|
Post by stella7 on Mar 17, 2020 15:01:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 19, 2020 9:17:13 GMT -5
I am well aware of Lindbergh's infamous Des Moines speech, which today in retrospect would have to be considered antisemitic.
That, plus the festering antagonism that certainly existed between Lindbergh and Franklin D. Roosevelt, does NOT imply that FDR himself was NOT antisemitic, as Philip Roth might want people to believe. The historical facts are that Roosevelt and some pals in his administration actively blew opportunity after opportunity to allow many European Jewish refugees to obtain entrance into the US in the years immediately preceding the US entry into WWII. Then, during the conflict with Nazi Germany in Europe, potential US military operations which could have gummed up the Nazis' death camp program and saved many Jewish (and other) lives were put on the back burner. The shortcomings of the Roosevelt administration with respect to European Jewry in the Nazi era were well documented in a book titled "While 6 Million Died" by Arthur Morse, published c. 1960.
Lindbergh, while opposing in that one speech the admission of more Jewish refugees to the US and other safe havens, had no power to affect this situation. Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the other hand, did have such power and time after time he and his administration (especially the State Dept.) failed to exercise it. Roth's novel at its core reflects a very biased view of that era.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 19, 2020 11:19:59 GMT -5
Thanks Hurt, it certainly took us a long time to enter the war and we didn’t do it to save Jewish lives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 6:49:19 GMT -5
I wanted to share how Liberty Magazine viewed Charles Lindbergh after his Des Moines speech in 1941. This article is the editorial page for the October 18, 1941 issue of Liberty Magazine. They called him the most dangerous man in America. imgur.com/oKziJnu
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2020 9:21:53 GMT -5
Sue's post in the general thread prompted me to ask what everyone is thinking about the series so far... I think the acting is great but I'm having a hard time enjoying it otherwise. I just can't get past the fiction that is developing and keep asking myself why anyone would invent a story when the true real life events are even stranger? Is it my personal bias or does anyone else feel the same way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2020 13:26:37 GMT -5
My approach has been to keep in mind that this is fictional and try to keep my fact-based thinking aside to try and enjoy the program. Roth does take liberties with facts he does know about Lindbergh regardless of whether they are used accurately in the story. I found myself quietly laughing and shaking my head when we see Lindbergh using his Spirit of St. Louis plane on his presidential campaign tour. CAL retired that plane in 1928, I think it was, and I am not aware of him ever using it again.
Still, I am watching it for entertainment purposes and to try to understand how Lindbergh was perceived by the Jewish community of our country at that time. This series is showing a split among this community of those who see Lindbergh as a Hitler-like threat to their existence and those who actively see Lindbergh as an ally/protector as the Rabbi in this series promotes him.
Definitely plan to keep watching it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 27, 2020 8:17:20 GMT -5
My approach has been to keep in mind that this is fictional and try to keep my fact-based thinking aside to try and enjoy the program. Roth does take liberties with facts he does know about Lindbergh regardless of whether they are used accurately in the story. I found myself quietly laughing and shaking my head when we see Lindbergh using his Spirit of St. Louis plane on his presidential campaign tour. CAL retired that plane in 1928, I think it was, and I am not aware of him ever using it again. Still, I am watching it for entertainment purposes and to try to understand how Lindbergh was perceived by the Jewish community of our country at that time. This series is showing a split among this community of those who see Lindbergh as a Hitler-like threat to their existence and those who actively see Lindbergh as an ally/protector as the Rabbi in this series promotes him. Definitely plan to keep watching it. I don't know what you mean by enjoyment or entertainment, but this HBO series is angering and depressing simply because it portrays the United States of the immediate pre-WWII era as something so far off from the actual historical truth, what with the horrors of Nazi Germany being mistakenly displayed as imported across the Atlantic to pillage American society. There is no mistaking the fact that Roth's writing and the video production have a political edge to it. They diss the Republican Party of 1940 by making the national convention into a super pro-Nazi rally, akin to the real pro-Nazi rallies that actually took place at Madison Square Garden. In real life, these pro-Nazi rallies had no connection to the Republican Party and their organizers and participants were never significant players in the American political system. And the Republicans in 1940 nominated Wendell Willkie as their presidential candidate, who was NOT a bigot and NOT an isolationist. Then, too, in a podcast with the producer of the HBO series, there is talk about the supposed timeliness of the film version of "The Plot Against America," many years after the novel's publication. The inane notion of the producer was that today's President Trump is eerily similar to the fictional "President Lindbergh." Only a loony leftist could possibly make such a comparison. If you want a film based on a Philip Roth novel that entertains and does not turn history on its head, how about "Goodbye, Columbus"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 9:29:17 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean by enjoyment or entertainment, but this HBO series is angering and depressing simply because it portrays the United States of the immediate pre-WWII era as something so far off from the actual historical truth, what with the horrors of Nazi Germany being mistakenly displayed as imported across the Atlantic to pillage American society. I am not watching the series in the same perspective you are. It is a fictional series, a what-if look at history. I am not evaluating the correctness or the political positions. I am watching it purely as entertainment and nothing else. I am not a fiction reader nor do I watch a lot of movies. I am watching this because I want to see how Lindbergh is portrayed in this make-believe scenario. I am not mixing it with real life. I have never read any of Roth's books nor do I intend to. Nor will I watch any movies or such based on his books. I am only watching this series because it involves Lindbergh or I wouldn't be watching it at all. Thanks though for sharing your political positions on the series.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 27, 2020 9:29:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 27, 2020 12:02:13 GMT -5
