Re: Charles Lindbergh, racist & Nazi sympathizer

[John O.]

In article >,
says...
> Some American hero.
>
> When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
> consider them his coolies ?
>
> If there's a Hell I'm sure Lindbergh is roasting there for his racism
> & Nazi sympathies.
>
> You have to wonder how Lindbergh's grandson deals with that nasty part
> of the legend that he's living off of.
>
plonk
--
John O.
There is no slack in light attack.

[JDupre5762]

>"codefy" > wrote
>> Some American hero.
>>
>> When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
>> any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
>> consider them his coolies ?

Lindbergh died in what 1973? There had been a lot of change in Americans views
toward race by that time. I think above all Lindbergh was an American and
while he probably echoed the prevalent racial and isolationist views of the
1920's and 1930's in his heyday, ultimately he would be swayed by performance
and character. By the end of his life he could not have been ignorant of the
Tuskegee Airmen, Chappie James and Jesse Brown let alone Jackie Robinson. I
can't prove it but I dare say he would have rather forgotten any racist remarks
he might have made. Don't forget that after Pearl Harbor Lindbergh volunteered
for active duty and was denied several times by Roosevelt who harbored a grudge
over Lindbergh's comments on the superiority of the Luftwaffe in the late
1930's. A superiority that was as much Roosevelt's responsibility as it was
Hitler's.
Lindbergh's comments in those days were that the German's were so superior to
us and we were so hopelessly outclassed we could not possibly affect the
outcome of a modern war in Europe so why bother. He was right of course the US
Army was not even in the top ten in size in the world. Bulgaria had a larger
standing army. A single Luftflotte in 1940 had more aicraft than the entire US
Army Air Corps.

Lindbergh was guilty more of naivete' than Nazism. Lindbergh was taken in in
many ways by such ruses as the only handful of a bomber type being flown from
factory to factory and put back in the "production line" for him to examine all
over again.

John Dupre'

[Gooneybird]

"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
> >"codefy" > wrote

(Snip)

> .....Don't forget that after Pearl Harbor Lindbergh volunteered
> for active duty and was denied several times by Roosevelt who harbored a
grudge
> over Lindbergh's comments on the superiority of the Luftwaffe in the late
> 1930's. A superiority that was as much Roosevelt's responsibility as it was
> Hitler's.

Your biases are showing. Roosevelt took office in the middle of a roaring
depression and was elected not to build a war machine, but to resuscitate the
moribund economy. The public would not have tolerated a rebuilding and
expansion of our military while masses of Americans were still out of work.

> Lindbergh's comments in those days were that the German's were so superior to
> us and we were so hopelessly outclassed we could not possibly affect the
> outcome of a modern war in Europe so why bother. He was right of course.....

He was wrong of course. He had never envisioned that an "arsenal of democracy",
as Roosevelt called it, was even vaguely possible....one that could produce
50,000 warplanes in a year. He may have been right at the time he made that
statement, but he was clearly wrong in the final analysis.


> .....the US Army was not even in the top ten in size in the world. Bulgaria
had a larger
> standing army. A single Luftflotte in 1940 had more aicraft than the entire
US
> Army Air Corps.
>
> Lindbergh was guilty more of naivete' than Nazism. Lindbergh was taken in in
> many ways by such ruses as the only handful of a bomber type being flown from
> factory to factory and put back in the "production line" for him to examine
all
> over again.

At the time he was invited to Germany to be given the wining and dining and
propaganda tour, he went as a private citizen and allowed himself and his good
name to be used by the Nazi Government for their own purposes. He should have
been able to foresee that his involvement with them could not help but rub off
on him, but he went anyway, without our government's blessings. The tarnishing
of his name was the price he paid for his folly.

George Z.
>
> John Dupre'

[James Linn]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
...
> "codefy" > wrote
> > Some American hero.
> >
> > When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> > any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
> > consider them his coolies ?
> >
> > If there's a Hell I'm sure Lindbergh is roasting there for his racism
> > & Nazi sympathies.
> >
> > You have to wonder how Lindbergh's grandson deals with that nasty part
> > of the legend that he's living off of.
>
> Lindbergh's been dead longer than you've been alive. Only a red-neck
> would equate pacifism with sympathism.

Just watched A&E Biography on the man - he was more than sympathetic - he
admired Hitler. At one point he was going to move to Germany(1938), but
Kristallnacht disturbed him and his wife, so he never bought the house and
did move back to America.

I'd have to say that while he was a mechanical genius and great aviator, he
wasn't a great intellectual. He seems to have absorbed the views of some of
his friends and made them his own. While his views on eugenics and Jews were
and are abhorrent, I'm not sure they came from his heart either. He was
caught up in hero worship - of Hitler and others. And he seemed also to be
a contrarians - whatever Roosevelt said was bad. It cost him his Army Air
Corps Career.

And yes he was snowed by the Nazis about the power of the Luftwaffe - they
played him - and he delivered the message the Nazi's wanted -that the
Luftwaffe was invincible. Lindbergh passed the message on to Ambassador
Kennedy - who was more than ready to believe it, being anti British. More
discerning people in the state department took it with a grain of salt.

I'm sure someone here has read a decent biography of the man which covers
this stuff.

