|
Post by rick3 on Dec 11, 2006 10:02:27 GMT -5
Just a couple of days before Xmas 1935 Lindbergh, Anne and Jon commandeer a cruise ship "all to themselves" and fled to England. They may have even been on board on Christmas Day and took a tree. One of the Scandinavian seamen played Santa for Jon? Even Betty Morrow and the family were caught off guard?
December 24, 1935, Tuesday Special Cable to The NEW YORK TIMES.
BERLIN, Tuesday, Dec. 24. -- Comment in the German press on Colonel Lindbergh's decision to leave the United States is contained chiefly in such headlines as "Lindbergh Flees American Kidnappers"; "Lindbergh in Flight"; "Gangsters Force Lindbergh to Flee From America."
Whats the reason for this sudden change of plans? One account in Hysteria by Dutch suggests that Lindbergh was "running away from his responsibilities for sending BRH to the chair"? I think that Thomas F. Rice BOI agent even wrote a letter to the NY Times which was later published in American Astrology Magazine. One other account either in Bern or Milton suggested that Lindbergh fled the USA to escape answering questions from Gov. Hoffman about the whereabouts of Elizabeth Morrow, Anne's ill sister, on the kidnap weekend? Where does the truth lie?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2006 20:21:25 GMT -5
It's an odd thing considering his father-in-law said Charles Jr. would be kidnapped if security wasn't added AND Lindy would dismiss his Security Guard because he didn't want people to think he was afraid....only to flee under for reasons which were supposed to be exactly that.
Ironic to say the least.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 14, 2006 19:50:51 GMT -5
If true and really stated in genuine concern, it was an eerie prediction on Dwight Morrow's part. But does this necessarily mean it was a thought that had to be acted upon? I think it's difficult to compare the halcyon pre-kidnap days of early 1932 in sleepy Hopewell with the kind of crank sentiment ground swell stirred up by many who opposed the Hauptmann conviction and the genuine real life threat posed towards Jon through countless mail threats. The United States had some very real social and economic problems during its hangover from the wretched excesses of the 1920's. I don't think Lindbergh was blind to this and I don't blame him one iota for a temporary measure he took to protect his family.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 14, 2006 21:52:10 GMT -5
I wouldn't have blamed him either - if - he did this after the threats originally came rolling in once Jon was born.. but of course Lindy never seemed to do what made sense instead leaving his son to fly and map-out the northern route in July of '33. This is done knowing the Kidnappers of his 1st son hadn't been apprehended. And what of his return to the U.S.? Was it safer in '38 then it was when he bolted for England before the end of the trial? By this time Lindbergh's popularity had plummeted sinking to the depths of a "hated" man by some instead of the world-wide hero he was - then.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 15, 2006 10:01:21 GMT -5
Michael, Lindbergh did take his family to England, the only passengers on a cargo ship, just before Hauptmann's originally scheduled Jan. 17, 1936 execution date. It's not hard to imagine the kind of resentment on the part of the vocal and threatening minority who believed Hauptmann was innocent, hence Lindbergh now the villian, that was approaching its climax at that point. General security incidents and direct threats towards Jon had by that point escalated to the point Lindbergh felt compelled to hire an armed detective to act as a bodyguard to Jon.
I'm not sure what Lindbergh's decision to go to England in December 1935 and shaped by the above, has to do with the kind of resentment directed his way later by those who perceived him to be conducting pro-Nazi / anti-American activities in Germany. It was well after their arival in England, that he was invited by Major Truman Smith of the American Embassy, to inspect and gather information for American Intelligence on the strength and potential of the Luftwaffe. The man was no politician; he simply took the opportunity to continue his interest in global aviation there with the added caveat of being able to help his own country.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 15, 2006 16:38:09 GMT -5
Thank you, Sue 75 and Michael for supplying the date the guard was let go, by CAL. Wouldn't Morrow, SR's caution about security naturally spring from the kidnap threat to Constance? Then CAL lets the guard go. One can't forget CAL's controlling nature and the attitude that goes along with that. The writers I've seen, dismiss any link between the Constance event and the baby's kidnap. But maybe it bears looking at again, especially if we consider possible Nosovitsky and his grievance about Morrow. It's interesting to me that CAL ,at least for awhile, planned to go back to the Hopewell house to live.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2006 23:09:43 GMT -5
Mairi - I am satisfied the Constance Morrow 'extortion' episode was solved but believe there may have been an indirect influence on the 'kidnapping' of Charles Jr.
