|
July 13, 2005
Charles
Augustus Lindbergh
by Gordon Francis Corbett
Charles Augustus Lindbergh was born on 4
February 1902, the son of farmer, attorney, and
future Member of the U. S. House of Representatives
Charles August Lindbergh. Working on his family's
farm let a World War I program give him enough
credit to graduate from high school. He dropped out
of the University of Wisconsin, underwent an Army
training program, and flew the mails.
His parents seem to have taught him no
transcendent philosophy, although he absorbed some
populist politics from his father.
He was a brilliant self-disciplinarian who
taught himself what he wanted to know. His aptitude
for things mechanical let him function superbly as
a mechanic, an engineer, and an aviator.
To win the Raymond Orteig Prize, Lindbergh
thought of flying to Paris in a single-engine
monoplane. He persuaded some businessmen from St.
Louis, Missouri, to pay the Ryan Aeronautical
Company to create "The Spirit of St. Louis." He
took off from New York at 0754 local time on 20 May
1927, and landed in Paris thirty-three hours,
thirty minutes, and thirty seconds after flying
3,614 miles.
Lindbergh's tumultuous reception in Paris was
dwarfed by one even bigger and noisier when he
returned to America on the U.S.S. Memphis. Later,
on a good-will tour to Latin America, he flew to
Mexico and met Ambassador Dwight Morrow's daughter,
Anne.
Charles and Anne married in 1929, and Anne gave
birth to a son, Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr. In
1932, the baby was abducted and murdered, probably
by Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Hauptmann was later
arrested, indicted, tried, and executed.
Charles and Anne had four other children: three
sons and one daughter. The Lindberghs were
affectionate parents, but Charles was more than
slightly strict. He prepared for his frequent
absences by making check-lists of tasks for his
children to complete while he was gone.
(Lindbergh had invented the use of check-lists
in aviation, and he brought the practice
home.)
Anne Morrow Lindbergh was born special. Her dad,
Dwight Morrow, and her mom, Elizabeth Cutter
Morrow, came from America's intellectual and ruling
class. Morrow became a partner in J. P. Morgan and
Company. One of his friends was Thomas Lamont,
whose son Corliss was later pilloried for being a
Communist. Corliss tried several times, over
several decades, to persuade Anne to marry him, but
failed.
Anne was a brilliant woman who earned literary
prizes in college, and who, because Charles wanted
her to try, later became a world-renowned writer.
She was no political theorist, although in her
book, "The Wave of the Future," she said of
Hitler's, Mussolini's, and Stalin's regimes that
they were not the wave of the future, but scum on
the wave of the future.
Most of what Charles learned of philosophy came
from Anne and from Dr. Alexis Carrel, whom he
helped to invent the organ-perfusion pump, an
ancestor of the heart-lung machine. Carrel believed
passionately in mysticism, and his brilliance and
sincerity convinced Lindbergh.
In 1944, Carrel died of natural causes in
France. The French Resistance believed that he had
been pro-Nazi because he had collaborated with the
Germans; but Carrel's "collaboration" was
politically unimportant medical work. Carrel was
apolitical.
During the "'thirties," Lindbergh flew to many
parts of the world, often to learn how Juan
Trippe's Pan American Airways could open new
routes. Anne flew with him and wrote about their
travels. Dr. Carrel and he worked jointly on their
organ-perfusion pump. Harry Guggenheim befriended
Lindbergh and helped him with various
projects.
These events formed a pattern. Juan Trippe
borrowed money from Establishment banks. The
Rockefellers funded Carrel's and Lindbergh's
invention of the organ-perfusion pump. Guggenheim
was an Establishmentarian. And, topping all this,
Lindbergh had married one of Dwight Morrow's
daughters.
In other words, after his flight to Paris,
Charles Augustus Lindbergh became attached to the
American Establishment. That fact may help to
explain why Franklin Roosevelt reacted so angrily
when Lindbergh began frustrating his effort to push
us into World War II.
Germany attacked Poland on 1 September 1939.
Britain and France declared war on Germany two days
later. After publicly declaring us neutral,
President Roosevelt and his aides began working
openly, to persuade Americans to aid Britain, and
covertly, to enter the war on Britain's
side.
The president began by arguing that a German
conquest of Britain would endanger the United
States strategically and economically, and that
therefore, we should render the British all aid
"short of war."