James Linn

[Cecil Turner]

James Linn wrote:
>
> "S. Sampson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "codefy" > wrote
> > > Some American hero.
> > >
> > > When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> > > any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
> > > consider them his coolies ?
> > >
> > > If there's a Hell I'm sure Lindbergh is roasting there for his racism
> > > & Nazi sympathies.
> > >
> > > You have to wonder how Lindbergh's grandson deals with that nasty part
> > > of the legend that he's living off of.
> >
> > Lindbergh's been dead longer than you've been alive. Only a red-neck
> > would equate pacifism with sympathism.
>
> Just watched A&E Biography on the man - he was more than sympathetic - he
> admired Hitler. At one point he was going to move to Germany(1938), but
> Kristallnacht disturbed him and his wife, so he never bought the house and
> did move back to America.
>
> I'd have to say that while he was a mechanical genius and great aviator, he
> wasn't a great intellectual. He seems to have absorbed the views of some of
> his friends and made them his own. While his views on eugenics and Jews were
> and are abhorrent, I'm not sure they came from his heart either. He was
> caught up in hero worship - of Hitler and others. And he seemed also to be
> a contrarians - whatever Roosevelt said was bad. It cost him his Army Air
> Corps Career.
>
> And yes he was snowed by the Nazis about the power of the Luftwaffe - they
> played him - and he delivered the message the Nazi's wanted -that the
> Luftwaffe was invincible. Lindbergh passed the message on to Ambassador
> Kennedy - who was more than ready to believe it, being anti British. More
> discerning people in the state department took it with a grain of salt.
>
> I'm sure someone here has read a decent biography of the man which covers
> this stuff.
>
Make sure it also covers his work in the Pacific during WWII as a civilian tech rep in
front-line units (flight test and profiling P-38s that resulted in nearly double
operational range). Provides a bit of balance.

rgds,
KTF

[Cecil Turner]

"George R. Gonzalez" wrote:
>
> "Cecil Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > Make sure it also covers his work in the Pacific during WWII as a civilian
> tech rep in
> > front-line units (flight test and profiling P-38s that resulted in nearly
> double
> > operational range). Provides a bit of balance.
> >
> > rgds,
> > KTF
>
> I've always wondered about this..... I first read abot his range-enhancing
> exploits in reader's Digest when I was about 13 yrs old, and it greatly
> impressed me at the time.
>
> Since then, I've picked up a few old airplane tech manuals, and at least in
> the B-17, B-29, B-24, P-51 ones I've seen, they ALL have charts in the back
> with all kinds of airspeed-vs-manifold pressure vs rpm vs range curves.
> The B-24 manual IIRC even goes to great lengths explaining the right way to
> lean out the engines, and several scary stories about the crews that never
> made it back to base because they forgot to go to lean-running mode.
>
> So did the P-38 go out to the pilots without any range vs airspeed vs rpm vs
> mixture charts??
>
> Or did the pilots ignore the charts, or what?
>
> Methinks the Linberg story is a bit too neat to be totally correct.
>
No expert here, but I just saw a special on the History Channel where they covered it at
length. Apparently the settings normally used were fuel rich to avoid damaging the
engines (if they supplied the specifics I missed 'em). Lindbergh tested new profiles,
followed by a teardown inspection of the engines to look for damage (there wasn't any),
followed by charting same. Numerous interviews of pilots and mechanics who were there,
all gave glowing endorsements, and said he effectively doubled their range. Followed by
coverage of some long-range raids that were impossible before. It was convincing to me.

rgds,
KTF

[Lawrence Dillard]

"George R. Gonzalez" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Cecil Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > Make sure it also covers his work in the Pacific during WWII as a
civilian
> tech rep in
> > front-line units (flight test and profiling P-38s that resulted in
nearly
> double
> > operational range). Provides a bit of balance.
> >
> > rgds,
> > KTF
>
> I've always wondered about this..... I first read abot his
range-enhancing
> exploits in reader's Digest when I was about 13 yrs old, and it greatly
> impressed me at the time.
>
> Since then, I've picked up a few old airplane tech manuals, and at least
in
> the B-17, B-29, B-24, P-51 ones I've seen, they ALL have charts in the
back
> with all kinds of airspeed-vs-manifold pressure vs rpm vs range curves.
> The B-24 manual IIRC even goes to great lengths explaining the right way
to
> lean out the engines, and several scary stories about the crews that never
> made it back to base because they forgot to go to lean-running mode.
>
> So did the P-38 go out to the pilots without any range vs airspeed vs rpm
vs
> mixture charts??
>
> Or did the pilots ignore the charts, or what?

It may have been a combination of both. "You can tell a fighter pilot, but
you can't tell him very much" is an old saying. Proper understanding of
m.p. vs prop rpm vs airpeed vs range might have saved quite a few engines
and pilots' lives.

>
> Methinks the Linberg story is a bit too neat to be totally correct.

I second your apparent reservations on this matter. The idea of improving
range by appropriate engine manipulation was not at all new. Experienced
transport (including airliner) pilots had known prior to the onset of WWII
that the best economy in the use of fuel involved the cruise regimen.

By dint of trial and error, it became obvious to pilots that if while in
cruise, the a/c were trimmed properly (and due attention paid to this during
the flight), then best fuel economy, and hence the best range, was obtained
by using a combination of high manifold pressure, low prop rpm, and a lean
fuel mixture.

For the P-38, the pilot was supposed to use his drop tanks after takeoff and
forming up, and to employ a high enough manifold pressure as to assure a
swift spin-up to max turbosupercharger speed, in combination with low prop
rpm and auto-lean. The Allison featured a so-called "pent-roof" combustion
chamber, which was supposed to allow for both large power production and
efficient combustion with lean mixtures. When nearing the combat arena, the
P-38 pilot was supposed to switch to internal fuel, drop wing tanks, go from
auto-lean to rich mixture and increase prop rpms; given that the manifold
pressure already was high, the turbosupercharger would spin up to max speed
quickly under the circumstances, the pilot would quickly have max power to
utilize, and he would have the speedy acceleration to combat speed he
desired..

Apparently, many P-38 pilots had been operating under the assumption that a
rather different combination of manifold pressure and rpms (i.e., a somewhat
lower m.p. and higher rpm combination) would give them the fuel economy they
desired and yet allow for swift conversion to combat-ready status; however,
in most cases, the manifold pressure used proved to be too low to allow for
a quick spool-up of the turbosuperchargers (at the very time when more power
was needed Right Now), which was the limiting factor in power production,
and at the same time the prop rpms selected led to too many engine rpms
during cruise, damaging to fuel economy. So the pilot would find both that
he'd used a lot of precious fuel before the fight was on, and that too much
time was needed to accelerate to combat speeds.

Conversely, when a P-38 pilot operated at high m.p. and low prop rpm in lean
mixture, the steps he needed to take (auto-rich, increase prop rpms) would
give him the power and acceleration he wanted faster than if he operated his
engines otherwise, and he would also have burned less fuel prior to entering
combat.

As you note, the tables (if available) would have spelled all this out.
Alternatively, practically any transport pilot could have cleared up any
confusion in a few minutes (if a fighter pilot would have deigned to
listen).


>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> George
>
>
>

[Chris Mark]

Lindbergh gets a little more attention than he deserves; the fate of the pop
celebrity, I suppose. Many more deserving intellectuals espoused isolationism,
though they are long-forgotten now.

Lindbergh's fate is, however, a reminder of how dangerous it can be to go
against the political tides.
Another, more significant and serious example of this is the poet Robinson
Jeffers, once vastly popular, but condemned to obscurity by his opposition to
US foreign policy. He could write about incest and bestiality and make the
cover of Time magazine, but once he wrote, in his poem "Pearl Harbor," such
lines as, ".... The men who have conspired and labored to embroil this republic
in the wreck of Europe have got their bargain--and a bushel more...." and
"....The war that we have carefully for years provoked Catches us unprepared,
amazed and indignant. Our warships are shot Like sitting ducks and our planes
like nest-birds, both our coasts ridiculously panicked, And our leaders make
orations...." he was professionally dead and his popularity crashed, never to
fully recover.
Like Lindbergh, he hovered around the edges of the culture after the war, a
figure from a past era whose continued presence seems to have made people
uncomfortable.

Jeffers was compared by Freeman Dyson to Einstein, not just because of his
political and social vision but also his desire to discover a broader, truer
sense of the universe and our place in it. Environmentalists like David Brower
were drawn to him, and scientists like Loren Eisley; great historians of
religion like Joseph Campbell and Huston Smith were avid students of Jeffers;
and the photographers Ansel Adams and Edward Weston rooted their understanding
of the sublime in nature, which they tried to capture in their art, in their
reading of Jeffers. Of Tor House, the home in Carmel that Jeffers built for his
strikingly beautiful wife Una with his own hands, stone by stone, incorporating
such things as a meteor fragment and a stone from Ossian's grave, Stewart
Brand, who wrote the classic "How Buildings Learn," said it was "the most
intelligent building per square inch ever built in America."

None of that mattered once Jeffers raised his voice against US foreign policy.
I don't expect A&E, that citadel of intellectualism, to ever run a story on
Robinson Jeffers, but he and Lindbergh seem to have had a lot in common, at
least in their political views (I believe Lindbergh was also a
proto-environmentalist like Jeffers). And they shared a common fate as losers
in a vastly important debate on the position the US should play in the world.

None of this is ancient history as the US is at a strikingly similar crossroads
as it redefines its place in the world post 9-11. In Lindbergh's time, the
opposition was a branch of the Republican party. This time the opposition is a
branch of the Democratic party. That's about all that has changed.


Chris Mark

[suckthis.com]

Another freakin liberal trying to defame and change historic figures..........

[Tiger]

Mr. Codefy,
Don't take things out of context. Lindbergh was not any more
racist than anybody else in 1940's America. He thought the Germans had a
good air force and they gave him the red carpet treatment when he was
over there. He was a pro neutrality guy, but later flew some combat in
the Pacific in P38's ( unofficially got 2 kills). Your venom is really
off target here.

codefy wrote:

> Some American hero.
>
> When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
> consider them his coolies ?
>
> If there's a Hell I'm sure Lindbergh is roasting there for his racism
> & Nazi sympathies.
>
> You have to wonder how Lindbergh's grandson deals with that nasty part
> of the legend that he's living off of.

[Tiger]

James Linn wrote:

> "S. Sampson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "codefy" > wrote
> > > Some American hero.
> > >
> > > When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> > > any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
> > > consider them his coolies ?
> > >
> > > If there's a Hell I'm sure Lindbergh is roasting there for his racism
> > > & Nazi sympathies.
> > >
> > > You have to wonder how Lindbergh's grandson deals with that nasty part
> > > of the legend that he's living off of.
> >
> > Lindbergh's been dead longer than you've been alive. Only a red-neck
> > would equate pacifism with sympathism.
>
> Just watched A&E Biography on the man - he was more than sympathetic - he
> admired Hitler. At one point he was going to move to Germany(1938), but
> Kristallnacht disturbed him and his wife, so he never bought the house and
> did move back to America.

Some timetimes we all need a face slap to wake us up.

