MovieChat Forums > The Spirit of St. Louis (1957) Discussion > Lindburgh's Nazi Sympathies

Lindburgh's Nazi Sympathies

posted 12 years ago by smulkin
27 replies | jump to latest

I've read that Wilder worked with Lindburgh closely in developing this film. It seems strange that a Jew who had escaped Nazi Germany would want to direct a biopic of a Nazi sympathizer who used anti-semetic language to promote an anti-interventionist agenda during the war.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

[–] zumber1969 12 years ago

One word, money.
Lindburgh was a scumbag as simple as that. But you'll find a fair percentage which see a moneymaking idea will take it and the morality of it be damned.

[–] smulkin 12 years ago

Maybe I'm naive, but that explanation doesn't satisfy.

[–] zumber1969 12 years ago

Okay then Research how many Jews sold their neighbours down the river to save their own skins. It's human nature.

[–] smulkin 12 years ago

At this point in time, Billy Wilder had no occasion to "save his own skin." He had done quite well for himself, his most recent movie being the humongously successful The Seven Year Itch. I don't picture him, at this point in his career, scraping pennies together to buy a loaf of bread.

[–] mikekrit62 12 years ago

Hmmmm...So, your example of no morality, anything for money, is to cite Jews collaborating with the Nazis? So Billy Wilder was just another Jews selling out his "neighbours"?

And you say Lindbergh was the scumbag, huh?

That's just fascinating.

[–] alxnrth 8 years ago

What does ANY of this have to do with his transAtlantic flight achievement?

[–] ProudTraitor 11 years ago

Lindburg was young and foolish. Nationalism and antisemitism was much more prevalent and far less unacceptable in those times, it's a bit unfair to judge him by today's standards. Besides he didn't know Nazis were going to exterminate 12 million people. You have your morals developed (and learned) after the fact. It's easy to be a general after the battle.

[–] Chiscully 11 years ago

Reasonable comment.

[–] lewis-51 11 years ago

I like your comment. It's reasoned instead of vituperative, like so much these days.

Concerning Lindbergh: he wasn't young in the years when he spoke out actively against US entry into the War. He was born in 1902, so he was 37 - 39 during those years. Nor was he foolish. No way. It amazes me how often people assume he was "just a pilot" or "just a mechanic." He was extremely well read and very well travelled. He was an excellent writer (not as good as his wife was, but that's another topic).

Lindbergh was not a "Nazi sympathizer." That is the propaganda that was slung at him by those who wanted very much for the US to enter the war in Europe. It is true that he did visit Germany several times in the mid 1930s and was impressed by what he saw there (meaning the way Germany had recovered from WWI). But after Kristallnacht, he was more and more repulsed by German actions.

Lindbergh was not a "political animal"; he wasn't that kind of person. There was nothing devious about him. He could be stubborn. He sincerely believed that entering the war (in 1939-1941) was a bad mistake, that England should sue for peace with Germany. He felt that if we entered the war many hundreds of thousands of Americans would die -- which turned out to be exactly right -- and millions of those in Europe would die -- which turned out to be exactly right.

His opinions in those matters were the majority opinion in the US until late 1941. Many famous Americans said the same things he did, and in public.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

I've discussed this nonsense about Lindbergh not being a Nazi sympathizer elsewhere (in a direct reply to you, lewis-51, and on the thread you commented on by someone who called my statements about Lindbergh false), so I won't go back into that here, but I'm amazed by this comment of yours:

He felt that if we entered the war many hundreds of thousands of Americans would die -- which turned out to be exactly right -- and millions of those in Europe would die -- which turned out to be exactly right.

Yes, that's what happened. But you write as if all those lives were lost because the United States entered the war. Do you need reminding that not only hundreds of thousands of Americans died in the war -- because we were attacked -- but that those deaths, and the millions of others in Europe (and Asia), were because the Germans and Japanese invaded other nations, bombed and massacred whole populations, set up concentration camps, and slaughtered millions in wars of extermination and conquest? None of this happened because America entered the war, which is what you've written. American entry into the war saved lives and destroyed three murderous regimes. Had Lindbergh had his way, none of that would have happened.

You're also wrong when you say (as you also did elsewhere) that

His opinions in those matters were the majority opinion in the US until late 1941. Many famous Americans said the same things he did, and in public.

In fact, support for American isolationism declined steadily in 1940 and 1941 and was a minority view by mid-1941. This does not mean that a majority favored going into the war, but the pro-intervention side did outnumber the isolationists by then, with those in the middle accounting for the balance.

Also, in fact very few "famous Americans" said the same things Lindbergh did. While many were isolationist like him, few uttered the anti-Semitic, anti-British, anti-democracy-in-Europe views Lindbergh did, or had such a rosy view of Germany. After Lindbergh's Des Moines speech attacking the Jews for encouraging America into going to war, many in America First denounced him and some, like Thomas E. Dewey (who called the speech "inexcusable") resigned from the organization altogether.

[–] lewis-51 10 years ago

> Do you need reminding that not only hundreds of thousands of Americans died in the war -- because we were attacked

We were attacked in December 1941. Lindbergh's speeches, and the America First movement, were all well before that. After that attack, the isolationist movement ceased virtually overnight, and Lindbergh himself volunteered to reenter the army.

> the Germans and Japanese invaded other nations, bombed and massacred whole populations, set up concentration camps, and slaughtered millions in wars of extermination and conquest? None of this happened because America entered the war, which is what you've written.

Of course the Axis powers did horrible things. The very large majority of those things happened after December 1941. None of that is relevant to the discussion about Lindbergh. The horror of the holocaust was literally unthinkable to the vast vast majority of Americans. No one can be faulted in 1941 for not imagining what was to come.

I said many famous people supported the America First movement. Here is a link to an article that includes many names:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

The Des Moine speech was given on September 11, 1941. Here is a link to it. Anyone who is interested can read it for themselves.

