- Education and Science»
- History & Archaeology»
- History of the Americas
Was Charles Linbergh Really a Traitor?
After speaking out against America's entrance into WW2 after Pearl Harbor, many Americans viewed Lindbergh as a traitor; were they right, or just hostile?
Although the defeat of Japan and Nazi Germany was and still is one of the most important defeats of all world history (in my opinion), I can see why Lindbergh thought staying out of Europe’s affairs and staying neutral would be a good idea. With this speech given in 1941, one must consider the context of Lindbergh’s words. While going to war against (again, in my opinion) the most evil political cause of all time seemed necessary, Lindbergh must still have been thinking about the depression of the 30’s that still lingered in America. Lindbergh was simply being realistic.
When it came down it, Germany was very strong. Because it was the leading aviation force in Europe (and Britain’s leading naval force was pointless when needing to fight in-land), Germany had a strong upper hand and Lindbergh could see that. Lindbergh figured it would be, if nothing else, against good strategy to send support to a naval based country to fight a land war. America couldn’t afford to send monetary support, and troops would be overpowered by Germany’s outstanding aviation. In Lindbergh’s eyes, with so little of anything to spare in America, giving all our military force over to aide Europe would be like sticking our necks under a guillotine.
Looking back (like I said before), I would have to disagree with Lindbergh based on the information I know today. If I lived back then, I think I would have agreed with Lindbergh although the joining of the war was inevitable, especially with the attack on Pearl Harbor only months away. Fortunately, America came out of the war much richer than before.