>
>
> I'd have to say that while he was a mechanical genius and great aviator, he
> wasn't a great intellectual. He seems to have absorbed the views of some of
> his friends and made them his own. While his views on eugenics and Jews were
> and are abhorrent, I'm not sure they came from his heart either. He was
> caught up in hero worship - of Hitler and others. And he seemed also to be
> a contrarians - whatever Roosevelt said was bad. It cost him his Army Air
> Corps Career.

Most folks of the time wouldn't shed a tear if you hung a black man from a tree
either. And Jews didn't have a large fan club either. Times change as does
morality. Hittler had fans here & in the UK. Some misguided folk still
are......




>
>
> And yes he was snowed by the Nazis about the power of the Luftwaffe - they
> played him - and he delivered the message the Nazi's wanted -that the
> Luftwaffe was invincible. Lindbergh passed the message on to Ambassador
> Kennedy - who was more than ready to believe it, being anti British. More
> discerning people in the state department took it with a grain of salt.
>
> I'm sure someone here has read a decent biography of the man which covers
> this stuff.
>
> James Linn

Well till the Battle of Britan they were unbeaten.......

[Tiger]

"George R. Gonzalez" wrote:

> "Cecil Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > Make sure it also covers his work in the Pacific during WWII as a civilian
> tech rep in
> > front-line units (flight test and profiling P-38s that resulted in nearly
> double
> > operational range). Provides a bit of balance.
> >
> > rgds,
> > KTF
>
> I've always wondered about this..... I first read abot his range-enhancing
> exploits in reader's Digest when I was about 13 yrs old, and it greatly
> impressed me at the time.
>
> Since then, I've picked up a few old airplane tech manuals, and at least in
> the B-17, B-29, B-24, P-51 ones I've seen, they ALL have charts in the back
> with all kinds of airspeed-vs-manifold pressure vs rpm vs range curves.
> The B-24 manual IIRC even goes to great lengths explaining the right way to
> lean out the engines, and several scary stories about the crews that never
> made it back to base because they forgot to go to lean-running mode.
>
> So did the P-38 go out to the pilots without any range vs airspeed vs rpm vs
> mixture charts??
>
> Or did the pilots ignore the charts, or what?
>
> Methinks the Linberg story is a bit too neat to be totally correct.
>
> Regards,
>
> George

The guys were a little too busy staying out of someone's gun sight to
experiment. Their training didn't push such things ether.

[Tom Cervo]

>Don't forget that after Pearl Harbor Lindbergh volunteered for active duty and
was denied several times by Roosevelt who harbored a grudge over Lindbergh's
comments on the superiority of the Luftwaffe in the late 1930's.

He tried to resume his Col.'s commission in the reserve. It's a little leaden
of him to insist on that; had he shown up at an enlistment office they would
have had to take him and he would have lasted about a week as a private;
national outcry would have insisted he take the role his talents suited him to.

> A superiority that was as much Roosevelt's responsibility as it was Hitler's.
I think you must mean Congress here.

> Lindbergh's comments in those days were that the German's were so superior to
us and we were so hopelessly outclassed we could not possibly affect the
outcome of a modern war in Europe so why bother.

Actually it was such comments to the British "Cliveden" set that confirmed
their appeasement policies. Lindbergh's comments about the prowess of German
bombers created visions of London in ruins, but in fact the bombers then in
service--the ones he had seen in Germany--had the range for Britain only
without a bombload. Now, if he was the aeronautical genius he was claimed to
be, he would have noticed this. Yet he reported otherwise. He was a dupe or a
co-conspirator.

> He was right of course the US Army was not even in the top ten in size in the
world. Bulgaria had a larger standing army. A single Luftflotte in 1940 had
more aicraft than the entire
>US Army Air Corps.

"Standing"? Try figure in the reserves and the National Guard into that--as
well as America's industrial capacity, the wonder of the world in 1940. As for
that Luftflotte, try figuring in the orders placed in 1940--more than the
Luftwaffe posessed.

>Lindbergh was taken in many ways by such ruses as the only handful of a bomber
type being flown from factory to factory and put back in the "production line"
for him to examine all
>over again.

Well, check out the big brain on Lindy. No wonder the AAF didn't want him back.
Can't see them tricking someone like Doolittle like this.

[The Enlightenment]

"codefy" > wrote in message
om...
> Some American hero.
>
> When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
> consider them his coolies ?
>
> If there's a Hell I'm sure Lindbergh is roasting there for his racism
> & Nazi sympathies.
>
> You have to wonder how Lindbergh's grandson deals with that nasty part
> of the legend that he's living off of.

The majority of US citizens shared Charles Linderghs views. They wanted to
avoid a war.

There is coverage of the affair, "Lindburghs Des Moines Speech" in this
article (70 page preface, the book is excellent):
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm

They can't be called Anti-Semitic. When Lindburgh points out that some
Jewish groups want to get the US into war he was telling the simple truth
and he sympathizes with them.

Also remember there was no 'holocaust' at this time and no 'holocaust
industry' to raise consiciouncess of it. That didn't really exist till
1968. (I think a case can be made for arguing that without full blown US
and UK involvement there never would have been a holocaust; the Nazis wanted
to expell jews and break their social power in media, banking, finance,
proffesions and worked at re-settling them in Palestine on the basis of the
Balfur declaration or resettling in Madagascar etc. Highly assimilated jews
could survive in the German military eg the first officer of the Bismark was
jewish)

Roosevelt had to work very hard to get the US into war against Germany. US
destroyers escorting convoys were attacking German u-boats for almost 1 year
while the Germans did not fire back and the rare incidents when u-boats did
fire back were hyped as much as possible. By the time Pearl Harbour came
about Hitler did not have a choice as he was locked into treaties with the
Japanese.

The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no2/ss-pearlharbor.html


If you look at the state of the world today, the destruction of white people
in Europe, and the US Lindbergh was absolutely correct. Another war would
finnish the white race and it effectvely has. Some, like you (I suspect
you are jewish?), might consider that a good thing.

[Bill Silvey]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message

> Also remember there was no 'holocaust' at this time and no 'holocaust
> industry' to raise consiciouncess of it. That didn't really exist
> till 1968. (I think a case can be made for arguing that without
> full blown US and UK involvement there never would have been a
> holocaust; the Nazis wanted to expell jews and break their social
> power in media, banking, finance, proffesions and worked at
> re-settling them in Palestine on the basis of the Balfur declaration
> or resettling in Madagascar etc. Highly assimilated jews could
> survive in the German military eg the first officer of the Bismark
> was jewish)

This is either monumental ignorance or an apology for the some of the worst
monsters in history.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Lawrence Dillard]

"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
> >"codefy" > wrote
> >> Some American hero.
> >>
> >> When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> >> any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
> >> consider them his coolies ?
>
> Lindbergh died in what 1973? There had been a lot of change in Americans
views
> toward race by that time. I think above all Lindbergh was an American and
> while he probably echoed the prevalent racial and isolationist views of
the
> 1920's and 1930's in his heyday, ultimately he would be swayed by
performance
> and character.

Seems to me that the essence of a Great Man is to be able to see beyond
conventional wisdom and to examine persons and situations independently and
reach one's own conclusions and where possible, act on them. When it came to
race and to anti-Semitism, Mr. Lindbergh, although IIRC a minister's son,
seems not to have conducted such a self-examination. One wonders whether
Lindbergh ever was in touch with the so-called "average American" or whether
he could recognize and relate to views other than those fashionable in the
circles in which he habituated.

By the end of his life he could not have been ignorant of the
> Tuskegee Airmen, Chappie James and Jesse Brown let alone Jackie Robinson.
I
> can't prove it but I dare say he would have rather forgotten any racist
remarks
> he might have made. Don't forget that after Pearl Harbor Lindbergh
volunteered
> for active duty and was denied several times by Roosevelt who harbored a
grudge
> over Lindbergh's comments on the superiority of the Luftwaffe in the late
> 1930's. A superiority that was as much Roosevelt's responsibility as it
was
> Hitler's.

Actually, FDR desired to harness the charisma and persuasiveness which
Lindbergh possessed. Although FDR was certain, because of access to sources
of his own, independent of Lindbergh's, that Nazi Germany's aircraft
industry had not the prowess its propaganda claimed for it, and that the US
armaments industry, and especially the aircraft portion thereof, could be
resuscitated and could become strong enough in a rather short period of time
so as to be able to interpose effectively against any expansionist ambitions
held by the Axis, it is apparently not widely known that FDR, in the wake of
Lindbergh's German tour, offered the latter the position of US aircraft
acquisition czar, with wide delegation of authority in overseeing US R&D and
contracting; he wanted Lindbergh "on the team" instead of jeering from the
sidelines and counseling caution, if not defeatism. Lindbergh refused,
believing that FDR merely wanted to remove an irritating naysayer and
silence his independent voice of opposition.

Whereas FDR's attitude was "We'll show them!", Lindbergh's attitude
reflected a certain defeatism, "We'll never be able to match them, and let's
not waste our energies trying to" attitude, and he appeared to be ready to
accept a second-rate status for the US in world affairs, because intimidated
by a Nazi/Axis show of force.

As for his return to active duty, I submit that such a thing would have
opened a can of worms. Would Lindbergh have been able to submit to military
discipline? Would he have been able to contribute effectively in a system
where his word or opinion was not necessarily considered tantamount to
revelation?

It is well to remember that no nation, including the US, forced the Nazis to
re-arm in defiance of the WWI peace accords. FDR bore no responsibility for
the collapse of the world-wide economy, other than to try to bring the US
portion of it back to life.

> Lindbergh's comments in those days were that the German's were so superior
to
> us and we were so hopelessly outclassed we could not possibly affect the
> outcome of a modern war in Europe so why bother. He was right of course
the US
> Army was not even in the top ten in size in the world. Bulgaria had a
larger
> standing army. A single Luftflotte in 1940 had more aircraft than the
entire US
> Army Air Corps.

Again, a Great Man has to have matching vision. In this case, he seemed
determined to Think Small and seemed to lack an understanding of the latent
manufacturing potential of the US, which was still badly scarred by the
economic depression of the 1930's. As is well-known, once Gen Marshall's
system was in place, the US began producing trained divisions at such a pace
that, for example, WS Churchill initially could not comprehend how it was
being done. Lindbergh could not envision a dramatic increase in the number
of training a/c, pilots, transports, bombers, fighters, etc. which the US
proved to be capable of producing in relatively short order. Lindbergh also
appears to have missed out on the inter-allied information interchange which
kick-started US electronics and airframe development efforts.

Lindbergh was rightly called "Lucky Lindy" due to his successful solo
Atlantic crossing. However, the intense and universal celebrity (and wealth)
that became attached to him attendant thereto seems to have caused him, (as
well as many a person in other fields), to wrongly consider himself expert
at everything to which he turned his attention, and to believe that his
every opinion was sacrosanct. But Lindbergh was not a trained engineer, as
he demonstrated when the Nazis showed him around their alleged production
facilities, and was clueless in assessing the current and potential
industrial prowess of the US. Any of Gen Marshall's top staff could have
told him that the US would expand its army many-fold in a brief time, if
tasked to do so. Any of Adm Stark's top staff could have alerted him to the
swelling size and strength of the US Navy, similarly.

