(1) Gerald Nye, speech reported in the New York Times on 28th August 1940.
England and France reason to believe that if they would declare war on Germany, help would be forthcoming. Some day history will show, as one of the blackest marks of our time, that we sold out, by deliberate falsification, the two European nations with which we had the closest ties. We sent France to her death and have brought England perilously close to it. Had they stalled Hitler for a while, while they prepared to meet him, the story might have been different.
(2) Robert E. Sherwood, article published in the New York Times (10th June, 1940)
We Americans have naturally wished to keep out of this war - to take no steps which might lead us in. But - We now know that every step the French and British fall back brings war and world revolutions closer to US - our country, our institutions, our homes, our hopes for peace.
Hitler is striking with all the terrible force at his command. His is a desperate gamble, and the stakes are nothing less than domination of the whole human race.
If Hitler wins in Europe - if the strength of the British and French armies and navies is forever broken - the United States will find itself alone in a barbaric world - a world ruled by Nazis, with "spheres of influence" assigned to their totalitarian allies. However different the dictatorships may be, racially, they all agree on one primary objective: "Democracy must be wiped from the face of the earth."
Whatever our feelings about the tragic mistakes of statesmanship in England and France we know now that the free people of those nations are willing to fight with inspiring heroism to defend their freedom. We know now that such men will die rather than surrender. But the stoutest hearts can not survive forever in the face of superior numbers and infinitely superior weapons.
There is nothing shameful in our desire to stay out of war, to save our youth from the dive bombers and the flame throwing tanks in the unutterable hell of modern warfare. But is there not an evidence of suicidal insanity in our failure to help those who now stand between us and the creators of this hell?
We can help by sending planes, guns, munitions, food. We can help to end the fear that American boys will fight and die in another Flanders, closer to home.
(3) Burton K. Wheeler of Montana led the attacks on Lend-Lease in the Senate when it was debated on 12th January 1941.
The lend-lease policy translated into legislative form, stunned a Congress and a nation wholly sympathetic to the cause of Great Britain. The Kaiser's blank check to Austria-Hungary in the First World War was a piker compared to the Roosevelt blank check of World War II. It warranted my worst fears for the future of America, and it definitely stamps the President as war-minded.
The lend-lease-give program is the New Deal's triple-A foreign policy; it will plow under every fourth American boy. Never before have the American people been asked or compelled to give so bounteously and so completely of their tax dollars to any foreign nation. Never before has the Congress of the United States been asked by any President to violate international law. Never before has this nation resorted to duplicity in the conduct of its foreign affairs. Never before has the United States given to one man the power to strip this nation of its defenses. Never before has a Congress coldly and flatly been asked to abdicate.
If the American people want a dictatorship - if they want a totalitarian form of government and if they want war - this bill should be steam-rollered through Congress, as is the wont of President Roosevelt.
Approval of this legislation means war, open and complete warfare. I, therefore, ask the American people before they supinely accept it - Was the last World War worthwhile?
If it were, then we should lend and lease war materials. If it were, then we should lend and lease American boys. President Roosevelt has said we would be repaid by England. We will be. We will be repaid, just as England repaid her war debts of the First World War - repaid those dollars wrung from the sweat of labor and the toil of farmers with cries of "Uncle Shylock." Our boys will be returned - returned in caskets, maybe; returned with bodies maimed; returned with minds warped and twisted by sights of horrors and the scream and shriek of high-powered shells.
(4) Robert M. Hutchins, the president of the University of Chicago, was another opponent of Lend-Lease. In a speech made on 23rd January, 1941, Hutchins argued that the American government should devote its resources to the task of making good on its age-old promises of freedom and abundance for all.
It is impossible to listen to Mr. Roosevelt's recent speeches, to study the Lease-Lend Bill, and to read the testimony of
Cabinet officers upon it without coming to the conclusion that the President now requires us to underwrite a British victory, and apparently a Chinese and a Greek victory, too. We are going to try to produce the victory by supplying our friends with the materials of war. But what if this is not enough? We have abandoned all pretense of neutrality. We are to turn our ports into British naval bases. But what if this is not enough? Then we must send the navy, the air force, and, if Mr. Churchill wants it, the army. We must guarantee the victory.
If we stay out of war, we may perhaps some day understand and practise freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. We may even be able to comprehend and support justice, democracy, the moral order, and the supremacy of human rights. Today we have barely begun to grasp the meaning of the words.
Those beginnings are important. They place us ahead of where we were at the end of the last century. They raise us, in accomplishment as well as in ideals, far above the accomplishment and ideals of totalitarian powers. They leave us, however, a good deal short of that level of excellence which entitles us to convert the world by force of arms.
