February 4, 2003

FEBRUARY 4TH HATCHLING:

-OBITUARY: Daring Lindbergh Attained the Unattainable With Historic Flight Across Atlantic: Tragedy and Controversy--Son's Murder and Opposition to War--Marked Life (ALDEN WHITMAN, August 27, 1974, NY Times)

The conservative views that Lindbergh later articulated, the remarks about Jews that proved so startling when he was opposing American entry into World War II, his adverse opinion of the Soviet Union, his belief in Western civilization--these were all a reflection of a world view prevalent among his friends, which he absorbed over the years. An engineer and aviator of genius, he was, however, not an intellectual, nor a consistent reader, nor a social analyst.

The assumption of this elitism accounted for his conviction that "America should lead the world in the development of flight," that "a conflict between English and German groups of nations would [be] a fratricidal war," that race was a valid judgmental concept and that to accomplish an objective one should deal with "the top people." It also accounted for what many people thought was his anti-Semitism.

Lindbergh did not regard himself as an anti-Semite. Indeed, he was shocked a couple of years ago when this writer put the question to him. "Good God, no," he responded, citing his fondness for Jews he had known or dealt with. Nor did he condone the Nazi treatment of German Jews, much less Hitler's genocidal policies. On the other hand, he accepted as fact that American Jewish groups were among those promoting United States involvement in World War II.

He voiced these views in a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 11, 1941. After asserting that those groups responsible for seeking American "entanglement in European affairs" were "the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration," he went on to say:

"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 the Jewish race suffered in Germany.

"But no person of honesty and vision can look on their prowar 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. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to their country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government."

The speech evoked a nationwide outcry. Lindbergh, it was said, had not only impugned the patriotism of American Jews, but also had used the word "race," a word many Jews considered both pejorative and inaccurate. Lindbergh never withdrew his remarks, which he considered statements of "obvious fact." "The violence of the reaction to my naming these groups was significant and extremely interesting," he said 25 years later. "In hindsight, I would not change my action." [...]

[A]s a distinguished aviator, he was invited to visit airplane factories in France by the French Air Ministry. He was also invited by the German Government to inspect the Luftwaffe and warplane factories in the Reich. He received red-carpet treatment, visited many factories and was told repeatedly that the Nazis were eager "to create an air force second to none." He visited Germany several times before 1938 and was increasingly impressed with the quality of the air force.

It seemed to him all the more fearsome by comparison with the air arm in Britain, France and the Soviet Union. By 1939 he had concluded that the power of the Luftwaffe was overwhelming, and that the air forces of other European countries were comparatively insignificant. In off-the- record conversations with the leaders of these countries, the Soviet Union excepted, he sought to warn them of the perils they were facing.

Neither then nor later did Lindbergh, according to his journals, believe that German air power would be the decisive factor in a war so much as it would be an essential element. And he sought to impress on France, Britain and the United States the need to bestir themselves.

Lindbergh and his family returned to the United States in 1939 shortly before World War II broke out. He felt he ought to do all he could to prevent American involvement. Not a pacifist nor an isolationist, he was a noninterventionist.

"My opposition to World War II resulted from the growing conviction that such a war would probably devastate Europe, kill millions of men and possibly result in the end of Western civilization," he told this writer a few years ago, adding:

"Under the circumstances of prewar Europe, I concluded that Germany could not be defeated without the active intervention of the United States. I doubted that Germany could be defeated even with American intervention.

"Obviously this depended a great deal on the relationship between Germany and Russia. But if Germany were defeated, it seemed to me almost certain that Russia would be the real victor and that a Stalin-dominated Europe would be even worse than a Hitler-dominated Europe.

"I felt that the wisest policy for Western powers would be to arm, stay neutral and let Germany and Russia clash--and thereafter to feel their way according to changing circumstances. I still think this would have been the wisest policy." [...]

With Pearl Harbor, America First collapsed and Lindbergh sought to join the armed forces. "Now that we are at war I want to contribute as best I can to my country's war effort," he wrote. "It is vital for us to carry on this was as intelligently, as constructively, and as successfully as we can, and I want to do my part."

His bid to soldier was rebuffed, however, an action for which he blamed Roosevelt personally. Lindbergh, then 39, joined the Ford Motor Company as a consultant, working at the Willow Run plant in Michigan, which was producing bombers. Later he was a consultant to the United Aircraft Corporation, attached chiefly to its Vought-Sikorsky Division in Stratford, Conn. Vought was producing the Navy Corsair F4U. As part of his job, he traveled to the Pacific war area in 1944 to study the Corsair under service conditions, and, as a civilian, flew 50 missions against the Japanese.


If you've never read them, Lindbergh's own book, The Spirit of St. Louis; A. Scott Berg's biography, Lindbergh; and Anne Morrow Lindbergh's Gift from the Sea are all excellent. Mr. Berg also appeared on Booknotes. And Billy Wilder, Jimmy Stewart and a fly combined for a great movie version of the Trans-Atlantic flight: The Spirit of St. Louis.

Mr. Lindbergh was guilty of using unfortunate language about Jewish influence on the American government, but he was broadly right about the war, which did in fact end up substituting Soviet tyranny for Nazi. Despite his quite public reservations, as soon as Pearl Harbor was bombed and it became obvious we were going to war he did everything he could to get in the fight. One wishes today's isolationists had reacted similarly after 9-11.