At a news conference held on 17 December 1940,
President Roosevelt pushed aiding Britain. "What I
am trying to do is to eliminate the dollar sign.
That is something brand new in the thoughts of
practically everybody in this room, I think--get
rid of the silly, foolish old dollar sign. Well,
let me give you an illustration: Suppose my
neighbor's house catches on fire and I have a
length of garden hose...." We would lend Britain
weapons, and after winning, they would return the
"survivors" and pay for the rest.
Baloney. Before and during World War I, we lent
the British money that they never repaid. After
winning their second war with Germany, a Britain
newly ravaged might not have been able to pay for
Roosevelt's "garden hose." We would probably not
have wanted back our war-weary airplanes, tanks,
and other weapons. And, unlike Roosevelt's
voluntarily hose-lending home-owner, the American
people would have participated perforce through the
payment of taxes.
Anti-interventionist spokesmen such as Senator
Burton K. Wheeler (D-Montana) and Colonel Lindbergh
cited these faults and more. Regardless, Congress
passed the "Lend-Lease Act," bringing us closer to
war.
The Roosevelt Administration could so persuade
Congress because they had a powerful tool: an
argument that those who have should share with
those who have not. Applied domestically, this
"argument from need" had spawned the New Deal;
applied to foreign policy, it let the president
urge intervention with seeming integrity and
benevolence.
Take President Roosevelt's "Fireside Chat" of 26
May1940, made while Hitler was tearing up western
Europe. He delivered it in the relaxed style that
let his mellifluous voice persuade most
listeners.
This "Chat" has five parts. The first requests
contributions to the Red Cross for refugee relief;
the second attacks Americans opposing intervention;
the third recounts what he has done to build up our
Armed Forces and to increase the capacity of our
weapons factories; the fourth once again attacks
anti-interventionists, this time as disloyal; and,
the fifth asks his audience for their
support.
Here is the first part's second paragraph:
- I think it is right on this Sabbath evening
that I should say a word in behalf of women and
children and old men who need help--immediate
help in their present distress--help from us
across the seas, help from us who are still free
to give it. Tonight over the once peaceful roads
of Belgium and France millions are now moving,
running from their homes to escape bombs and
shells and fire and machine gunning, without
shelter, and almost wholly without food. They
stumble on, not knowing where the end of the
road will be. I speak to you of these people
because each of you that is listening to me
tonight has a way of helping them. The American
Red Cross that represents each of us, is rushing
food and clothing and medical supplies to these
destitute civilian millions. Please--I beg
you--please give according to your means to your
nearest Red Cross chapter, give as generously as
you can. I ask this in the name of our common
humanity.
Remove the request for contributions, and we
have a description of the refugees' plight and an
implicit plea for their rescue.
Colonel Lindbergh did not like Naziism, but he
did not want us to fight a second European war only
twenty-one years after losing 116, 516 men in the
first. Polls showed that four-fifths of America
agreed.
Two weeks after the German attack, Lindbergh
made his first radio address for neutrality. Author
Wayne S. Cole, in his book, "Charles A. Lindbergh
and the Battle Against American Intervention in
World War II," said that before Pearl Harbor, he
would do a lot more.
- ...during the first year and a half of World
War II in Europe, before he joined the America
First Committee, Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh
had already made five nationwide radio
broadcasts, addressed two public meetings,
published three articles in popular national
magazines, testified before two major
legislative committees, and consulted with
numerous noninterventionist leaders. Countless
millions of Americans had heard him on the
radio, had read his articles, had read newspaper
accounts of his speeches, or had read or heard
endorsements or criticisms of him or his
views....So far as he was able, Colonel
Lindbergh 'told the truth without prejudice and
without passion.'
R. Douglas Stuart, retired General Robert E.
Wood, and five other men founded "The Committee to
Defend America First." The Committee favored
expanding our armed forces, improving our defense
industries, and keeping our newly produced weapons
here.
President Roosevelt urged Kansan editor William
Allen White to form a committee of his own. White
formed "The Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies" to back the president's
positions.
America First accepted Charles Lindbergh's
application for membership on 10 April 1941.
Afterwards, before Pearl Harbor, Lindbergh gave
enormous stadium crowds and radio audiences
thirteen speeches to advocate staying neutral,
making weapons, and building up our armed
forces.
