Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Charles Lindbergh — Part 11
Page 6
6 / 83
oie ee
3
4
3
x
£
“Y
uh
4
less satisfied, than its neighbors; a nation
fully trained for war, and nurtured on the
philosophy that right is inseparable from
might.
The true facts of the European situation
had been hidden from the people of England
and France. They were not adequately in-
formed either of Germany’s strength or of
their own weakness. Politicians and ideal-
ists harangued them about stopping aggres-
sion, about defending freedom and democ-
racy, about maintaining their way of life,
but the realities of modern warfare — the
elements that spell failure or success —
were seldom discussed. The orators shouted:
“We must stop Hitler.” ¢ The hewspapers
echoed: “Down with the Nazi regime.” The
people of France and/ England resigned
themselves to the inevitability of war, But
not a single man told how to break the
Siegfried Line.
I can best illustrate the attitude in the
democracies of Furope by telling you of
a conversation I had one evening with a
French businessman on the outskirts of
Paris. He had been talking for nearly an
hour about the inevitability of war, and
why German aggression must be stopped.
He advocated @ declaration of war by
nce,
“What would your first move be?” I
asked him.
“We must fight the Germans,” he replied.
“But how?” I asked him, “Do you th'nk
the French army can break the Siegfried
ine?”
He looked startled, then sank back into
his chair. “Ob, I don't know about that,”
he answered. “That's up to the military
me:
A week or two later, I was having lunch
with one of those military men—a general
in the French army. T asked him if he felt
that the Siegfried Line could be broken.
“No,” he replied, “I don’t think 50.” And
then added: “But if it could, the cost would
be too high.”
“What's the answer then?” F asked, for
the war drums were beating loudly.
He shrugged his shoulders. “If only they
had let us attack when we wanted to,” he
said, en we could have won, the people
would not fight. And now, when we cannot
win, they want war.”
France waited until it was too late.
England waited until it was too late, We
in America have waited until it is too late;
and yet we step closer and closer to the war,
as though hypnotized by its bombing and
its fury. Like France and England in 1939,
we are unprepared today. ‘e have not
as many thoroughly modern fighting planes
in our Army and Navy combined as Ger-
any produces in a single week; and our
Anny is deplorably lacking in such essen-
tial’ items as tanks and antitank cannon.
We have not made the sacrifice necessary
for adequate rearmament. We, too, have
cultivated the philosophy that it is essential
to defend someone else in order to defend
ourselves. Qwr politicians and idealists har-
angue ws about defending freedom and
democracy, id our way of life, 7 are
now shouting, “We must stop Hitler,” Our
newspapers echo “Down with the Nazi
regime.” But not one feasible plan has been
offered us for en invasion of the continent
of Europe. With the disaster of France and
England fresh before us, we are following
the selfsame path, .
We, in America, are being led to war by
@ group of interventionists, and foreign in-
terests, against the will of a majority of
our people. Every poll of public opinion
has shown that from 80 per cent to 95 per
cent of Americans are opposed to entering
this war, Both the Republican and Demo-
tic parties were forced to incorporate
\ativar planks in their platforms. Both
dential candidates were compelled to
take a stand against our intervention, Yet
today, although no one has made an attempt
to attack us, we already have one foot in
the war. We have even now entangled “our
Peace and prosperity in the toils of Euro-
nbition, rivalship, interest, humor and
happened to us? How was
ion brought about? The pro-
cedure has not been dissimilar to that which
took us into the last war. When hostilities
in Europe began, it was fully realized by
the foreign interests and interventionists in
this country that the great majority of
Americans stood firmly opposed to entering
the conflict, These interventionists knew
that it was useless for them to advocate
openly a declaration of war by America.
They therefore adopted a more subtle plan.
They believed that while the people of the
United States would not agree to a declara-
tion of war, we could be beguiled into sup-
- porting steps that would inevitably lead to
ve
war, Consequently, instead of advocatin;
war, they advocated steps which they called
“short of war’—steps which have already
entangled us, and which will leave us no
alternative to war if we continue to take
them. The policy of the interventionists has
been, from the beginning, to support every
movement that would lead us in the direc-
tion of war, and to oppose every movement
that would not—always under their mask
of “aid short of war.” I have listened more
than once to interventionists in America dis-
cuss the question of what steps “short of
war” would take us into war most quickly.