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp

I for one do not see anything in that speech that is angry or propagandistic, or deserves to be called an "attack." Quite the opposite. Lindbergh was a frank and honest person. He was not politically astute. Such people in those days were usually not given the large forum and grand stage that he was. He did not see that what he was saying could be used against him -- and frankly, that might not have stopped him either. Anne and others saw immediately that not only would it be used against him, it would be used against the idea of non-intervention.

I have read all of Lindbergh's books on the war, and most of Anne's books. The overwhelming tone one gets from that is a sense of mature, reasonable, honorable people. Saints? No. Paragons? No. Political geniuses? Definitely not. But when you judge people, you must do so in the context of their times.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Please go back and re-read the portion of your Sept. 23, 2013 post I quoted. Here it is once more:

He felt that if we entered the war many hundreds of thousands of Americans would die -- which turned out to be exactly right -- and millions of those in Europe would die -- which turned out to be exactly right.

If you parse your sentence, you've written that "He felt that if we entered the war" two things would happen:

First, that we'd lose hundreds of thousands, which was true (though at times Lindbergh and other isolationists claimed it would be "millions" of Americans);

And second, that "millions of those in Europe would die". If you read this post as written, one of the points you made was that "He felt that if we entered the war...millions of those in Europe would die." The main or governing clause of your statement is "if we entered the war," followed by the two results he envisioned -- thousands of Americans dead, and millions in Europe.

This may simply be a case of sloppy writing (on your part or Lindbergh's), but as written, what you've said is that Lindbergh predicted that one of the results of America entering the war would be millions dead in Europe.

My point is that the millions killed in Europe (and in that minor side conflict in Asia and the Pacific) were killed anyway, as the direct result of the aggression by Germany, Italy, Japan and their allies. Had America not entered the war, most of those millions would still have died. (Of course, I suppose one could split hairs and argue that because of America's entry some people were killed in the liberation of Europe and Asia who otherwise might not have died had we just stayed on the sidelines and not sought to defeat the Axis.)

Of course the Axis powers did horrible things. The very large majority of those things happened after December 1941. None of that is relevant to the discussion about Lindbergh. The horror of the holocaust was literally unthinkable to the vast vast majority of Americans. No one can be faulted in 1941 for not imagining what was to come.

How can you say that none of what the Axis did is relevant to Lindbergh? It's at the very heart of the debate about him. You may be right that in 1941 few could imagine the full extent of what the Nazis planned to do as far as the Holocaust was concerned, but there was no doubt about what the Germans were actually doing just on the military and occupation fronts -- the hundreds of thousands, turning into millions, of civilians as well as military personnel, killed...not to mention the wounded, interned, homeless, imprisoned and the rest. All this had occurred and was still occurring long before December 1941.

Lindbergh well knew this, as did most people. He also knew what kind of men were at the helm of Nazi Germany. The only disapproval he ever voiced about Germany was an occasional disappointment that they went "too far", as with Kristallnacht; never did he question the underlying intents of Nazism. He's on record as supporting Hitler's territorial demands before the war; of arguing that Germany was militarily unbeatable; that Britain, France and the US should appease him so that the West could unite against what he called Asiatic Bolshevism and fight Russia (so he was not strictly anti-war, just anti- going to war with Nazi Germany); that Germany had a "Jewish problem"; that "the Jews" were driving America into the war and that the consequences would be the end of the "Jewish race" (in his Des Moines speech); that in 1941 Britain and Russia were as good as defeated and that the US "cannot win this war for" them; among other racist and defeatist remarks. Not by chance was the German-American Bund Lindbergh's strongest domestic supporter from 1939-1941.

These are at the heart of Lindbergh's beliefs, in statements he made in one form or another, over and over. They governed his thinking and his crusade against entering the war. To say that none of the events behind these statements is relevant is preposterous and dishonest.

And forgive me, but under the circumstances simply allowing that "Of course the Axis powers did horrible things" seems a mite understated. If as you say, "The very large majority of those things happened after December 1941," that's only because the bulk of the active fighting came after the US (and USSR) came into the war; because the war dragged on for four more years, vs. the two it had lasted by 1941; and because it was after 1941 that the Nazis stepped up their exterminations, which had nothing to do with the widening of combat

I've read the Des Moines speech and even heard a recording of it. You may believe that there's nothing in it that constitutes an attack, you're entitled to your opinion, but in my view only someone with blinders on could make such a statement. In any case, the fact is that a great many people at the time, not just since, felt the speech was a disaster, including Anne Lindbergh (though she believed it was bad only from a public relations standpoint, not because of its defeatist and anti-Semitic content, with which she agreed). America First itself backed away from what Lindbergh had said. So clearly people far closer to the situation than you or I realized this was a bad speech. (Yes, many famous people supported America First. Who said otherwise, and so what? Few of the organization's leaders supported Lindbergh's Des Moines remarks, which hurt the group's image. In any case, we're talking about what Lindbergh said and did, not others.)

You're correct when you say that Lindbergh was stubborn, not that politically astute (though neither was he quite the babe in the woods you depict him as), frank and somewhat naïve. Honest? Up to a point -- blunt is a better word. In any case, these qualities may help explain some of his behavior; they do not excuse it.

The literary quality of his and Anne's writings is utterly irrelevant; the fact that the impression they impart of themselves by the tone of their work, as (in your opinion) "mature, reasonable, honorable people", is also irrelevant, and disputatious; Anne's pro-Fascist screed "The Wave of the Future" is "reasonable in tone" only if you discount the content of what she's saying, and the same goes for the pair's other political writings. Perhaps you should concentrate more on their substance than their style.

Lastly, I agree with your statement that

But when you judge people, you must do so in the context of their times.

-- but only up to a point. Is Hitler to be judged only in the context of his time? What about slave-holders and secessionists? By your narrow standard, some would argue that much of what such people stood for was "reasonable" for its time. History would stand still -- accepting only contemporary judgments of people and events as valid.

Unfortunately, while putting people in their proper historical context is important, it's not a be-all and end-all. Understanding context doesn't mean accepting or excusing evil thoughts or destructive behavior. Charles Lindbergh accepted many aspects of Nazi ideology, based in part on his upbringing, his obsession with the fake science of eugenics, and his admiration for the Third Reich's "efficiency" and military prowess. He disliked Jews and non-white races. He was against going to war with Germany but not anti-war as such: he believed in the need to go to war to defeat what he termed alien ideologies such as Communism (as opposed to the "acceptable" ideology of Nazism). He was anti-democratic and a defeatist and, as it turned out, his so-called expertise on the state of European air power was wildly off and colored by his own prejudices. He wasn't a traitor, but his remarks did come close to sedition.

Had he had his way, Germany would have emerged victorious in World War II, enslaved Europe and much of the rest of the world with its Axis allies, leaving the United States at best a limited power at the mercy of foreign totalitarian powers. This is the world Charles A. Lindbergh preferred to bequeath to posterity, rather than risk going into a war he insisted -- slightly erroneously -- we could not win. Your defense of this man and his statements is bewildering, the faults you do acknowledge in him incidental. But you do seem to hold interventionists in low esteem, so your efforts to deny or mitigate Lindbergh's statements and character in this regard seem in keeping with your own apparent pro-isolationist views, 72 years after the fact.

[–] evilbastard9 9 years ago

Lindberg supported the war after Pearl Harbor. He flew fifty combat missions in the pacific as a civilian consultant.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

It's true he flew many combat missions in the Pacific and may have shot down two Japanese planes. But he still regretted that America had entered the war and did not so much "support the war" as such, but rather simply did what work he could for the country's war effort. At a dinner party a few weeks after Pearl Harbor he expressed regret that, as he put it, in this war the white race was divided against "the Mongolian".

Lindbergh's contributions during the war were honorable and deserve to be noted. None of that mitigates or excuses his pre-war actions and statements and it's important to note that he never apologized for his racist sentiments, expressed any remorse or admitted to any mistaken beliefs or actions, including about his pro-Nazi isolationism.

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 8 years ago

No no and no.

It is true that he did visit Germany several times in the mid-1930s and was impressed by what he saw there (meaning the way Germany had recovered from WWI). But after Kristallnacht, he was more and more repulsed by German actions.

Kristallnacht was not until November 9-10, 1938! Germany was about to invade one after the other of its neighbors. The year of Lindbergh's tansAtlantic flight, 1927, Hitler held the 1st Nuremberg Rally. Below, I've listed the significant developments between 1933 and 1941 when Lindbergh and these other Americans finally decided we had to enter the war. For a well-traveled man who visited Germany during this time, no one can plead his ignorance to the policies of the nazi toward the Jews as they may for American drop-outs from high school who did not have access to European news updates, political positions of German leaders, and details of what atrocities were becoming widespread. I'd not expect a man living in a WPA work camp who dropped out of school in the 10th grade to help support his family to have heard of Himmler or Heydrich--but if one was spending more than a few days in Berlin? While an American may not have heard of the Final Solution implemented in 1941, it would be hard not to know that every week of two thousands were massacred in one country after the other and Germans demanded each new conquest adopt their harsh treatment of Jews.Sure, one would not be able to recite the massacres, but a person had to know some were happening and Germans were spreading the violence.

After Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on January 30, 1933, he took only a few days to define "lebensraum"--his policy of expanding into other countries to take land for "living space" for his mythical race of "Aryan Germans." By March 22, 1933, Dachau, the 1st concentration camp is opened. Within 2 months of assuming power, Hitler had banned the majority political party--the Communists, and secured passage of the Enabling Acts--which essentially made him a dictator who created his own legislation, passed, and enforced it. By May 10th, he was banning and burning 25,000 books by Jewish authors. The Gestapo was formed. Trade Unions were banned. Soon all political parties were banned except the Nazis. On June 30th, the Night Of The Long Knives takes place--Ernst Rhoem and between 175 and 300 former allies are arrested, killed, talked into suicide.... Eastern European Jews who had immigrated were prohibited from being German citizens. It's still 1933.

In 1934, Hitler tells German women their world is husband, family, and home. And he proclaims himself "der Fuhrer." The military takes an oath to support him personally instead of the office he holds. The democracy he so reviles is gone. Did Lindbergh understand this? Agree?

In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were passed, whereby Jews were denied German citizenship and could not fly the German flag. Intermarriage with Jews was prohibited. In 1936, Jewish doctors were prohibited from practicing medicine in German institutions, and Sachsenhausen concentration camp opened.

A year later, in 1937, Buchenwald opened, and after that, Flossenburg and Mauthausen in 1938. Austria was incorporated, and antisemitic decrees were applied to Austria. Jewish passports were marked with a "J." All Jewish property had to be registered. Polish Jews were expelled from Germany, and Kristallnacht (supposedly what finally triggered Lindbergh to begin thinking critically about the Nazis) targeted synagogues (destroying 200,000, up in flames across the country). 30,000 Jewish men were sent to Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen--this is well beyond a hint of the Final Solution to come. It's implementing what has been discussed ever since Mein Kampf was dictated. 7500 Jewish shops were looted. Days later, all Jews were forced to transfer their retail businesses to Aryan hands and all Jewish students were expelled from schools. By December, a one billion mark fine was levied against Jews (!) for the destruction of (their own) property (by persons pushed to do so by the govt) during Kristallnacht!

