|
Charles A. Lindbergh - Sacrificing Privacy for Principle
By Michael Collins Piper
The private wartime journals of the famed aviator Charles A. Lindbergh provide remarkable insights into not only the magnificent brain of this selfless, courageous and unstintingly conscientious American legend but also into the corrupt and unrelenting power politics of the period that propelled the United States into the second world war.
During the years leading up to World War II, Col. Charles Lindbergh broke a lifetime tradition and began keeping de tailed diaries of his day-to-day activities, chronicling his views toward the public issues and personalities of the day, addressing in particular those aspects of U.S. policy relevant to the growing troubles in Europe.
Lindbergh felt so strongly about the necessity of derailing the drive toward war that he felt that it was his duty to step out of his own effective, self-imposed exile from public life and put his reputation forward as a voice of reason in opposition to the ever-burgeoning push for war. With this in mind, Lindbergh felt it vital to keep a diary of that stormy period. He realized, soon enough, that his real views on many issues were being distorted by a hostile, war-mongering media and while he acknowledged that his diary could not cover everything, it would “show the falsity of at least some of the stories told.”
In later years, Lindbergh’s concerns were proven correct. When, at the urging of publisher William Jovanovich, Lindbergh read just one of the more than 20 biographies that had been written about him, Lindbergh did so, later sending Jovanovich a document of 76 typewritten pages listing factual inaccuracies in the book in question, a volume largely based upon newspaper stories as the sources. Ironically, according to Jovanovich, this Lindbergh biography was actually one of the more temperate and even-handed volumes written, yet it too relied upon the very “falsity” that rightly concerned Lindbergh.
In 1970 Jovanovich prevailed upon Lindbergh to publish extensive excerpts from his journals. The final published volume, covering some 1,000 pages, appeared under the title The Wartime Journals of Charles Lindbergh, covering the period from March 11, 1938, to June 15, 1945, at the time the war was winding down.
Prior to publishing these diaries, Lindbergh wrote his publisher a letter reflecting on the period that he spent “re-rereading” his journals for the first time after so many years and preparing them for publication. According to Lindbergh:
You ask what my conclusions are, rereading my journals and looking back on World War II from the vantage point of a quarter-century in time. We won the war, in a military sense; but, in a broader sense, it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before.
In order to defeat Germany and Japan, we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China—which now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved. The British empire has broken down with great suffering, bloodshed, and confusion. England is an economy-constricted secondary power. France had to give up her major colonies and turn to a mild dictatorship herself. Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through eons in many million lives. Meanwhile, the Soviets have dropped their iron curtain to screen off Eastern Europe, and an antagonistic Chinese government threatens us in Asia.
More than a generation after the war’s end, our occupying armies still must occupy, and the world has not been made safe for democracy and freedom. On the contrary, our own system of democratic government is being challenged by that greatest of dangers to any government: internal dissatisfaction and unrest.
It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization’s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man. Certainly our civilization’s survival depends on meeting the challenges that tower before us with unprecedented magnitude in almost every field of modern life. Most of these challenges were, at least, intensified through the waging of World War II.
Are we now headed toward a third and still more disastrous war between world nations? Or can we improve hu man relationships sufficiently to avoid such a holocaust? Since it is inherent in the way of life that issues will continue between men, I believe human relationships can best be improved through clarifying the issues and conditions surrounding them.
I hope my journals relating to World War II will help clarify issues and conditions of the past and thereby contribute to understanding issues and conditions of the present and the future.
Although publication of the diaries stirred up new debate over Lindbergh’s prewar views, the book became a best-seller and was actually a semifinalist for the National Book Award.
Among many others, Lindbergh received a fan letter from former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, whose late husband, President John F. Kennedy, along with his brother, Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., had been avid supporters of the America First movement, for which Lindbergh was a leading spokesman. In her letter, Mrs. Onassis referred to the Kennedys, saying, “That family—and me—admire you more than anyone,” an interesting nugget of history noted in A. Scott Berg’s 1998 biography, Lindbergh.
Lindbergh’s reflections in the published Wartime Journals provide a fascinating look at Lindbergh’s wide-ranging private life and travels throughout the United States and Europe and his acquaintances and friendships with some of the most prominent figures of the period. However, like most journals and diaries of public figures, the Wartime Journals contain a great deal of personal data and other material that is of interest only to the author (and his family) and to Lindbergh devotees.
However, Lindbergh’s views on a variety of matters such as history, culture, religion, law, and, of course, the subject of U.S. in volvement abroad were addressed quite thoroughly throughout the journals and the excerpts that follow are among the most pointed and representative of Lindbergh’s thinking at the time. Lindbergh emerges as a thoughtful, introspective philosopher, guided by a self-assurance and a sense of humor, and a knowledge that he was veering onto a course that could (and did) impact upon his place in history and on the future of the world.
Of special interest, in historical retrospect, are Lindbergh’s comments on the impact of the news and entertainment media of the time on shaping public opinion, toward both Lindbergh himself and the views that he put forth in the public arena. Lindbergh was very much aware of—and wary of—what might delicately be termed “news management” and found himself quite occupied with the problem as he sought to make his views heard.
What follows are relevant excerpts from Lindbergh’s journals on public affairs and his personal philosophy. The excerpts are arranged in chronological order, from August 27, 1938, up through December 8, 1941—the day following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—at which time Congress declared war. The dates of the journal entries appear in parentheses at the end of the selection. The subtitles above each entry are provided by The Barnes Review as a guide to the subject matter therein.
The Reality of Soviet Russia
This is a strange country. They preach the doctrine of dividing between people according to their need. There is great poverty and at times actual starvation. Yet I have never seen a greater waste of food than at some of the lunches and dinners we have attended. The people who have, in Soviet Russia, do not seem to be greatly concerned about those who have not. I do not believe the idea of division, equality and state ownership will last long. Given a chance, the social classes will develop, much the same as in the past. The signs are in the parties, the dinners, the women’s dresses, decorations etc. Of course, there is already a great difference in the salaries and privileges of different people. (Saturday, August 27, 1938)
Politicians and Public Affairs
My primary interest lies in the character of a man, and not in whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. I would as soon vote for one as the other. The issues between them are quite superficial at this time. I think, however, that they will begin to clarify and become more fundamental from now on. Whether or not future issues will choose to follow either of these parties remains to be seen. As far as I am concerned personally, I have but little fear of being classed as a Republican for long. I have too little interest in either politics or popularity.
One of the dearest of rights to me is being able to say what I think and act as I wish. I intend to do this, and I know it will cause trouble. As soon as it does, the politicians will disown me quickly enough—and I will be only too willing. I shall have far more interest in my own ideas than in their support. At least I shall hold my self-respect—and possibly that of a number of other people. I have no intention of bending my ideas or my ideals to conform to the platform of either party. One must make certain compromises in life—that is a part of living together with other men—but compromise is justified only when the goal to be gained is of greater importance than what is lost in compromising. (Saturday, October 7, 1939)
On Running for President
Among other things, I enjoy too much the ability to do and say what I wish to ever be a successful candidate for president. I prefer intellectual and personal freedom to the honors and accomplishments of political office—even that of president. (Wednesday, October 11, 1939)
The Wrong Kind of Pacifism
I went to see All Quiet on the Western Front—the bloodiest film I can ever remember seeing. I wanted to find out what type of war film was being shown these days. It is a terrible play and enough to turn anyone against war; but I think it is not a very constructive type to place before the people of America today. We do not want a nation that is afraid of war if it should become necessary to enter one. And All Quiet on the Western Front will turn people against war more through fear than through intellect. It will not add to the courage of our country. (Thursday, October 19, 1939)
Henry Ford—American Genius
I talked to [Henry] Ford about the war, the industrial situation in America, about his ideas of decentralization etc. He is a combination of genius and impracticability, with the genius definitely on top. Ford is a great man and a constructive influence in this country. One cannot talk to him without gaining new ideas and receiving much mental stimulation. His greatness is demonstrated by his vision and his success industrially and by his interests and activities in many other fields. (Thursday, December 28, 1939)
Man’s Law vs. Natural Law
Legal terminology always annoys me, but some of it seems essential under the conditions lawyers have let themselves get into. They are so tied by tradition and complication that they have as unique a language as a baby who is just learning to talk and can be understood only by mother and nurse. It is a sort of second childhood for the law, though. Why is it that men with an excellent education—long college training and all that—can’t state their ideas and agreements in good English?
