Charles Lindbergh's controversial stance sways American public opinion on World War II

In the interview on December 1, 2024, H.W. Brands, a historian from the University of Texas at Austin, reflects on the debate surrounding U.S. entry into World War II, specifically focusing on the figures of Franklin Roosevelt and Charles Lindbergh. Brands emphasizes that this debate unfolded between September 1939, when Germany initiated the conflict, and December 1941, when the U.S. officially entered the war. Lindbergh, an aviation pioneer and public figure, emerged as a significant voice in the anti-interventionist camp, despite lacking a formal political background. His prominent stance made him an unexpected focal point in discussions surrounding American foreign policy during this tumultuous time. The conversation also touches on the accusations against Lindbergh, including allegations of antisemitism and Nazi sympathies. Brands argues that these accusations were often politically motivated, aimed at undermining Lindbergh's influence due to his opposition to U.S. intervention in the war. This narrative reveals the complexities of public sentiment regarding foreign intervention, where figures such as Lindbergh were deemed threats to the prevailing pro-war agenda championed by Roosevelt. Moreover, Brands highlights the context of propaganda efforts by both the British and German governments to influence American public opinion. Each side eagerly attempted to sway Americans due to their realization of the importance of U.S. support in the war. Lindbergh's position, while representing a significant faction of American sentiment, ultimately aligned with German interests, complicating his legacy further as an anti-interventionist voice. This historical moment sheds light not just on Lindbergh's role but also on how foreign influence shaped the dynamics within American politics and public opinion regarding international conflict. Ultimately, Brands suggests that the debate of that era mirrors contemporary discussions around nationalism and interventionism. The phrase “America First,” employed during Lindbergh's time as part of the isolationist rhetoric, has resurfaced in modern political discourse, prompting reflections on the implications of similar sentiments today. The comparison reveals that despite the passage of decades, the core issues of foreign engagement and national identity continue to provoke contentious debate in American society.