Roosevelt scorned most of the America Firsters
as misguided; but, maybe because Lindbergh was
their most prominent and persuasive speaker, the
president believed falsely that he was a Nazi. His
campaign against America First and Lindbergh
reflected that view, and his spokesmen said as much
in many articles and speeches.
On 11 September 1941, at a stadium in Des
Moines, Iowa, Charles Lindbergh denounced the
interventionist groups. He named "the British, the
Jewish, and the Roosevelt administration," and "a
number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and
intellectuals who believe that the future of
mankind depends on the domination of the British
Empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who
were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago
[when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union on 22
June 1941], and I believe I have named the
major war agitators in this country."
Then, he said,
- I am speaking here only of war agitators,
not of those sincere but misguided men and women
who, confused by misinformation and frightened
by propaganda, follow the lead of the war
agitators.
-
- As I have said, these war agitators comprise
only a small minority of our people; but they
control a tremendous influence. Against the
determination of the American people to stay out
of war, they have marshalled the power of their
propaganda, their money, their
patronage.
In his third paragraph on Britain's geographic,
economic, financial, and military history in World
War I and in World War II to-date, Lindbergh said,
"If it were not for her hope that she can make us
responsible for the war financially, as well as
militarily, I believe England would have negotiated
a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better
off for doing so." Then, he continued,
- England has devoted, and will continue to
devote every effort to get us into the war. We
know that she spent huge sums of money in this
country during the last war in order to involve
us. Englishmen have written books about the
cleverness of its use.
-
- We know that England is spending great sums
of money for propaganda in America during the
present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do
the same. But our interest is first in America;
and as Americans, it is essential for us to
realize the effort that British interests are
making to draw us into their war.
Then, Lindbergh began analyzing the second
group, "the Jewish."
- It is not difficult to understand why Jewish
people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The
persecution they suffered in Germany would be
sufficient to make bitter enemies of any
race.
-
- No person with a sense of the dignity of
mankind can condone the persecution of the
Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty
and vision can look on their pro-war policy here
today without seeing the dangers involved in
such a policy both for us and for them. Instead
of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this
country should be opposing it in every possible
way for they will be among the first to feel its
consequences.
-
- Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon
peace and strength. History shows that it cannot
survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted
Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to
intervention. But the majority still do
not.
-
- Their greatest danger to this country lies
in their large ownership and influence in our
motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our
government.
-
- But I am saying that the leaders of both the
British and the Jewish races, for reasons which
are understandable from their viewpoint as they
are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are
not American, wish to involve us in the
war.
-
- We cannot blame them for looking out for
what they believe to be in their own interests,
but we must also look out for ours. We cannot
allow the natural passions and prejudices of
other peoples to lead our country to
destruction.
Lindbergh then spent two paragraphs to say that
the Roosevelt Administration had used the war to
give the president a third term and to build his
power. He also alleged that Mr. Roosevelt had
attached his future to the success of Great
Britain.
When Lindbergh made this speech, Hitler was
still using his concentration camps mostly to quell
dissidents. SS guards subjected Social Democrats,
trade unionists, and Jews to hard labor, beatings,
and terror, so that, later, freed, they would tell
tales so fearsome that they would paralyze their
fellow opponents. It was to these atrocities, and
to crimes like Kristallnacht, that Lindbergh
referred with the words, "the persecutions
[Jews] suffered in Germany..."
Lindbergh could not have known that Hitler had
begun exterminating Jews wholesale shortly after
his armed forces invaded Soviet-held Poland and the
Soviet Union proper on 22 June 1941. The Nazis were
keeping these crimes very secret. Nobody outside
the German and Soviet governments, and possibly the
British and American governments, knew about
them.
In 1942, in Germany, and in the rest of his
empire, Hitler built his death camps and began
prosecuting the rest of the "Final
Solution."
Let us return to Lindbergh's Des Moines speech.
Although it was very interesting, and discussed
many facts and truths not treated here, it
contained important errors.
Here are a few.
If, in 1939, Britain could have declared war on
the Weimar Republic or the Kaiser's German Empire,
making peace might have been smart; but the Munich
Pact's aftermath had shown that trusting Adolf
Hitler was stupid.
Jewish ownership of our communications
industries was nowhere near so large as Lindbergh
thought. Lindbergh biographer A. Scott Berg reports
on Page 429:
- In fact, statistics revealed less Jewish
domination of the media than Lindbergh supposed.