To be specific, soon after war was de-
clared in Europe, the interventionists advo-
cated, and obtained, the revision of our
Neutrality Act. They persuaded us that
we could sell arms on a “cash and carry”
basis without becoming involved in the war
ourselves. They were emphatic in saying
that no one asked us to lend money, or to
send troops abroad. Their next step “short
of war” was the demand that aircraft,
cannon, destroyers and other munitions be
taken from the American Army, Navy and
Air Corps, and transferred to the French
and British forces in Europe. In this, too,
we acquiesced. Then we began to hear it
whispered that we were already too far
in the war to back out—whispered by the
yery people who had advocated the steps
“short of war” which involved us. Now we
are told that we have not done enough; that
there must be no limit to our assistance;
that we must be the “arsenal of democracy”
for the entire world, lending, leasing or
giving all the resources of our nation, if
necessary, to the cause of the British empire.
{And here it is interesting to note that the
cause of the British empire does not pre-
vent us, as the “arsenal of democracy,”
from supplying arms to Ru:
be both an
an state.) | tes of intervention
are beginning to forget the qualifying
phrase “short of war.” The more daring
among them are openly discussing an Amer-
ican Expeditionary Force for Europe.
Along mith steps “short ff war” has
gone & supporting campaign of propaganda.
Our country has been full of it for many
months—a propaganda as subtle, insidious
and effective to date as that which led us
into the last war. Before we entered war
in 1917 we were told, as we are being told
today, that American troops would not be
needed. Then, after we declared war, we
were asked for a “token” division to fight
in Burope. But we ended up with more than
2,000,000 soldiers overseas, and a war debt
that has not yet been .
British propaganda in the United States
attempts to persuade us that Great Britain
will win the war, provided she receives
somewhat more help than we have, up to
this moment, given her. Coupled with this
has been a campaign to convince us t
British victory is essential to Ame
security. It is taken for inted the
would not be willing to take part in i
which we felt would be unsuccessful.
sequently, news releases from London
mize all German successes and exagg
all British successes. They avoid an}
cussion of war aims, peace terms oi
England can win now that German;
defeated France and controls the con’
of Europe. This simply the AE
wartime propaganda. Jt is carried «
both sides in a I am discussing
ish propaganda because it is that to
we have been subjected and therein li
danger of our involvement. There is
tainly no danger of our fighting on
many’s side, and her propaganda in An
has been relatively ineffective.
To be specific again, you will rem:
that even before hostilities comm
factual statements concerning the ty
military strength of Germany were bi
attacked by the pro-British press, Thi
us who saw the growth of the Germ:
force were severely assailed because «
reports we made describing it, alt
these reports now turn out to have
almost unforgivably conservative. The:
recall that when the Germans in
Austria, it was claimed by the propaga
that their mechanized divisions broke |
that the workmanship on their tanks, t
engines, ete., was too inferior to 0;
successfully in a major war. Germa’
craft were said to be weakly constn
there was a shortage of Blots, Taw mat
and fuel. We were told that Germar
not have sufficient food to wage a war
in addition to all this, internal con¢
were said to be so bad that the Gi
people would start a revolution rather
fight again.
If you question the accuracy of my
ment that we have been misinformed th
propaganda, I ask you to glance th
our daily newspapers since the war |
If you are pressed for time, take an
of the major campaigns—Poland, Fi
Norway, Holland, Belgium and France
will find that we, in America, were |
formed about these campaigns unt
actual military position made it imp
to hide the facts any longer. Do y:
member when we were informed ov
radio that the French army had pene
the Siegfried Line in five different p
Do you recall the headlines of battle:
ing on the western front during the ;
of 1939-40 — battles we now know
never fought? Were we told how des
the Finnish position was before the
break-through of the Russian army
you remember how, after reading day
day of Allied successes in Norway, an
Germany had put her neck in a noo
were startled by the announcement th
Allies were evacuating all of their f
Who was it said the Maginot Line w
pregnable; that bombing planes we
match for the British navy; that E:
had the submarine menace well in har
had already “won the battle of the a
‘The propagandists who made these
do not bother to explain them. They
that people forget quickly, and they ¢
busy leading us along with new fa
They must confuse Americe’s desire
England with our desire to stay out.
war. They must convince our peop!
England is winning the war in E
ven though she has lost every mai
gagement in which she participated -
all she needs is more help than we
up to that moment, given her; and ‘
we should get into the war, it wou
be necessary to send troops. They
build up the element of fear in At
They must persuade us that if
1H
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
bureau
letter
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic