|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 28, 2015 14:05:48 GMT -5
Anne Morrow Lindbergh did write a book titled "The Wave of the Future" in 1940, and "the wave of the future" was a common phrase used by promoters of fascism (and communism) in the 1920s and 1939s. Bur this particular book was certainly NOT an endorsement of fascism or totalitarianism. Mrs. Lindbergh's book, in fact, was subtitled "A Confession of Faith."
I have never heard of anyone accuse Mrs. Lindbergh of any pro-Nazi or pro-fascist sympathies. I do know that she was reputed to have chastised her husband for his trips to Nazi Germany, especially his reception of a medal from the Nazis (received from Goering?). Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has anyone in the Morrow family ever been said by any reputable historian to be pro-Nazi or pro-fascist.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2015 18:06:36 GMT -5
Bur this particular book was certainly NOT an endorsement of fascism or totalitarianism. Mrs. Lindbergh's book, in fact, was subtitled "A Confession of Faith." I disagree. For me it's pretty clear. Back to Lindbergh's trips... It's been a while since I read up on this but I want to post what I remember coming from T.H. Tetens before I forget. In a nut-shell: Lindbergh went to inspect the German aircraft in 1936. In 1938 he went to Russia to do the same. He informed both the English and French they were no where near the air-power possessed by the Luftwaffe. In fact, he claimed the combination of Russia, Czech, France and England were no match. This information was indirectly if not directly responsible for the Munich Agreement. Sometime after this settlement Lindbergh actually confided to the Americans that he had exaggerated his claims about the Luftwaffe, and the actual numbers and ability was no where near a match for the (then) combined forces of the above countries. So Lindbergh's information prevented an alliance which would have been capable of preventing Germany from taking over Czechoslovakia. Also, since Germany was in production of planes all the while, it also bought them time which allowed them to build up their fleet. Then once back home, Lindbergh talked down the idea of the American air defense program and criticized the President for overrating the importance of air power. Like I said it's been quite a while but Tetens leaves no doubt he believed Lindbergh was working for the Germans. That's the last of this from me on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 29, 2015 6:26:24 GMT -5
Is the Duffy book any good? I have heard of it and this theory of Lindbergh as a secret agent of the U.S. and I wondered if Duffy has credible sources for his arguments. Does he present a convincing argument about this secret role for Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 29, 2015 17:59:46 GMT -5
To All:
Suppose it depends a lot on one's general political outlook and interpretation of historical facts. Although Franklin D. Roosevelt died before I was born, I grew up amidst a mythology revering him which I came to understand was largely unjustified, especially with regard to his performance on domestic issues such as the economy. I've come to take the view that some of Roosevelt's New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression, which in fact spanned a time period of which the first third was under Herbert Hoover's watch and the last two-thirds were during Roosevelt's administration. So Roosevelt hardly deserves to be called the savior of the American economy, as his admirers frequently called him. Then too, being Jewish, I also came to realize that Roosevelt and his administration muffed many opportunities to help save European Jews from the Nazi genocide.
I had read a few anti-New Deal books and had some discussions with people who share these views. So I was interested in the Duffy book, which promised to paint Roosevelt in a negative light, more because of that than Duffy's attempt at repairing Lindbergh's legacy. Yes, the Duffy book, Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt, is professionally written and sourced, and represents a point of view that, though politically incorrect in some circles, is impossible to dismiss out of hand. Roosevelt, to me, was a lot less of a man and a president than he is commonly made out to be, and his zealous personal antagonism and vendettas vis-a-vis Lindbergh illustrate a willingness to stoop to a level that doesn't fit in with a great president and national leader.
Separately, in reference to Anne Morrow Lindbergh's book (or booklet) "The Wave of the Future" (published in 1940), please feel free to comment here if by some chance you have read it. (I can imagine that it's very difficult to find, but I've seen it can be ordered from E-Bay.) Offhand, I do not think, knowing what I know about Anne and the Morrow family from which she came, that it expresses a pro-Nazi or pro-fascist view. (The Morrow family, according to Noel Behn in "Lindbergh: The Crime," stopped talking to CAL Sr. after what appeared to some to be his sucking up to Nazi Germany.) Some today, in retrospect, might foolishly confuse an American isolationist view, which was a very common sentiment in the country in 1940, with a full-throated endorsement of Nazism and or fascism. In other words, writings such as this must be interpreted against a background of the time at which they were written.
