindling armies, France asked America for reinforcements, and General John Pershing , commander of the American Expeditionary Forces, sent regiments in the 93 Division to over, since France had experience fighting alongside Black soldiers from their Senegalese French Colonial army. The 93 Division’s 369 regiment, nicknamed the Harlem Hellfighters , fought so gallantly, with a total of 191 days on the front lines, longer than any AEF regiment, that France awarded them the Croix de Guerre for their heroism. More than 350,000 African American soldiers would serve in World War I in various capacities.

Toward Armistice

By the fall of 1918, the Central Powers were unraveling on all fronts.

Despite the Turkish victory at Gallipoli, later defeats by invading forces and an Arab revolt that destroyed the Ottoman economy and devastated its land, and the Turks signed a treaty with the Allies in late October 1918.

Austria-Hungary, dissolving from within due to growing nationalist movements among its diverse population, reached an armistice on November 4. Facing dwindling resources on the battlefield, discontent on the homefront and the surrender of its allies, Germany was finally forced to seek an armistice on November 11, 1918, ending World War I.

Treaty of Versailles

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Allied leaders stated their desire to build a post-war world that would safeguard itself against future conflicts of such a devastating scale.

Some hopeful participants had even begun calling World War I “the War to End All Wars.” But the Treaty of Versailles , signed on June 28, 1919, would not achieve that lofty goal.

Saddled with war guilt, heavy reparations and denied entrance into the League of Nations , Germany felt tricked into signing the treaty, having believed any peace would be a “peace without victory,” as put forward by President Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points speech of January 1918.

As the years passed, hatred of the Versailles treaty and its authors settled into a smoldering resentment in Germany that would, two decades later, be counted among the causes of World War II .

World War I Casualties

World War I took the lives of more than 9 million soldiers; 21 million more were wounded. Civilian casualties numbered close to 10 million. The two nations most affected were Germany and France, each of which sent some 80 percent of their male populations between the ages of 15 and 49 into battle.

The political disruption surrounding World War I also contributed to the fall of four venerable imperial dynasties: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey.

Legacy of World War I

World War I brought about massive social upheaval, as millions of women entered the workforce to replace men who went to war and those who never came back. The first global war also helped to spread one of the world’s deadliest global pandemics, the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918, which killed an estimated 20 to 50 million people.

World War I has also been referred to as “the first modern war.” Many of the technologies now associated with military conflict—machine guns, tanks , aerial combat and radio communications—were introduced on a massive scale during World War I.

The severe effects that chemical weapons such as mustard gas and phosgene had on soldiers and civilians during World War I galvanized public and military attitudes against their continued use. The Geneva Convention agreements, signed in 1925, restricted the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and remain in effect today.

Photo Galleries

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Sign Up Today

Start your 14 day free trial today

The History Hit Miscellany of Facts, Figures and Fascinating Finds

• 20th Century

The Great War in Words: 20 Quotes by Contemporaries of World War One

Alex Browne

03 mar 2019.

The First World War marked all those who had a hand in it or experienced it in any way. Technology had changed warfare so significantly that it enabled unprecedented death and destruction. Furthermore the economic impact of the war was as unparalleled as the butchery.

Such a monumental event naturally had far-reaching cultural effects. Just as art embodied the Great War , so did the words of those who lived concurrent with the conflict.

Here are 21 quotes by significant figures who lived at the time of the First World War.

Quotes on the build up

The leader’s perspective

Perspectives from the Western Front

Reflecting on the War

 Full text version:

1. There has been a constant tendency on the part of almost every nation to increase its armed force.

 British Prime Minister The Marquess of Salisbury, 1898.

2. Since it came into existence, our party has not given to the German army a single man or a single penny.

 German Social Democrat Wilhelm Liebknecht, 1893.

3. We cannot afford to leave out any recruit who can wear a helmet.

 Theobald Bethmann-Holwegg, 1912.

4. A great moral victory for Vienna, but with it, every reason for war disappears.”

Kaiser Wilhelm commenting on the Serbian response to Austria-Hungary’s Ultimatum 1914.

5. Should the worst happen Australia would rally to the Mother Country to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling.

 Andrew Fisher, Australian politician, August 1914.

6. If the women in the factories stopped work for twenty minutes, the Allies would lose the war.

French Field Marshal and Commander-in-Chief Joseph Joffre.

7. I didn’t get much peace, but I heard in Norway that Russia might well become a huge market for tractors soon.

Henry Ford, returning from his unofficial peace mission, December 24, 1915.

8. I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can’t help it — I enjoy every second of it.

 Winston Churchill in a letter to a friend – 1916.

9. This war, like the next war, is a war to end war.

David Lloyd George, c.1916.

10. We’re telling lies; we know we’re telling lies; we don’t tell the public the truth, that we’re losing more officers than the Germans, and that it’s impossible to get through on the Western Front.

 Lord Rothermere 1917.

11. Two armies that fight each other is like one large army that commits suicide.

 French soldier Henri Barbusse, in his novel “Le Feu”, 1915.

12. For a young man who had a long and worthwhile future awaiting him, it was not easy to expect death almost daily. However, after a while I got used to the idea of dying young. Strangely, it had a sort of soothing effect and prevented me from worrying too much. Because of this I gradually lost the terrible fear of being wounded or killed.

 German volunteer, Reinhold Spengler.

13. These two men got drunk and they wandered away and got caught. They laughed it off. They thought it was just something or nothing; but they were court-martialled and they were sentenced to be shot, subject to Sir Douglas Haig. He could have said no, but he didn’t. So they were shot. They were described as being killed in action.

Private of the West Yorkshire Regiment, George Morgan.

14. In the newspapers you read: “Peacefully they rest on the spot where they have bled and suffered, while the guns roar over their graves, taking vengeance for their heroic death”. And it doesn’t occur to anybody that the enemy is also firing; that the shells plunge into the hero’s grave; that his bones are mingled with the filth which they scatter to the four winds – and that, after a few weeks, the morass closes over the last resting-place of the soldier.

Kanonier of the 111 Bavarian Corps, Artillery, Gerhard Gürtler.

15. There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of places had dignity. Abstract words such as glory, honour, courage, or hallow were obscene.

 Ernest Hemingway, in ‘A Farewell to Arms’, 1929.

16. I also knew of men who did themselves in. British soldiers weary of sitting in the trenches who cut their throats during leave. If order hadn’t been maintained, they would have deserted. They were coerced. When you’re in the army, you can’t just do whatever you want.

Gaston Boudry, in the Belgian book ‘Van den Grooten Oorlog’.

17. There was not a sign of life of any sort. Not a tree, save for a few dead stumps which looked strange in the moonlight. Not a bird, not even a rat or a blade of grass. Nature was as dead as those Canadians whose bodies remained where they had fallen the previous autumn. Death was written large everywhere.

 Private R.A. Colwell, Passchendaele, January 1918.

18. World War One was the most colossal, murderous, mismanaged butchery that has ever taken place on earth. Any writer who said otherwise lied, So the writers either wrote propaganda, shut up, or fought.

 Ernest Hemingway.

19. During the war 500,000 coloured men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom sought to evade it. They took their places wherever assigned in defence of the nation of which they are just as truly citizens as are any others.

 Calvin Coolidge in a letter to Charles Gardner 1924.

20. We do not like to be robbed of an enemy; we want someone to have when we suffer. … If so-and-so’s wickedness is the sole cause of our misery, let us punish so-and-so and we shall be happy. The supreme example of this kind of political thought was the Treaty of Versailles. Yet most people are only seeking some new scapegoat to replace the Germans.

 Bertrand Russel in Skeptical Essays.

You May Also Like

The Plimsoll Line: How Samuel Plimsoll Made Sailing Safer

How Polluting Shipwrecks Imperil the Oceans

How Cutty Sark Became the Fastest Sail-Powered Cargo Ship Ever Built

Why Did Elizabethan Merchants Start Weighing Their Coins?

‘Old Coppernose’: Henry VIII and the Great Debasement

The Royal Mint: Isaac Newton and the Trial of the Pyx Plate

How Henry VII Used English Coinage to Project Power

The Royal Mint: Oliver Cromwell’s Depiction as a Roman Emperor

The Royal Mint: Edward VIII’s Unreleased Coins

A Timeline of Feudal Japan’s ‘Nanban’ Trade with Europeans

Mac and Cheese in 1736? The Stories of Kensington Palace’s Servants

The Peasants’ Revolt: Rise of the Rebels

• svg]:fill-accent-900 [&>svg]:stroke-accent-900"> 1.4M
• svg]:fill-accent-900 [&>svg]:stroke-accent-900"> 104K
• svg]:fill-accent-900 [&>svg]:stroke-accent-900"> 10.6K

16 excerpts from the greatest military speeches ever given

By Team Mighty

Updated on Feb 22, 2024 10:25 AM PST

11 minute read

For as long as wars have been fought, great military leaders have been able to use the power of the pulpit to motivate their troops. The right words delivered in the right way at the right time have helped to turn the tide when morale was suffering, when casualties were high and ammo was low.

Here are 16 excerpts from the best orations given to key audiences during history’s crucial pivot points:

1. pericles appealing for war against the spartans, 432bce.

“When our fathers stood against the Persians they had no such resources as we have now; indeed, they abandoned even what they had, and then it was by wisdom rather than by good fortune, by daring rather than by material power, that they drove back the foreign invasion and made our city what it is today. We must live up to the standard they set: we must resist our enemies in any and every way, and try to leave ot those who come after us an Athens that is as great as ever.”

2. HANNIBAL  addressing his soldiers after crossing the Alps, 218 BCE

“On the right and left two seas enclose you, without your possessing even a single ship for escape. The river Po around you; the Alps behind hem you in. Her soldiers, where you have first met the enemy, you must conquer or die; and the same fortune which has imposed the necessity of fighting hold out to you, if victorious, rewards than which men are not wont to desire greater, even from the immortal gods.”

3. ST. BERNARD rallying the troops before the Second Crusade, 1146

“Christian warriors, He who gave His life for you today demands yours in return. These are combats worth of you, combats in which it is glorious to conquer and advantageous to die. Illustrious knights, generous defenders of the Cross, remember the example of your fathers who conquered Jerusalem and whose names are inscribed in Heaven.”

4. QUEEN ELIZABETH I supporting her military against the Spanish Armada, July 1588

“I am amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor and my blood.”

5. GENERAL GEORGE WASHINGTON calming his increasingly rebellious and doubtful army, March 15, 1783

“You will, by the dignity of your conduct, afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, ‘Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.'”

6. GENERAL NAPOLEON BONAPARTE firing up his forces before the Battle of Marengo in Italy, June 14, 1800

“Shall we allow our audacious enemies to violate with impunity the territory of the Republic? Will you permit the army to escape which has carried terror into your families? You will not. March, then, to meet him. Tear from his brows the laurels he has won. Teach the world that a malediction attends those that violate the territory of the Great People. The result of our efforts will be unclouded glory, and a durable peace.”

7. PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN speaking to the 166th Ohio Regiment, August 22, 1864

“For the service you have done in this great struggle in which we are engaged I present you sincere thanks for myself and the country. I almost always feel inclined, when I happen to say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them in a few brief remarks the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for today, but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children’s children this great and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours . . . The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.”

8. PRIME MINISTER WINSTON CHURCHILL  before the House of Commons as the French retreat from Hitler, May 13, 1940

“We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalog of human crime. That is our policy.”

9. PREMIER JOSEPH STALIN appealing to the Russian people to defend their soil as the German Army advances, July 3, 1941

“The issue is one of life or death for the Soviet State, for the peoples of the U.S.S.R. The issue is whether the peoples of the Soviet Union shall remain free or fall into slavery . . . There must be no room in our ranks for whimperers and cowards, for panic-mongers and deserters. Our people must know no fear in fight and must selflessly join our patriotic war of liberation, our war against the fascist enslavers.”

10. GENERAL SIR BERNARD MONTGOMERY speaking to his demoralized troops before defeating Rommel’s Afrika Corps, August 13, 1942

“Here we will stand and fight; there will be no further withdrawal. I have ordered that all plans and instructions dealing with further withdrawal are to be burned, and at once. We will stand and fight here. If we can’t stay here alive, then let us stay here dead.”

11. GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON exhorting the Third Army, Spring 1944

“I don’t want to get any messages saying, ‘I am holding my position.’ We are not holding a goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy.”

12. GENERAL DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER ordering the Normandy Invasion, June 6, 1944

“You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the eliminations of Nazi tyranny over oppressed people of Europe, and the security for ourselves in a free world.”

13. MENACHEM BEGIN speaking to the people of Israel on the radio, preparing them for an Arab attack, May 14, 1948

“We shall go our way into battle . . . And we shall be accompanied by the spirit of millions of our martyrs, our ancestors tortured and burned for their faith, our murdered fathers and butchered mothers, our murdered brothers and strangled children. And in this battle we shall break the enemy and bring salvation to our people, tried in the furnace of persecution, thirsting only for freedom, for righteousness, and for justice.”

14. GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR addressing West Point, May 12, 1962

“Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government; whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing, indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grow too violent . . . These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.”

15. PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY bracing the nation for the Cuban Missile Crisis, October 22, 1962

“The path we have chosen for he present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission. Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right; not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.”

16. PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN hastening the fall of Communism while speaking at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987

“There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Easter Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

(The complete transcripts of these speeches and many others can be found in Charge!, History’s Greatest Military Speeches , edited by Congressman Steve Israel and published in 2007 by the Naval Institute Press .)

READ MORE ON WATM: 

‘Lone Survivor’ Marcus Luttrell went ‘John Wick’ on the guys who killed his dog | We Are The Mighty

27 FBI photos you must see of the Pentagon on 9/11 | We Are The Mighty

10 most lethal special operations units from around the world

Latest in History

Today in military history: union victory at mobile bay today in military history: union victory at mobile bay, this olympic event is based on soldier skills this olympic event is based on soldier skills.

By Miguel Ortiz

• Divisions and Offices
• Grants Search
• Manage Your Award
• NEH's Application Review Process
• Professional Development
• Grantee Communications Toolkit
• NEH Virtual Grant Workshops
• Awards & Honors
• American Tapestry
• Humanities Magazine
• NEH Resources for Native Communities
• Search Our Work
• Office of Communications
• Office of Congressional Affairs
• Office of Data and Evaluation
• Budget / Performance
• Contact NEH
• Equal Employment Opportunity
• Human Resources
• Information Quality
• National Council on the Humanities
• Office of the Inspector General
• Privacy Program
• State and Jurisdictional Humanities Councils
• Office of the Chair
• NEH-DOI Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative Partnership
• NEH Equity Action Plan
• GovDelivery

World War I Changed America and Transformed Its Role in International Relations

So why don't we pay more attention to it.

—Library of Congress

The entry of the United States into World War I changed the course of the war, and the war, in turn, changed America. Yet World War I receives short shrift in the American consciousness. 

Recruiting poster for the U.S. Army by Herbert Paus.

Detail of a recruiting poster for YWCA by Ernest Hamlin Baker.

The American Expeditionary Forces arrived in Europe in 1917 and helped turn the tide in favor of Britain and France, leading to an Allied victory over Germany and Austria in November 1918. By the time of the armistice, more than four million Americans had served in the armed forces and 116,708 had lost their lives. The war shaped the writings of Ernest Hemingway and John Dos Passos. It helped forge the military careers of Dwight D. Eisenhower, George S. Patton, and George C. Marshall. On the home front, millions of women went to work, replacing the men who had shipped off to war, while others knitted socks and made bandages. For African-American soldiers, the war opened up a world not bound by America’s formal and informal racial codes. 

And we are still grappling with one of the major legacies of World War I: the debate over America’s role in the world. For three years, the United States walked the tightrope of neutrality as President Woodrow Wilson opted to keep the country out of the bloodbath consuming Europe. Even as Germany’s campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic put American sailors and ships in jeopardy, the United States remained aloof. But after the Zimmermann telegram revealed Germany’s plans to recruit Mexico to attack the United States if it did not remain neutral, Americans were ready to fight. 

In April 1917, President Wilson stood before Congress and said, “The world must be made safe for democracy.” With those words, he asked for a declaration of war, which Congress gave with gusto. For the first time in its history, the United States joined a coalition to fight a war not on its own soil or of its own making, setting a precedent that would be invoked repeatedly over the next century. 

“For most Americans, going to war in 1917 was about removing the German threat to the U.S. homeland,” says Michael S. Neiberg, professor of history at the U.S. Army War College. “But after the war, Wilson developed a much more expansive vision to redeem the sin of war through the founding of a new world order, which created controversy and bitterness in the United States.”

The burden of sending men off to die weighed on Wilson’s conscience. It was one reason why he proposed the creation of the League of Nations, an international body based on collective security. But joining the League required the United States to sacrifice a measure of sovereignty. When judged against the butcher’s bill of this war, Wilson thought it was a small price to pay. Others, like Wilson’s longtime nemesis Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, believed that the United States should be free to pursue its own interests and not be beholden to an international body. America hadn’t fought a war only to relinquish its newfound stature as a military power. 

As soldiers returned home and the victory parades faded, the fight over the League of Nations turned bitter. The sense of accomplishment quickly evaporated. “Then came the Depression (a direct result of the war) and another global crisis,” says Neiberg. “All of that made memory of World War I a difficult thing for Americans to engage with after about 1930.” 

Even as the world has changed, the positions staked out by Wilson and Lodge have not evolved much over the past one hundred years. When new storm clouds gathered in Europe during the 1930s, Lodge’s argument was repurposed by isolationists as “America First,” a phrase that has come back into vogue as yet another example of the war’s enduring influence. “The war touched everything around the globe. Our entire world was shaped by it, even if we do not always make the connections,” Neiberg says. 

Historian and writer A. Scott Berg emphatically agrees. “I think World War I is the most underrecognized significant event of the last several centuries. The stories from this global drama—and its larger-than-life characters—are truly the stuff of Greek tragedy and are of Biblical  proportion; and modern America’s very identity was forged during this war.”

A biographer of Wilson and Charles Lindbergh, Berg has now cast his eye as an editor across the rich corpus of contemporaneous writing to produce  World War I and America , a nearly one-thousand-page book of letters, speeches, diary entries, newspaper reports, and personal accounts. This new volume from Library of America starts with the  New York Times  story of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in July 1914 and concludes with an excerpt from John Dos Passos’s novel  1919 . In between, the voices of soldiers, politicians, nurses, diplomats, journalists, suffragettes, and intellectuals ask questions that are still with us. 

“What is America’s role in the world? Are our claims to moral leadership abroad undercut by racial injustice at home? What do we owe those who serve in our wars?” asks Max Rudin, Library of America’s publisher. With 2017 marking the one-hundredth anniversary of America's entry into the war, the moment seemed ripe to revisit a conflict whose ghosts still haunt the nation. “It offered an opportunity to raise awareness about a generation of American writers that cries out to be better known,” says Rudin. 

The volume shows off familiar names in surprising places. Nellie Bly and Edith Wharton report from the front lines. Henry Morgenthau Sr., the ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, files increasingly terrifying reports on the Armenian genocide. As Teddy Roosevelt leads the fight for American intervention, Jane Addams and Emma Goldman question the aims of the war. Writing from Italy, Ernest Hemingway complains to his family about being wounded. While Wilson and Lodge fight over American sovereignty, Ezra Pound expresses his disillusionment and grief in verse. 

We also meet Floyd Gibbons, a  Chicago Tribune  crime reporter. Before the war he covered plenty of shootings, but “I could never learn from the victims what the precise feeling was as the piece of lead struck.” He found out in June 1918 at Belleau Wood when a German bullet found him—“the lighted end of a cigarette touched me in the fleshy part of my upper left arm.” A second bullet also found his shoulder, spawning a large burning sensation. “And then the third one struck me. . . . It sounded to me like some one had dropped a glass bottle into a porcelain bathtub. A barrel of whitewash tipped over and it seemed that everything in the world turned white.” The third bullet had found his left eye. 

Stepping into an operating theater with Mary Borden, the Chicago heiress who established hospitals in France and Belgium, the smell of blood and death almost leaps off the page. “We send our men up the broken road between bushes of barbed wire and they come back to us, one by one, two by two in ambulances, lying on stretchers. They lie on their backs on the stretchers and are pulled out of the ambulances as loaves of bread are pulled out of the oven.” As a wounded soldier is laid out, “we conspire against his right to die. We experiment with his bones, his muscles, his sinews, his blood. We dig into the yawning mouths of his wounds. Helpless openings, they let us into the secret places of his body.”

When the American Expeditionary Forces shipped off to Europe, so too did approximately 16,500 women. They worked as clerks, telephone operators, and nurses; they also ran canteens that served meals to soldiers and offered a respite from battle. “These women often had complex motivations, such as a desire for adventure or professional advancement, and often witnessed more carnage than male soldiers, creating unacknowledged problems with PTSD when they returned home,” says Jennifer Keene, professor of history at Chapman University.

Of course, most women experienced the war stateside, where they tended victory gardens and worked to produce healthy meals from meager rations. They volunteered for the Red Cross and participated in Liberty Loan drives. As Willa Cather learned when she decamped from New York to Red Cloud, Nebraska, in the summer of 1918, the war could be consuming. “In New York the war was one of many subjects people talked about; but in Omaha, Lincoln, in my own town, and the other towns along the Republican Valley, and over in the north of Kansas, there was nothing but the war.” 

In the Library of America volume, W. E. B. Du Bois, who, in the wake of Booker T. Washington’s death, assumed the mantle of spokesman for the black community, provides another take. From the beginning, Du Bois saw the war as grounded in the colonial rivalries and aspirations of the European belligerents. 

Chad Williams, associate professor of African and Afro-American Studies at Brandeis University, says Du Bois was ahead of his time. “His writings also vividly illuminated the tensions between the professed democratic aims of the Allies—and the United States in particular—and the harsh realities of white supremacy, domestically and globally, for black people. Du Bois hoped that by supporting the American war effort and encouraging African-American patriotism, this tension could be reconciled. He was ultimately—and tragically—wrong.” 

Along with Du Bois’s commentary, there are reports on the race riots in East St. Louis and Houston in 1917. Such incidents prompted James Weldon Johnson to cast aside sentimentality and answer the question, “Why should a Negro fight?”

“America is the American Negro’s country,” he wrote. “He has been here three hundred years; that is, about two hundred years longer than most of the white people.” 

The U.S. Army shunted African-American soldiers into segregated units and issued them shovels more often than rifles. Some, however, fought alongside the French as equals, prompting questions about their treatment by their own country. African-American soldiers came home as citizens of the world with questions about their place in American society. “Understanding how the war impacted black people and the importance of this legacy is endlessly fascinating and, given our current times, extremely relevant,” says Williams.

To accompany its World War I volume, Library of America has launched a nationwide program, featuring scholars, to foster discussion about the war and its legacy. One hundred twenty organizations, from libraries to historical societies, are hosting events that involve veterans, their families, and their communities.

“There are veterans of recent conflicts in every community in America for whom the experiences and issues raised by World War I are very immediate,” says Rudin. “We all have something to learn from that.”

“Every war is distinct, and yet every war has almost eerie commonalities with wars past,” says Phil Klay, author of  Redeployment , a collection of short stories about his service in Iraq that won the National Book Award. “I don’t think veterans have a unique authority in these discussions, but our personal experiences do inevitably infuse our reading. In my case, I find myself relentlessly drawn to pull lessons for the future from these readings, as the moral stakes of war have a visceral feel for me.” 

For community programs, Library of America developed a slimmer version of its volume, World War I and America, while adding introductory essays and discussion questions. Keene, Neiberg, and Williams, along with Edward Lengel, served as editors. “There is truly not one part of the nation that was untouched by the war,” says Williams. “This project has the potential to remind people of its far-reaching significance and perhaps uncover new stories about the American experience in the war that we have not yet heard.”

Berg echoes the sentiment. “I hope audiences will appreciate the presence of World War I in our lives today—whether it is our economy, race relations, women’s rights, xenophobia, free speech, or the foundation of American foreign policy for the last one hundred years: They all have their roots in World War I.”

Meredith Hindley is a senior writer for Humanities .

Funding information

Library of America received $500,000  from NEH for nationwide library programs, a traveling exhibition, a website, and a publication of an anthology exploring how World War I reshaped American lives. For more information about the project, visit ww1america.org

SUBSCRIBE FOR HUMANITIES MAGAZINE PRINT EDITION Browse all issues   Sign up for HUMANITIES Magazine newsletter

• All Teaching Materials
• New Lessons
• Popular Lessons
• This Day In People’s History
• If We Knew Our History Series
• New from Rethinking Schools
• Workshops and Conferences
• Teach Reconstruction
• Teach Climate Justice
• Teaching for Black Lives
• Teach Truth
• Teaching Rosa Parks
• Abolish Columbus Day
• Project Highlights

June 16, 1918: Eugene V. Debs Speech Against WWI

Eugene Debs speaking to a crowd in Canton, Ohio.

In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords . . .concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street, go to war.  — Eugene V. Debs in Canton, Ohio on June 16, 1918.

Eugene Debs made his famous anti-war speech protesting World War I which was raging in Europe.

The working class have never yet had a voice in declaring war. If war is right, let it be declared by the people – you, who have your lives to lose.

For this speech he was arrested and convicted in federal court in Cleveland, Ohio under the war-time espionage law.

Read more in Free Speech on Trial: Eugene Debs at Canton, Ohio by Glenn V. Longacre at the National Archives.

Listen to a reading of excerpts by Mark Ruffalo from this classic speech by Eugene Debs via Voices of a People’s History of the United States .

Related Resources

A power governments cannot suppress.

Book — Non-fiction. By Howard Zinn. 2006. 293 pages. A collection of essays on American history, class, immigration, justice, and ordinary citizens who have made a difference.

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Eugene Debs: “Canton, Ohio”

Film clip. Voices of a People’s History. Dramatic reading of Eugene Deb’s “Canton, Ohio” speech made on June 16, 1918 by Marc Ruffalo.

May 16, 1918: The Sedition Act of 1918 Enacted

The Sedition Act of 1918 was enacted to extend the Espionage Act of 1917. It forbade the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. government.

Nov. 2, 1920: Imprisoned Eugene V. Debs Received One Million Votes for U.S. President

Eugene V. Debs received one million votes in the U.S. presidential election while in prison on the Socialist Party ticket.

Prologue Magazine

America Enters the Great War

Wilson struggles as he prepares the nation for world war i.

Spring 2017, Vol. 49, No. 1

By Mitchell Yockelson

President Wilson addresses Congress on April 2, 1917, to call for a declaration of war against Germany. (165-WW-47A-4)

View in National Archives Catalog

On April 2, 1917, Washington buzzed with excitement.

While “a soft fragrant rain of early spring” poured over the city, thousands of people clogged the streets and hotels; others stood near the White House waving small American flags. President Woodrow Wilson would address a special session of Congress that evening about “grave matters” and was expected to ask for a declaration of war against Germany.

The larger-than-usual crowds were in the nation’s capital to witness this historic occasion. Exactly when Wilson would speak was unknown. The 65th Congress was set to meet at noon, and with a long list of organizational matters to deal with, they would be busy most of the day.

Wilson spent the morning playing golf with his wife, Edith. Right after having lunch with two cousins, the President was notified by the House that its business would conclude by five o’clock. Wilson replied that he would arrive at 8:30 in the evening. In the afternoon he briefed Secretary of State Robert Lansing and Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels in the State, War, and Navy Building across from the White House. He learned that a German U-boat had sunk the armed merchant ship Aztec , killing 12 of the crew. To Wilson the tragedy added fuel to his upcoming request for a declaration of war. At 6:30 p.m. Wilson sat down for dinner with family members and his adviser, Col. Edward M. House. During the meal, “we talked,” House recalled, “of everything excepting the matter at hand.”

House should not have been surprised. As the most trusted member of Wilson’s staff with limitless access to the President, he saw firsthand how much strain writing the speech had caused his boss. More than ever, he needed to relax. Composing the speech took three days, mostly because Wilson could not concentrate. Instead of putting pen to paper, he found excuses to talk privately with Edith, meet with staff members, play pool, or read for pleasure.

When Wilson forced himself to work on the speech, he sat alone in his office reviewing press reports and editorials in the New York Times. He hoped to get a pulse on what course of action his countrymen wanted him to take. First he drafted an outline, then composed his thoughts in shorthand before a corrected version was transferred into longhand. After attending church on April 1, Wilson completed the speech on a Hammond typewriter, sealed it in an envelope, and handed it off to the Public Printer, where copies were made and distributed to the press.

Wilson Now Favors a U.S. Role in Europe

President Woodrow Wilson. (111-SC-11761)

In his speech before Congress, Wilson laid out evidence of why the United States should now join its allies, Great Britain and France, in the European war that had been raging since August 1914—at the cost of enormous bloodshed and destruction that showed no end in sight. Having just won reelection on a platform of keeping America out of the war, Wilson was now ready to change his approach and ultimately concede that the United States should no longer remain on the sidelines.

At any time over the past two years, the rapidly deteriorating relations between his administration and the German government could have led Wilson to the same conclusion

On May 7, 1915, a German U-boat sank the British passenger ship RMS Lusitania off the southern coast of Ireland. One hundred and twenty-eight Americans were among the 1,200 killed. Wilson responded cautiously by protesting the sinking and demanding that in the future, Germany protect American lives. Germany rightly argued that the Lusitania carried war materiel destined for Great Britain and, therefore, was a legitimate target torpedoed in a war zone.

Wilson later invoked stronger rhetoric. He warned Berlin that any future sinking of ocean liners would be considered a deliberate and unfriendly act. Despite the growing friction between the United States and Germany, Wilson still wanted no part of the war even as he was slowly preparing his country for the inevitable.

On June 3, 1916, the National Defense Act, which would incrementally increase the regular Army to 175,000 and the National Guard to 400,000, was enacted. Training camps for officers, such as the Plattsburgh camp in upstate New York, sprang up around the county. By now an untold number of Americans were already fighting in the war. They either went across the border to join the Canadian forces or sailed directly to Europe to serve with the British, French, and Italians as ambulance drivers, doctors, and pilots. U.S. Army officers in Europe, placed as observers and attachés, sent back reports on the latest Allied and German operations, tactics, and strategies. Their observations were widely distributed through the Army’s professional journals and magazines and studied at its War College.

The following year, the United States and Germany grew even further apart. On January 31, 1917, German Ambassador Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff and Secretary of State Lansing met privately. As instructed to do at the stroke of midnight, von Bernstorff advised Lansing that U-boat attacks in the Atlantic would resume. Wilson took the unwelcome news hard, telling his private secretary Joseph Tumulty, “this means war.” But for now, this was just Wilson speaking out loud.

Germany Seeks to Draw Mexico into War with U.S.

Tension between the two countries reached a boiling point after the White House learned about the “Zimmermann telegram.” On February 24, 1917, a telegram, intercepted by Great Britain the previous month, was made known. Sent by German foreign minister Arthur Zimmermann to his ambassador in Mexico, the message explored the idea of creating an alliance with the Mexican government in the event that Germany went to war with the United States.

If that event became reality, Zimmermann wanted Mexico to declare war on the United States and request that Japan cooperate as well. In return, Germany would financially aid Mexico and, once the United States was beaten, support Mexico in retaking Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, which had been lost during the Mexican-American War in 1848. Wilson released the telegram to the press, and the American people exploded with outrage.

Unbending to the public cry for immediate war, Wilson did not want to make matters worse. Instead, he sought to punish the Germans by instructing Lansing to break diplomatic relations with Germany. A month later, Wilson asked Congress to allow the arming of U.S. flag merchant ships but was turned down. Using his executive powers, he then directed Secretary of Navy Josephus Daniels to place naval armed guards aboard American vessels. Even with guns fixed on the decks of civilian ships, they proved no match for the deadly U-boats. On March 20, Wilson called a cabinet meeting to gauge feelings about going to war. Each of his cabinet members thought war against Germany the only option.

Now on the eve of delivering the most important speech of his political career, Wilson agonized about his message and how it would lead the country to war. He sought friendly reassurance and called on Frank I. Cobb, a journalist with the New York World and an unabashed supporter of Wilson. The message from the President did not reach Cobb until late on April 1, and he did not arrive at the White House until around 1 a.m.

“The old man was waiting for me,” he wrote, “sitting in his study with the typewriter on his table.” Cobb, who at 48, was only 13 years younger than the President, recalled: “I’d never seen him so worn down. He looked as if he hadn’t slept, and he said he hadn’t.”

Men from New York are on their way to train at Camp Upton. (165-WW-476(13) )

A Restless President Talks of War with Friend

The two friends spoke for much of the morning. Wilson did most of the talking, telling Cobb that “once I lead the people into war they’ll forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance.” Wilson further opined: “To fight you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fiber of our national life, infecting Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, and the man on the street.”

At 8:20 p.m. on April 2, a black Cadillac limousine carrying President and Mrs. Wilson—accompanied by Tumulty and White House physician Dr. Cary Grayson—drove through the Executive Mansion gate. A cavalry escort met the car, and together they traveled one and a half miles to the Capitol. Through the evening, a light drizzle fell on its dome, and the large American flag on top was illuminated by floodlights. At 8:30 p.m., they arrived at the Capitol, where more cavalry, sharply dressed and sabers drawn, greeted the President. Wilson was led into an anteroom to compose himself.

Unbeknownst to him, Atlantic Monthly editor Ellery Sedgwick was also in the room, but concealed from Wilson’s view. Sedgwick watched as Wilson walked to a mirror and just stared for a few moments. From the reflection Sedgwick saw the President’s “chin shaking and his face flushed.”

Wilson then left the room, walked through a corridor, pushed open the swinging doors, and entered a hallway. He was directed into the chamber of the House of Representatives, where he could see that every seat was filled, and in the galleries, people stood bunched together with barely enough room to breathe. At 8:32 p.m., Speaker of the House James Beauchamp “Champ” Clark announced, “The President of the United States.”

A Nervous President Asks to Take Nation to War

 Wilson approached the rostrum and shuffled his note cards. As he prepared to speak, the Supreme Court justices, seated directly in front of him, arose and began to clap. They were joined by everyone else in the packed room. Several seconds elapsed before the thunderous applause quieted down.

As the President began to speak, the audience heard his voice quiver and saw his hands shake while a nervous expression replaced his normally confident glow.

Without deviating, Wilson described German attacks by its U-boats and spies. Hospital ships and vessels carrying relief supplies to Belgium, he said, were fair game to the enemy sea hunters. This was “warfare against mankind,” the President assured his audience, “and the United States could not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or violated.”

Then he came to the main reason for the address: “I advise that the Congress declare the most recent course of Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than war against the government and people of the United States.”

From here, Wilson outlined the war aims, and stressed that the nation’s motive “will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.”

Furthermore, the President declared, “there is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making,” and that is “we will not choose the path of submission.”

Women say farewell to soldiers deployed for war. (165-WW-476-1)

Congress Cheers Louder as Wilson Outlines Aims

Wilson had whipped the House chamber into a frenzy, and the lawmakers cheered loudly. Chief Justice Edward Douglass White dropped a big hat he had been holding so he too could raise his hands to clap. But the cheering only grew louder when Wilson announced his hope that the war would “keep the world safe for democracy.”

As his address concluded, Wilson stressed: “But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts—democracy. . . . To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, . . . with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.”

At 9:11 p.m., 38 minutes after he started, Wilson finished speaking. As his voice trailed off, there was a moment of silence interrupted by loud applause—even louder than when he had first begun the address.

Other than shaking a few outstretched hands as he left the rostrum, including one extended by his biggest critic, Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson did not linger at the Capitol. He got back into the Cadillac and quickly returned to the White House. There the President gathered in the Oval Office with his wife, daughter Margaret, and Colonel House to reflect on the speech and its ramifications.

“I could see,” House commented in his diary, “that the president was relieved that the tension was over and the die cast.” Later that evening Wilson spoke privately with Tumulty in the Cabinet Room and allegedly told him: “Think what it was they were applauding. My message today was a message of death for our young men. How strange it seems to applaud that.”

Hours later, newspaper editorials around the world commended Wilson. “No praise can be too high for the words and the purposes of the President,” wrote one editor. “How vastly more impressive and conclusive this arraignment of German aggression becomes,” wrote another, “from the fact that the President has so steadfastly held on a patient and forbearing course.”

A prominent London newspaper declared that “the cause in which America draws a sword and the grounds on which the President justifies the momentous step he has taken are auguries that the final outcome will be for the happiness and welfare of mankind.” German editors and journalists, not surprisingly, wrote negatively about Wilson and his actions.

On April 4 the Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve Wilson’s call for war, 82 to 6, and two days later, Good Friday, the House of Representatives took up the war question. At four in the morning, exhausted after debating for most of the day, 373 members responded yea, while six answered nay. Among the handful of nays was Jeannette Rankin, a Republican representative from Montana and the first woman ever elected to the House. Rankin was an ardent suffragist and pacifist, and she made it clear that “I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war.”

Pershing Seeks to Lead U.S. Troops in Europe

Gen. John J. Pershing commanded the American Expeditionary Forces after the United States entered the European war. (111-SC-26646)

On April 6, 1917, the war resolution arrived at the White House just as Wilson finished his lunch. Edith handed her husband a gold pen, and war was formally declared against Germany at 1:18 p.m. Rudolph Forster, the President’s executive clerk, informed the reporters waiting nearby. At the Navy Department, Secretary Daniels ordered a naval officer to step outside and signal in code to another officer that war had been declared. From there the news was flashed around the world by wireless operators.

The following day, the White House mailbox was crammed with letters supporting the President.

In the pile was a note sent by John J. Pershing. The 57-year-old major general was congratulatory, but his message had an ulterior motive. Just back from a year in Mexico chasing after Pancho Villa with his Punitive Expedition, Pershing expected that at some point the United States would join the war in Europe, and he desperately wanted to lead the American military contingent should the opportunity present itself.

In his brief letter to Wilson, Pershing tossed his hat in the ring: “As an officer of the army, may I not extend to you, as Commander-in-Chief of the armies, my sincere congratulations upon your soul-stirring patriotic address to Congress on April 2nd. Your strong stance for the right will be an inspiration to humanity everywhere, but especially to the citizens of the Republic. It arouses in the breast of every soldier feelings of the deepest admiration for their leader. I am exultant that my life has been spent as a soldier, in camp and field, that I may now the more worthily and more intelligently serve my country and you.”

Expecting that his letter might get overlooked, Pershing also wrote Secretary of War Newton D. Baker and reiterated what he had previously told the President: “In view of what this nation has undertaken to do, it is a matter of extreme satisfaction to me at this time to feel that my life has been spent as a soldier, much of it in campaign so that I am now prepared for the duties of this hour,” Pershing preached. “I wish thus formally, to pledge to you, in the personal matter, my most loyal support in whatever capacity I may be called upon to serve.”

Pershing Is Selected As Top U.S. Leader

In defense of his request, the fact remained that no officer in the U.S. Army was more qualified to lead a fighting force in Europe than Pershing. Much of his military career had been spent abroad, where he represented his country as a soldier and a politician. An 1886 West Point graduate, Pershing served with a cavalry regiment on the frontier in New Mexico, taught military science at the University of Nebraska, was cited for bravery during the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection.

Pershing’s impressive work as both a department commander and military governor helped him catapult over a long list of other junior officers for promotion to brigadier general. Pershing’s stellar military career was marked by tragedy when a fire on August 27, 1915, at the Presidio in San Francisco took the life of his wife and three of his four young children. Deeply sadden by the loss, Pershing put all of his energy into Army service.

Whether or not Secretary of War Baker read Pershing’s note, he already knew about the general’s leadership ability and, in May 1917, selected him to command what would become the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF). Baker later said there was never any indication of regret over this decision, though he did agonize over making the selection. After the war, he revealed the ideal partnership between a war secretary and his commanding general: “Select a commander in whom you have confidence; give him power and responsibility, and then . . . work your own head off to get him everything he needs and support him in every decision he makes.”

The only other serious candidate for the position was former chief of staff and recipient of the Medal of Honor, Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood. Even with his impressive credentials, the Wilson administration was wary of him. Wood had health concerns and lacked recent field experience, and the scuttlebutt around Washington was that he had presidential aspirations and might be a political threat. He also had close ties to Theodore Roosevelt, whom Wilson despised. Pershing raised none of these concerns.

Standing about six feet tall, Pershing’s trim physique was ramrod straight; a full head of sandy hair and a neatly groomed mustache accented a face mostly absent of wrinkles. He had aged somewhat from the heartbreak of tragedy, but Pershing still looked younger than his years and could have served as a model for the Army’s recruitment posters.

Countless Army Signal Corps photographs show only one side of Pershing’s demeanor: that of a stern military officer sitting at his desk, on horseback, or reviewing troops in the field. Privately, to those he let into his inner circle, Pershing was sensitive, warm, and caring. One Army officer described the World War I commander this way: “Pershing inspired confidence but not affection. He won followers, but not personal worshipers, plain in word, sane and direct in action.”

Nation Goes to War with Meager Forces

American soldiers embark for the front in France. (165-WW-289C-7)

With Pershing at the helm as AEF commander, President Wilson committed the United States to war with a skeleton fighting force. The U.S. Army comprised slightly more than 127,000 officers and men in the Regulars and about 67,000 more federalized National Guardsmen. Right after the war declaration, a large number of patriotic Americans rushed to enlist, but there still weren’t enough men to bolster the meager armed forces. Left with no other choice, Wilson ordered the War Department to organize a draft, with all males between the ages of 21 and 30 (later extended to include ages 18 to 45) required to register. Ten million men complied, and the Army eventually drafted 2.7 million.

Training camps were hastily constructed in the South and Southeast, where the new U.S. soldiers would spend six months learning the rudiments of war from officers who, in many cases, knew only slightly more than they did. Both the British and French helped out by sending officers across the Atlantic to assist with the instruction.

It was an eye-opening experience for the foreigners, some of them veterans of Verdun and the Somme. They traveled from one training camp to another, preaching trench warfare to young recruits who carried wooden guns and were without proper uniforms and equipment. It was hard to point out the benefits of grenades, flamethrowers, and artillery when many American troops would not encounter these modern weapons until they reached the western front.

It would take about nine months to train most American Army divisions (just over 27,000 officers and men) before they could be deployed overseas. Slow in organizing, but quick to learn how to fight on the Western Front battlefields, Pershing’s troops made an immediate contribution when they began to arrive and turned the tide of the war in favor of the Allies.

Doughboys, as they were nicknamed, were victorious at Cantigny, Belleau Wood, St. Mihiel, St. Quentin Canal, and the 47-day Meuse-Argonne offensive. When the Armistice took effect at 11 a.m. on November 11, 1918, more than 2 million soldiers, sailors, marines, nurses, telephone operators, and civilians were serving in Europe. Additional troops fought in faraway Siberia. Another 2 million troops were still in the United States, preparing to serve overseas, but the Armistice arrived before they could go abroad.

Americans paid a heavy toll for their Great War contribution. More than 50,000 died in combat while an almost equal number perished from accidents and disease—most as the result of the influenza epidemic.

Over the course of 18 months, the Americans rallied to the aid of its Allied partners and backed up President Wilson’s proclamation to “keep the world safe for democracy.”

Mitchell Yockelson is an investigative archivist with the National Archives Archival Recovery Program. He has also written two books on World War I, including Forty-Seven Days: How Pershing’s Warriors Came of Age to Defeat the German Army in World War I.

Note on Sources

Woodrow Wilson’s correspondence is published in Ray Stannard Baker, Woodrow Wilson Life and Letters: Facing War, 1915–1917, volume 6 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1937) and in Arthur S. Link, editor, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966–1994).

Three useful secondary sources on the Wilson administration are A. Scott Berg, Wilson (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2013); Arthur S. Link, Wilson: Campaigns for Progressivism and Peace, 1916–1917 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965); and John Milton Cooper, Jr., Woodrow Wilson: A Biography (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009).

Two thorough studies of the United States in World War I are Edward M. Coffman, The War to End All Wars: The American Military Experience in World War I (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968) and Meirion and Susie Harries, The Last Days of Innocence: America at War, 1917–1918 (New York: Random House, 1997.

Other works consulted for this article are

Mark Sullivan, Our Times, The United States, 1900–1925 , volume 5: Over Here: 1914–1918 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1933);  Lee A. Craig, Josephus Daniels: His Life and Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013); Ray Stannard Baker, Woodrow Wilson Life and Letters: Facing War, 1915–1917, volume 6. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1937); Frank E. Vandiver, Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1977); Mitchell Yockelson, Forty-Seven Days: How Pershing’s Warriors Came of Age to Defeat the German Army in World War I (New York: NAL, 2016); and Frederick Palmer, John J. Pershing, General of the Armies: A Biography (Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1948).

Top of page

Collection American Leaders Speak: Recordings from World War I

World war i.

World War I, "the Great War," lasted from 1914 through 1918. More than eight million soldiers lost their lives in the struggle between the Central Powers -- Germany, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires -- and the Allies -- Britain, France, Italy, Russia and, after 1917, the United States of America. The U.S. mobilized more than 4,000,000 troops, over 2,000,000 of whom were sent to battlefields in France, under the command of Major General John J. Pershing.

The war effort inspired high patriotic fervor and vicious campaigns against pacifists, radicals, and citizens of German origin.

The addition of America's forces to the war effort ended a bloody stalemate, and the fighting came to an end with the Armistice of November 11, 1918. More than 50,000 Americans lost their lives.

John J. Pershing, Commander, American Expeditionary Forces

A graduate of the United States Military Academy (1886), John "Black Jack" Pershing fought in the Spanish-American War (1898), and earned national recognition leading a punitive mission into Mexico in search of Pancho Villa (1916). His talents led President Woodrow Wilson to name him commander of the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I. Under his leadership, America's raw recruits became an effective fighting force -- an accomplishment that hastened the end of World War I. In gratitude, Congress awarded him the unique rank of "General of the Armies of the United States" (1919).

General Pershing's brief statement for the Nation's Forum was recorded at American field headquarters in France on April 4, 1918, during the battle of Picardy and Flanders. Promotional statements describe it as the first recording made on a battlefield. Its novelty, combined with its patriotic message from America's military leader, made the recording an instant success.

Audio Selection: From the Battlefields of France. John Joseph Pershing (1860-1948).

James W. Gerard, Former American Ambassador to Germany

A lawyer by training, James Gerard sat on the New York Supreme Court from 1908-1913. His generous financial support of the Democratic party during the presidential campaign of 1912 led President Woodrow Wilson to reward him with an ambassadorship. First given the position of Ambassador to Spain, as World War I intensified Gerard was transferred to the more significant position of Ambassador to Germany. He served in this position until 1917.

The speech featured here, an attack upon the loyalty of German-Americans, is an example of vicious war-time propaganda.

Audio Selection: Loyalty. James Watson Gerard (1867-1951).

Samuel Gompers, President, American Federation of Labor

Born in England, Samuel Gompers came from a working-class family that settled in New York while Gompers was still a boy. In 1863 at the age of thirteen, Gompers joined the Cigarmakers' Union; by 1874, he was its president. Gompers thus began a distinguished career of organizing American labor. Unlike labor leaders in Europe, he rejected the idea that organized labor should form a separate political party. Instead, he concentrated on the improvement of wages and working conditions through collective bargaining with management. To further these goals, in 1886 he created the American Federation of Labor, serving as its president until his death.

During World War I, Gompers sought to unite labor behind the war effort, forming the War Committee on Labor. In the speech he recorded for the Nation's Forum, Gompers stresses the importance of labor to the war, commenting that "This war is a people's war, labor's war. The final outcome will be determined in the factories, the mills, the shops, the mines, the farms, the industries...".

Audio Selection: Labor's Service to Freedom. Samuel Gompers (1850-1924).

• Terms of Use

War News | Military History | Military News

War and free speech – the u.s. relationship between the two.

• Vietnam War
• War Articles
• World War 1

In the United States, World War I led to the federal government restricting what they considered unpatriotic free speech.  However, it was not apparent what was regarded as safe speech and what was considered offensive speech. This article will review the history of US legislation and court cases that cemented and clarified the United States limitations on free speech.

World War I was one of the first times the US had seen a propaganda effort on the part of the government to challenge the concept and limitations imposed on free speech.  Directly after the start of World War I in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson passed the Espionage Act . This act, passed in 1917, is still in effect today.

The Espionage Act made three things illegal: conveying false information to interfere with the American military or promote the success of our enemies; cause or attempt to cause insubordination within the military, or willfully obstruct military recruitment and enlistment.

One year after the Espionage Act was passed, Wilson passed an even stricter law, The Sedition Act of 1918 .  This law criminalized disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive speech about the United States or its symbols, speech designed to impede war production, and statements supporting countries with which the US was at war.

With these decrees, the State prosecuted over 2000 citizens under the two laws, with half of those indicted as being convicted and handed down jail sentences.

One of the men convicted was Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist party candidate for President.  Another man prosecuted and convicted was Robert Goldstein, silent film director, who directed the movie “The Spirit of ‘76’, a fictional film which highlighted the American Revolution.

Many others put on trial under the acts were people who handed out leaflets opposing the draft and calling it equal to slavery.  Others were leaders of both the Socialist and Communist parties.

In US court case Schenk v United States, the Sedition Act Espionage Acts were challenged.  The court upheld both acts, stating that there are certain parts of speech that cannot be protected if they are to be a threat to the country, be it wartime or peacetime. Although a few United States Supreme Court Justices dissented, the acts were indeed upheld. Wilson’s last day in office saw the Sedition act repealed.  The Espionage Act, however, is still in effect today.

World War I ended in November of 1918.  In 1924, then-Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stowe concluded that law enforcement should be concerned with the conduct of individuals, and not with their thought, be they political or otherwise.

In 1923, all sentences handed down under the Sedition Act were commuted.  In 1931, FDR gave all individuals prosecuted under the act amnesty. This decision showed a temporary relaxation of restrictions on free speech.  However, it had more to do with the fact that the war was over than it did government views on free speech.

After World War I, the government amended its restrictions on free speech. The Sedition Act had been repealed.  The Espionage Act was not strictly enforced.  In a landmark case, Brandenberg v Ohio, the US modified the previous standard to restrict only speech that, when presented, constituted a clear and present danger to social order.

Under this standard, the expression could be restricted if it presented dangerous tendencies toward disorder. This new standard allowed more speech to be regulated since it left much more to interpretation.

In 1940, Congress passed the Smith Act, which barred speech and organizations intended to overthrow any government in the United States. It was a tactic used in World War II and the Red Scare to suppress socialist and communist ideas.  This standard lasted until 1969 when the current measure of free speech restriction was put into place.

1969 found the case Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District, in which the Supreme Court held that students do not shed their 1 st Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door and that they do, therefore, have a right to express their political and social views.

Just two years later, in New York Times Company v United States, the court held that the government could not place prior restraints against the newspaper regarding publication of the Pentagon Papers, holding that the government’s claim that the papers would interfere with foreign policy was not strong enough to overcome the presumptions of free speech.

This current standard allows speech to be restricted, if it presents a threat of imminent lawless action based on the present circumstances. This standard enables controversial statements as long as it is not going to lead to illegal behavior.  Under this law, it was deemed illegal to burn a draft card because it destroyed government property and because it interrupted the draft process.

Since 1960, the government does not pursue free speech as it did back in the days of the Sedition Act and Espionage Acts.  Even after 9-11, when people were demanding that the government censure free speech, the government refused to revise the standard.

Read another article from us like this – Hearts and Minds: WWI Propaganda British Style

With the advent of the internet, there was a hope and a call for the restriction of free speech regarding online speech, but to date, the government has not enacted any laws addressing restriction of online discourse.

Sir Edward Grey's Speech Before Parliament

WWI Document Archive > 1914 Documents > Sir Edward Grey's Speech Before Parliament

From: Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fifth Series, Vol. LXV, 1914, columns 1809 - 1834.

The following are excerpts only:

Last week I stated that we were working for peace not only for this country, but to preserve the peace of Europe. To-day events move so rapidly that it is exceedingly difficult to state with technical accuracy the actual state of affairs, but it is clear that the peace of Europe cannot be preserved. Russia and Germany, at any rate, have declared war upon each other.

Before I proceed to state the position of his Majesty's Government I would like to clear the ground so that, before I come to state to the House what our attitude is with regard to the present crisis, the House may know exactly under what obligations the government is, or the House can be said to be, in coming to a decision on the matter. First of all, let me say, very shortly, that we have consistently worked with a single mind, with all the earnestness in our power, to preserve peace. The House may be satisfied on that point. We have always done it. During these last years, as far as his Majesty's Government are concerned, we would have no difficulty in proving that we have done so. Throughout the Balkan crisis, by general admission, we worked for peace. The cooperation of the great powers of Europe was successful in working for peace in the Balkan crisis. It is true that some of the powers had great difficulty in adjusting their points of view. It took much time and labour and discussion before they could settle their differences, but peace was secured, because peace was their main object, and they were willing to give time and trouble rather than accentuate differences rapidly.

In the present crisis it has not been possible to secure the peace of Europe: because there has been little time, and there has been a disposition -- at any rate in some quarters on which I will not dwell -- to force things rapidly to an issue, at any rate to the great risk of peace, and, as we now know, the result of that is that the policy of peace as far as the great powers generally are concerned is in danger. I do not want to dwell on that, and to comment on it, and to say where the blame seems to us lie, which powers were most in favour of peace, which were most disposed to risk war or endanger peace, because I would like the House to approach this crisis in which we are now from the point of view of British interests, British honour, and British obligations, free from all passion as to why peace has not yet been preserved....

The situation in the present crisis is not precisely the same as it was in the Morocco question.... It has originated in a dispute between Austria and Servia. I can say this with the most absolute confidence -- no government and no country has less desire to be involved in war over a dispute with Austria than the country of France. They are involved in it because of their obligation of honour under a definite alliance with Russia. Well, it is only fair to say to the House that that obligation of honour cannot apply in the same way to us. We are not parties to the Franco-Russian alliance. We do not even know the terms of the alliance. So far I have, I think, faithfully and completely cleared the ground with regard to the question of obligation.

I now come to what we think the situation requires of us. For many years we have had a long-standing friendship with France [An HON. MEMBER: "And with Germany!"]. I remember well the feeling in the House and my own feeling -- for I spoke on the subject, I think, when the late Government made their agreement with France -- the warm and cordial feeling resulting from the fact that these two nations, who had had perpetual differences in the past, had cleared these differences away; I remember saying, I think, that it seemed to me that some benign influence had been at work to produce the cordial atmosphere that had made that possible. But how far that friendship entails obligation -- it has been a friendship between the nations and ratified by the nations -- how far that entails an obligation, let every man look into his own heart, and his own feelings, and construe the extent of the obligation for himself. I construe it myself as I feel it, but I do not wish to urge upon any one else more than their feelings dictate as to what they should feel about the obligation. The House, individually and collectively, may judge for itself. I speak my personal view, and I have given the House my own feeling in the matter. The French fleet is now in the Mediterranean, and the northern and western coasts of France are absolutely undefended.

The French fleet is now in the Mediterranean, and the northern and western coasts of France are absolutely undefended. The French fleet being concentrated in the Mediterranean, the situation is very different from what it used to be, because the friendship which has grown up between the two countries has given them a sense of security that there was nothing to be feared from us. My own feeling is that if a foreign fleet, engaged in a war which France had not sought, and in which she had not been the aggressor, came down the English Channel and bombarded and battered the undefended coasts of France, we could not stand aside [ Cheers ] and see this going on practically within sight of our eyes, with our arms folded, looking on dispassionately, doing nothing. I believe that would be the feeling of this country. There are times when one feels that if these circumstances actually did arise, it would be a feeling which would spread with irresistible force throughout the land.

But I also want to look at the matter without sentiment, and from the point of view of British interests, and it is on that that I am going to base and justify what I am presently going to say to the House. If we say nothing at this moment, what is France to do with her fleet in the Mediterranean? If she leaves it there, with no statement from us as to what we will do, she leaves her northern and western coasts absolutely undefended, at the mercy of a German fleet coming down the Channel to do as it pleases in a war which is a war of life and death between them. If we say nothing, it may be that the French fleet is withdrawn from the Mediterranean. We are in the presence of a European conflagration; can anybody set limits to the consequences that may arise out of it? Let us assume that to-day we stand aside in an attitude of neutrality, saying, "No, we cannot undertake and engage to help either party in this conflict." Let us suppose the French fleet is withdrawn from the Mediterranean; and let us assume that the consequences -- which are already tremendous in what has happened in Europe even to countries which are at peace -- in fact, equally whether countries are at peace or at war -- let us assume that out of that come consequences unforeseen, which make it necessary at a sudden moment that, in defence of vital British interests, we should go to war; and let us assume which is quite possible--that Italy, who is now neutral [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] -- because, as I understand, she considers that this war is an aggressive war, and the Triple Alliance being a defensive alliance her obligation did not arise -- let us assume that consequences which are not yet foreseen and which, perfectly legitimately consulting her own interests -- make Italy depart from her attitude of neutrality at a time when we are forced in defence of vital British interest ourselves to fight -- what then will be the position in the Mediterranean? It might be that at some critical moment those consequences would be forced upon us because our trade routes in the Mediterranean might be vital to this country?

Nobody can say that in the course of the next few weeks there is any particular trade route the keeping open of which may not be vital to this country. What will be our position then? We have not kept a fleet in the Mediterranean which is equal to dealing alone with a combination of other fleet in the Mediterranean. It would be the very moment when we could not detach more ships to the Mediterranean, and we might have exposed this country from our negative attitude at the present moment to the most appalling risk. I say that from the point of view of British interest. We feel strongly that France was entitled to know -- and to know at once! -- whether or not in the event of attack upon her unprotected northern and western coast she could depend upon British support. In that emergency and in these compelling circumstances, yesterday afternoon I gave to the French Ambassador the following statement:

"I am authorised to give an assurance that if the German fleet comes into the Channel or through the North Sea to undertake hostile operations against the French coasts or shipping, the British fleet will give all the protection in its power. This assurance is, of course, subject to the policy of his Majesty's Government receiving the support of Parliament, and must not be taken as binding his Majesty's Government to take any action until the above contingency of action by the German fleet takes place."

I read that to the House, not as a declaration of war on our part, not as entailing immediate aggressive action on our part, but as binding us to take aggressive action should that contingency arise. Things move very hurriedly from hour to hour. French news comes in, and I cannot give this in any very formal way; but I understand that the German Government would be prepared, if we would pledge ourselves to neutrality, to agree that its fleet would not attack the northern coast of France. I have only heard that shortly before I came to the House, but it is far too narrow an engagement for us. And, Sir, there is the more serious consideration -- becoming more serious every hour -- there is the question of the neutrality of Belgium....

I will read to the House what took place last week on this subject. When mobilisation was beginning, I knew that this question must be a most important element in our policy -- a most important subject for the House of Commons. I telegraphed at the same time in similar terms to both Paris and Berlin to say that it was essential for us to know whether the French and German Governments, respectively, were prepared to undertake an engagement to respect the neutrality of Belgium. These are the replies. I got from the French Government this reply:

"The French Government are resolved to respect the neutrality of Belgium, and it would only be in the event of some other power violating that neutrality that France might find herself under the necessity, in order to assure the defence of her security, to act otherwise. This assurance has been given several times. The President of the Republic spoke of it to the King of the Belgians, and the French Minister at Brussels has spontaneously renewed the assurance to the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs to-day."

From the German Government the reply was: "The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could not possibly give an answer before consulting the Emperor and the Imperial Chancellor."

Sir Edward Goschen, to whom I had said it was important to have an answer soon, said he hoped the answer would not be too long delayed. The German Minister for Foreign Affairs then gave Sir Edward Goschen to understand that he rather doubted whether they could answer at all, as any reply they might give could not fail, in the event of war, to have the undesirable effect of disclosing, to a certain extent, part of their plan of campaign. I telegraphed at the same time to Brussels to the Belgian Government, and I got the following reply from Sir Francis Villiers:

"The Minister for Foreign Affairs thanks me for the communication and replies that Belgium will, to the utomost of her power, maintain neutrality, and Belgium expects and desires other powers to observe and uphold it. He begged me to add that the relations between Belgium and the neighbouring Powers were excellent, and there was no reason to suspect their intentions, but that the Belgian Government believe, in the case of violence, they were in a position to defend the neutrality of their country."

It now appears from the news I have received to-day -- which has come quite recently, and I am not yet quite sure how far it has reached me in an accurate form -- that an ultimatum has been given to Belgium by Germany, the object of which was to offer Belgium friendly relations with Germany on condition that she would facilitate the passage of German troops through Belgium. [ Ironical laughter ] Well, Sir, until one has these things absolutely definite, up to the last moment I do not wish to say all that one would say if one were in a position to give the House full, complete and absolute information upon the point. We were sounded in the course of last week as to whether, if a guarantee were given that, after the war, Belgian integrity would be preserved, that would content us. We replied that we could not bargain away whatever interests or obligations we had in Belgian neutrality. [ Cheers. ]

Shortly before I reached the House I was informed that the following telegram had been received from the King of the Belgians by our King -- King George:

"Remembering the numerous proofs of your Majesty's friendship and that of your predecessors, and the friendly attitude of England in 1870, and the proof of friendship she has just given us again, I make a supreme appeal to the diplomatic intervention of your Majesty's Government to safeguard the integrity of Belgium."

Diplomatic intervention took place last week on our part. What can diplomatic intervention do now? We have great and vital interests in the independence -- and integrity is the least part -- of Belgium.. [ Loud cheers. ] If Belgium is compelled to submit to allow her neutrality to be violated, of course the situation is clear. Even if by agreement she admitted the violation of her neutrality, it is clear she could only do so under duress. The smaller States in that region of Europe ask but one thing. Their one desire is that they should be left alone and independent. The one thing they fear is, I think, not so much that their integrity but that their independence should be interfered with. If in this war, which is before Europe, the neutrality of those countries is violated, if the troops of one of the combatants violate its neutrality and no action be taken to resent it, at the end of war, whatever the integrity may be, the independence will be gone [ Cheers. ]....

No, Sir, if it be the case that there has been anything in the nature of an ultimatum to Belgium, asking her to compromise or violate her neutrality, whatever may have been offered to her in return, her independence is gone if that holds. If her independence goes, the independence of Holland will follow. I ask the House from the point of view of British interests to consider what may be at stake. If France is beaten in a struggle of life and death, beaten to her knees, loses her position as a great power, becomes subordinate to the will and power of one greater than herself -- consequences which I do not anticipate, because I am sure that France has the power to defend herself with all the energy and ability and patriotism which she has shown so often [ Loud cheers .] -- still, if that were to happen and if Belgium fell under the same dominating influence, and then Holland, and then Denmark, then would not Mr. Gladstone's words come true, that just opposite to us there would be a common interest against the unmeasured aggrandisement of any power?[ Loud cheers .]

It may be said, I suppose, that we might stand aside, husband our strength, and that, whatever happened in the course of this war, at the end of it intervene with effect to put things right, and to adjust them to our own point of view. If, in a crisis like this, we run away [ Loud cheers. ] from those obligations of honour and interest as regards the Belgian treaty, I doubt whether, whatever material force we might have at the end, it would be of very much value in face of the respect that we should have lost. And I do not believe, whether a great power stands outside this war or not, it is going to be in a position at the end of it to exert its superior strength. For us, with a powerful fleet, which we believe able to protect our commerce, to protect our shores, and to protect our interests, if we are engaged in war, we shall suffer but little more than we shall suffer even if we stand aside.

We are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war, whether we are in it or whether we stand aside. Foreign trade is going to stop, not because the trade routes are closed, but because there is no trade at the other end. Continental nations engaged in war all their populations, all their energies, all their wealth, engaged in a desperate struggle they cannot carry on the trade with us that they are carrying on in times of peace, whether we are parties to the war or whether we are not. I do not believe for a moment that at the end of this war, even if we stood aside and remained aside, we should be in a position, a material position, to use our force decisively to undo what had happened in the course of the war, to prevent the whole of the west of Europe opposite to us -- if that had been the result of the war -- falling under the domination of a single power, and I am quite sure that our moral position would be such as -- [ the rest of the sentence -- "to have lost us all respect." -- was lost in a loud outburst of cheering ]. I can only say that I have put the question of Belgium somewhat hypothetically, because I am not yet sure of all the facts, but, if the facts turn out to be as they have reached us at present, it is quite clear that there is an obligation on this country to do its utmost to prevent the consequences to which those facts will lead if they are undisputed....

... One thing I would say. The one bright spot in the whole of this terrible situation is Ireland. [ Prolonged cheers. ] The general feeling throughout Ireland, and I would like this to be clearly understood abroad, does not make that a consideration that we feel we have to take into account [ Cheers. ] I have told the House how far we have at present gone in commitments, and the conditions which influence our policy; and I have put and dealt at length to the House upon how vital the condition of the neutrality of Belgium is.

What other policy is there before the House? There is but one way in which the Government could make certain at the present moment of keeping outside this war, and that would be that it should immediately issue a proclamation of unconditional neutrality. We cannot do that. [ Cheers. ] We have made the commitment to France that I have read to the House which prevents us doing that. We have got the consideration of Belgium which prevents us also from any unconditional neutrality, and, without these conditions absolutelysatisfied and satisfactory, we are bound not to shrink from proceeding to the use of all the forces in our power. If we did take that line by saying, "We will have nothing whatever to do with this matter" under no conditions -- the Belgian treaty obligations, the possible position in the Mediterranean, with damage to British interests, and what may happen to France from our failure to support France -- if we were to say that all those things matter nothing, were as nothing, and to say we would stand aside, we should, I believe, sacrifice our respect and good name and reputation before the world, and should not escape the most serious and grave economic consequences. [ Cheers and a voice, "No." ]

My object has been to explain the view of the government, and to place before the House the issue and the choice. I do not for a moment conceal, after what I have said, and after the information, incomplete as it is, that I have given to the House with regard to Belgium, that we must be prepared, and we are prepared, for the consequences of having to use all the strength we have at any moment -- we know not how soon -- to defend ourselves and to take our part. We know, if the facts all be as I have stated them, though I have announced no intending aggressive action on our part, no final decision to resort to force at a moment's notice, until we know the whole of the case, that the use of it may be forcedupon us. As far as the forces of the Crown are concerned, we are ready. I believe the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty have no doubt whatever that the readiness and the efficiency of those forces were never at a higher mark than they are to-day, and never was there a time when confidence was more justified in the power of the Navy to protect our commerce and to protect our shores. The thought is with us always of the suffering and misery entailed, from which no country in Europe will escape, and from which no abdication or neutrality will save us. The amount of harm that can be done by an enemy ship to our trade is infinitesimal, compared with the amount of harm that must be done by the economic condition that is caused on the Continent.

The most awful responsibility is resting upon the Government in deciding what to advise the House of Commons to do. We have disclosed our minds to the House of Commons. We have disclosed the issue, the information which we have, and made clear to the House, I trust, that we are prepared to face that situation, and that should it develop, as probably it may develop, we will face it. We worked for peace up to the last moment, and beyond the last moment. How hard, how persistently, and how earnestly we strove for peace last week the House will see from the papers that will be before it.

But that is over, as far as the peace of Europe is concerned. We are now face to face with a situation and all the consequences which it may yet have to unfold. We believe we shall have the support of the House at large in proceeding to whatever the consequences may be and whatever measures may be forced upon us by the development of facts or action taken by others. I believe the country, so quickly has the situation been forced upon it, has not had time to realise the issue. It perhaps is still thinking of the quarrel between Austria and Servia, and not the complications of this matter which have grown out of the quarrel between Austria and Servia. Russia and Germany we know are at war. We do not yet know officially that Austria, the ally whom Germany is to support, is yet at war with Russia. We know that a good deal has been happening on the French frontier. We do not know that the German Ambassador has left Paris.

The situation has developed so rapidly that technically, as regards the condition of the war, it is most difficult to describe what has actually happened. I wanted to bring out the underlying issues which would affect our own conduct, and our own policy, and to put them clearly. I have now put the vital facts before the House, and if, as seems not improbable, we are forced, and rapidly forced, to take our stand upon those issues, then I believe, when the country realises what is at stake, what the real issues are, the magnitude of the impending dangers in the west of Europe, which I have endeavored to describe to the House, we shall be supported throughout, not only by the House of Commons, but by the determination, the resolution, the courage, and the endurance of the whole country.

[Later in the day Sir Edward added the following words:] I want to give the House some information which I have received, and which was not in my possession when I made my statement this afternoon. It is information I have received from the Belgian Legation in London, and is to the following effect:

"Germany sent yesterday evening at seven o'clock a note proposing to Belgium friendly neutrality, covering free passage on Belgian territory, and promising maintenance of independence of the kingdom and possession at the conclusion of peace, and threatening, in case of refusal, to treat Belgium as an enemy. A time-limit of twelve hours was fixed for the reply. The Belgians have answered that an attack on their neutrality would be a flagrant violation of the rights of nations, and that to accept the German proposal would be to sacrifice the honour of a nation. Conscious of its duty, Belgium is finally resolved to repel aggression by all possible means."

Of course, I can only say that the Government are prepared to take into grave consideration the information which they have received. I make no further comment upon it.

Navigation menu

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

FACT FOCUS: A look at Netanyahu’s claims about Israel, Hamas and Iran during his speech to Congress

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to a joint meeting of Congress at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2024. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

• Copy Link copied

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday defended his country’s conduct in the devastating Gaza war , urged the U.S. to support the fight against Hamas and ridiculed protesters during a scathing address to Congress.

But he also cited an unverified intelligence report and ignored much of the criticism in a war that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and devastated Gaza.

Crowds of demonstrators swelled outside the Capitol as the Israeli leader spoke, with many protesting the killings of more than 39,000 Palestinians in the war. Others condemned Netanyahu’s inability to free Israeli and American hostages taken by Hamas and other militants during the Oct. 7 attack that sparked the conflict.

Here’s a look at the facts.

AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

CLAIM: “Israel has enabled more than 40,000 aid trucks to enter Gaza. That’s half a million tons of food. And that’s more than 3,000 calories for every man, woman and child in Gaza. If there are Palestinians in Gaza who aren’t getting enough food, it’s not because Israel is blocking it. It’s because Hamas is stealing it.”

THE FACTS: Israel initially imposed a complete siege on Gaza in the early days of the war and, under U.S. pressure, gradually eased it to allow the entry of food and humanitarian supplies. While Israel says it allows hundreds of truckloads of goods to enter Gaza each day, the United Nations and aid groups say they are often unable to reach it or distribute it.

They say ongoing Israeli military operations and fighting with Hamas and lawlessness makes it too difficult to operate. U.N. officials say criminal gangs have targeted aid trucks. But a top U.S. envoy said Israel has presented no evidence for claims Hamas is stealing aid, adding that Israel’s killing of Gaza police commanders guarding truck convoys have made it nearly impossible to distribute goods.

International experts have repeatedly warned that Gaza faces widespread severe hunger and the territory is on the brink of famine.

In April, an Israeli airstrike killed seven aid workers in an incident that Israel said was caused by human error. This month, the head of the U.S. humanitarian agency USAID said she had received pledges from Israel to improve safety and coordination for aid workers.

Demonstrators react after being exposed to a chemical irritant as they protest the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, July 24, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

CLAIM: “I have a message for these protesters: When the tyrants of Tehran who hang gays from cranes and murder women for not covering their hair are praising, promoting and funding you, you have officially become Iran’s useful idiots.”

THE FACTS: Netanyahu provided no evidence that Iran is “funding” protesters.

The top U.S. intelligence official said this month that the Iranian government is one of several covertly encouraging American protests over Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza in a bid to stoke outrage ahead of the fall election.

Using social media platforms, groups linked to Tehran have posed as online activists, encouraged protests and provided financial support to some protest groups, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said in a statement.

“Iran is becoming increasingly aggressive in their foreign influence efforts, seeking to stoke discord and undermine confidence in our democratic institutions,” Haines said.

Iran isn’t the only country seeking to influence American discourse ahead of the 2024 election. During a briefing with reporters this month, intelligence officials said America’s adversaries were looking to harness artificial intelligence to dramatically expand the reach and penetration of election misinformation .

Demonstrations over Israel’s offensives in Gaza emerged on university campuses across the U.S. in recent months. The protests quickly became a factor in political campaigns and prompted concerns about antisemitism and the role of “outside agitators ” as well as worries about a larger regional conflict between Israel and Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel’s war in Gaza and condemned American protesters in a scathing speech to Congress Wednesday that triggered boycotts by many top Democratic lawmakers and drew thousands to the Capitol.

CLAIM: “The ( International Criminal Court ) prosecutor accuses Israel of deliberately targeting civilians. What in God’s green earth is he talking about? The (Israeli military) has dropped millions of fliers, sent millions of text messages, made hundreds of thousands of phone calls to get Palestinian civilians out of harm’s way. But at the same time, Hamas does everything in its power to put Palestinian civilians in harm’s way. They fire rockets from schools, from hospitals, from mosques.”

THE FACTS: Deadly Israeli strikes on homes affect multiple members of families at a time on a nearly daily basis . Footage has shown soldiers shooting and killing Palestinians who were waving white flags or appeared to pose no threat to Israeli troops.

For most of the more than 37,000 airstrikes Israel says it has carried out during the war — along with often heavy shelling during ground operations — it is impossible to verify Israel’s claims that a Hamas target is present.

Even in strikes where the military has publicly identified Hamas members, it has been willing to inflict dozens of civilian casualties .

Israeli evacuation orders have sent more than 80% of Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians fleeing, often multiple times, to escape offensives in different parts of the territory. Israeli airstrikes and raids have repeatedly struck and caused civilian casualties inside the “humanitarian zone” where the military has told displaced Palestinians to take refuge.

WHAT NETANYAHU LEFT OUT:

The Israeli leader spoke of the bravery of soldiers on Oct. 7. But he did not delve into the massive intelligence and security blunders under his watch that allowed Hamas to breach Israel’s vaunted defenses that day. He didn’t discuss accusations that he believed Hamas was deterred when in fact it was preparing a major assault on Israel.

Also, Netanyahu boasted about the 135 hostages that have been freed, seven of them in rescue missions. But he left out that the vast majority of those hostages were freed during a brief cease-fire in late November, even though he has argued that military pressure on Hamas is the best way to free them.

Neither did he mention the fact that Israeli forces mistakenly killed three hostages in December. And roughly 120 hostages have languished in captivity for nearly 10 months. Of those, Israeli authorities believe a third are dead.

Dozens of Palestinians have been killed in the rescue missions staged to free the hostages, the Health Ministry in Gaza says, which Netanyahu did not mention.

And he did not describe the catastrophe that has befallen Gaza since the outbreak of the war.

Of the more than 39,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza since the start of the war, about half are women and children, Gaza’s Health Ministry says. About 1.8 million of Gaza’s 2.3 million people have been displaced, many repeatedly in a bid to flee relentless bombing. Basic necessities like food , shelter and even diapers have either been scarce or lacking entirely. Clean drinking water is hard to find.

Netanyahu also said he was speaking on behalf of the people of Israel. It’s true that Israelis largely believe in the justness of the war. But support has grown for a cease-fire, including one that would end the war entirely.

In fact, public support for Netanyahu has plummeted since Oct. 7, with many blaming Netanyahu for the Hamas attacks. Thousands attend protests calling for him to resign. Critics say he is dragging out the war for political reasons, hoping to appease his far-right governing partners who oppose a cease-fire and to maintain his grip on power.

Kellman reported from London. Associated Press writers Josef Federman in Jerusalem, Tia Goldenberg in Tel Aviv, Israel, and Lee Keath in Cairo contributed to this report.

Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck .

Politics latest: Elon Musk hits out at PM over support for Muslims targeted by rioters

Downing Street has found itself in a war of words with Elon Musk over the ongoing riots causing fear and chaos across the UK. It comes after social media companies, including the one owned by the divisive billionaire, came under fire from the government for letting misinformation spread.

Monday 5 August 2024 20:40, UK

• Elon Musk criticised by Downing Street for riots comment
• Billionaire hits back after Starmer's show of support for Muslims
• PM vows 'standing army of specialist officers' to deal with violence
• Farage joins calls for parliament's return
• Explained: How is parliament recalled?
• Sky News Daily: Can the government stop the far right?
• UK riots latest: Follow live updates from our teams

We're bringing the Politics Hub to a close for the evening.

Our coverage of the ongoing riots has been concentrated in our dedicated live blog, which you can find below:

Here's a quick rundown of the main political reaction from today:

• Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said police will have access to a "standing army of specialist officers" to deal with the unrest;
• It comes after he held the first COBRA meeting of his premiership, as ministers and police chiefs grapple with how to end the disorder;
• Downing Street hasn't ruled out recalling parliament after several MPs, including former home secretary Priti Patel, made the call;
• But there's no sign of the army being drafted in to help, as suggested by Reform's Nigel Farage.
• Elon Musk has found himself in a war of words with Number 10 after the prime minister's spokesperson criticised him for suggesting the UK was heading for "civil war";
• The billionaire later appeared to criticise Sir Keir for expressing concern for Muslim communities being targeted by far right rioters;
• Muslims have been targeted since the Southport attack after false rumours spread online that the suspect was a Muslim migrant, including on Musk's increasingly controversial X platform;
• The government has called on social media bosses to do more to clamp down on misinformation and hate speech.

The Politics Hub team will be back tomorrow morning from around 6am.

As well as calling out what he's described as "far right thuggery", the prime minister has used his statements on the riots to send solidarity to Muslim communities that have been targeted.

Mosques have been offered greater protection by the Home Office, which has been welcomed by faith leaders.

But Labour MP Afzal Khan wants his party to go further, writing to the PM demanding the government provide a definition of Islamophobia to combat the "racism and vitriol" of the past week.

He wants Sir Keir Starmer's government to adopt a definition put forward following an inquiry in 2017.

It reads: "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."

Watch anti-racist activists chase rioters from mosque:

Tories accused of 'ignoring' Islamophobia

Mr Khan, who also wants the PM to meet Muslim community leaders, said such racism had become "mainstream" since 2010.

The Manchester Rusholme MP wrote in a letter to Sir Keir: "It is imperative that this Labour government, in stark contrast to the previous Conservative governments, will not ignore Islamophobia when it occurs."

The previous Tory administration reclined to adopt the proposed definition because it said the wording could harm freedom of speech.

Rishi Sunak, the then prime minister, would often instead refer to an "anti-Muslim hatred".

By Mollie Malone, news correspondent

The government is accelerating plans to deal with prison capacity to ensure sufficient space for an expected rise in prisoners in light of rioting across the country.

As early as next week, around 500 places will be mobilised to boost capacity - including cells at HMP Stocken in the East Midlands and HMP Cookham Wood, a young offenders institution being repurposed.

These plans were already in place and have been brought forward.

The government is confident this - alongside established protocols like holding prisoners in police custody cells pending their transfer to prison, or moving prisoners from one part of the country to others - will help manage capacity during the summer break.

Watch police make arrests after riots in Sunderland:

A plan with tight margins

However, if riots continue for many weeks, the situation will be different.

There are currently around 700 free spaces left across the male estate in England and Wales, and the service likes to operate with a margin of around 1,400.

The government is also relying on a quieter spell of court activity during August, when the courts are on summer break.

Proposals to ask court judges to work overnight are also being considered as an option in light of an influx of charges, as was done following the 2011 London riots.

By Tim Baker , political reporter

There are growing calls for parliament to be recalled, so MPs can debate the recent unrest.

First off, it's worth noting that parliament is not sitting due to the summer recess - with politicians set to return to Westminster on 2 September.

While this is a time for MPs and their staff to take holidays, they do also continue working in their constituencies.

Technically, the power to interrupt this break lies with the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle.

However, he can only do so following "representations" from ministers, according to the House of Commons Library .

If an order is made to recall parliament, it usually sits two days from when the announcement made - for example, if the Speaker said today he was planning to recall MPs, they would likely sit on Wednesday.

Currently, there is no ability for MPs outside of government to trigger a recall of parliament.

While the House of Lords has its own set of rules, it typically reconvenes at the same time as the Commons.

The last time the Commons was recalled during a recess was amid the evacuation of Kabul in August 2021.

Other cases include the death of Prince Philip in April 2021, the death of Jo Cox in June 2017, and the riots in August 2011.

Earlier we reported on the seemingly angry manner in which Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley departed an emergency meeting about the nationwide riots ( see 11.30 post ).

Sir Mark was present at a COBRA meeting called by the prime minister, and while leaving was asked by a Sky News journalist whether the riots would mark an end to "two-tier policing".

It followed accusations from Nigel Farage - dismissed by other politicians including former home secretary Priti Patel - that police had dealt with previous protests with a light touch.

Sir Mark has now issued a statement on the incident which saw him grab the journalist's microphone and toss part of it to the ground.

Watch the moment below:

"This is a distraction from the critical events we are dealing with," he said.

"It was agreed the prime minister would provide an update afterwards, and it was not my place to speak publicly. 

"In an effort to move a microphone out of my path I'm sorry that I knocked it to the floor. That was never my intention.

"We remain focused on the critical and urgent matters at hand."

After a weekend of violence, Sir Keir Starmer has said police will have access to a "standing army of specialist officers" to deal with the riots. 

Hundreds of people tried to set fire to a hotel housing asylum seekers in Rotherham on Sunday, while a children’s library in Liverpool and a Citizens Advice centre in Sunderland were burnt over the weekend.  

Mosques have also been attacked and shops looted.     

The prime minister is facing mounting pressure to take a stand against the far right. 

On today’s episode of the Sky News Daily, Niall Paterson speaks with Ivan Humble, a former leading active member of the English Defence League who now works to tackle radicalisation and extremism in the UK. 

Plus our political correspondent Rob Powell talks about the government's response to the crisis. 

Elon Musk has used his X platform - widely criticised over the past week for hosting disinformation about the Southport attack, which has partly inflamed the subsequent riots - to question Sir Keir Starmer's response.

The prime minister tweeted a clip of a statement he gave this morning, where he reiterated his warning to rioters that they will face justice and offered his support to Muslim communities targeted by the far right.

"We will not tolerate attacks on mosques or on Muslim communities," his tweet read.

Musk responded: "Shouldn't you be concerned about attacks on *all* communities?"

Social media platforms facing government scorn

A reminder that Muslims have been targeted since the Southport attack after false rumours spread online that the suspect was a Muslim migrant.

He is in fact British-born 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana.

A mosque in Southport was targeted by a mob last Tuesday, and others have had their security ramped up in the days since.

Musk was criticised by Downing Street earlier for suggesting the UK was heading for "civil war".

The government has also called on social media bosses to do more to clamp down on misinformation and hate speech.

How Southport attack misinformation spread online:

On the day the FTSE 250 suffered its biggest fall since her mini-budget, Liz Truss has been on the airwaves warning of a bleak future for the Conservative Party.

The former prime minister, who lost her parliamentary seat in Norfolk at last month's election, was in no laughing mood as she appeared at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe earlier today.

Truss still defiant over mini-budget

She was there for a 90-minute stint on a live LBC show, which included questions from an audience - some of whom demanded she apologise for the impact her economic policies had on mortgages.

Ms Truss again denied the mini budget led to an economic crisis, dismissing such accusations as "inane".

On the future of the Tory party, she replied "yes" when asked if it could "effectively die" amid a threat from Reform UK.

'Wrong' for Tories to call for unity

She said her party could make room for Nigel Farage and dismissed calls from candidates vying to replace Rishi Sunak as leader that "we need unity" and "need to dampen things down".

"I think that's completely wrong - that's not where the country is," said the country's shortest-serving PM.

She said she hadn't decided who to back in the leadership race, which will run until November, but said she was no fan of the outgoing leader.

"I'm a pretty honest person, I don't get on with him personally."

On that aforementioned FTSE 250 drop, you can read more on a challenging day for global stock markets in our Money blog:

More than 17,000 migrants have now crossed the Channel this year.

Home Office figures show 139 people spread across three boats made the dangerous journey yesterday, taking the total to 17,170.

That's 15% higher than this time last year.

The number is set to rise again tomorrow, as new pictures today have shown more arrivals being brought ashore by the Border Force.

It comes amid a period of pleasant weather in the UK, which tends to coincide with a spike in small boat crossings.

It feels like a long time ago already, but one of the big talking points during the general election was the sewage scandal.

The amount of filth and waste ending up in Britain's rivers and seas was especially critical to the Liberal Democrat campaign, helping the party gain many traditional Tory seats in southern England.

It's clearly an issue that's going to stick around, after a new poll found nearly eight in 10 dog owners who visit UK beaches are put off letting their pets into the sea because of the risk of sewage.

The survey was carried out for the Lib Dems by pollster Savanta.

The UK's sewage scandal explained:

Sir Ed Davey's party described the data as a "national scandal", as they call for bonuses for water company bosses to be banned and a new industry regulator with greater powers.

The party's MP for Winchester, Danny Chambers, who's also a vet, said: "The new government must save our dogs from the sewage crisis.

"Reports from across the country of dogs becoming sick after swimming in the sea are truly shocking, and frankly this is a national scandal."

The government is proposing legislation that would put offending companies under special measures, and boost regulation to hold firms to higher standards.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

What Kamala Harris has said so far on key issues in her campaign

As she ramps up her nascent presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris is revealing how she will address the key issues facing the nation.

In speeches and rallies, she has voiced support for continuing many of President Joe Biden’s measures, such as lowering drug costs , forgiving student loan debt and eliminating so-called junk fees. But Harris has made it clear that she has her own views on some key matters, particularly Israel’s treatment of Gazans in its war with Hamas.

In a departure from her presidential run in 2020, the Harris campaign has confirmed that she’s moved away from many of her more progressive stances, such as her interest in a single-payer health insurance system and a ban on fracking.

Harris is also expected to put her own stamp and style on matters ranging from abortion to the economy to immigration, as she aims to walk a fine line of taking credit for the administration’s accomplishments while not being jointly blamed by voters for its shortcomings.

Her early presidential campaign speeches have offered insights into her priorities, though she’s mainly voiced general talking points and has yet to release more nuanced plans. Like Biden, she intends to contrast her vision for America with that of former President Donald Trump. ( See Trump’s campaign promises here .)

“In this moment, I believe we face a choice between two different visions for our nation: one focused on the future, the other focused on the past,” she told members of the historically Black sorority Zeta Phi Beta at an event in Indianapolis in late July. “And with your support, I am fighting for our nation’s future.”

Here’s what we know about Harris’ views:

Harris took on the lead role of championing abortion rights for the administration after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022. This past January, she started a “ reproductive freedoms tour ” to multiple states, including a stop in Minnesota thought to be the first by a sitting US president or vice president at an abortion clinic .

On abortion access, Harris embraced more progressive policies than Biden in the 2020 campaign, as a candidate criticizing his previous support for the Hyde Amendment , a measure that blocks federal funds from being used for most abortions.

Policy experts suggested that although Harris’ current policies on abortion and reproductive rights may not differ significantly from Biden’s, as a result of her national tour and her own focus on maternal health , she may be a stronger messenger.

High prices are a top concern for many Americans who are struggling to afford the cost of living after a spell of steep inflation. Many voters give Biden poor marks for his handling of the economy, and Harris may also face their wrath.

In her early campaign speeches, Harris has echoed many of the same themes as Biden, saying she wants to give Americans more opportunities to get ahead. She’s particularly concerned about making care – health care, child care, elder care and family leave – more affordable and available.

Harris promised at a late July rally to continue the Biden administration’s drive to eliminate so-called “junk fees” and to fully disclose all charges, such as for events, lodging and car rentals. In early August, the administration proposed a rule that would ban airlines from charging parents extra fees to have their kids sit next to them.

On day one, I will take on price gouging and bring down costs. We will ban more of those hidden fees and surprise late charges that banks and other companies use to pad their profits.”

Since becoming vice president, Harris has taken more moderate positions, but a look at her 2020 campaign promises reveals a more progressive bent than Biden.

As a senator and 2020 presidential candidate, Harris proposed providing middle-class and working families with a refundable tax credit of up to $6,000 a year (per couple) to help keep up with living expenses. Titled the LIFT the Middle Class Act, or Livable Incomes for Families Today, the measure would have cost at the time an estimated $3 trillion over 10 years.

Unlike a typical tax credit, the bill would allow taxpayers to receive the benefit – up to $500 – on a monthly basis so families don’t have to turn to payday loans with very high interest rates.

As a presidential candidate, Harris also advocated for raising the corporate income tax rate to 35%, where it was before the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump and congressional Republicans pushed through Congress reduced the rate to 21%. That’s higher than the 28% Biden has proposed.

Affordable housing was also on Harris’ radar. As a senator, she introduced the Rent Relief Act, which would establish a refundable tax credit for renters who annually spend more than 30% of their gross income on rent and utilities. The amount of the credit would range from 25% to 100% of the excess rent, depending on the renter’s income.

Harris called housing a human right and said in a 2019 news release on the bill that every American deserves to have basic security and dignity in their own home.

Consumer debt

Hefty debt loads, which weigh on people’s finances and hurt their ability to buy homes, get car loans or start small businesses, are also an area of interest to Harris.

As vice president, she has promoted the Biden administration’s initiatives on student debt, which have so far forgiven more than $168 billion for nearly 4.8 million borrowers . In mid-July, Harris said in a post on X that “nearly 950,000 public servants have benefitted” from student debt forgiveness, compared with only 7,000 when Biden was inaugurated.

A potential Harris administration could keep that momentum going – though some of Biden’s efforts have gotten tangled up in litigation, such as a program aimed at cutting monthly student loan payments for roughly 3 million borrowers enrolled in a repayment plan the administration implemented last year.

The vice president has also been a leader in the White House efforts to ban medical debt from credit reports, noting that those with medical debt are no less likely to repay a loan than those who don’t have unpaid medical bills.

In a late July statement praising North Carolina’s move to relieve the medical debt of about 2 million residents, Harris said that she is “committed to continuing to relieve the burden of medical debt and creating a future where every person has the opportunity to build wealth and thrive.”

Health care

Harris, who has had shifting stances on health care in the past, confirmed in late July through her campaign that she no longer supports a single-payer health care system .

During her 2020 campaign, Harris advocated for shifting the US to a government-backed health insurance system but stopped short of wanting to completely eliminate private insurance.

The measure called for transitioning to a Medicare-for-All-type system over 10 years but continuing to allow private insurance companies to offer Medicare plans.

The proposal would not have raised taxes on the middle class to pay for the coverage expansion. Instead, it would raise the needed funds by taxing Wall Street trades and transactions and changing the taxation of offshore corporate income.

When it comes to reducing drug costs, Harris previously proposed allowing the federal government to set “a fair price” for any drug sold at a cheaper price in any economically comparable country, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Japan or Australia. If manufacturers were found to be price gouging, the government could import their drugs from abroad or, in egregious cases, use its existing but never-used “march-in” authority to license a drug company’s patent to a rival that would produce the medication at a lower cost.

Harris has been a champion on climate and environmental justice for decades. As California’s attorney general, Harris sued big oil companies like BP and ConocoPhillips, and investigated Exxon Mobil for its role in climate change disinformation. While in the Senate, she sponsored the Green New Deal resolution.

During her 2020 campaign, she enthusiastically supported a ban on fracking — but a Harris campaign official said in late July that she no longer supports such a ban.

Fracking is the process of using liquid to free natural gas from rock formations – and the primary mode for extracting gas for energy in battleground Pennsylvania. During a September 2019 climate crisis town hall hosted by CNN, she said she would start “with what we can do on Day 1 around public lands.” She walked that back later when she became Biden’s running mate.

Biden has been the most pro-climate president in history, and climate advocates find Harris to be an exciting candidate in her own right. Democrats and climate activists are planning to campaign on the stark contrasts between Harris and Trump , who vowed to push America decisively back to fossil fuels, promising to unwind Biden’s climate and clean energy legacy and pull America out of its global climate commitments.

If elected, one of the biggest climate goals Harris would have to craft early in her administration is how much the US would reduce its climate pollution by 2035 – a requirement of the Paris climate agreement .

Immigration

Harris has quickly started trying to counter Trump’s attacks on her immigration record.

Her campaign released a video in late July citing Harris’ support for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and Trump’s successful push to scuttle a bipartisan immigration deal that included some of the toughest border security measures in recent memory.

The vice president has changed her position on border control since her 2020 campaign, when she suggested that Democrats needed to “critically examine” the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, after being asked whether she sided with those in the party arguing to abolish the department.

In June of this year, the White House announced a crackdown on asylum claims meant to continue reducing crossings at the US-Mexico border – a policy that Harris’ campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, indicated in late July to CBS News would continue under a Harris administration.

Trump’s attacks stem from Biden having tasked Harris with overseeing diplomatic efforts in Central America in March 2021. While Harris focused on long-term fixes, the Department of Homeland Security remained responsible for overseeing border security.

She has only occasionally talked about her efforts as the situation along the US-Mexico border became a political vulnerability for Biden. But she put her own stamp on the administration’s efforts, engaging the private sector.

Harris pulled together the Partnership for Central America, which has acted as a liaison between companies and the US government. Her team and the partnership are closely coordinating on initiatives that have led to job creation in the region. Harris has also engaged directly with foreign leaders in the region.

Experts credit Harris’ ability to secure private-sector investments as her most visible action in the region to date but have cautioned about the long-term durability of those investments.

Israel-Hamas

The Israel-Hamas war is the most fraught foreign policy issue facing the country and has spurred a multitude of protests around the US since it began in October.

After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in late July, Harris gave a forceful and notable speech about the situation in Gaza.

We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. And I will not be silent.”

Harris echoed Biden’s repeated comments about the “ironclad support” and “unwavering commitment” to Israel. The country has a right to defend itself, she said, while noting, “how it does so, matters.”

However, the empathy she expressed regarding the Palestinian plight and suffering was far more forceful than what Biden has said on the matter in recent months. Harris mentioned twice the “serious concern” she expressed to Netanyahu about the civilian deaths in Gaza, the humanitarian situation and destruction she called “catastrophic” and “devastating.”

She went on to describe “the images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time.”

Harris emphasized the need to get the Israeli hostages back from Hamas captivity, naming the eight Israeli-American hostages – three of whom have been killed.

But when describing the ceasefire deal in the works, she didn’t highlight the hostage for prisoner exchange or aid to be let into Gaza. Instead, she singled out the fact that the deal stipulates the withdrawal by the Israeli military from populated areas in the first phase before withdrawing “entirely” from Gaza before “a permanent end to the hostilities.”

Harris didn’t preside over Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in late July, instead choosing to stick with a prescheduled trip to a sorority event in Indiana.

Harris is committed to supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, having met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at least six times and announcing last month $1.5 billion for energy assistance, humanitarian needs and other aid for the war-torn country.

At the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, Harris said: “I will make clear President Joe Biden and I stand with Ukraine. In partnership with supportive, bipartisan majorities in both houses of the United States Congress, we will work to secure critical weapons and resources that Ukraine so badly needs. And let me be clear: The failure to do so would be a gift to Vladimir Putin.”

More broadly, NATO is central to our approach to global security. For President Biden and me, our sacred commitment to NATO remains ironclad. And I do believe, as I have said before, NATO is the greatest military alliance the world has ever known.”

Police funding

The Harris campaign has also walked back the “defund the police” sentiment that Harris voiced in 2020. What she meant is she supports being “tough and smart on crime,” Mitch Landrieu, national co-chair for the Harris campaign and former mayor of New Orleans, told CNN’s Pamela Brown in late July.

In the midst of nationwide 2020 protests sparked by George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer, Harris voiced support for the “defund the police” movement, which argues for redirecting funds from law enforcement to social services. Throughout that summer, Harris supported the movement and called for demilitarizing police departments.

Democrats largely backed away from calls to defund the police after Republicans attempted to tie the movement to increases in crime during the 2022 midterm elections.

Related links

Additional credits