A study in 1941 by a Notre Dame philosophy
professor pointed out that Jews controlled only
about three percent of the American press. The
government departments mostly responsible for
foreign policy were largely in the hands of
non-Jews; and only one Cabinet member was
Jewish. In radio NBC's twenty-six member
advisory council contained but two Jews; the
president of CBS was Jewish, but the majority of
its board of directors was non-Jewish; Mutual
was a co-operative organization, the Chicago
Tribune chief among its stockholders. And
though most of the American motion-picture
studios were owned by Jews, most were virtually
paranoid about keeping pro-Jewish sentiment off
the screen.
The influence that Lindbergh thought was Jewish
almost certainly emanated from the American
Establishment. If he had cited statistics showing
the Council on Foreign Relations' influence in the
"media," he would very likely have hit the right
target.
Concerning the British and the Jewish leaders,
Lindbergh said that he was speaking only about "war
agitators" who "wish to involve us in the war" "for
reasons that are not American."
These remarks discussed the British and Jewish
agitators, but denounced their "reasons," because,
supposedly, they were "not American." In other
words, these agitators were asking us to rescue
foreign groups for reasons alien to our interests.
[My emphasis.]
Careless listeners might have thought that
Lindbergh was denouncing the British and the Jewish
war agitators as "not American." This would have
been true of the British agitators, who, because
they were British, were not American.
What about the Jewish war agitators' reasons?
Could an American Jewish leader's urgings of
intervention be American because he was American?
Lindbergh does not clarify.
Worse, Lindbergh's statement that Jewish war
agitators' reasons were "not American" could have
led the sloppy listener to think that he was
denouncing Jews as "not American." Hitler had
abolished German Jews' German citizenship; a
carelessly listening American could have "heard"
that Lindbergh wanted to abrogate American Jews'
American citizenship. This possibility let
Roosevelt's partisans hint falsely that Lindbergh
hated Jews.
Lindbergh's comments reflect some compassion for
the Jews, but they recommend only that Jews oppose
our entering the war. The rest of the speech
advocates defense. Therefore, Lindbergh handed
President Roosevelt and his spokesmen a solid gold
comeback: because only offensive action could
rescue Hitler's victims, Lindbergh's advice was
morally wrong.
You see, naming the interventionist groups
constituted a philosophical error and a major
forensic gaffe.
Take the philosophical error. Lindbergh had said
that although "...these war agitators comprise only
a small minority of our people...", they had
"...marshalled the power of their propaganda, their
money, their patronage" "[a]gainst the
determination of the American people to stay out of
war." In other words, because the interventionists
were few, their using their power was wrong; and,
implicitly, because the anti-interventionists were
many, their reluctance was right.
This stems from "majoritarianism": the precept
that popularity legitimates ethical positions. It
is false. In ethics, no majority's size can affect
an idea's merit. Even if ninety-nine point nine
nine per cent of the American people had opposed
intervention, their position could have been
ethically wrong.
The forensic gaffe was that in naming the
agitators, Lindbergh denounced advocates of
victims. Hitler's armies had sliced through Poland,
Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium, Greece, and France,
and his thugs ruled those nations. Although the
English Channel and the Royal Air Force had
prevented Hitler's invading Britain, German bombs
had destroyed much British property and had
impoverished, maimed, and killed many Britons.
Moreover, German forces were racing across the
Soviet Union.
Charles Lindbergh recommended frustrating these
victims' spokesmen.
Lindbergh did not see that journalist's rules
cannot sustain an advocate. As a journalist,
Lindbergh could have recounted the history
preceding Hitler's attack on Poland. He could have
related the arguments given for and against
intervention; he could have listed every one of the
interventionist groups that he named in his Des
Moines speech; and, as he did, he could have
described what the most influential were doing to
move America into the war. He could have done all
of that, because, as a journalist, he would have
urged no political action.
Unhappily, a debate case has tighter
requirements, especially if it has a strong ethical
or political component. The battle over
intervention had both.
Both men's cases stemmed from collectively owned
rights. President Roosevelt's argued that keeping
Britain free would protect us, and that we have a
moral duty to rescue Hitler's victims. Lindbergh's
argued that strengthening our Armed Forces would
keep us safe, and that we have no moral duty to
rescue foreign peoples.