Joe - They departed on December 22, 1935 aboard the American Importer and Hauptmann's original execution date was March 18, 1935. I meant to write that he left just after Gov. Hoffman's jail-house visit became public as well as his unofficial re-investigation (as did Condon). I am at a loss to understand what I was thinking when I wrote that he left during the trial - I've known since High School when Lindbergh left for England. Keep an eye on me and continue to point these things out. I think I have too much going on in my head at once sometimes....(shrug)
Now, Lindbergh was definitely receiving threats against Jon almost immediately. This is while the culprits from the first crime are at large, and again, he even takes this trip leaving Jon without his Mother and Father during this trip in '33. I disagree that the threats against Jon reached their climax at the time Lindbergh decided to bolt. I also disagree that Lindbergh was considered a Villain among those who believed Hauptmann was innocent. Even Anna felt sorry for the Lindbergh's and most viewed them as just as much a victim as Hauptmann.
My point about his return is to show he had all the more reason not to return as he did for initially leaving - yet he returned.
The original reason for this would be related to his trip to Germany and his acceptance of the Nazi medal he refused to return. You are right that he was invited by the American Embassy but I believe he acted more on behalf of Germany then he did for America.
Why?
On Sept. 14, 1938, a story broke in the Week of London concerning Lindbergh's "impression" of the Soviet Air force as being, in essence, both inferior and undependable. Col. Faymonville who accompanied Lindbergh was reportedly "shocked" by this which caused quite an uproar in M.I.
It seemed to be a contradiction of facts, and was the start of Lindbergh's position that Russia, Czech, Britain, and France were hopelessly out-matched by the Luftwaffe.
However, according to the Congressional Record, Vol. 84, pt. 2, p.2210, March 3, 1939, it was revealed that Germany had only 9,000 planes in its entire air force. Lindbergh's accounts seem to be an attempt to dissuade a possible alliance which would have indeed outmatched the Germans and prevented it from invading Czechoslovakia. German High Command certainly didn't share Lindbergh's opinion about the Russian Air Force themselves prior to his visit there so exactly why Lindbergh would go public with this position leads one to an irresistible conclusion.
Lindy would claim any European conflict should not involve the U.S. claiming we were protected by our location, in essence, that the oceans protected us from invasion. This is a very confusing position and I just don't think Lindbergh was sincere when he made it.
Why?
Goering's right hand man General Milch, who spent time with Lindbergh during his German tour, had expressed published opinions that long-range type planes were possible - and Germany had already produced planes with capabilities approaching an 11,000 mile range.
Was Lindbergh taking the stance that America should remain neutral in an attempt to aid his country, or did he identify with the Nazi party line - using his position and/or stature to assist their interests?
You be the judge.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 17, 2006 11:21:54 GMT -5
Michael, confusion on my part as well for calling January 17, 1936 the original Hauptmann execution date. My line of thought here was that it was the established date at the time of the Lindberghs' departure for England and the one that was altered a number of times following Governor Hoffman granting Hauptmann the 30-day reprieve.
We disagree on the state of the threat towards Jon as I still believe the overall sentiment of the real zealots among those who believed Hauptmann got a raw deal, would have been exacerbated by the impending execution. Of course, many of the incidents did not involve people intentionally out to harm the child and there were many with reporters and photographers trying for a story line and candid shot. But how is one able to identify these before the fact, and understand the true intent of each incident, when all that can be recognized at the time is the presence of strangers in a car acting suspiciously and not demonstrating in a an ethical and civil way their true intentions? And if these events were not taken seriously and discouraged, how long before real kidnappers might have realized this and used a "photographer ruse" to their advantage at a time when Jon could not be protected?
The Lindberghs world flying excursions came approximately one year following the births of Charlie and Jon, so it seems there was some intent to spend time near home during the their first years. Leaving both children within the security of Englewood was both Charles' and Anne's choice. The luxury of having armed guards available at Englewood would have been reassuring to them. The decision to leave Charlie and Jon in the care of nursemaids was certainly not out of the ordinary among the circles of the wealthy adventurous and Anne by this time was just as avid a flyer as her husband.
