If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Lindbergh, racist & Nazi sympathizer
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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' |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"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' |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Another freakin liberal trying to defame and change historic figures..........
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1955 "WE" Charles A. Lindbergh Autobiography, Hardcover Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 23rd 04 05:55 AM |
FS: 1955 "WE" Charles A. Lindbergh Autobiography, Hardcover Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 27th 04 07:27 AM |
Signed Charles A. Lindbergh 1953 Presentation Edition | Rare Old Things | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 27th 04 05:22 AM |
Signed #25 "Spirit of St Louis" Charles Lindbergh | Rare Old Things | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 24th 04 04:37 AM |
Charles Lindbergh –"Spirit of St. Louis" Prints on Ebay | Phillip Rhodes | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 5th 03 03:52 PM |