These positions let Americans choose between
helping President Roosevelt to aid and to rescue
foreigners, and helping Lindbergh to "save their
own skins" by withholding aid from Hitler's victims
and moving away from the war.
The result was confusion. A clear majority
favored aiding Britain, but eighty per cent wanted
not to fight. Never, before Hitler declared war on
us, did a majority of Americans favor declaring war
on the Axis.
If Lindbergh had argued from individual's
rights, the proportions might have been different.
Here is what he could have said on that
fateful evening of 11 September 1941.
- My fellow citizens:
-
- Tonight we petition our government for a
redress of grievances.
-
- President Roosevelt just told us that a
German submarine has sunk the U.S.S. Greer.
-
- The Greer was escorting cargo ships taking
American war goods to Britain, so that the
British could wage their war against
Germany.
-
- We paid for much of their cargo. Our
president and our Congress took that money out
of our pockets, despite our Constitution's
having granted no power to aid one belligerent
against another when Congress has not declared
war.
-
- Implicitly, President Roosevelt asks us to
serve the brotherhood of man, whose interests he
believes the Germans violate and the British
represent. Fortunately, Mr. Roosevelt is not
President of the World, but President of the
United States. As such, the Founding Fathers
tell us, he may do only what our Constitution
permits.
-
- Even more pertinent is the contract implicit
between our president and us.
-
- On the fourth of July, 1776, the Continental
Congress declared '...that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness, that to secure these Rights,
Governments are instituted among Men....'
-
- Every human being has the same rights as
every other. No one owns any more or any fewer.
Nevertheless, we Americans have a special
advantage.
-
- Our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution
to ensure that neither any of our Government's
branches, nor the Government as a whole, could
dominate the other branches or over-rule the
Constitution that controls them. This division
and diffusion of power makes our government's
power small and keeps our people free.
-
- Consider one American. He pays his civilian
public servants to protect his rights. He pays
more so they can buy weapons and hire soldiers,
sailors, and airmen. He demands that they not
violate the rights of one man to benefit
another.
-
- For these reasons, we must think, not about
the 'brotherhood of man,' but about our
individual American. His rights undergird the
freedom of every American citizen, and the
Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution to
protect every one of those rights.
-
- Yet, despite the lack of a Constitutional
sanction, his Congress and his president have
taken his money and spent it to help one foreign
power fight another with which our country is
not at war.
-
- Even worse, not only does the Constitution
grant no power to conscript our young American,
but its Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery
and involuntary servitude. Nevertheless, his
government is now pulling young men into our
Armed Forces.
-
- For un-Constitutional purposes, our Congress
and our president began by taking our young
American's money; then they took his liberty;
and hazards to which they might expose him could
take his life.
-
- Therefore, I charge tonight that they have
violated their promise to protect his rights and
ours.
-
- We must write, telephone, and even telegraph
our Representatives, our Senators, and even
President Roosevelt himself. We must be civil,
but we must say that when next we vote, we will
punish those who betrayed our trust.
-
- Further, we must tell our friends and
neighbors why the decisions our Congress and our
president have made are wrong, and explain why
they should join us in protesting these
outrageous usurpations.
-
- The fate of our freedom hangs in the
balance.
Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor quashed the
debate. As did many anti-interventionists,
Lindbergh believed that President Roosevelt had
deliberately provoked their raid so that we could
go to war against Hitler.
During the war, Lindbergh wangled permission to
visit the Pacific Theatre, where he taught our
flyers how to extend their airplanes' range. He
flew over fifty combat missions and shot down one
Japanese aircraft. He did all this in mufti,
because the president forbade his flying in
uniform.
Immediately after the war, he visited Europe. He
inspected the V-2 factory at Nordhausen, Germany,
viewed victims' bodies in the adjacent
concentration camp, and saw the horribly thin
survivors. He realized that Hitler was a lot worse
than he had thought before the war.
Subsequently, Lindbergh underwent a political
conversion. He appeared at the United Nations with
Philip Jessup, our ambassador of the time, during
the debate on the Berlin Airlift. He voted for
one-world liberals Adlai Stevenson, Dwight
Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard
Nixon.
Perhaps the reasons are these.