As far as Lindbergh's patriotism goes, I do believe his intentions were always good ones. I see no agenda within his European travels to directly assist Germany, but more a genuine approval of it's leading edge aviation and the general industry of its people and services. Lindbergh was there to evaluate the strength of the German Air Force for the US government and he was made to believe the Luftwaffe was much stronger and more capable than it was at the time. I don't believe he attached any political significance to his receiving the Nazi medal because it was given to him to recognize a peace time achievement, his flight to Paris, during peacetime. The fact that it was decorated with swastikas would obviously have been an albatross for any politician of a friendly nation as opposed to a diehard career aviator in 1936.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2006 9:38:03 GMT -5
We certainly do. Right from jump-street Lindy was rec'ing tons of threatening mail and once Jon was born it certainly didn't stop but simply started to include him. CAL seemed unfazed. Perhaps there were more letters coming in at the time CAL decided to bolt, just before X-mas, and I am simply unaware? I doubt it. A simple look-see at the Archives are enough for me, in fact, I would think one's skin would become thicker over time and a person would become desensitized when being threatened day in and day out.
This is where they were staying when they fled. What's the difference? It applies to both situations as far as I am concerned. The only other option I could accept is if there is something we just don't know about. The Morrow's were no strangers to secrets and misdirection. The story for why they left could have been a cover for something else.... Remember they had the entire country believing Elisabeth had left when she never did.
Why? This bit of world changing information was given to the press without regard for the consequences because Lindbergh was a patriot? Think about this for a minute.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 19, 2006 12:20:13 GMT -5
Michael, I'm still unclear as to your point about Lindbergh's intent in sailing for England in December, 1935. Do you feel there is some tie in to his later activities there, ie. this was an anticipated stepping stone? Or that he wanted to be avoid dealing with the close-at-hand spectre of Hauptmann as he proceeded towards the electric chair?
There is a fairly comprehensive source of information relating to Lindbergh's motivation in leaving the US, while retaining his American citizenship on pages 338 - 340 of Berg's Lindbergh. Better for others to have a chance to read it then trying to simplify it here, but if seems clear the impending execution added to the already present safety threats towards the entire family.
[/size][/quote]
The Lindberghs had the benefit of armed guards to ensure their children were safe when they were flying around the world. I'm pretty sure they weren't too happy about having to live that way day in and day out while at Englewood as a family.
It was their choice to live in England as normal people do and for the most part the English people and press respected their request by not bothering them or simply failed to recognize them. In any case, it appears they were pretty content with the much needed peace they had found.
Undiplomatic people in positions they're not used to can say and do all kinds of things that raise the ire of those around them, especially those with a vested interest. Didn't Charles Levine, the flyer who followed Lindbergh across the Atlantic, declare to the press upon landing in Ireland that Benito Mussolini was one of the great world leaders? I can appreciate that Lindbergh was literally thrown into this situation by a well meaning military attache and I'm sure he could have used some official pointers in international diplomacy before his mission. But I can see no damning evidence he was out to assist Germany to the detriment of his homeland.
|
|
|
Post by rick for joe on Dec 19, 2006 18:09:45 GMT -5
Hi Joe....Dutch and thus Hoffman suggest in Hysteria that it was more than threats against Jon that sent CAL and family packing off to England at the very last moment before Xmas 1935? they seem to relate it to a letter written by Thomas F. Rice an FBI agent from NY? The implication is that it could be some other kind of threat: eg maybe new information about BRH as the Lone Ranger or maybe that Hoffman had some kind of new supoena power to call witnesses to task> Im not certain? Its unclear?
It might help clear up the fog if its true that Jafsie Condon fled to Panama and "out of the country" at exactly the same time? This may or may not have been the trip he took with his daughter Myra and followed closely by Fulton Oursler of Liberty Magazine? Why did JFC and CAL want to be "out of the country" at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2006 19:12:40 GMT -5
I haven't offered an explanation. Simply put it doesn't add up. All I am saying is that I do not buy this explanation. Berg's book doesn't change my mind about that at all. There had to be another catalyst, or possible another factor in conjunction with the threats....
Unfortunately its how famous people had to live back then. This is precisely why Sen. Morrow told Lindy his son would be kidnapped.
Lindbergh was the most famous man in the world and would be recognized just about anywhere. Next, if they were so content why did they move? Why did they then move back to the U.S.? Was it now safe? Was it safer now that Lindbergh had even more people mad at him?
This wasn't Lindbergh's personality Joe, and Lindbergh was raised in a political family and married into one. This was no accident or reckless remark.
Levine wasn't Lindbergh. Lindbergh was the perfect guy for this and he pulled a fast one.
Tobey communicated to Lutz that Breckenridge was trying to have Rice declared insane but that someone tipped him off so he was able to prevent it.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 20, 2006 16:55:42 GMT -5
IMHO I see Lindbergh as a very naive personality.It seems apparent to me throughout the kidnap on through the Nazi connection. He strikes me as overly impressed and tenacious with his own opinion. Note that he didn't seem to think higher education had anything to offer him. Very much the controller--he doesn't allow Anne to cry at the loss of her child. If he refers to it at all he speaks of the kidnapping and death of his child as "that business in New Jersey". Speaking of same and of Anne, "She got over it ,didn't she!". Why was he alright with conjuring up a false earwitness ID? Why was he alright with the Lone Wolf scenario, when he's bound to have known otherwise? He holds his infant son under water to "test his courage". He swings another child around in high circles by one foot-"He has to learn. He has to learn", says he. His pranks seem only for his own entertainment at the distress of others. He lets the guard go so it won't seem he's "afraid". Does he really flee the country because he's afraid for Jon? Or is he putting himself out of reach for any reinvestigation of the crime? Other than annoyance at what he can't control, where and what are his feelings?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 21, 2006 9:04:25 GMT -5
Most famous people probably didn't seek places of solitude that they felt because of their isolation, would not require the presence of armed guards patrolling the grounds. This is one of the reasons Lindbergh went looking into remote rural areas for a place to build a home. So they would not end up creating a fortress bristling with protective firepower.
I've never heard of this "warning" by Senator Morrow, but it's understandable that it could have come in many forms from a sudden off the cuff remark all the way to some kind of formal written appeal to provide necessary protection for his daughter and grandchild. What is your source here? Whatever the case, this does not make Dwight Morrow a soothsayer whose wishes had to be unquestioningly observed.
It would seem that Lindbergh by choosing the Hopewell location and ultimately releasing the night watchman, did not feel the need for added protection where they were. As Mairi points out, not directly related to this specific subject, it was probably Lindbergh's naivete and tenacity of opinion that guided him here as much as his common sense and need for retreat from what they both by this point, considered to be an overbearing public.
And there well may have been some event which tipped the scales, which by this time well very full ones. At the same time, the straw that breaks the camel's back doesn't necessarily have to be a heavy one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 21, 2006 9:36:42 GMT -5
That Senator Morrow had remarked that he was somewhat apprehensive that the watchman service at the Englewood estate was not adequate; that he was considering employing a nigh watchman to stay on the outside, inasmuch as Marshall remained principally indoors, and that after the Lindberghs moved to Hopewell, the Senator remarked that sometime the baby would be kidnaped if they didn't have better protection. (Special Agent Seykora Report, 5-18-34)[/blockquote] This seems an odd position for someone who feels many of the 'strange car' sightings were the "curious." While at Mount Rose the Lindbergh's even had a 'Peeping-Tom" and the Sourland Mountains never did had a reputation for hospitality, in fact, quite the opposite. Those locals who did know Lindbergh was in Hopewell weren't happy about it. In short, letting his guard go makes no sense. Lindy's reason for letting him go makes no sense. And both contradict his Father-In-Law's advice/prediction - not to mention common sense. There is no rational explanation here if one is to use the "Lindy left because he was scared" explanation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 24, 2006 15:09:29 GMT -5
Listening to some carolers a few nights ago, I thought of something out of Waller's Kidnap that goes back to this time 72 years ago.
The weather sharpened; Christmas was in the air. Sounds of young voices floated through the crisp evening. The fair-minded Hunterdon County people's children were chanting carols outside Richard Hauptmann's cell.
Merry Christmas and a safe and happy Holidays to All
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 26, 2006 18:43:16 GMT -5
Merry Christmas 2006! Wishing everyone the very best of your Celebrations and a Wonderful 2007!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2006 13:43:35 GMT -5
I think this debate has come full circle and still say that you cannot compare the relative bliss and carefree atmosphere surrounding pre-kidnap Highfields, with that of the real threats from society's dark side and the desperate reporter tactics just prior to Hauptmann's execution.
Applying Dwight Morrow's advice / prediction may seem pertinent but it remains 20/20 hindsight. Think about how this crime was universally perceived by the public - unimaginable, inconceivable, strange, bizarre. What were the true odds of an event like this having taken place?
I maintain that Lindbergh, by choosing the solitude and perceived safety of Hopewell, was determined not to have to resort to the security measures present at Englewood and to have his children grow up in a relatively normal environment. By early 1936, that wish was apparently not in the cards.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 29, 2006 14:47:21 GMT -5
Just have to say these are terrific posts being made! The various perspectives are fascinating (and really keep the blood circulating! In some respects it keeps me on track, in others it invites a different avenue. How could a forum get any better! Keep it rolling for a great New Year!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2006 21:59:38 GMT -5
We'll have to disagree Joe. Solitude and a remote dwelling does not equal safety. Hurley was hired to ensure materials and tools were not stolen and to protect the site. Is this threat eliminated once the most famous man in the world moves in?
I don't think so.
I agree Mairi. The thing about our board is that we are all independent thinkers and our debates are made in good faith. I don't think anyone will agree simply to agree and that has proven to be a very productive situation in assisting us to get closer to the truth.
That's why I invite more of the Readers to post. Disagreement shouldn't be considered negative - its a tool. Too often someone new will post an idea and/or observation that none of the "seasoned vets" seemed to have considered. Additionally, simple questions have led me to research more in that particular area which in turn taught me something I hadn't known.
There's simply too much information and all thoughts are both valuable and welcomed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2007 9:31:17 GMT -5
Yes, if you think like Charles Lindbergh did. I can't say I personally agree with his actions or would have done the same thing at the time, but when we talk about what makes sense, you have to start by putting yourself in that person's shoes. Before March 1, 1932, I just don't think he had even came close to recognizing the true potential danger of what ultimately took place within the ideal environment he believed he had found for his family.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2007 10:45:34 GMT -5
Yes, if you think like Charles Lindbergh did. (Joe)
I can't agree. When he let Hurley go he didn't say it was because he wasn't needed or there wasn't a threat - it was because he didn't want people to think he was afraid.
Why did he move there in the first place again?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2007 12:23:11 GMT -5
I hope we can close out this theme on a thread sometime in 2007... ;D
Michael, I've given my reasons. What do you think is behind the dismissal of the night watchman, in light of the purported claim by Hurley (that you've noted repeatedly) that Lindbergh told him he didn't want people to think he was afraid?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 17, 2007 15:05:40 GMT -5
Rick,
Under the section "EVENTS TODAY" in the New York Times for September 19, 1938 (four years to the day of Hauptmann's arrest), is listed this:
Meeting, Citizens Protective League, New York Turn Hall, Eighty-Fifth Street and Lexington Avenue, 8:30 P.M. "Why the Lindbergh Case Must Be Solved," Thomas F. Rice.
Wouldn't you have loved to have been a witness to that lecture? I wonder if the Citizens Protective League has some kind of a program having to do with this meeting.
By the way, Eighty-Fifth, Eighty-Sixth Street used to be largely German.
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 17, 2007 19:53:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 17, 2007 21:33:05 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks for the name of Kurt Mertig. I found this:
Elmhurst, Mertig and Maertz were arrested andheld on charges of unlawful assembly. In addition, Maertzwas charged with disorderly conduct. They are accused ofselling an obnoxious pamphlet on Jewish "ritual murder,"by a leading British fascist, which Maertz had repentedfor distribution in America. The pamphlet contained thecharge that the child of Col. Charles E. Lindbergh mighthave been kidnapped for Jewish "ritual purposes."The three defendants were found guilty and sentencedlate in February 1946. Mertig and Elmhurst received termsof six months each in the work house and Maertz, one yearin the city prison. The convictions were upheld on appeal
|
|