posted 11-26-2002 05:54 PM            

Lindbergh then added that there were jews living in America who were beating the war drums by spreading anti-Nazi propaganda. Lindbergh reminded these Jews that the reason they were so comfortable in America was that they didn't try to influence policy. But if they provoked America into war they would suffer dearly.

As a result of this Dr. Seuss drew a series of cartoons depicting Lindbergh as a home grown bigot who was working for Hitler. Yes I said Dr. Suess the same guy who wrote GREEN EGGS AND HAM and HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS.

Well a lot of people were outraged. Lindbergh was an American here. He flew the Atlantic. Seuss wrote ONE FISH TWO FISH RED FISH BLUE FISH so three year olds could learn colors and how to count to five! Lindbergh wrote THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS. Seuss wrote YERTLE THE TURTLE and HOP ON POP.

Suess had no right to comment on anything Lindbergh said or did because Lindbergh was a hero and not Seuss. But when it came down to the question of how we should deal with Nazis (fight them) it was Seuss who was right and Lindbergh who was wrong.

posted 11-26-2002 07:17 PM               

Perhaps the best rule is the golden one. Step into their shoes and re-read your post before hitting "Submit Reply". If you would take offense to the words if they were written about you, then perhaps an edit is deserving. You can disagree with a person's ideas without insulting the individual. Even ideas as personal as the way an individual decides to live his or her life.

posted 11-26-2002 08:57 PM            

It would be sort of like going to an Elvis fan club or Graceland and talking about Elvis like he was just a person and not "The King."

posted 11-26-2002 09:10 PM               

Personal attacks are not allowed by any member of cS Messages. If you feel a member is posting out of turn, e-mail contact@collectspace.com and I will take the appropriate action as moderator. (And if its me you think out line, than tell me so at the same address, and I will rethink my own line of posting.)

posted 11-27-2002 12:55 AM               

Also, I've had many conversations with Al Worden, and he's told me a lot of things Id never repeat here or anywhere in public. I guess what Im trying to say is I think through what I want to say before I say it (as per Roberts example), and if it is something benefical its good to share. But if we want to share anecdotes that belittle them that's certainly not called for. Life's too short.

posted 11-27-2002 07:19 PM               

Lindbergh was a very visible member of America First. America First was an organization that was isolationist in it's thinking. They felt that America should not concern itself with the affairs in Europe. Understand that in the 30's the majority of citizens in this country felt strongly about sending troops to Europe (the country felt the same way in WW1 as Wilson was elected on the slogan that he would keep our buys at home). One just has to research the records of the time to find out what the populist stance was in spite what the media was saying at the time.

Lindbergh had visited Germany supposedly at the request of the US Army to secretly evaluate the combat potential of the German armed forces. His assessment fell in with the isolationists of the 1930's and early 1940's. America has had, from it's inception, a love hate relationship with the European Continent and this attitude provided the impetus for the marriage of Lindbergh, isolationists and need to stay out of a European war.

The historial fact that most wars between European combatants including the First World War, with a few exceptions (ie Turkey and the naval battles of Coronel and Falkland Islands and other minor skirmishes), stayed mainly on the continent. Which provided the main reasons to stay out of the war.

FDR worked hard to skirt the legal bounderies of neutrality (ie lendlease), but was never completely successful. Did those violations of neutrality lead Hitler to declare war on the USA or was it just due to treaties between Germany and Japan?

Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, America was forced into a war in the Pacific, but only the Pacific. It was Hitler's declaration of war against the United States that forced America to look toward Europe. The aforementioned reason and the fact that Churchill and FDR decided that Germany was a far more dangerous foe placed greater importance on the defeat of Germany.

The question remains if Hitler had not declared war on the USA, then would America have fought in Europe? Would America have focused on it's territories and possessions in the Pacific and avoided a two front war?
Remember this country had far more at stake in the Pacific theater than in Europe. Japan and America had been skirmishing with each other, since the USS Panay (USN gunboat on the Yangsee River) incident in 1937 (A similar event occurred in 1987 when an Iraqi Exocet missile hit the USS Stark).

Now that leads back to Lindbergh. Was Lindbergh wrong? Did events such as Hitler's war declaration force the issue of war in Europe? Would America have gone to war with Germany without that war declaration or would the USA focus solely on the Japanese war machine at the expense of it's allies in Europe?

I focused my thesis dissertation on the possible ramifications of a one front war in the Pacific. The length of a total war against the Japanese, use of manpower, effects to the lendlease act, possible invasion of the Japanese home islands? Would the atomic bomb have been ready in time?

So, in conclusion, it is probably a simplistic comment (as is this response to the question of history ) to say Theodor Geisel was right and Charles Lindbergh was wrong. World events conspired to make either man's beliefs immaterial. Both men put down their differences and served in the war either in an official or unofficial capacity. When called upon they both prosecuted the war with the talents that they had, one man in Hollywood and one man in the South Pacific.

Which segues to the comments made concerning whether or not an astronaut's statements are right or wrong based upon their status in society. Nobody is always correct and the questioning of anybody's pronouncements is fine, only time and future events will tell if they are correct or incorrect.

On the other hand, is making a derogatory comment about that person's intellectual capability based on one's contrary beliefs really warranted?

Food for thought.