More than anything though, he too was a great American explorer, one of the driving forces behind our aerospace industry for decades, and, in a very real sense, the spiritual godfather of the Columbia crew.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 4, 2003 3:38 PM
Comments

Lindbergh was one of a numerous school of American non-interventionists -- H. L. Mencken was another. I think Mencken's case for staying out of WWI was a strong one, but WWII was impossible to stay out of. One can quarrel with the decision to aid Stalin so generously, but hardly with the decision to help Britain or to defeat Japan and the Nazis.

Posted by: pj at February 4, 2003 4:00 PM

Why? Britain was in no danger by the time we got in. And Pearl Harbor was Japan's best, and very feeble, shot. How big a favor did we do the world by swapping fascism for communism. What favor did we do ourselves by ruining our ecomy and dividing our society over a 50 year Cold War?

Posted by: oj at February 4, 2003 5:04 PM

If all we did was swap communism for fascism, it would have been no favor to the world at all. But Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have played a very positive role in the world: they were the cases that proved that capitalism could succeed anywhere, not just in the West. Re Hitler, I think England would have fallen without us, and I have to wonder: had Hitler obtained nuclear weapons, how safe would we have been? We might have had another Cold War but with two enemies, communism and Nazism. In such a case, if one of them smuggled nuclear bombs into our cities and blew them up, we wouldn't have known who to retaliate against.



I do think there is a lot of merit to your patient view. For instance, the experience of Islamofascism in Iran will make Iran thoroughly secular, perhaps even revive Christianity there. Sometimes, as with alcoholics, you have to let people suffer, learn, and reform from within, rather than try heroically to defeat evil by force. But it's impossible to know how things would have turned out with an alternative approach.

Posted by: pj at February 4, 2003 7:11 PM

Hitler declared war on the US first, anyway
--how could we have stayed out of it?

Posted by: Brian (Minnesota) at February 4, 2003 7:20 PM

Orrin, you're dead wrong about England. It was very nearly defeated AFTER we got in. Had we stayed out, the submarine campaign of the Germans would have succeeded.



Frederick Lewis Allen called Lindbergh a stunt pilot, which was just right. A good stunt pilot, but a phony hero -- at least until World War II, when some of his actions were certainly brave.



He inherited his protofascism from his dad, one of the multitude of would-be ubermenschen in the ubermidwest.



He may have been personally charming, although that is not the impression I get. But I never met him.

Posted by: Harry at February 4, 2003 8:09 PM

Orrin:



Why is it that you rely so often, and I might add, so cogently, on the arguments of the "Buchananite" or paleoconservative wing, but when they make an appearance anywhere in public, you give them no quarter? They are wrong about alot of things, no doubt; but neither do their anathematizing opponents hold a monopoly on truth.

Posted by: Paul Cella at February 4, 2003 11:09 PM

Brian:



Just say, no. If N. Korea declares war on us tomorrow we may choose to fight them, but we need not.

Posted by: oj at February 5, 2003 12:04 AM

Paul:



I consider myself a paleoconservative, except that I like immigrants, Israel, and free trade with free nations. I find it particularly amusing to note that the conservatism they (Buchanan, Luttwack, etc.) refer back to is one that would have kept all of their ancestors out.

Posted by: oj at February 5, 2003 12:15 AM

Harry:



Fredrick Lewis Allen was a fine writer and a socialist dupe. The Atlantic was littered with dead men who'd tried doing what Lindbergh was the first to do. That's heroism.

Posted by: oj at February 5, 2003 12:20 AM

Orrin:



It's not a matter of liking or disliking immigrants. To put things in such emotional, even personal, terms is to descend to the lists of leftist muddle and mediocrity in debate.



Laws are massive blunt objects. Every decision made in Washington affects millions of people, often in unforeseen ways; to tally political positions based on how they would, retrospectively, have affected ones ancestors is to set one's opinions in a sort of cowering bondage of counterfactualism. It is unworthy of serious discussion.

Posted by: Paul Cella at February 5, 2003 12:38 AM

Paul:



My ancestors tried keeping yours out because they "couldn't be assimilated". They were wrong. Now you're wrong, but your grandkids will know better. :)

Posted by: oj at February 5, 2003 10:14 AM

Third to do.



Alcock and Brown did it eight years before Lindbergh.

Posted by: Harry at February 5, 2003 2:22 PM

Alcock and Brown flew the Atlantic solo? Someone better tell the Smithsonian.

Posted by: oj at February 5, 2003 2:35 PM

Orrin:



There are other interpretations. Perhaps if your ancestors had prevailed, and mine (along with so many others) had stayed in Italy, then that celebrated nation would not be on the verge of a suicidal population implosion. My father was one of nine children; Italy, a strong European counterweight for us today against Gallic and Teutonic intransigence, could use a few families like that right now.

Posted by: Paul Cella at February 5, 2003 10:16 PM

An America deprived of the Cellas, as one deprived of the Nquyens and Cabreras, would be a lesser place.

Posted by: oj at February 6, 2003 8:34 AM

Doing it solo is what made it a stunt,

Orrin.

Posted by: Harry at February 7, 2003 12:40 AM
« FRENCH "PRINCIPLES": | Main | INSTEAD OF OVEN FRY?: »