Sometimes I divide things done by man in my mind into two groups: those that must conform to natural laws (such as the design of an airplane); and those that are not bound by any more discipline than comes from the ideas and arguments of man himself. Of course, all action—even law—comes eventually within the plan of nature. It is only in the thoughts of man that he really passes beyond nature’s bounds.
How interesting and enlightening it is to compare the streamline of an airplane to the awkward, complicated and conflicting chapters of a law book. The success of one is clearly measured by nature, while the value of the other is estimated by partisan men. How beautiful and simple life really is, and how complicated man tries to make it. He worships God on the one hand; tries to im prove upon Him on the other. The fallacy is rarely seen. (Tuesday, April 30, 1940)
The Folly of War
To me, the worst part of this war is the hereditary loss to the countries involved. And the best men are killed first in war. The effect of this is shown in England today. The leaders she might have had were killed in the last war. (Sunday, May 12, 1940)
The Problem With the Newsreels
Everything considered, my personal feeling toward motion-picture operators is not the best. Still, this present situation concerns the welfare of the country and should not be decided on personal feelings. But what advantages and disadvantages are there in speaking for the sound pictures at this time? The advantage is that additional millions of people will be reached. The disadvantages include the fact that only a small portion of my speech would be carried and that I would not be able to control its setting. The news companies could sandwich my picture and talk between the sack of cities and the mangled bodies of refugees. Once they have such a film, they can cut it and use it in any way they like. I decided against speaking for the sound films. (Sunday, May 19, 1940)
Ignoring Essentials
I become more and more disturbed about the trends and conditions in this country—the superficiality, the cheapness, the lack of understanding of, or interest in, fundamental problems. Na tion al debt increases; we involve ourselves unwisely and unnecessarily in the European situation; and we seem to have no understanding of our own limitations. (Saturday, August 17, 1940)
Controlling Public Debate
[R. Douglas] Stuart says he is having trouble buying radio time for the America First Committee. Some of the radio stations have taken the stand that the committee has to do with a “controversial issue” and therefore comes under the code they have formed against selling time for controversial issues. It is a fine state of affairs if the question of war and peace cannot be debated before the American people because it is a “controversial issue.” (Tuesday, October 1, 1940)
News Management
The newsreels again requested that I read part of my address for them after I had broadcast. In the past I have refused their requests—first, because of the difficulty they have often caused for me; second, and much more important, because of the Jewish influence in the newsreels and the antagonism I know exists toward me. . . . However, this is a critical period, and I think it is worth the chance. (Monday, October 14, 1940)
Personal Privacy vs. Principle
[My wife’s antiwar] address has been played down in the newspapers. There is very little notice of it in any of them. . . . It is strange, our desire in this instance for newspaper attention. For many years we have tried to avoid the attention of the press. For years we refused to speak over the radio, to give statements or interviews, to take part in political meetings. Now, this morning, we are disappointed because Anne’s address last night is not carried in the papers on our breakfast table. How can we justify this attitude, this seeming inconsistency? It is not that we enjoy seeing our names in the paper or having attention drawn to us any more than before. That is as unpleasant as ever, and it adds to our difficulties of life; we cannot go to theaters or restaurants, or walk together on the streets without being stared at, or run after, or annoyed in some other way. As I analyze it, I think our apparent change in attitude is due to the intensity of our feeling about the causes we support.