1939 begins with Hitler stating that if war erupts, it will mean the extermination of the Jews. (Yet Lindbergh and others are still just "growing disillusioned" with Germany and still need another 23 months before they accept that war is inevitable....?) On March 15, 1939, Germany invades Czechoslovakia. In May, 1939, Ravensbruk concentration camp opened, in August, Germany signs a non-aggression pact with the USSR, and on September 1st, Germany invades Poland, dressing in Polish uniforms to pretend Poland (with its small army still on horseback and little air force) attacked Germany first. With that, England and France must join the war against Germany because they have a treaty with Poland. Over 16,000 civilians were murdered, including 5000 Jews, Czech and Austrian Jews began to be deported o Poland and the directive was signed to establish ghettoes in Poland; the first ghetto was constructed.

In 1940, Germany occupies Denmark and southern Norway, and has invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The Lodz Ghetto was sealed--165,000 people are forced into 1.6 square miles. The Warsaw ghetto is sealed, it ultimately contains 500,000 people. France surrenders and the Battle of Britain begins. Auschwitz concentration camp is established, and Neuengamme concentration camp opens, as does the Breendonck camp in Belgium.

In 1941, (Lindy still isn't ready to go to war until December), anti-Jewish riots in Romania cause the deaths of hundreds of Jews, and German authorities begin rounding up Jews to transfer to the Warsaw ghetto while 10,000 died of starvation between January and June. Germany attacks and occupies Yugoslavia and Greece, and invades the Soviet Union.

Also in 1941, the Einzatzgruppen extermination squads begin massacring Russians and Jews in occupied territories. Some examples are: 5,200 Jews murdered in Byalistok, 2,000 Jews murdered in Minsk, 5,000 Jews murdered in Vilna, 5,000 Jews murdered in Brest-Litovsk, 5,000 Jews murdered in Tarnopol, 3,500 Jews murdered in Zloczow, 11,000 Jews murdered in Pinsk, 14,000 Jews murdered in Kamenets Podolsk, 12,287 Jews murdered in Kishinev. Hundreds of other massacres are perpetrated by the Nazis in Russia, i.e. 148,000 Jews are murdered in Bessarabia between July and October 1941. In June, Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp is opened, and in the Fall, Belzec. On Sept. 28-9, 34,000 Jews are massacred outside Kiev, Ukraine. In October, Auschwitz II (Birkenau) is established for the extermination of Jews. Gypsies, Poles, Russians, and others were also murdered at the camp... But people are not ready to go to war until the Nazis declare war on the U.S.? Only an antisemitism would enable a person to turn a blind eye on these atrocities.

If Lindbergh visited Germany in the mid-1930s, either he had to approve anti-democratic measures, fascism, antisemitism and the outright existence of a police state, or he had to take a position against it. At a minimum not support it... How could one possible wait until outright destruction of the lives of millions of people and everything they held dear, and then say that began to change their mind...? It took more than a series of concentration camps. It took more than the invasions of countries from Norway to Poland, Denmark, through Europe to France and across to the east to Russia, Ukraine, Greece...every country Germany bordered as it expanded became subject to the laws, murder, and pillaging.

And saddest about those who continued to oppose involvement in a war against Germany, America was next on Germany's list of Lebensraum targets. Hitler despised democracy and thought the "melting pot" was vastly inferior to the (mythological) Aryan super race of Germans, and hated the freedom of religion America valued.

If one's opposition to Hitler and Nazis waited until Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the U.S. to express itself, either they approved the policies of antisemitism or they lived with their head under a rock. I remind you that the U.S. ambassador's family that lived in Germany in 1933 learned pretty quickly about the terrible violence of the regime, the murders of communists, Gypsies and Jews, and that many had already begun to flee in 1933, leaving behind homes, businesses and valuables. I've set forth the progressive destruction of everything in Europe that ought to have turned anyone who was travelling there on notice that the regime did not value anything we as Americans value. To support that progress shows what Lindbergh valued--and it appears to be order, authority, law, military power and expansion, antisemitism and a belief white non-Jewish racial qualities were superior, anticommunism, and a fascist economic system--not the freedom of speech, expression, and religion embodied in our Constitution, nor our free-wheeling capitalist economy, nor any desire for peace after the disastrous first world war.

[–] pullman1881 9 years ago

There seems to be disagreement as to whether he was a Nazi sympathizer or simply an isolationist. Regardless, the story of him and this flight deserve to be told. It was a monumental accomplishment.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Agree about the movie, though the story of his flight could have been done better than in this film.

Lindbergh was both an isolationist and sympathetic to the Nazi regime and ideology. The public record is clear on this. It was the taint of his anti-Semitism and his friendliness to Nazi Germany and its goals (linked to his blatant anti-British attitudes and his defeatism) that eventually alienated some America Firsters, all of whom were blindly isolationist but by no means pro-German or sympathetic to Nazi ideology, as Lindbergh generally was. He and his wife both believed Nazism was, in the words of Anne's 1940 book on the subject, "the wave of the future", and did not have any problem with this prospect.

[–] bloody-3 9 years ago

Lindbergh did not support intervention because of the blatant hypocrisy of the warmongers. The United States was created to get away from British imperialism. America had been at war with Britain twice - in 1776 and 1812. During the war of 1812 the British burned down the White House - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington Memories of this fueled isolationist sentiment. The British accused the Germans of trying to take over the world which is absolute garbage coming from the people who had the largest empire in world history. The pot calling the kettle black. The British occupied country after country and they would have had the United States too if they hadn't successfully rebelled in 1776. The British committed many massacres and atrocities over the centuries. Their propaganda that the empire was some kind of humanitarian enterprise and a bastion of liberty is rubbish. During world war 2 Churchill allowed millions of Indians to starve to death during the Bengal famine 1942-43 - http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8241 Food that could have relieved the famine was shipped to Britain on his orders instead. The British also used starvation as a tactic in Ireland in the 19th century - www.wolfetonesofficialsite.com/famine.htm and in Germany after world war one - www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/starva tion1919.html The British had the blood of millions on their hands that is why a great many Americans did not support them.
And then there's Roosevelt and all the other warmongers foaming at the mouth about Hitler being a dictator. But FDR supported Stalin who was a dictator in fact everything he condemned in Hitler - dictatorship, one party state, concentration camps, secret police, press censorship - he supported in Stalin. The interventionists were asking the American public to support this sickening double standard. Is it any wonder that a lot of them didn't want to get involved in the war? Especially when Stalin and the soviet communists were involved in millions of deaths through executions, purges, slave labor and man made famines - www.holodomor.org.uk before the war even started.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Everything you say about the history of Britain and its Empire, and about Stalin and the USSR, is essentially true. Everybody knows it and nobody except willfully blind ideologues denies it.