Have we freedom of speech and freedom of worship in this country? We do have freedom to say what everybody else is saying and freedom of worship if we do not take our religion too seriously. But teachers who do not conform to the established canons of social thought lose their jobs. People who are called "radicals" have mysterious difficulties in renting halls. Labor organizers sometimes get beaten up and ridden out of town on a rail. Norman Thomas had some troubles in Jersey City. And the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to let Marian Anderson sing in the national capital in a building called Constitution Hall.
If we regard these exceptions as minor, reflecting the attitude of the more backward and illiterate parts of the country, what are we to say of freedom from want and freedom from fear? What of the moral order and justice and the supremacy of human rights? What of democracy in the United States?
Words like these have no meaning unless we believe in human dignity. Human dignity means that every man is an end in himself. No man can be exploited by another. Think of these things and then think of the sharecroppers, the Okies, the Negroes, the slumdwellers, downtrodden and oppressed for gain. They have neither freedom from want nor freedom from fear. They hardly know they are living in a moral order or in a democracy where justice and human rights are supreme.
We have it on the highest authority that one-third of the nation is ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed. The latest figures of the National Resources Board show that almost precisely 55 percent of our people are living on family incomes of less than $1,25O a year. This sum, says Fortune magazine, will not support a family of four. On this basis more than half our people are living below the minimum level of subsistence. More than half the army which will defend democracy will be drawn from those who have had this experience of the economic benefits of "the American way of life."
We know that we have had till lately 9 million unemployed and that we should have them still if it were not for our military preparations. When our military preparations cease, we shall, for all we know, have 9 million unemployed again. In his speech on December 29, Mr. Roosevelt said, "After the present needs of our defense are past, a proper handling of the country's peacetime needs will require all of the new productive capacity - if not still more." For ten years we have not known how to use the productive capacity we had. Now suddenly we are to believe that by some miracle, after the war is over, we shall know what to do with our old productive capacity and what to do in addition with the tremendous increases which are now being made. We have want and fear today. We shall have want and fear "when the present needs of our defense are past."
As for democracy, we know that millions of men and women are disfranchised in this country because of their race, color, or condition of economic servitude. We know that many municipal governments are models of corruption. Some state governments are merely the shadows of big city machines. Our national government is a government by pressure groups. Almost the last question an American is expected to ask about a proposal is whether it is just. The question is how much pressure is there behind it or how strong are the interests against it. On this basis are settled such great issues as monopoly, the organization of agriculture, the relation of labor and capital, whether bonuses should be paid to veterans, and whether a tariff policy based on greed should be modified by reciprocal trade agreements.
To have a community men must work together. They must have common principles and purposes. If some men are tearing down a house while others are building it, we do not say they are working together. If some men are robbing, cheating, and oppressing others, we should not say they are a community. The aims of a democratic community are moral. United by devotion to law, equality, and justice, the democratic community works together for the happiness of all the citizens. I leave to you the decision whether we have yet achieved a democratic community in the United States.
(5) Charles A. Lindbergh, speech in New York (23rd April, 1941)
I have said before and I will say again that I believe it will be a tragedy to the entire world if the British Empire collapses. That is one of the main reasons why I opposed this war before it was declared and why I have constantly advocated a negotiated peace. I did not feel that England and France had a reasonable chance of winning.
France has now been defeated; and despite the propaganda and confusion of recent months, it is now obvious that England is losing the war. I believe this is realized even by the British government. But they have one last desperate plan remaining. They hope that they may be able to persuade us to send another American Expeditionary Force to Europe and to share with England militarily as well as financially the fiasco of this war.
I do not blame England for this hope, or for asking for our assistance. But we now know that she declared a war under circumstances which led to the defeat of every nation that sided with her, from Poland to Greece. We know that in the desperation of war England promised to all those nations armed assistance that she could not send. We know that she misinformed them, as she has misinformed us, concerning her state of preparation, her military strength, and the progress of the war.
In time of war, truth is always replaced by propaganda. I do not believe we should be too quick to criticize the actions of a belligerent nation. There is always the question whether we, ourselves, would do better under similar circumstances. But we in this country have a right to think of the welfare of America first, just as the people in England thought first of their own country when they encouraged the smaller nations of Europe to fight against hopeless odds. When England asks us to enter this war, she is considering her own future and that of her Empire. In making our reply, I believe we should consider the future of the United States and that of the Western Hemisphere.
It is not only our right but it is our obligation as American citizens to look at this war objectively and to weigh our chances for success if we should enter it. I have attempted to do this, especially from the standpoint of aviation; and I have been forced to the conclusion that we cannot win this war for England, regardless of how much assistance we extend.