I think it's important to remember that this series isn't history, but alternate history--like Amy said, a speculative "what if" scenario that blends real historical elements with fictional ones. In that sense, all bets are off. I don't know if the series will show this, but Roth's book ultimately reveals that the Nazis blackmailed Lindbergh into running for president in 1940 (so, I guess as soon as he was over 35, the legal age minimum for the presidency) by orchestrating the 1932 kidnapping and holding CAL Jr. hostage, so they could remotely implement their racial policies in the US, through Lindbergh. With the point of divergence from real history being that the Nazis carried out the kidnapping, from there, Roth, like anyone else who writes alternate history, was free to play--for instance, turning the 1941 Des Moines speech into a 1940 campaign speech, having Lindbergh dust off the Spirit of St. Louis and politically barnstorm the country with it, since, had Lindbergh run for office, it makes perfect sense he would've done something like that.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 27, 2020 12:18:34 GMT -5
As to Michael's question, I'm enjoying the series a lot. It's a little on-the-nose in places: A race-baiting, isolationist celebrity comes out of no where to win the presidency with demagoguery and the help of a hostile foreign power, one of the characters pointing out "there's a lot of hate out there and he knows how to tap into it"--gee, I wonder why this is being produced now? But on the whole, it's well acted and beautifully made. As to the facts vs. fiction aspect: I think you have to view the show on its own terms as fiction, as an alternate reality with real-life characters. It's not about "Oh, that didn't happen", but rather "Huh, had circumstances been different, something like that could've happened given what we know about the people involved."
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 27, 2020 20:22:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 27, 2020 20:25:11 GMT -5
Thanks Hurt, it certainly took us a long time to enter the war and we didn’t do it to save Jewish lives. i find these nonfiction books one is american axis by max wallace and behold america by sarah churchwell are the books to read on the real story of lindberghs involvment in america first and his thoughts
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 27, 2020 20:27:18 GMT -5
American axis by max wallace and behold america by sarah churchwell are two good books that are non fiction on lindberghs america first beliefs and his involvment in ww2
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 28, 2020 7:24:31 GMT -5
I'm assuming you are linking to the Bucks County Courier Tomes article because of its mention of the pro-Nazi summer camp on American soil, of which there were a number. I was aware of their existence. Fortunately, the pro-Nazi German nationalist groups that ran them were never more than fringe movements in American politics. As the US moved toward war with Nazi Germany, they were justifiably broken up and their leaders arrested for treasonous activities.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 28, 2020 7:33:30 GMT -5
I think it's important to remember that this series isn't history, but alternate history--like Amy said, a speculative "what if" scenario that blends real historical elements with fictional ones. In that sense, all bets are off. I don't know if the series will show this, but Roth's book ultimately reveals that the Nazis blackmailed Lindbergh into running for president in 1940 (so, I guess as soon as he was over 35, the legal age minimum for the presidency) by orchestrating the 1932 kidnapping and holding CAL Jr. hostage, so they could remotely implement their racial policies in the US, through Lindbergh. With the point of divergence from real history being that the Nazis carried out the kidnapping, from there, Roth, like anyone else who writes alternate history, was free to play--for instance, turning the 1941 Des Moines speech into a 1940 campaign speech, having Lindbergh dust off the Spirit of St. Louis and politically barnstorm the country with it, since, had Lindbergh run for office, it makes perfect sense he would've done something like that. The problem with presenting "alternate history" in a mass-audience popular medium such as HBO is that the American public in general is so historically ignorant (from decades of substandard education) that many can't grasp the distinction between real and fictional. Aiding and abetting ignorance of the past is a recipe for disaster in the future.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 28, 2020 11:30:22 GMT -5
In this case, I think all even the most ignorant have to do is check out Wikipedia to see that Lindbergh never ran for president in 1940.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2020 15:43:49 GMT -5
In this case, I think all even the most ignorant have to do is check out Wikipedia to see that Lindbergh never ran for president in 1940. You are absolutely correct about this!!!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 28, 2020 19:14:15 GMT -5
