I was just thumbing through a book the other day in Barnes and Noble Bookstore and ran across a caption of Lindhburg flying with a P-38 unit in the PTO. Strange thing is that he was a known opponent of America's involvment in WWII (a pacifist perhaps?) and openly voiced his discontempt over it. I personally do not see how any American in his/her right mind could contest America's involvment in WWII. The caption goes on to explain how Lindhburg fanagled his way through to the P-38 unit and unintentionaly got to shoot down a Japenese plane. Since he was never officially operating in a combat capacity he was never awarded with the kill. Sounds to me he was shirking his dity as an American by not offering his services in an official capacity. Any comments..........????

__________________

AFAIK Lindhberg was against the war against Germany, as he had visited the country before the war and was somehow impressed by its leadership and its accomplishments. I don't know if he was an avid Isolationalist. When Japan attacked he actually volunteered for the USAAF, according to this site http://www.ww2pacific.com/lindbergh.html

This iste has a pic of Lindhberg and some men of the 475 FG, 5th USAAF. http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozatwar/lindbergh.htm

__________________
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson

(banner by Otto)
www.basher82.nl

I am not an expert on WW1 but as I read reasons why people thought the US should stay away from the war in Europe I cannot say truly they were wrong at the time:

In WW1

1. Many US boys died and the US gained..what?
Lots of dead American young men, not much else, did they?

2. The US seemed to be meant to receive a substantial sum of money for taking part in the WW1 but actually got very little if even that from Europe.

So the experience of war in Europe and taking part in it was very unsatisfactory by hindsightfor the US people.

By these standards I don´t think many would volunteer even today for any war.

To fight nazism and Hitler is another thing but not much was known even in 1944-45 when the US soldiers were not sure why they were fighting the Germans...why they fought the Japs was clear.


And here´s something I checked onLindbergh and peace movement earlier:

http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubb...=000673#000000

__________________

Quite a history lessen. I read the many articles on Lindbergh about his beliefs, articles, and speeches leading up to World War II, and it just proves that what we read in the press and what we hear on TV is oceans apart from what we get from this and other Vet's forums.Although I didn't see direct action in the war, since my training ended just as the fighting did,I can only imagine the outcome if we had followed men like him.
It's said that you learn by your mistakes.If that's true; When it came to listening to two men,
ie; Lindbergh and Billy Mitchell, the wrong man was pounced on and ridiculed.
chucktoo

Hello Chucktoo,

I myself am not too well-read on the subject of Lindhberg, but I understand the 'cloud' he and his views must have had because of his stature. Whether they were right or wrong. I do agree that a good many ideas get torpedeod in the confusing times just before and during war.

Billy Mitchell is a good example of someone who had a vision which was ahead of its time. Off the top of my head; he was pushing for a seperate US Air Force and showed the benefits of (precision) bombing by sinking a ship, I believe. History showed him right, and he had a medium bomber named after him.

[ 25. September 2003, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Stevin Oudshoorn ]

__________________
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson

(banner by Otto)
www.basher82.nl

Lindburg was against the war, fair enough, he is entitled to his opinion (actually to be blunt most Americans were anti-war before Pearl Harbour, didn't care too much about the battering Europe was taking, it was a revenge thing). However I do not think you can accuse him of shirking. Lindburg wanted to help, he managed to get himself attatched to a P38 squadron as a 'civilian advisor' and he taught the pilots how to fly all over again, he taught them how they should maintain their formations (well, wingmen stay with their leads) for defensive purposes and made it clear that there were not going to be little one on one dogfights WW1 style because that would give the Japanese the advantage. The USAF WOULD NOT allow him to take part in combat because he was viewed as an 'important civilian' and believed that the effect on morale if he died would be disasterous. Despite this he did fly around the airbase and at least once went on an unauthorised flight into combat where he did shoot down one Japanese fighter. He wanted to do more but the USAF decided it was too risky and brought him back to the US. The pilots of the P38 squadron that he taughtspread their tactics throughout the PTO and now say that Lindburg is the reason they survived and their opponants so often didn't. IMHO he was not shirking or skiving, he may have disagreed with the war but it is obvious that he wanted to make a contribution, he was not allowed to fight so he did his best to improve the skill of the USAF pilots. At least thats the way I look at it.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

The trouble with Lindburg wasn't so much that he was anti-war, it was that he was seen as pro-Nazi and anti-semitic. Here's a part of one of his speech's
"Instead of agitating for war, Jews in this country should be opposing it in every way, for they will be the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. ... Large Jewish ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government constitute a great danger to our country."

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Some forget that dissent is a tradition in this country. It is encouraged, as a matter of fact,in Republics.

US Grant, for instance, advised that every attempt to avoid war is honorable. Does that mean he thought himself dishonorable for participating in and winning one? I doubt it.

In my opinion Lindberg did not dodge his duty as a citizen of the US to speak out his inner convictions. Remember, he was not living in the PC time we live in where part of the Gospel of the Bible is rather ridiculously being challenged as anti-semitic in todays newspapers.

I think his statement about the harm the entertainment industry has done this country (assuming and accepting the validity of the previous quote )was correct now in hindsight --IF he had left out the unfortunate piece of information as to who he thought was running it. I knew the man was originally against war with Germany, but had not heard of the entertainment industry blerb.

He did put his rear on the line to teach our P-38 pilots how to stretch their fuel usage, and did go on a few missions, which, to me, labels him as a loyal American. Most accounts of that service said he would have done more if allowed.

__________________
Semper Fi,
Texas Fred

Go on, prey tell, what damage? [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

Redcoat, I was unaware of Lindbergs anti-semitism, that sort of colours things rather doesn't it. Then again, it isn't as if any nation in the world went to war to save the Jews. Tex, I too would like to hear what you mean.

Whilst we are on the subject, take a look at this:
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.