The Unites States also engaged in wars to expand its territory, had slavery, massacred or exiled Indian tribes and took their land, had long condoned racism and done a lot of other bad things. Yet we always claimed to be a bastion of freedom and loudly proclaimed ourselves as the land of liberty even as millions were denied their rights. The French claim to be the land of liberté, egalité et fraternité yet they've had dictatorships, their own cruel Empire, and routinely violated human rights even among their own citizens.

Point is, every country that has ever existed in the world is hypocritical when comparing what it says it stands for with what it actually does. Even Vatican City.

That said, you're being untruthful in claiming "Lindbergh did not support intervention because of the blatant hypocrisy of the warmongers." Lindbergh was anti-British and anti-Soviet but not only because of their records. First, he was an isolationist: he opposed US action overseas no matter who it was in support of. Second, he was a vehement racist and anti-Semite; throughout his life he was disparaging of non-whites and Jews. But third, he was also pro-Nazi. He admired Hitler and his regime and while on occasion he was upset by their "excesses" -- not from moral objections but because he thought things like Krystallnacht were mostly just bad public relations and did their cause more harm than good -- he was in fundamental sympathy with their racial policies and nationalistic aims. He never had a problem with the Nazis' ideology.

Your false assertion that Lindbergh was opposed to "warmongers" is belied by the fact that Lindbergh did not oppose German military aggression. War as such wasn't his main problem; he was only interested in keeping the US uninvolved and allowing Germany to win, since he was on record saying in 1940 and 1941 that both Britain and the USSR were beaten and that "the United States cannot win this war" for them. He never condemned German warmongering -- or actual war-making. Nor did he condemn the Nazi dictatorship, its police state, its elimination of rights and freedoms, its concentration camps, or its genocidal policies. Lindbergh was the biggest hypocrite of them all.

Another bit of fakery: "The British accused the Germans of trying to take over the world which is absolute garbage coming from the people who had the largest empire in world history." Yes, the British had a global empire, but their accusations about German intentions were spot-on. Or have you never heard the Nazis' proclamation, "Today Germany -- tomorrow the world!"? And while the British, like every empire, occasionally committed atrocities and curbed their subject people's liberties, the British Empire was never predicated on the principle of exterminating and enslaving "sub-human" races, as the Nazis' imperialism was. But I guess at worst you'd credit the Nazis with being honest about it.

You are also being untruthful when you claim that Roosevelt "supported" Stalin and his dictatorship. Roosevelt did not support Stalin's purges, death camps, forced starvation and the rest. It's true that in some respects he was naïve about Stalin and the Soviet Union but he never "supported" Stalin's dictatorial methods or actions. However, he and Churchill both understood that Germany was the more immediate threat and that the only way to stop the Nazis was by being in alliance with Stalin. It may have been a deal with the devil, but at that moment it was the only choice to be made.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that your friend Adolf made his own pact with Stalin in 1939, each for his own imperialist ambitions. Hitler had no problem conniving with Stalin for blatantly "warmongering" and imperialist reasons. Lindbergh was never critical of Hitler for this pact...unlike his criticism of FDR for providing Lend-Lease to Russia after it was attacked. That deal with Stalin was terrible, at least by Lindy's lights.

Your attacks on others for making "foaming at the mouth" tirades is laughably ridiculous considering all your rabid, foam-flecked posts as an apologist for Hitler and Nazi Germany that litter the IMDb boards. I was wondering when you would throw your two Marks into this discussion.

[–] bloody-3 9 years ago

If Lindbergh was an admirer of Hitler then so what? Since when does everyone have to be a Hitler hater like you? It was his democratic right to admire anyone he chose. The slogan "Today Germany tomorrow the world" is about the spread of national socialism as an ideology and people awakening to the dangers of soviet communism and their democratic dupes such as Churchill and Roosevelt. https://enochered.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/we-will-force-this-war-upon -hitler-if-he-wants-it-or-not-winston-churchill/ The British were brutal in their dealings with occupied peoples of the empire. You completely ignore the fact that the British starved millions of people to death. A complete whitewash. You completely ignore the British burning the White House as well. Millions of subjects toiled on plantations or down mines for pennies a day while the British made millions of pounds in profit. They were subjected to financial slavery and exploitation of their natural resources. http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8241
I am not being "untruthful" about Roosevelt's support of Stalin's dictatorship. Can you please provide one quote where FDR condemns Stalin for being a dictator in the same terms that he condemns Hitler? I can't find any. Was Roosevelt being "naieve" when he covered up the Katyn massacre of Polish officers for Stalin? www.katyn.org.au Not in the least! He knew Stalin's true nature! In 1939 FDR told the Polish government to stand up to the Germans and not negotiate over Danzig. At the same time he was informed that the Soviets were also going to invade but did not let the Poles know - http://codoh.com/library/document/2051/ See also www.jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/fdr.html
I am not ignoring the fact of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But everyone who is aware of this would realise that the "democratic" governments of Britain and France were engaged in negotiations with the USSR beforehand and had no qualms about doing a deal with the dictator Stalin - http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7737 If Hitler hadn't made a deal the British and French would have tried again.
Lindbergh was critical of the lend lease to the Soviet Union because it was a brutal dictatorship which is what Roosevelt claimed to be fighting against. It was blatant hypocrisy. Also supplying Stalin with military aid was not living up to the claims of the Atlantic Charter - http://codoh.com/library/document/2095/
No matter how much you try and whitewash it both Churchill and Roosevelt both sold out democracy by allying with Stalin and then letting him take over half of Europe including Poland which was the cause of going to war in the first place - www.heretical.com/miscellx/churchil.html
www.jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/fdr.html
The end result of Churchill and Roosevelt's bad statesmanship - 5 years after world war 2 British and American servicemen being killed and wounded by arms and ammunition supplied by Stalin to the Chinese and North Korean communists during the Korean War - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_the_Korean_War You are an apologist for Stalin and the soviet communists and the British imperialists who have the blood of tens of millions on their hands. And if you think my posts are "laughably ridiculous" then why do you even bother to respond? You're a hypocrite!