I ask you to look at the map of Europe today and see if you can suggest any way in which we could win this war if we entered it. Suppose we had a large army in America, trained and equipped. Where would we send it to fight? The campaigns of the war . show only too clearly how difficult it is to force a landing, or to maintain an army, on a hostile coast.
Suppose we took our Navy from the Pacific and used it to convoy British shipping. That would not win the war for England. It would, at best, permit her to exist under the constant bombing of the German air fleet. Suppose we had an air force that we could send to Europe. Where could it operate? Some of our squadrons might be based in the British Isles, but it is physically impossible to base enough aircraft in the British Isles alone to equal in strength the aircraft that can be based on the continent of Europe.
(6) Charles A. Lindbergh, speech in Des Moines, Iowa (11th September, 1941)
The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles and intellectuals who believe that their future, and the future of mankind, depends upon the domination of the British Empire... These war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence... It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany... But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy, both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.
(7) Gerald Nye, speech (9th December, 1941)
The one thing an American can want to do - win the war and win it with the greatest possible dispatch and decisiveness. It is not time to quibble over what might have been done or how we got where we are. We know only that the enemy chose to make war against us. To give our Commander in Chief unqualified and unprejudicial backing in his prosecution of the war is an obligation which I shall gladly fulfill. Differences over matters of foreign policy up to this hour are abandoned and unity should be accorded in every particular.
(8) John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching (1944)
Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans who have been working to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of great national banker and investor, borrowing billions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which such a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshalling great armies and navies at crushing costs to support the industry of war and preparation for war which will become our nation’s greatest industry; and adding to all this the most romantic adventures in global planning, regeneration, and domination, all to be done under the authority of a powerfully centralized government in which the executive will hold in effect all the powers, with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society.
(9) Michele Flynn Stenehjem, An American First: John T. Flynn and the America First Committee (1976)
John Flynn and other America Firsters believed that government should regulate business by preventing monopolies and cartels from controlling large sectors of the economy. However, Flynn and his colleagues did not think that government itself should become a large economic power. This condition would restrict individual freedom, which was the essence of their definition of liberalism.... Flynn and his colleagues rejected Franklin D. Roosevelt’s brand of liberalism, in which government entered the economic community as a large employer and customer.
(x) John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching (1944)
This is the complete negation of liberalism. It is, in fact, the essence of fascism ... When you can put your finger on the men or the groups that urge for America the debt-supported state, the autarchial corpor¬ative state, the state bent on the socialization of investment and the bureaucratic government of industry and society, the establishment of the institution of militarism as the great glamorous public-works project of the nation and the institution of imperialism under which it proposes to regulate and rule the world and, along with this, proposes to alter the forms of our government to approach as closely as possible the unrestrained, absolute government - then you will know you have located the authentic fascist.'
(x) Smedley D. Butler, speech (1933)
I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
(x) David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories (2010)
The First World War, said Butler, had indebted the nation but enriched companies such as Du Pont, US Steel and, of course, the banks. He knew too why President Woodrow Wilson had changed his mind about entry to the war. It was because he had been persuaded that an Allied defeat would be bad for the finance houses to whom Britain owed so much money. This, Butler argued, was the very essence of a racket. Or, indeed, a conspiracy. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about it is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the very many. Out of the war a few people make, huge fortunes. He cited the '21,000 millionaires and billionaires who "got that way" from the conflict.
(x) David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories (2010)
Roosevelt's task became even more urgent when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939 and the principal democracies, France and Britain, declared war. His first act was to affirm US neutrality. His second, just weeks later, was to ask Congress to remove the arms embargo, his obvious intention being to regain the ability to supply Britain and France. Congress agreed. The game now was for Roosevelt to edge America further towards standing alongside the democracies while simultaneously presenting this as the best strategy for preventing direct US involvement in a European war. By mid-r94o, with the crushing German victories in Scandinavia and France, public sentiment - sympathetic to Britain but unwilling to fight - was supportive of this dubious compromise. Such feelings helped Roosevelt to win his third term in the presidential election that autumn. Soon after reelection, in one of his broadcast "fireside chats", Roosevelt, while describing America's role as the arsenal of democracy, further elaborated his idea of the trade-off: "This is not a fireside chat on war. It is a talk on national security, because the nub of the whole purpose of your president is to keep you now, and your children later, and your grandchildren much later, out of a last-ditch war for the preservation of American independence and all of the things that American independence means to you and to me and to ours."