In this case, I think all even the most ignorant have to do is check out Wikipedia to see that Lindbergh never ran for president in 1940. Problem with that is the ignorant don't even know in many instances that they are ignorant. Then, too, they may not even know about Wikipedia's existence, and even if they did, they may not be curious enough to attempt to check it out. (Wikipedia itself far from infallible regarding historical facts, but that's another story.) That's the sad result of dumbed down "feel good" public education that's been too prevalent in our schools and colleges for decades. Please see my additional comments on this subject on the Postage Stamps on Ransom Evelopes thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2020 21:29:20 GMT -5
As to Michael's question, I'm enjoying the series a lot. But on the whole, it's well acted and beautifully made. As to the facts vs. fiction aspect: I think you have to view the show on its own terms as fiction, as an alternate reality with real-life characters. I am enjoying the series also. I think they did a great job with the casting of the characters. Having not read the book like you have, I am interested in seeing how the Levin family will handle the problems that are definitely going to arise over Lindbergh. The Levin's son, Sandy, likes and even idolizes Lindbergh. The mother and father hate Lindbergh. There is also the sister-in-law who is romantically involved with the Lindbergh supporting Rabbi, so there will be family problems there too. You mentioned in an earlier post that in Roth's book he makes use of the kidnapping of Charlie in 1932, as the way the Nazi's are able to manipulate Lindbergh into running for the Presidency. I am really curious as to how Roth develops this part of the story. I do hope that it is included somewhere in this series. From the preview available for Episode three, apparently there are some American Jewish families starting to flee America going into Canada in fear of Lindbergh. Roth is definitely setting this up to parallel with what happened in Germany with Hitler and the German Jews but has it also happening in America.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 28, 2020 21:51:33 GMT -5
I don't know if they'll show the whole thing rooted in the kidnapping. I hope they will. In the book, it was certainly an interesting aspect, which is what drew me to it, but Roth presented it almost as an aside. I don't know that the series really needs it, since the point of the show is completely independent of the kidnapping, serving instead as a parable and warning against the dangers and stupidity of right-wing isolationism and nationalism, which, like it or not, has been on the rise in this country, as in the book (though not to the extent the series portrays).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2020 9:09:55 GMT -5
I don't know if they'll show the whole thing rooted in the kidnapping. I hope they will. In the book, it was certainly an interesting aspect, which is what drew me to it, but Roth presented it almost as an aside. I don't know that the series really needs it, since the point of the show is completely independent of the kidnapping, serving instead as a parable and warning against the dangers and stupidity of right-wing isolationism and nationalism, which, like it or not, has been on the rise in this country, as in the book (though not to the extent the series portrays). I guess its inevitable for us to get into the politics of it. Nowadays I try to avoid politics as best I can because I hold a variety of liberal, moderate, and conservative views depending upon the subject and I've voted Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Reform, and Independent over the years. So - I usually tick off just about everyone on some point or other. That means its best for me to keep quiet. However, its hard for me not to disagree with the idea that "right-wing isolationism and nationalism" is "on the rise." I think nationalism is about the same as its ever been, and speaking frankly, I'm not aware of anything I'd refer to as even coming close to isolationism. What I do think is that we are living in an era where organizations like the Boy Scouts have been labeled a "hate group" making it seem as though hate groups are on the rise, among our neighbors, and possibly even hiding under our beds. And if one happens to believe the Boy Scouts actually do represent hate (or did if they even exist anymore because of this label) then they are Nationalists themselves because its to the detriment of other countries who have such organizations, and only in America could something like this occur - they would just call it something different because the word itself has been hijacked to symbolize evil. Of course this is a tactic used by all when they want to demonize the other so its nothing new. What's going on is that fringe groups on both sides try to put the country in a box then claim to speak for everyone when in fact the super-majority are in the moderate middle and always have been. Now with that said, Antisemitism is most definitely on the rise and there are examples all over the place. We've had the horrific synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh for one. We now have congresswomen who don't even try to hide it which led to even more hate and attacks like the most recent one in Jersey City that went under-reported after certain details emerged. In short, people are people. There are good and bad on both sides of the political spectrum. Good and bad among all races, ethnicity, and religions. None are immune. On this series I see how everyone is approaching it and don't want to throw cold water on those who are enjoying it. I'm motivated to continue to watch and hope I can overcome my issues with it because the acting is really good. For me, I just think it would have been much "easier" if the character wasn't Lindbergh because I have found it very difficult to separate or disconnect from what I know to be true.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2020 11:52:44 GMT -5
Well, first, speaking as a moderate middle-ist myself, labeling the BSA a hate group is absurd. That being said, doing things like withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords and Syria at least looks like isolationism to many, and the constant "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!" smacks of mindless, America-First nationalism. In any event, the point is that things like mindless nationalism can produce very nasty byproducts in any country--things like upticks in racism, including the anti-Semitism you mentioned and which the series will show, albeit to a much greater degree than what's actually happening. The series will also show a cozying-up to dictators and an attendant abdication of America's perceived moral authority, so, while not a perfect parallel by any means--it would be too on-the-nose if it were--I think the series is addressing some current disturbing leanings. But setting its politics aside, since the series is alternate history, it's apples-and-oranges to judge it on historical accuracy, so all that's really left is its artistic and creative merits: Writing, directing, production design, acting, etc. For me, all that is top-notch here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2020 12:18:50 GMT -5
Well, first, speaking as a moderate middle-ist myself, labeling the BSA a hate group is absurd. That being said, doing things like withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords and Syria at least looks like isolationism to many, and the constant "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!" smacks of mindless, America-First nationalism. In any event, the point is that things like mindless nationalism can produce very nasty byproducts in any country--things like upticks in racism, including the anti-Semitism you mentioned and which the series will show, albeit to a much greater degree than what's actually happening. The series will also show a cozying-up to dictators and an attendant abdication of America's perceived moral authority, so, while not a perfect parallel by any means--it would be too on-the-nose if it were--I think the series is addressing some current disturbing leanings. But setting its politics aside, since the series is alternate history, it's apples-and-oranges to judge it on historical accuracy, so all that's really left is it's artistic and creative merits: Writing, directing, production design, acting, etc. For me, all that is top-notch here. I get what you were saying. I just like to point out as it truly is today without falling heavily on one side or the other because it exists on both. We could debate several points and agree in some places and disagree in others - especially since we are both "middle-ist" (I like the term). If we did we'd be in danger of going well after this virus is gone without even realizing it. I think the chants are more about Patriotism than anything else and something I haven't seen since Reagan. Later there was less of a public display but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. But just to put an emphasis on my point, I live in one of the most Progressive towns on the planet and our community doesn't even recycle. People literally throw aluminum, steel, and plastic in the trash here. And these are the same people outraged over the Paris Climate Accord withdraw. I can't do that so I bag it up and bring it to my parents house every other week where they do participate in the program. As far as the artistic, creativity, writing, directing, production design, acting .... I totally agree with you. All top-notch. I really like the time period with the cars and things like showing how Newark used to look. It's easy to forget sometimes that these big cities don't resemble anything close to what they do today. For me its probably just my personality and learning "how" to do what Amy has done in order to completely enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2020 12:46:40 GMT -5
Oh, the patriotism and nationalism has absolutely existed for quite awhile; now it's just out and proud. Reagan, who you mention, said that we need to "make America great again", but while he used the same words, it wasn't the dog-whistle it is now; Reagan was talking about something entirely different, and another key difference: There was no Charlottesville or Pittsburgh under Reagan, at least not that I recall or on that level. The point is, the patriotism and nationalism is different now, different with a disturbing tinge, which I think the series is trying to address. Anyway, good on you for putting in that kind of effort to recycle, and I agree: If one isn't going to recycle, they have no business being pissed about the Paris Climate Accord withdrawal.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2020 13:23:42 GMT -5
Oh, the patriotism and nationalism has absolutely existed for quite awhile; now it's just out and proud. Reagan, who you mention, said that we need to "make America great again", but while he used the same words, it wasn't the dog-whistle it is now; Reagan was talking about something entirely different, and another key difference: There was no Charlottesville or Pittsburgh under Reagan, at least not that I recall or on that level. The point is, the patriotism and nationalism is different now, different with a disturbing tinge, which I think the series is trying to address. Anyway, good on you for putting in that kind of effort to recycle, and I agree: If one isn't going to recycle, they have no business being pissed about the Paris Climate Accord withdrawal. I'm going to make this my last post as it relates to politics before it spirals out of control. Let's just say I'm not a big fan of presentism. Torching and purging our history is a mistake. There will always be two sides of this issue and they don't have to be either a "radical" or a criminal one. And yet, we're lead to believe these are the only two choices. They're not. Take the American flag as an example. It flew over the Japanese internment camps and yet this same flag flies today and doesn't in any way represent (even remotely) anything about that situation. Our flag represents who we are today - not who we were back then. It evolved with us as a nation. I envision one day there might be a movement to change it and I submit anyone against that would quickly be labeled a racist and those for it a radical. I was very young when Reagan was President but I did live it. And even he was a victim of a sick individual. Whether or not we could classify the animal from Pittsburgh and the animals in Jersey City as being 'sick' I'll leave that up to others to decide. Next, when it comes to narratives I find everyone likes a feel good situation. That is until it inconveniences them, hits them in the wallet, or negatively affects their family in some way. I'll give you the last word on this if you like.... Anyway - next episode is tonight and I will be watching! If I don't like it I promise I will just keep my mouth shut about it.
|
|