>
> Lindbergh was guilty more of naivete' than Nazism. Lindbergh was taken in
> many ways by such ruses as the only handful of a bomber type being flown
from
> factory to factory and put back in the "production line" for him to
examine all
> over again.

According to author "Ladislas Farago", intercepted German documents showed
that the Germans considered Lindbergh to be akin to one of their propaganda
agents who could be relied upon to cause their sentiments to become widely
heard in the US. They were especially impressed by Lindbergh's expressed
anti-Semitism.

SNIP

[The Enlightenment]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message >...
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
>
> > Also remember there was no 'holocaust' at this time and no 'holocaust
> > industry' to raise consiciouncess of it. That didn't really exist
> > till 1968. (I think a case can be made for arguing that without
> > full blown US and UK involvement there never would have been a
> > holocaust; the Nazis wanted to expell jews and break their social
> > power in media, banking, finance, proffesions and worked at
> > re-settling them in Palestine on the basis of the Balfur declaration
> > or resettling in Madagascar etc. Highly assimilated jews could
> > survive in the German military eg the first officer of the Bismark
> > was jewish)
>
> This is either monumental ignorance or an apology for the some of the worst
> monsters in history.

Try and take apart my points one by one.

[The Enlightenment]

"Gooneybird" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> >
> > > Also remember there was no 'holocaust' at this time and no 'holocaust
> > > industry' to raise consiciouncess of it. That didn't really exist
> > > till 1968. (I think a case can be made for arguing that without
> > > full blown US and UK involvement there never would have been a
> > > holocaust; the Nazis wanted to expell jews and break their social
> > > power in media, banking, finance, proffesions and worked at
> > > re-settling them in Palestine on the basis of the Balfur declaration
> > > or resettling in Madagascar etc. Highly assimilated jews could
> > > survive in the German military eg the first officer of the Bismark
> > > was jewish)
> >
> > This is either monumental ignorance or an apology for the some of the
worst
> > monsters in history.
>
> Sounds to me like some Ozzie revisionist trying to deny that the Holocaust
> happened.

I didn't say that, you did. Now why did you say that? Becuase you want to
attack me not my points and you do so by applying the ready made sticker of
holocuast denier and all that comes with it?

The tactic of a raving coward.

Holocuast Denier is the pejorative term for holocaust revisionist.
Incidently deathes in Ausschwitz have fallen from 4 million to a plausible
figure of between 500,000 - 800,000. That is official and the result of the
release of ex soviet archives. Still a very substantial number.

Now does that upset you?

Now I did not even dispute numbers, I merely pointed out that the Germans
tried expulsion first and why they tried it. I also pointed out that some
Jews served with the German armed forces throughout the war, sometimes at
high rank.

I did this to point out that from the point of view of americans in the 1939
there were no major attrocities for Ameicans or Charles Lindburgh to focus
on.

People did know that millions could die however if a full blown war occured.

> Anyone old enough to remember seeing the newspaper pictures of
> emaciated, stripe-clad corpses stacked up like cordwood taken at Dachau
with
> American troops standing around holding their noses so they wouldn't have
to
> smell the stench of death knows that it happened.

> His comment about the Nazis
> wanting to expel Jews is not only laughable as well as wildly untrue,

What percentage of German Jews escaped or were expelled? You will find
that the majority did.

Were there restellements in Palestine?

Were the Poles and Germans expelling each others jews to each other?

Did Poland invade czecholovakia just after Germany did?

It seems you are reacting emotionally.

> but
> reflect his anti-Semitic biases and prejudices.....he capitalizes "Nazis",
but
> "jews" only rate a lower case.

Very trite


> Just as a WAG, he's probably some pimply-faced
> snotnose who wasn't even alive in those days, so how would he know about
> anything like that? Probably read all about it in one of those
off-the-wall
> comic books.

I'm not interested in your froting rabid name calling. It is clear however
that you are violently attached to a particular opinion, this is why you
are angry. The world is not as it should be. You view is not confirmed!

>
> George Z.


Now read my points and if I made an incorrect statement then point it out.

I simply do not believe in the orthodoxy. WW2 could have been avoided and
less people would have died, including I think jews.

I will not conduct debate with you further.

[Ed Gein]

(JDupre5762) wrote in
:

> Why not? Thousands of Americans could have served and thousands
> more could have been building the weapons and bases that were
> going to be needed. They could have been working in the factories
> and shipyards that would have had us better prepared for WW2.

Um, no. You're wrong.

Let's pretend that in 1935 Ford's Dearborn plant was assembling
tanks instead of Model A coupes. First of all, these will be
1930s era tanks, obsolete within five years. Second, where is
the money to pay for these tanks coming from? It's a depression,
and tax revenues are in the toilet. Furthermore, you've got to
pay for people to man these tanks, people to maintain them, shells
to arm them, and transporters to move them to the front, all at
wages below the prevailing minimum at the time.

But with the plant churning out those Model A coupes, you're
employing people at Ford, at Goodyear, at the subcontractors,
at the oil companies, all without a single dime spent by the
Federal government. Instead, these employees are making a
decent living, paying taxes and, when the time came, buying
bonds to support the building of a modern armed force.

War is a revenue sink, not a revenue source. As my EC101
prof liked to say, "War is ****ty economics".

> Roosevelt got it spectacularly wrong.

Thank God. Had the US tried to build the so-called "Arsenal
of Democracy" before 1940, the USAAC would have entered the
war with 10,000 P-26 Peashooters.

Even the Italians with their CR.42s would have busted a gut
laughing.


Your fiend,

Ed

[vincent p. norris]

I don't want to take sides in the main issue being disputed here, but
merely point out that the following remark is mistaken :

> Second, where is the money to pay for these tanks coming from? It's a depression,
>and tax revenues are in the toilet.

Economists have understood since the mid-30s that the SOLUTION to
depression is for government expenditures to EXCEED tax revenues.

That creates employment, and thus income, and is the way out of the
depression.

Indeed, it was the spending on military build-up that brought the
economy out of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

(This is not to deny the role of other measures, such as monetary
policy, in combatting depression.)

vince norris

[Lawrence Dillard]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message news:...
> "JDupre5762" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >"codefy" > wrote
> > >> Some American hero.
> > >>
> > >> When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> > >> any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he
just
> > >> consider them his coolies ?
> >
> > Lindbergh died in what 1973? There had been a lot of change in
Americans
> views
> > toward race by that time. I think above all Lindbergh was an American
and
> > while he probably echoed the prevalent racial and isolationist views of
> the
> > 1920's and 1930's in his heyday, ultimately he would be swayed by
> performance
> > and character.
>
> Seems to me that the essence of a Great Man is to be able to see beyond
> conventional wisdom and to examine persons and situations independently
and
> reach one's own conclusions and where possible, act on them. When it came
to
> race and to anti-Semitism, Mr. Lindbergh, although IIRC a minister's son,
> seems not to have conducted such a self-examination. One wonders whether
> Lindbergh ever was in touch with the so-called "average American" or
whether
> he could recognize and relate to views other than those fashionable in the
> circles in which he habituated.
>
> By the end of his life he could not have been ignorant of the
> > Tuskegee Airmen, Chappie James and Jesse Brown let alone Jackie
Robinson.
> I
> > can't prove it but I dare say he would have rather forgotten any racist
> remarks
> > he might have made. Don't forget that after Pearl Harbor Lindbergh
> volunteered
> > for active duty and was denied several times by Roosevelt who harbored a
> grudge
> > over Lindbergh's comments on the superiority of the Luftwaffe in the
late
> > 1930's. A superiority that was as much Roosevelt's responsibility as it
> was
> > Hitler's.
>
> Actually, FDR desired to harness the charisma and persuasiveness which
> Lindbergh possessed. Although FDR was certain, because of access to
sources
> of his own, independent of Lindbergh's, that Nazi Germany's aircraft
> industry had not the prowess its propaganda claimed for it, and that the
US
> armaments industry, and especially the aircraft portion thereof, could be
> resuscitated and could become strong enough in a rather short period of
time
> so as to be able to interpose effectively against any expansionist
ambitions
> held by the Axis, it is apparently not widely known that FDR, in the wake
of
> Lindbergh's German tour, offered the latter the position of US aircraft
> acquisition czar, with wide delegation of authority in overseeing US R&D
and
> contracting; he wanted Lindbergh "on the team" instead of jeering from the
> sidelines and counseling caution, if not defeatism. Lindbergh refused,
> believing that FDR merely wanted to remove an irritating naysayer and
> silence his independent voice of opposition.
>
> Whereas FDR's attitude was "We'll show them!", Lindbergh's attitude
> reflected a certain defeatism, "We'll never be able to match them, and
let's
> not waste our energies trying to" attitude, and he appeared to be ready to
> accept a second-rate status for the US in world affairs, because
intimidated
> by a Nazi/Axis show of force.
>
> As for his return to active duty, I submit that such a thing would have
> opened a can of worms. Would Lindbergh have been able to submit to
military
> discipline? Would he have been able to contribute effectively in a system
> where his word or opinion was not necessarily considered tantamount to
> revelation?
>
> It is well to remember that no nation, including the US, forced the Nazis
to
> re-arm in defiance of the WWI peace accords. FDR bore no responsibility
for
> the collapse of the world-wide economy, other than to try to bring the US
> portion of it back to life.
>
> > Lindbergh's comments in those days were that the German's were so
superior
> to
> > us and we were so hopelessly outclassed we could not possibly affect the
> > outcome of a modern war in Europe so why bother. He was right of course
> the US
> > Army was not even in the top ten in size in the world. Bulgaria had a
> larger
> > standing army. A single Luftflotte in 1940 had more aircraft than the
> entire US
> > Army Air Corps.
>
> Again, a Great Man has to have matching vision. In this case, he seemed
> determined to Think Small and seemed to lack an understanding of the
latent
> manufacturing potential of the US, which was still badly scarred by the
> economic depression of the 1930's. As is well-known, once Gen Marshall's
> system was in place, the US began producing trained divisions at such a
pace
> that, for example, WS Churchill initially could not comprehend how it was
> being done. Lindbergh could not envision a dramatic increase in the number
> of training a/c, pilots, transports, bombers, fighters, etc. which the US
> proved to be capable of producing in relatively short order. Lindbergh
also
> appears to have missed out on the inter-allied information interchange
which
> kick-started US electronics and airframe development efforts.
>
> Lindbergh was rightly called "Lucky Lindy" due to his successful solo
> Atlantic crossing. However, the intense and universal celebrity (and
wealth)
> that became attached to him attendant thereto seems to have caused him,
(as
> well as many a person in other fields), to wrongly consider himself expert
> at everything to which he turned his attention, and to believe that his
> every opinion was sacrosanct. But Lindbergh was not a trained engineer, as
> he demonstrated when the Nazis showed him around their alleged production
> facilities, and was clueless in assessing the current and potential
> industrial prowess of the US. Any of Gen Marshall's top staff could have
> told him that the US would expand its army many-fold in a brief time, if
> tasked to do so. Any of Adm Stark's top staff could have alerted him to
the
> swelling size and strength of the US Navy, similarly.
>
> >
> > Lindbergh was guilty more of naivete' than Nazism. Lindbergh was taken
in
> > many ways by such ruses as the only handful of a bomber type being flown
> from
> > factory to factory and put back in the "production line" for him to
> examine all
> > over again.
>
> According to author "Ladislas Farago", intercepted German documents showed
> that the Germans considered Lindbergh to be akin to one of their
propaganda
> agents who could be relied upon to cause their sentiments to become widely
> heard in the US. They were especially impressed by Lindbergh's expressed
> anti-Semitism.
>
> SNIP
>
>

[The Enlightenment]

vincent p. norris > wrote in message >...
> I don't want to take sides in the main issue being disputed here, but
> merely point out that the following remark is mistaken :
>
> > Second, where is the money to pay for these tanks coming from? It's a depression,
> >and tax revenues are in the toilet.
>
> Economists have understood since the mid-30s that the SOLUTION to
> depression is for government expenditures to EXCEED tax revenues.

But only by a small amount and only when needed. Consistant increases
of the money supply (often driven by fanatic welfare-stateism,
pork-barrelling of electorates are as bad and far more common as the
consistant under expenditure that occured in the depression.


>
> That creates employment, and thus income, and is the way out of the
> depression.

Over protectionism was also an element.

>
> Indeed, it was the spending on military build-up that brought the
> economy out of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

I think this is somewhat of a myth with some truth. There are better
ways to galvanise an economy. To an extent the WW2 economies were all
command economies with elements of market theory.


>
> (This is not to deny the role of other measures, such as monetary
> policy, in combatting depression.)

You are talking about monetary policy.


>
> vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

On 12 Jul 2003 01:08:28 -0700, (The
Enlightenment) wrote:

>vincent p. norris > wrote in message >...
>> I don't want to take sides in the main issue being disputed here, but
>> merely point out that the following remark is mistaken :
>>
>> > Second, where is the money to pay for these tanks coming from? It's a depression,
>> >and tax revenues are in the toilet.
>>
>> Economists have understood since the mid-30s that the SOLUTION to
>> depression is for government expenditures to EXCEED tax revenues.
>
>But only by a small amount and only when needed.

OF COURSE only when needed! But by definition, it is needed during a
depression! And a "small amount," sometimes known as "pump priming,"
may be insufficient, as we learned from experience.

>> Indeed, it was the spending on military build-up that brought the
>> economy out of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
>
>I think this is somewhat of a myth with some truth.

You're free to think whatever you please, but damn few mainstream
economists, if any, would agree with you.

>You are talking about monetary policy.

Negative! I was talking about FISCAL policy. See any economics
textbook on the topics of fiscal policy and monetary policy

vince norris

[Joseph Cutler]

Cecil Turner > wrote in message >...
> James Linn wrote:
> >
> > "S. Sampson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "codefy" > wrote
> > > > Some American hero.
> > > >
> > > > When Lindbergh died in Hawaii did he consider the people there with
> > > > any more maturity than when he made his racist comments or did he just
> > > > consider them his coolies ?
> > > >
> > > > If there's a Hell I'm sure Lindbergh is roasting there for his racism
> > > > & Nazi sympathies.
> > > >
> > > > You have to wonder how Lindbergh's grandson deals with that nasty part
> > > > of the legend that he's living off of.
> > >
> > > Lindbergh's been dead longer than you've been alive. Only a red-neck
> > > would equate pacifism with sympathism.
> >
> > Just watched A&E Biography on the man - he was more than sympathetic - he
> > admired Hitler. At one point he was going to move to Germany(1938), but
> > Kristallnacht disturbed him and his wife, so he never bought the house and
> > did move back to America.
> >
> > I'd have to say that while he was a mechanical genius and great aviator, he
> > wasn't a great intellectual. He seems to have absorbed the views of some of
> > his friends and made them his own. While his views on eugenics and Jews were
> > and are abhorrent, I'm not sure they came from his heart either. He was
> > caught up in hero worship - of Hitler and others. And he seemed also to be
> > a contrarians - whatever Roosevelt said was bad. It cost him his Army Air
> > Corps Career.
> >
> > And yes he was snowed by the Nazis about the power of the Luftwaffe - they
> > played him - and he delivered the message the Nazi's wanted -that the
> > Luftwaffe was invincible. Lindbergh passed the message on to Ambassador
> > Kennedy - who was more than ready to believe it, being anti British. More
> > discerning people in the state department took it with a grain of salt.
> >
> > I'm sure someone here has read a decent biography of the man which covers
> > this stuff.
> >
> Make sure it also covers his work in the Pacific during WWII as a civilian tech rep in
> front-line units (flight test and profiling P-38s that resulted in nearly double
> operational range). Provides a bit of balance.
>
> rgds,
> KTF


Recognize that even in this position he was still commenting that
"What we are doing to the Japs in the Pacific is the same as what the
Germans are doing to the Jews".

Certainly some sickening moral relativism.

[Sigvaldi Eggertsson]

">
> A man who put together the finance and funding of an aircraft that for the
> first time crossed an ocean non stop.

Lindbergh was the 97th to cross the Atlantic ocean.