Meanwhile, John T. Flynn was becoming one of the most strident advocates of American neutrality His experience on the Munitions Investigating Committee with Nye had helped turn him from a financial journalist to an anti-war campaigner. In 1938 he had participated in the formation of the Keep America Out of War Congress (KAOWC) alongside the socialist leader Norman Thomas, former editor of the Nation Oswald Garrison Vilard, and a historian of rising reputation called Harry Elmer Barnes. Many well-known left-of-centre intellectuals, social activists and union leaders also signed up. Flynn warned his countrymen that fighting a war would wreck America. "Our economic system will be broken," he wrote, "our financial burdens will be insupportable... The streets will be filled with idle men and women. The once independent farmer will become a government charge ... and amidst these disorders we will have the perfect climate for some Hitler on the American model to rise to power."
(x) David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories (2010)
In early 1940 a petition was circulated in Yale University Law School, demanding that "Congress refrain from war, even if England (sic) is on the verge of defeat". The idea of the petition's sponsors was to set up a national organisation of students to oppose involvement in the European Conflict; instead they created something that became much bigger and endlessly controversial. By the end of July 1940 the movement had been backed by severai Chicago businessmen, and was being presided over by the respected chairman of Sears Roebuck, General Robert E. Wood. In August the organisation became the America First Committee (AFC).
It is interesting that these days membership of America First is consistently left out of obituaries, curricula vitae and accounts ot regional religious and peace organisations. In 1940, however, commitment must have been enormous, because the organisation grew with tremendous rapidity. Its early supporters included novelists and poets like Sinclair Lewis, William Saroyan, John Dos Passos, Edmund Wilson and E.E. Cummings. There was the First World War air ace Eddie Rickenbacker, actress Lilian Gish, architect, Frank Llovd Wright and American flying hero Charles Lindbergh, possibly the most celebrated American then alive. Among its student partisans were two future presidents, Gerald R. Ford and John F. Kennedy (who donated a hundred dollars to the cause), and future novelist Gore Vidal. In Congress it could number among its supporters a large number of Midwest progmssives, men like Senators Burton Wheeler of Montana, Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, Robert Taft of Ohio, William Borah of Idaho and Gerald Nye. The New York branch, which at its height was to claim a membership of 135,000, was chaired by John T. Flynn.
The APCs public position was that America should build up its defences at home so that it would be impreonable, while desisting from offering any kind of aid to the belligerents - the implication being that the US would then be able to contemplate in safety whatever kind of world emerged from the ashes of Empire. What was needed in the short term was that Americans "keep their, heads amid the rising hysteria in times of crisis.''
Through the second half of 1940 and most of 1941 a public struggle of predictable bitterness ensued between isolationists and intervertionists. Seen from London, the AFC and its supporters were in many ways as much of an existential threat as Hitler. Essentially a coalition which included friends of Germany as well as enemies of war. America First was open to accusations of appeasement and Pro Nazism. In retaliation, the rhetoric of` AFC canipaigners was just as impassioned in its claims that the administration and its financier friends were attempting to manipulate the American people into war.
(x) Charles A. Lindbergh, diary (18th September, 1941)
John Flynn came at 11:00; and we talked the situation over for an hour. Flynn says he does not question the truth of what I said at Des Moines, but feels it was inadvisable to mention the Jewish problem. It is difficult for me to understand Flynn's attitude. He feels as strongly as I do that the Jews are among the major influences pushing this country toward war. He has said so frequently, and he says so now He is perfectly willing to talk about it among a small group of people in private. But apparently he would rather see us get into the war than mention in public what the Jews are doing, no matter how tolerantly and moderately it is done.
(x) John T. Flynn, The Truth About Pearl Harbor (1976)
By January 1, 1941. Roosevelt had decided to go to war with Japan. But he had solemnly pledged the people he would nor take their sons to foreign wars unless attacked. Hence he dared not attack and so decided to provoke the Japanese to do so.
He kept all this a secret from the Army and Navy. He felt the moment to provoke the attack had come by November. He ended negotiations abruptly November 26 by handing the Japanese an ultimatum which he knew they dared not comply with. Immediately he knew his ruse would succeed, that the Japanese looked upon relations as ended and were preparing for the assault. He knew this from the intercepted messages....
A gift from the gods had been put into Roosevelt's hands. The British government had broken one Japanese code. It proceeded to hand over to the State Department the messages between Tokyo and various foreign representatives which it intercepted... Therefore on November 6, Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were playing their last card; that they would make no further concession and he knew also the very date they had set for action - November 25...
All this information was in the hands of Hull and Roosevelt. Nothing that could happen could surprise them - save undoubtedly the point of the first assault... Roosevelt, the Commander-in-chief, who was now assured of the attack which would bring him safely into the war, went off to Warm Springs to enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday.
(x) David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories (2010)
One well-known historian was particularly persistent in his attacks on Roosevelt in the post-war period. Former American Firster Harry Elmer Barnes edited, in 1953, a 700-page collection of essays under the
title Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (the subtitle being A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath) in which eight authors gave various and overlapping accounts of how Franklin D. Roosevelt had deceived America into abandoning neutrality, provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, embarked upon an unnecessarily brutal war in which the Allies behaved as badly, if not worse, than the Axis powers, and ended up selling out American interests to Stalinist communism at the conferences in Yalta and Potsdam. And all of this because of the false belief (signalled in the book's title) that only out of constant warfare could domestic peace be secured. Barnes also first developed the idea of the triple conspiracy. His belief was that, in addition to provoking the Japanese, Roosevelt had also been warned of almost the exact hour and place of the supposed surprise attack, and had decided not to pass the warning on lest defensive measures led to the attack being aborted and his plan foiled. Or, as Barnes put it, "It appeared necessary [to Roosevelt] to prevent Hawaiian commanders from taking any offensive action which would deter the Japanese from attacking Pearl Harbor which, of necessity, had to be a surprise attack.
(x) Stephen Ambrose, New York Times (2nd February, 1992)
About Pearl Harbor one must ask could Roosevelt, by himself, have kept information about an imminent attack from the commanders in Hawaii? Of course not. Teams of men were involved in breaking the Japanese diplomatic code in 1941, admirals and generals in Washington got the intelligence and took it to the President. They would have had to join him in a conspiracy. Can anyone believe the admirals would have allowed their men and battleships to go down without a protest?... Most of all, the thesis that Roosevelt knew beforehand that there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 breaks down when Roosevelt's actual policy is understood. That policy, in December 1941, was to avoid war with Japan until Nazi Germany had been defeated. He did not take the back door to war; the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor solved no problem for him, but rather made it worse. On December 8, he asked Congress to recognize that a state of war existed with Japan - the war he did not want, at least not yet - but he did not ask Congress to declare the war he did want, against Germany. It was Hitler, not the Japanese, who solved Roosevelt's problem. On December 11, in the craziest of all his loony decisions, Hitler declared war on the United States.
(x) Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (1999)
Previous accounts have claimed that the United States had not cracked Japanese military codes prior to the attack. We now know this is wrong. Previous accounts have insisted that the Japanese maintained strict radio silence. This too is wrong. The truth is clear: FDR knew.
(x) David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories (2010)
One problem with Stinnett's conclusions is that those officers involved in breaking the Japanese naval codes consistently and vehemently denied over the years that they had managed to achieve this before Pearl Harbor, only succeeding a year later. Could these men also be part of the plot? To accept Stinnett's conclusion you had to believe that, if anything, the conspiracy was even wider than alleged by Barnes and Toland. But there is a much greater objection to the accusations contained in Day of Deceit. Experts in cryptography, after studying his book, charged that Stinnett had either quite simply misunderstood the thousands of documents he had pored over or failed to read those that were most significant. Most particularly he had failed to understand difficulties and time lags involved in breaking, reading and decrypting a code.
The writer Stephen Budiansky has pointed out that the most authoritative account of the US breaking of the code is contained in a document entitled History of GYP-1, which was declassified and placed in the US National Archives in 1998. This showed, according to Budiansky that an initial, limited, break had been achieved in September 1940, but that the Japanese had then changed their code and key books. Some of the decoded messages from that period, discovered by Stinnett in the archives, were perfectly explicable, but they had been decoded after the war. Altogether, concluded Budiansky, the documents "show unmistakably that not a single message sent throughout the year 1941 in the Operations Code was broken and read by the United States before December 7". In fact, the earliest decoded message in the archives, according to Budiansky, has a decryption and translation date of 8 January 1942. Stinnett responded in part by accusing Budiansky - author of a history of Allied code-breaking - and other critics of having "close ties with the National Security Agency" and of launching "a two-year media campaign" to discredit his conclusions.
(x) Adolf Hitler, speech to Reichstag (11th December 1941)
We know thc power behind Roosevelt. it is the same eternal Jew that believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia... We know that their entire effort is aimed at this goal even it we were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one country after another. The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being determined, perhaps for all time.
(x) John T. Flynn, (1976)
John Flynn and other America
(x) John T. Flynn, (1976)
John Flynn and other America
(x) John T. Flynn, (1976)
John Flynn and other America
(x) John T. Flynn, (1976)
John Flynn and other America
(x) John T. Flynn, (1976)
John Flynn and other America