My apologies for getting off the subject of the Lindbergh Kidnap case here by "fast forwarding" a few years to CAL Sr.'s possible dalliance with fascism and Nazism, but there could be some connection here, which would be, in abroad sense, what was called "eugenics." Nazi Germany eventually adopted the eugenic ideology to its extreme in its most heinous policies, and it seems as if CAL Sr. believed in eugenics to a lesser extent earlier. In fact, in the 1930s and before, there had been a eugenic movement in the United States and other western nations, which many considered "mainstream." Thus the theories that CAL Sr., a believer in eugenic principles and appalled that his son might be growing up with serious health problems, might have had a (perverse) motivation to have CAL Jr. killed or deliberately removed from his house and covered this up by making it appear as if the little boy was snatched by a stranger from his nursery.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 29, 2015 20:30:39 GMT -5
Yup. I also look at the crime scene itself, one that's pretty obviously staged. The ladder, for example: Unless you're trying to communicate something specific, why leave something so unique--and therefore so incriminating--behind? I mean, okay, maybe they were in a hurry and, since the ladder was designed for one-time use, the kidnappers dumped it, not thinking it could be traced to them. But leaving it behind, why not just leave it by the house? Why drag it any distance away, unless it's a crumb in a breadcrumb trail, meant to be followed so people will get a certain idea of what happened? The same goes for the chisel; another crumb in the trail, meant to illustrate outsiders having to break in, as opposed to being let in by an insider. Further, how did the kidnappers know which was the nursery window? How did they know when to strike, that they wouldn't be walked in on, or how to navigate around a pitch black room they'd ostensibly never been in before without disturbing anything or waking up their target? How did they manage any of this without some kind of inside intel? And who on the inside had the confidence and clout to direct any sort of operation like this, and to subsequently misdirect any investigation of it? Now, why would he? I mean to say, what would the motive have been? The one you mentioned above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 13:47:08 GMT -5
Separately, in reference to Anne Morrow Lindbergh's book (or booklet) "The Wave of the Future" (published in 1940), please feel free to comment here if by some chance you have read it. (I can imagine that it's very difficult to find, but I've seen it can be ordered from E-Bay.) Offhand, I do not think, knowing what I know about Anne and the Morrow family from which she came, that it expresses a pro-Nazi or pro-fascist view. (The Morrow family, according to Noel Behn in "Lindbergh: The Crime," stopped talking to CAL Sr. after what appeared to some to be his sucking up to Nazi Germany.) Some today, in retrospect, might foolishly confuse an American isolationist view, which was a very common sentiment in the country in 1940, with a full-throated endorsement of Nazism and or fascism. In other words, writings such as this must be interpreted against a background of the time at which they were written. I have the book and have read it. It is only 41 pages long but it is one of those books that requires thinking and reflecting upon after you finish it. I will try to address the points in your comment. Please keep in mind that these are only my thoughts and opinions and are limited by my current knowledge. I am still reading and learning about the all the people who play a part in this thread of history. In the Wave of the Future, Anne is very clear in her dislike of war. She doesn't advocate it as the way to effect change but realizes its inevitability when looking at human history and how humanity handles change and progress. Anne stands firmly behind Charles in a desire to stay out of the war. This is in direct opposition with her family and friends. She addresses this in her book. However she tries to walk a fine line between what are viewed as the two worlds (Pro-war or Anti-war) of thought about war. Her friends define the war as being the "Forces of Good" against the "Forces of Evil". Although Anne agrees with this analogy as being right, she says it is limited in scope to the small stage at which her friends are viewing the landscape of war. She wonders if persecution, aggression, war and theft are sins or not. She then goes on to answer herself with the following on pages 11 and 12: "They are sins; there is no doubt about it and I stand against them. But there are other sins, such as blindness, selfishness, irresponsibility, smugness, lethargy, and resistance to change--sins which we "Democracies," all of us, are guilty of. There are sins of omission as well as sins of commission; and in this world we suffer for our sins, regardless of what category they are in."She then goes on to make a Biblical comparison of the "Democracies" as being the good nations who have much and that brings with it a responsibility to the other nations who she labels as the "Have-not Nations" deserving more share in the possessions of the world, which rest largely in the hands of the "Have Nations." She goes on to say that in the past, intelligent minds in the United States, England and France understood this. Anne then suggests that perhaps had those voices been heeded earlier, and quoting her book here (page 13), "had post-war Republican Germany been given more support and aid by the "Democracies," had reasonable territorial and economic concessions been made to a moderate government, there would have been no Naziism and no war."She goes on to say that this does not excuse the methods of aggression and war; but it does to some degree explain them. A few pages later in the book Anne will revisit this whole "good" verses "evil" definition of war. On pages 18 and 19 she will go on to say: "I cannot see this war, then, simply and purely as a struggle between the "Forces of Good" and the 'Forces of Evil.' If I could simplify it into a phrase at all, it would seem truer to say that the 'Forces of the Past' are fighting against the 'Forces of the Future.' To make this statement is not to say that 'might makes right,' or that it is Germany's 'turn to win,' or to give any such literal and facile explanations. It is not to claim that the things we dislike in Naziism are the forces of the future. But it is to say that somehow the leaders in Germany, Italy, and Russia have discovered how to use new social and economic forces; very often they have used them badly, but nevertheless, they have recognized and used them. They have sensed the changes and they have exploited them. They have felt the wave of the future and they have leapt upon it. The evils we deplore in these systems are not in themselves the future; they are scum on the wave of the future."
This is just a small portion of the book and it really should be read to get a complete picture of how Anne is thinking and reasoning in this book. I do want to say that having read this book of Anne's and then Lindbergh's autobiography, there are parallels to be drawn in their thinking. They both held the view that Germany was the strongest nation in Europe at that time. In Lindbergh's autobiography he sees Germany as being fully capable of protecting Europe's borders from the expansion of Russia's Marxist Communism. In Anne's book, she does dislike things about Nazism but tries to look past those things (scum as she calls them)as humanity continues its march into the future. In Lindbergh's autobiography he says that he found Nazi Germany to be a fascinating country. However, he then says, and I quote, "I disliked its regimentation, its appeal to mass emotions, its restriction of free thought, its fanatical attitude toward race: yet I saw there an aspect of life that was fundamental to life's evolution--the forceful challenge to a status quo. I saw a Western people preparing for aggression and developing a philosophy to justify such action--as Englishmen had justified building their empire, as Americans had justified wresting a continent from its inhabitants and then throwing out the earlier occupying forces of England, France, and Spain."
It appears that Lindbergh puts everyone in the same "Nazi" pot since he sees all the actions of great world powers as behaving the same way as Germany. I did not find any direct statement in Lindbergh's autobiography stating his support of Hitler himself, but his strong support for Germany while Hitler was its leader speaks for itself. He was choosing to live under Hitler's flag by looking for a home for himself and his family. Who would choose to do that unless they are in agreement with the government of that country?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 30, 2015 15:01:05 GMT -5
While Lindbergh may have disliked certain aspects of Nazism (or conveniently claimed as much in his autobiography decades later, when the scope of what they'd done had been revealed and he had no choice but to disavow them), by contrast, my guess is that Anne was probably totally disgusted by the Nazis, but had to toe the line of her husband's enthusiasm, being dominated by him for a large part of her life. Because of this, I think her actual disgust was tempered by certain sentiments like, "Well, they're not all bad, and, besides, no country is completely good or guiltless of something..."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 15:08:25 GMT -5
I do want to add that Anne found herself in a difficult position because of her family and friends feeling differently about the need to go to war. If you read her diary from this time period you see the emotional conflict she was in. Anne saw her place as a wife who supports her husband even though, privately, she would share her thoughts with Charles over his speeches and the impact they would have on him. Lindbergh did what Lindbergh wanted to and Anne accepted this. Here is a newspaper article that talks about the level of opposition between Lindbergh and his mother-in-law, Mrs. Betty Morrow. news.google.com/newspapers?id=1tMjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cGkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1604%2C3330057
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 15:11:01 GMT -5
While Lindbergh may have disliked certain aspects of Nazism (or conveniently claimed as much in his autobiography decades later, when the scope of what they'd done had been revealed and he had no choice but to disavow them), by contrast, my guess is that Anne was probably totally disgusted by the Nazis, but had to toe the line of her husband's enthusiasm, being dominated by him for a large part of her life. Because of this, I think her actual disgust was tempered by certain sentiments like, "Well, they're not all bad, and, besides, no country is completely good or guiltless of something..." I agree that Lindbergh had enormous influence over Anne. I think her book, Wave of the Future, is a reflection of that influence.
|
|
|
Post by Ron on Oct 30, 2015 23:21:43 GMT -5
Amy35, thank you for taking the time for detailing the content of the Wave of the Future. I read the book many years ago and I forgot the "scum on the wave" part. That is the "ah ha" moment in an otherwise confusing book. One almost has to turn around and read the book again after that part and look for her subtle Nazi messaging like: unpleasantness now for the sake of a greater good (1000-year global leadership to preserve the planet and the human breeding stock). If I remember correctly she used the example of the horrific atrocity of blood spilled in the French Revolution, pointing out its necessity to evolve from monarchy. Lindbergh's autobiography: "...Englishmen had justified building their empire, as Americans had justified wresting a continent from its inhabitants..." This was straight out of the Nazi handbook; Germany had the right to rule others by force of nature, social Darwinism. I don't think I have to go into the difference between colonization and blitzkrieg. Nonetheless we certainly agonize more and more about honoring Christopher Columbus with a holiday. One more anecdote: Lindbergh worked with experimental surgeon Dr. Alexis Carrel on a profusion pump artificial heart for about a year after Charles Jr. was born. Carrel before he died was about to be brought up on charges of Nazi collaboration at the close of WWII for involvement in administration in Vichy France's eugenics program. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Carrel
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 31, 2015 12:17:59 GMT -5
It's more than that newspaper article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (June 4, 1940). Apparently, Mrs. Morrow went so far as to record a national radio show to criticize her own son-in-law's political views for the whole country to hear! Noel Behn mentions in "Lindbergh: The Crime" that "...Anne's mother and sister both publicly disavowed [CAL Sr.]. [CAL Sr.'s] own mother, who was pro-Ally, stopped talking to him."
|
|