- 1. Seeing the dead bodies and emaciated
survivors of the Nordhausen concentration camp
may have created feelings of guilt, persuading
him that a moral duty to prevent the murder of
innocent people in foreign countries exists,
even at the price of starting a war. So implies
A. Scott Berg; but, Dr. Wayne S. Cole reports
that Lindbergh maintained after the war that he
and his fellow non-interventionists were right
in opposing our entry into World War II.
-
- 2. Lindbergh's father, the very honest and
conscientious lawyer and Federal Representative
Charles August Lindbergh, had fought our entry
into World War I. Our Establishment had urged
our entering that war, and Representative
Lindbergh had fought them tooth and nail. The
Establishment's retaliation had ruined the old
man. After having suffered similarly for
opposing the Establishment's similar goal, son
Lindbergh may subconsciously have decided that
they were too big for him to defeat or even to
defy.
-
- 3. His wife's education and brilliance,
employed in daily conversations, may gradually
have "brought him around." Anne was not inclined
toward partisan political activism, but she was
intellectual, articulate, and, perhaps, full of
liberal concepts she had learned in
college.
-
- 4. He came to see that applied science
cannot substitute for ethics; that, given great
power, a criminal will create great
danger.
Combined, these factors may have led him to
conclude that,
- 5. Because nuclear weapons could destroy the
world, only a world government could control
them.
There are several lessons here.
If "nature abhors a vacuum," it despises
ignorance. Lindbergh's philosophic ignorance,
coupled with his sincerity and brilliance, enabled
Dr. Carrel and Anne to teach him mystical and
political concepts very different from those he had
learned from his father.
Another concerns his premise of collectively
owned rights. Like President Roosevelt, and like
most other Americans of his time, Charles Lindbergh
believed that groups, such as nations, could own
rights. Many learned people, such as Henry M.
Wriston, wrote books advocating freedom from that
basis. Very few persisted. Wriston, for instance,
eventually joined the Establishment.
Belief in collectively owned rights eventually
produces a denial of individually owned rights,
which are all that exist. Therefore, just as
ordinary Americans' belief in collectively owned
rights has led them to desire more and more
government, so Charles A. Lindbergh came to want
big government at home and "One World"
abroad.
Lindbergh remained essentially aloof from the
public, although he did resume his aviation career,
acting as a consultant to those who sought his
services. Aviators continued admiring him as the
pioneer he truly was. In his few post-war speeches,
he said little about national defense per
se.
From his earliest days on his family's farm,
Charles Augustus Lindbergh had loved animals and
had favored "balance." This combination may have
steered him toward an early kind of
environmentalism. In our cities, our ships, and
even our airplanes, he saw a danger to the balance
between nature and man that only government could
defeat. To further these views, he gave speeches
and worked hard in Alaska and the
Philippines.
He died of cancer on the island of Maui, Hawaii,
on 26 August 1974.
If, before Paris, Charles Lindbergh had studied
Constitutional political theory, the theory of
logical argument, and how they apply to specific
issues, he might have realized that government's
sole legitimate purpose is protecting individual's
rights.
So guided, he might have argued that, when our
nation has not been attacked, defending Americans'
individual's rights did not necessitate defending
those of foreigners. That argument might have
turned the majority favoring "short-of-war" aid to
Britain into a majority opposing it.
He could not thereby have prevented the attack
on Pearl Harbor, but he could have demonstrated
that he was not pro-Nazi, shredded the
interventionists' arguments, and given America
First an ethically sound foundation.
Post-war Americans would have regarded him as a
champion of individual's rights and national
independence. Then, he might once again have raised
his famous voice to oppose our acting as the
world's policeman.
Sources:
Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II, by Wayne
S. Cole. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York and
London, 1974.
Lindbergh, by A. Scott Berg. G. P.
Putnam's Sons, New York, 1998.
"Des Moines Speech," from the Public
Broadcasting System web-site at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/amex/lindbergh/filmmore/reference/primary/desmoinesspeech.html
"[A]ddress delivered at an America First
Committee meeting in New York City on April 23,
1941." from the Public Broadcasting System web-site
at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/amex/lindbergh/filmmore/reference/primary/firstcommittee.html
"ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT DELIVERED BY RADIO
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE." May 26, 1940, 9:30 PM, E. S.
T. http://www.mhrcc.org/fdr/chat15.html
"America's Wars"--statistics on war casualties
by the Department of Veterans' Affairs' Office of
Public Affairs.
Corbett
Archive
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|