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Responding to a moronic post like yours doesn't make one a "hypocrite". Obviously you don't know the meaning of that word.

However, you have a point about the uselessness of arguing with a psychotic. Your anti-Roosevelt, anti-British rants sound like the lunatic ravings of someone who still thinks it's 1941. And clearly you're pro-fascist and pro-Nazi. Obviously you'd have preferred that Hitler won the war. You don't have any qualms about the consequences of that eventuality. And yes, you certainly have a right to say that -- free speech, a right you wouldn't have had Germany won the war. (Not that that would have been a problem for you, since you would just be parroting National Socialist propaganda anyway.) Still, a few farewell comments:

The slogan "Today Germany tomorrow the world" is about the spread of national socialism as an ideology and people awakening to the dangers of soviet communism and their democratic dupes such as Churchill and Roosevelt.

No, it's about Germany conquering and enslaving the world. I suppose her invasions, subjugation or attacks on over 20 countries aside from the USSR was just in the interest of awakening people to the dangers of Communism and of Roosevelt and Churchill? You are a loon, and, for a congenital liar, pretty clumsy at it.

In 1939 FDR told the Polish government to stand up to the Germans and not negotiate over Danzig. At the same time he was informed that the Soviets were also going to invade but did not let the Poles know.

False. Roosevelt never told the Poles to do anything regarding Danzig. The United States was barely even a minor factor in Europe before the war. The Poles themselves refused to negotiate with Hitler, as even the British and French tried to get them to do. Nor did he know he Russians were going to invade -- no one did. This is a lie. Besides which, the Soviet invasion was only planned following the Nazi-Soviet Pact on August 23, so neither FDR nor anybody else could have informed the Poles about an invasion "at the same time" he was allegedly telling them not to negotiate over Danzig. Moronic falsehoods all around.

I am not ignoring the fact of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But everyone who is aware of this would realise that the "democratic" governments of Britain and France were engaged in negotiations with the USSR beforehand and had no qualms about doing a deal with the dictator Stalin

First, you did ignore the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Second, Britain and France were involved in half-hearted negotiations with the USSR for months but because the British government in particular did not believe that Stalin's USSR was a useful ally they dragged their feet and refused to make any firm commitments themselves. Stalin was therefore receptive to a better deal from the Nazis -- one that would give him something the western allies could not -- territory.

No matter how much you try and whitewash it both Churchill and Roosevelt both sold out democracy by allying with Stalin and then letting him take over half of Europe including Poland which was the cause of going to war in the first place

Well, in actual history democracy was saved in WWII, survived and triumphed, even in the former Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan. It was not "sold out", an asinine statement even for you. Actually Stalin did not take over "half" of Europe, but it's true he did establish Soviet dictatorships and hegemony over Eastern Europe that lasted 45 years. It has obviously escaped your notice, however, that in time these dictatorships were all brought down by the people themselves and replaced by democratic governments allied with the West -- including Poland.

Your alternative would obviously to have been to allow Hitler to have taken over these countries instead. I suppose by your lights that would have been a victory for democracy -- or rather, a victory for something better than democracy.

You completely ignore the British burning the White House as well.

Yes, I did. That happened in 1814. By the 1940s one or two things had changed in the intervening 130 years, but then you don't seem to notice things like that. It isn't 1945 anymore either, though you'd never know it to read your bilge. The rest of the world, unlike you, doesn't stand still.

The end result of Churchill and Roosevelt's bad statesmanship - 5 years after world war 2 British and American servicemen being killed and wounded by arms and ammunition supplied by Stalin to the Chinese and North Korean communists during the Korean War

Right about the Korean War, wrong as usual about the reasons. Not "bad statesmanship" but the unfortunate consequence of not being able to control every event or an aggressive nation like the USSR and having to make some compromises that do not work out. This has been the way of this imperfect world throughout history. And again, what's your alternative? An Axis victory in WWII. That would have avoided the Korean War, no doubt about it.

You are an apologist for Stalin and the soviet communists and the British imperialists who have the blood of tens of millions on their hands.

In fact, I'm not, as my previous post made clear to any rational person (which, admittedly, omits you). You are a liar as well as an idiot.

And if you think my posts are "laughably ridiculous" then why do you even bother to respond? You're a hypocrite!

Which is where we came in. Obviously you have no understanding of the word "hypocrite", which makes no sense in this context. (And why do you bother to respond?) However, it is pointless to argue with an imbecile, let alone one who's a Nazi apologist. For all your forthings at the mouth you don't give a damn about democracy or anything like it. You're a pro-fascist, pro-Nazi hypocrite (in its correct usage), a Hitler apologist who would simply prefer a world run by your brand of war-mongering dictatorial racist murderers. It isn't dictatorial methods, murder, torture, war or police states you object to. It's only that Hitler and Nazi Germany aren't the ones committing these acts.

[–] Eric-62-2 9 years ago

As a conservative who is no fan of how FDR and his administration conducted itself re: Stalin during the war (I really question whether FDR really saw Stalin different from how he would view a political boss; his whole approach to dealing with Stalin IMO was like that of someone thinking he could handle him the same way he handled political bosses of big city machines), I nonetheless disassociate myself totally from bloody-3's remarks. They are formed on mostly absurd premises and a misguided attempt to rehabilitate someone who doesn't deserve it on that subject.

To me, the only thing about Lindbergh that I find interesting is how there is too often an inability on the part of some to realize that a decade after Lindbergh underwent a thorough ostracizing from respectable society because of his anti-Semitic speeches and was in effect "blacklisted" from the mainstream of American society, the similar ostracizing that took place of American Communists who espoused viewpoints that were equally repugnant stemmed from pretty much the *same* impulse. Yet often, there is a tendency to call the attitudes behind blacklisting of suspected communists (and I am not simply referring to entertainment industry figures) as "paranoia" and a comment on the hysterical mindset of those who were outraged, without realizing that the reaction was pretty much the same when it came to Lindbergh (and civil libertarians would have to note that FDR also had Lindbergh's mail opened during this time which you can make a case for or against depending on your perception of how much do you think Lindbergh was a security risk etc. but if you choose to study that with detachment, then what followed a decade later deserves the same, which is often lacking in so many studies).

If there is one figure who perhaps represents the flipside of Lindbergh, to me it would be Paul Robeson. No one would deny his singing talent in the same way no one could ever deny Lindbergh's courage as an aviator and no one would ever deny or dispute the personal traumas of their lives (racism in Robeson's case, the tragedy of the kidnapping and murder of Charles, Jr. in Lindbergh's). But just as Lindbergh made his repulsive anti-Semitic speech and had clear pro-Nazi leanings, Robeson was an out and out Stalinist who dishonored every black-American who fought for Civil Rights *without* making themselves willing tools for Soviet propaganda as Robeson did. Yet there is sometimes an unfortunate tendency to suggest that racism alone is at the heart of any criticism of Robeson's actions or beliefs which IMO does no study of Civil Rights any favor just as efforts to whitewash Lindbergh does no study of diplomacy and foreign policy in this era any favors. As I've said, I believe FDR was naïve about Stalin in his approach to diplomacy but I'm not going to argue that viewpoint by embracing the POV of someone who brought on his own troubles with his outrageous viewpoints and was rightly ostracized at the time for it. Does that mean he didn't deserve to have the feats he had received due honor for remembered like his flight across the Atlantic? That's a tougher question because I could see the argument for a story about Robeson dealing with things that have nothing to do with his Stalinism just as Spirit of St. Louis is a film about a time in Lindbergh's life before his reprehensible activity took place. And I can conversely see why it would make others object.

[–] bloody-3 9 years ago

Roosevelt was a pathological liar. Lindbergh was right not to trust him. Roosevelt signed the Atlantic Charter which in its stated aims was inconsistent with British imperialism and Soviet communism - http://codoh.com/library/document/2095/
Further proof that the Atlantic Charter was a fraud was when Britain and the USSR invaded Iran in August 1941 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran The Shah appealed to Roosevelt who did nothing. He flat out refused to help even though it was a case of aggression. Is it any wonder that the British military historian J F C Fuller referred to the Atlantic Charter as a hoax.
Roosevelt admitted to being dishonest. When he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy he bragged that he "broke enough laws to be put in the penitentiary for 999 years". This out of his own mouth! Lindbergh knew Roosevelt was lying his way into war. He was corresponding secretly with Churchill even before he became prime minister in ways to bring the US into the war. A clerk at the US embassy in London made copies of their correspondence in which Roosevelt pledged to help Britain militarily while in public preaching neutrality. His name was Tyler Kent - http://codoh.com/library/document/2049/
Lindbergh knew he was dealing with a lying politician. We all know the type they say one thing and do the opposite. Roosevelt's talk of "neutrality" was phoney. He supplied one side (first the British then the Soviets) with arms and ammunition. Giving aid to one side in a conflict is not neutrality. Lindbergh and the other isolationists did not support sending military aid to either side. They were genuine in their neutrality.
During the War of 1812 the British burned the White House to show their contempt for American democracy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington FDR wanted everyone to forget about this. The British Empire covered approximately a quarter of the earths surface and was in existence for hundreds of years before there was a nazi party in Germany. They have a hell of lot more blood on their hands! Their policy of starvation is particularly cruel as a person can take up to a month to die and you slowly waste away each day as the inhabitants of Ireland, Germany and India found out - http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8241
Political contemporaries condemned Roosevelt for his lying. One such incident was a map FDR claimed showed a planned German invasion of South America in which they would take over that continent. He even gave a radio speech about it. The whole story was a complete fabrication - http://codoh.com/library/document/2119/
Hamilton Fish was one such contemporary. A congressman and World War One veteran he wrote 2 books about the lies, warmongering and bootlicking of Stalin by Roosevelt. FDR:The Other Side of the Coin and Tragic Deception:FDR and America's Involvement in World War II - www.amazon.com/Tragic-Deception-Americas-involvement-World/dp/08159691 71/
Roosevelt called it a "war for democracy" but deceitfully included Stalin's USSR as one of the "democracies".
At the end of the war Roosevelt betrayed democracy by allowing Stalin to take over Poland and eastern Europe. Lindbergh's opinion of Roosevelt as being thoroughly untrustworthy has been vindicated.

[–] lewis-51 8 years ago

> both believed Nazism was, in the words of Anne's 1940 book on the subject, "the wave of the future", and did not have any problem with this prospect.

This is not true. Anne Lindbergh never sympathized with the Nazis. Around 1935-37, she and Charles were impressed by what the German government (headed by Hitler) had accomplished in Germany, how the country was revitalized after the terrible years post WWI. Not only was the economy thriving, there was an air of optimism all over. They saw that. That was to the good.

Anne did not like the totalitarianism. She did not like the anti-semitism, which was already quite obvious. In her book "The Wave of the Future" she did not say "we ought to emulate Germany and become totalitarian." No way. She writes at length about this later in her life; I don't remember just where. She laments that she was misunderstood (in that book) by so many people. Some have suggested that "the media" intentionally twisted her words when they reviewed the book or talked about it on the radio. OTOH, I've read the book and I can see why people took the wrong impression. It's not as well put together as her other books, most of which are masterpieces.

So what did she mean in "The Wave of the Future"? She was saying that the Germans and the Russians seemed to be on to something, that these totalitarian regimes seemed to have grabbed the imagination of "the People". She did not like it at all. She was not advocating, but warning and lamenting.

As for Charles, yes he was anti-British. He thought the British were trying in underhanded ways to get the US into the war. That belief was very common in the US in 1939-1940. The majority of Americans were isolationist, especially in the midwest. Because he was so famous, the leaders of America First were delighted to have him come to their meetings and speak. He was delighted to do so.

As I've posted elsewhere, neither Anne nor Charles were all that wise or politically experienced at this time. Anne was 33 when she wrote The Wave of the Future. She had spent most of the previous ten years as a mother of four children, one of whom was murdered, and whose death was constantly in the headlines. Though she was a thoughtful talented person who had excelled in an excellent college, she had no graduate degree. So why was such a person even published? Because she was so famous, and her son was murdered. Make of that what you will.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

False. Anne Lindbergh, like Charles, most certainly did admire the Nazis, as you yourself state:

Around 1935-37, she and Charles were impressed by what the German government (headed by Hitler) had accomplished in Germany, how the country was revitalized after the terrible years post WWI. Not only was the economy thriving, there was an air of optimism all over. They saw that. That was to the good.

To the good? You speak as though Nazi Germany were some benevolent state, accomplishing great strides through peaceful means. It's quite telling that you ignore specifics or any unpleasant aspects of the Nazi regime.

AML believed Nazism and Fascism were, as her title flatly and indisputably states, the wave of the future -- at least for Europe. It was not a cautionary tome nor one written in resignation to a regrettable outcome. She was not displeased at the prospect of a triumphant Germany ruling Europe in a new Dark Age. While she may not have endorsed the wholesale butchery of the regime, she remained purposefully blind to it and never allowed a few minor distasteful aspects to cause her to lose faith in the fundamental policies of the Nazis. To say that "she did no like it at all" is as outrageous a lie as one can make. She was fundamentally at ease with Nazi Germany. One need not have been a fanatic giving the Nazi salute to admire and encourage German aggression or the Nazis' general concept of race and society. And Charles was, of course, of a piece with this.

Nor did she lump the Soviets in with the Germans as political allies advocating equally desirable policies. The Lindberghs were fervent anti-Communists. Neither looked upon the murderous Stalin and his dictatorship with the benign admiration with which they viewed the murderous Hitler and his dictatorship. Whatever affinity on the part of their respective peoples she may have claimed each regime enjoyed, she did not hold them in like regard and hoped for the defeat of Communism. That may have been to the good, but not at the expense of establishing Nazi domination of half the world. Whether she, or they, overtly advocated Nazi conquest, the fact is they did not condemn or, certainly, regret it. Lindbergh's sole regret about an event such as Kristallnacht was that the Germans had made it at an inauspicious time and manner -- as something a bit excessive, and perhaps better left undone or at least done in a more restrained fashion, but understandable nonetheless. The fact that he welcomed the German invasion of the USSR and the Germans' war against Britain shows that Lindbergh and his wife saw Germany as the preferred alternative to both Communism and democracy.

What she wrote many years later is nothing more than self-serving drivel designed to rewrite history and deny her past. Fortunately she and her husband were on the record, in books, speeches and other public media in advocating, or at least not resisting, the war aims of Nazi Germany. It was more than simply being anti-British or anti-Soviet; they were defeatist and and believers in, or at a minimum admirers of, Fascism.

Obviously neither Charles nor Anne was politically wise or informed. But much of his was mere willful ignorance rooted in racial and religious bigotry and admiration for a murderous and authoritarian regime. At base they were racists, anti-Semites and hostile to western concepts of democracy. All the more reason for them not to have made themselves such public admirers of Germany. Lindbergh never renounced anything he said before the U.S. entered WWII. Anne's latter-day "explanations" and attempted revision of the facts were just cowardice and lies.

As to why she was a published author, she was a well-regarded writer (in terms of the competency of her prose if not the content of her works) and of course a famous person. It had nothing to do with her having had her son kidnapped and murdered, a bizarre claim to say the least. As to her age when she wrote The Wave of the Future, 33 is not 16. She was a well-traveled, well-educated woman from a prominent family, married to a prominent man. She was willfully ignorant and later dishonest, but she was not unintelligent. Many lesser people, and less intelligent ones, got published even then. Her being an author at that age was neither unusual, strange nor particularly untoward, the stupidity of much of what she wrote notwithstanding. In any event, this has nothing to do with the fact that she was an author who echoed her husband's pro-Fascist beliefs and encouraged some of the worst elements in this country.

[–] rudykawa 8 years ago

Well.
You would know that being anti-semitic was not something that the Nazis invented out of nowhere, they took it out of their hat. Anti-semitism was a thing that did exist not only in Europe but also in the US (where many immigrant Jews had to change their family names because they knew that otherwise they would be heavily bullied or outcasted). So if he carried some of that sentiment, he was not alone.

[–] Satan2016 (23367) 4 years ago

It's a filthy lie by his enemies, just read Wikipedia. He went to Germany and Russia to evaluate their air force for the allies. He was a war hero.