Showing posts with label Charles Lindbergh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Lindbergh. Show all posts

Thursday, December 11, 2025

Some Thoughts on Trump's National Security Strategy

Earlier this week the Trump Administration released its updated National Security Strategy. (See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf ) Needless to say that given the howls that went up, it was far from being universally applauded, especially in Europe. Europe is rightly concerned that the era of having a NATO umbrella over the continent is over. However, given earlier commentaries coming from Vice President Vance, in particular, the document should not come as a surprise. Trump’s policy of selling out allies and cozying up to adversaries is all there in black and white.

I have three preliminary thoughts on the strategy. First, it is harkening back to the America First of 1939-1941. It focuses in on hemispheric security to the exclusion of Europe and just has America First leader Charles Lindbergh was open to a modus vivendi with Nazi Germany, here we have America open to a condominium with Putin’s Russia. It certainly does not bode well for Ukraine and for that matter Israel. Further, the strategy puts policy muscle behind Trump’s Caribbean buildup against Venezuela. To the Trump Administration Latin America is now part of an American economic zone.

Second, there is the strong smell of Yalta in the document. Instead of Roosevelt and Stalin dividing up Europe, we now have Trump, Putin and especially Xi dividing up the world into spheres of interest. The glue holding the deal together is economic self-interest. Where Taiwan fits into this over the longer term is very ambiguous.

Third, there are some hard policy realities behind the document. Europe has the ability to defend itself against Russia; it only lacks the will. Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine after more than three years of war indicating it is not as strong as once thought. If Ukraine can hold its own against Russia, so too can a much larger Europe.

What perhaps pissed off Europe the most was that the document called out its “civilization decline.” Unfortunately, that is the reality, and Europe has to recognize that advanced welfare states cannot run a policy of open borders without severe consequences. Simply put, in a generation Europe will not be the Europe of history. Net net, the policy calls for the U.S. to be an offshore balancer with respect to the world outside of Latin America. (See: https://shulmaven.blogspot.com/2025/08/my-review-of-andrew-lamberts-no-more.html )


Thursday, November 28, 2024

My Review of H.W. Brands' "America First: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War"

 The First America First

With Donald Trump’s victory America First as foreign policy is yet again being thrust into the limelight. Thus, it is important to understand its origins making University of Texas historian H.W. Brands new history of the first America First movement is especially timely. Brands views America First through the lens of the shadow war between Franklin Roosevelt and Charles Lindbergh with the latter being the most prominent proponent of America First.

There is not much new in the Roosevelt side of the equation, but Brands, at least for me plows new ground on Lindbergh by carefully researching his diaries and speeches from the late 1930’s to America’s entry into the war in December 1941. What I learned was that Lindbergh was a foreign policy realist in understanding the decadence of 1930’s Britain and the weakness of France. In his view Germany was the rising power in Europe, so much so that it would overwhelm both Britain and France. 

He believed that with adequate military preparedness the United States would be able to fend off any cross Atlantic attack from a Europe under the auspices of Nazi Germany. Roosevelt, on the other hand was far more clear-eyed in understanding what a Nazi dominated Europe would mean for the security of the United States. From 1939 his globalist vision pushed the United States for war with Germany. Indeed. within the space of a few weeks between late December 1940 and early January 1941 Roosevelt called on America to become the arsenal of democracy and then articulated his Four Freedoms.

Although losing the public relations battle Lindbergh plowed ahead in attacking Roosevelt and his interventionist policies. He reached a dead-end with his infamous Des Moines speech in September 1941 when he, echoing Nazi propaganda, called out the Roosevelt, the British and the Jews for leading America into war. There was near universal condemnation of his speech and for both Lindbergh and America First it was downhill from there.

Beneath his realpolitik there was his underlying racism against Jews and the non-white races. He viewed the war as dividing the white world, when instead it should have been focusing on the dangers coming from the non-white world, no matter that Germany was allied with Japan.

Unfortunately, there are too many similarities to the world of Trump and the world of Lindbergh. America can’t stand aside today in a very dangerous world, but as Brands noted in 1941 the U.S. was the dominant economic power in the world; this is no longer the case. This makes the case that the most important task before us is to strengthen our economy.


Tuesday, March 10, 2020

My Amazon Review of Henry Hemming's "Agents of Influence...."


Churchill’s Man in New York

On the 36th floor in the Rockefeller Center International Building (630 5th Avenue) at the elevator bank for the offices of Capital Research there is a small plaque commemorating the work of William Stephenson for his efforts to bring the United States into the war against Nazi Germany. It was out of those offices in 1940 and 1941 that Stephenson ran a vast apparatus to influence an isolationist America to enter the war. 

Henry Hemming tells the story of how a boy who was born in Winnipeg, Canada’s red-light district grew up to be a World War I ace flier, established a successful business in the booming 1920s British radio industry which then morphed into a European-wide investment company. The information network that he established caught the eye of MI-6 led to his recruitment to head-up British efforts in the United States. What makes the book especially interesting is that William Stephenson was the author’s grandfather’s godfather. So in a way through family lore, Hemming is connected to his protagonist.

It is in New York that Stephenson establishes a far reaching network that encompasses the pro-intervention Century Group, Wendell Willkie and future advertising mogul David Ogilvy who was then working for the Gallup Poll. His most important connection was with Bill Donovan whom he convinces of the need for the U.S. to establish a centralized intelligence agency and it is with that connection Stephenson gets access to the White House. Stephenson schools Donovan on the art of intelligence. Donovan initially establishes the Office of Information Coordination, which morphs into the Office of Strategic Services and then in 1947 becomes the CIA.

Stephenson faces off against his German counterpart Hans Thomsen who out of the German Embassy was in the business of funding pro-German groups, funding supportive Congressmen, most notably Hamilton Fish of New York and feeding speech and newspaper article ideas to the pro-German aviator Charles Lindbergh.  

We see that in 1941 Stephenson engaged in the same tricks that the Russians used in the 2016 elections.  He generates “fake news”, funds pro-intervention groups, sabotages pro-German and anti-intervention groups, forges documents and plants articles in the New York Herald Tribune which for all practical purposes became an arm of British intelligence. Along the way we meet song writer and expert forger Eric Mashwitz and Ian Fleming who would later write the James Bonds spy novels.

Hemming, utilizing recently declassified sources, tells Stephenson’s life story with great verve. It still remains a wonder how Stephenson pulled everything together and managed to move American public opinion, along with the facts on the ground and in the Atlantic, towards intervention prior to Pearl Harbor.