In the past, the publicity and attention was focused on us, like a brilliant, burning, hardened spotlight. Now, the light is thrown upon an approaching danger—upon war, famine, disease, and revolution. And our attention is focused upon the problems it illuminates. They are so important that the few diverging rays that still fall upon us we hardly notice. We are no longer the objects upon which the light is thrown; we ourselves are behind and beside it, trying to guide it, that we and others may see the better and act the more intelligently in this crisis. (Wednesday, December 25, 1940)
‘Christmas’ vs. Christ vs. Christianity
It seems to me that Christmas has deviated as much from the birth of Christ as Christianity has from His teachings. The keynote at the birth of Christ was simplicity. The keynote of Christmas today is luxury. The birth and life of Christ were surrounded with things mystical. Christmas and Christianity today are surrounded with things material. Sometime I would like to have Christmas in our home that conforms to the true spirit and significance of that day 2,000 years ago—a Christmas unadorned by tinsel, uncluttered by gewgaws and ribboned boxes, unstuffed by roast turkey and sweet potatoes; a Christmas pure in its simplicity, akin to the sky and stars, of the mind rather than the body. It should be almost the reverse of a modern Christmas. One should eat too little rather than too much, see no one rather than everyone; spend it in silence rather than in communication. Christmas should be a day that brings one closer to God and to the philosophy of Christ. (Wednesday, December 25, 1940)
Hunting for Survival
I do not mind shooting a bird to eat occasionally, especially if I am on an expedition of some sort, and I thoroughly enjoy target shooting with rifle or shotgun. But this pleasure in seeing something happy and beautiful fall maimed and fluttering, I do not understand. (Thursday, December 26, 1940)
Cultural Differences
I am beginning to feel the world is divided into two groups of people (how easy it is to divide problems into two for the convenience of your momentary argument): those who are inherently suspicious of everything and those who are not. In my experience it seems that Latin blood (and Asiatic) tends to suspicion, while Nordic blood tends away from it. Personally, I prefer to be with people who are not suspicious about everything in life. And, as a matter of fact, I think the “suspicious” people are wrong more of the time than their opposites. (Tuesday, February 4, 1941)
An Aviator Views the Moon
A huge, blood-red moon rose in the evening. It made me think of Europe and bombed cities. Whenever I see the moon now, I think of the bombing that is going on over there. As the moon rises here, it is high over Europe, and bombs are almost certainly falling on English and German cities. (Friday, April 11, 1941)
Survival of the West
Sometimes I feel like saying: “Well, let’s get into the war if you are so anxious to. Then the responsibility will be yours.” In comparison to the work I am now doing, the fighting would be fun. But my mind tells me that we better face our problems and let Europe face hers without getting messed up in this war. I have an interest in Western civilization, and I have an interest in my race, or culture, or whatever you want to call it, and I have an interest in the type of world my children are going to live in. That is why I will probably stay on the stump with the pacifists and why I will resign my commission if necessary and never regret my action in doing so. This war is a mistake; we will only bring disaster if we enter it; we will do no good either to Europe or ourselves, and therefore I am going to put everything I have behind staying out.
No one, not even Germany, was more responsible for the conditions which caused this war than England and France. They declared the war without consulting us. If it were possible to help them win, the result would probably be Versailles all over again. Europe must straighten out her own family affairs. Our interference would simply cause another postponement, as the last war did. Europe faces adjustments that must be made, and only she can work out what they are going to be. (Friday, April 25, 1941)
Who Favors War?
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the administration seems to have “the bit in its teeth” and hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in this country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the “intellectuals,” and the “Anglophiles,” and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests and many others. (Thursday, May 1, 1941)
A Narrow Escape
We were met at the Minneapolis airport by various members of the local America First Committee and driven to the La Salle Hotel, where I was given the “Nordic Suite.” What a press story that could make. But “Nordic” out here doesn’t mean what it does in the east. In Minnesota the word “Nordic” has no anti-Semitic taint. And the situation is probably saved because, as I learned soon after arrival, [British diplomat] Lord Halifax and his party stayed in this same suite and left only yesterday. (Saturday, May 10, 1941)
The People vs. the Press
As I go around to these meetings I feel that, without question, if this country is run by [the] people, we will not enter this war. I always feel this way after one of our meetings is over; but I know that tomorrow, or the day after, as I read the misinformation and propaganda in our newspapers, I will begin to wonder whether people can withstand such a barrage indefinitely. And even if they can withstand it, will popular opinion be enough to keep us out of the war? Which is stronger, the money and power and propaganda pushing us into war, or the will of the people to stay out? (Saturday, May 10, 1941)
On Patronizing Children
. . . There is nothing worse than being confronted with a group of children if you have made no plans for their entertainment. I am not one of those politicians who can go out and pat their heads and talk about what fine-looking boys and girls they are. I remember how I felt about such things when I was a child, and I have too much respect for them and for myself to do it. (Monday, June 23, 1941)
A Prejudiced Press
American press accounts of the war are so prejudiced and confused that it is almost impossible to obtain a balanced picture. Reports from Russia are headlined while those from Germany are played down, although the latter are certainly the most accurate. Results of Royal Air Force raids over the [European] continent are exaggerated, while results of German raids over England are minimized. The result is that the impression given by our newspapers is far more favorable to the British cause than is warranted by the facts. (Saturday, June 28, 1941)
Media Lies and Misinformation
The newspapers continue to misquote my address and to remove sentences from their context. Sometimes what they carry between quotation marks is completely made up and does not even approximate what I have said, or even what I believe. (Thursday, July 3, 1941)
Frequency vs. Precision
Personally, I prefer to speak less often and with more careful preparation. Most of my friends want me to speak more often and with less careful preparation. (Sunday, July 6, 1941)
On Having his Phone Tapped
Captain Smith (of America First) came at 3:30. He had phoned to say he had an urgent message that he must deliver personally. The message is that the FBI began tapping our telephone last Saturday and has a constant watch on it. The men in the FBI are, according to Smith, on the whole, friendly; they are simply following out orders. Smith says the America First telephones are also tapped. I told him to tell everyone in America First that there was nothing we wished to hide and that if our phones were tapped we should speak more plainly, rather than less plainly in the future. I told him to tell his friends on the FBI that if there was anything they didn’t understand in my own phone conversations, I would give them additional information. Captain Smith says he is certain the phones are tapped and that the information came from friends of his on the FBI, who are also friendly to me. Personally, I think it is probable that they are tapped, but I still have some question. It really makes very little difference as far as I am concerned. My main interest lies in knowing whether or not these tactics are being used by the administration. (Monday, July 7, 1941)
Three Groups Promoting War
When I mentioned [in a speech in Des Moines] the three major groups agitating for war—the British, the Jewish and the Roose velt administration—the entire audience seemed to stand and cheer. At that moment whatever opposition existed was complete ly drowned out by our support. (Thursday, September 11, 1941)
The Unmentionable Subject
My Des Moines address has caused so much controversy that Gen. [Robert] Wood has decided to hold a meeting of the America First National Committee in Chicago. I must, of course, attend. I felt I had worded my Des Moines address carefully and moderately. It seems that almost anything can be discussed today in America except the Jewish problem. The very mention of the word “Jew” is a cause for a storm. Personally, I feel that the only hope for a moderate solution lies in an open and frank discussion. (Monday, September 15, 1941)
Private Candor vs. Public Reticence
[America First leader] John Flynn came at 11:00, and we talked the situation over for an hour. Flynn says he does not question the truth of what I said at Des Moines, but feels it was inadvisable to mention the Jewish problem. It is difficult for me to understand Flynn’s attitude. He feels as strongly as I do that the Jews are among the major influences pushing this country toward war. He has said so frequently, and he says so now. He is perfectly willing to talk about it among a small group of people in private. But apparently he would rather see us get into the war than mention in public what the Jews are doing, no matter how tolerantly and moderately it is done. (Thursday, September 18, 1941)
Truth Not Important to Press
The opposition paper here [Ft. Wayne, Indiana] is carrying a large advertisement in which statements are attributed to me which I never made. As far as the “war party” is concerned, what I actually say seems to be of little importance. They quote me as saying what they wish or think that I said. They do not bother to refer to my addresses, which are all available; at best, they refer to some garbled newspaper account. The result is that I am often quoted as saying things which I not only never said, but which I never believed. (Friday, October 3, 1941)
Catholic Leaders Oppose the War
We returned to the hotel after the meeting. People kept coming up to the room until 12:30. Father [John] O’Brien [of Notre Dame Univer sity] showed me a telegram he had just received, to the effect that a poll of the Catholic hierarchy showed that ninety percent were opposed to entering the war. (Friday, October 3, 1941)
Popular Opinion vs. War Propaganda
[The] strength and influence [of the America First movement] is growing rapidly, but the power of our opposition is great. The amazing thing is not that we are so close to war but that we have been able to hold the war forces back as long as we have. Their ranks include the American government, the British government, the Jews, and the major portion of the press, radio, and motion-picture facilities of the country. We have on our side the mass of the people, but it is a question of how long the people can withstand the flood of propaganda with which the country is being covered. They have no accurate source of information to which to turn. Also, regardless of the attitude of our people, it is a question as to whether the president will force us into war by actions and incidents which will make it unavoidable. He is in a position where he can force war on us whether we want it or not. (Saturday, October 4, 1941)
On Speaking the Truth
[Former President Herbert] Hoover told me he felt my Des Moines address was a mistake (the mention of the Jews in connection with the war-agitating groups). I told him I felt my statements had been both moderate and true. He replied that when you had been in politics long enough you learned not to say things just because they are true. (But, after all, I am not a politician—and that is one of the reasons why I don’t wish to be one. I would rather say what I believe when I want to say it than to measure every statement I make by its probable popularity.) (Monday, October 6, 1941)
Reporting War News
[Paul] Palmer [an editor with Reader’s Digest] says one of the reasons why the papers give such an erroneous impression about the war is that the editors have discovered that their newsstand circulation drops whenever they headline Axis successes. As a result, they try to find some Allied success to headline, no matter how insignificant it may be. (Wednesday, October 8, 1941)
Pearl Harbor
The radio is announcing that Japan has attacked the Philippines and the Hawaiian Islands and that Pearl Harbor has been bombed. An attack in the Philippines was to be expected, although I did not think it would come quite so soon. But Pearl Harbor! How did the “Japs” get close enough, and where is our Navy? Or is it just a hit-and-run raid of a few planes, exaggerated by radio commentators into a major attack? The Japanese can, of course, raid the Hawaiian Islands, or even the West Coast, with aircraft carriers. But the cost in carriers and planes lost is going to be awfully high unless our Navy is asleep—or in the Atlantic. The question in my mind is, how much of it has been sent to the Atlantic to aid Britain? (Sunday, December 7, 1941)
The Back Door to War
Phoned Gen. [Robert] Wood in Boston. His first words were, “Well, he [President Roosevelt] got us in through the back door.” . . . The president spoke at 12:00. Asked for a declaration of war. Senate passed a declaration of war unanimously. Only “no” in the House. What else was there to do? We have been asking for war for months. If the president had asked for a declaration of war before, I think Congress would have turned him down with a big majority. But now we have been attacked, and attacked in home waters. We have brought it on our own shoulders; but I can see nothing to do under these circumstances except to fight. If I had been in Congress, I certainly would have voted for a declaration of war. (Monday, December 8, 1941)
|
