Chapter XV: Part 15

It is shocking, indeed, to observe the names of a few Jews on isolationist committees, and one wonders what mental processes have brought them there. Do they imagine that if America remains aloof and Hitler wins the rest of the world, that the Jews, or any other Americans, will be safe? No, if Hitler wins the rest of the world, the Lindberghs of America will boldly put their anti-Semitism to work, and the fate of the Jews in America will approximate that of their brothers abroad. There is no choice for the Jews of America but to put all the strength of their bodies and souls and purses to work against the enemy of all mankind. There is no reason for them to apologize for fighting the universal scourge. The anti-Semite is a friend of Hitler. The friend of Hitler is the enemy of the United States.

Q. _I would like to read you a passage from a speech of Lindbergh delivered shortly after the German invasion of Russia, and ask you what you think of it, as it is quite confusing to me. The passage reads: “The longer this war in Europe continues, the more confused its issues become. When it started Germany and Russia were lined up against England and France. Now, less than two years later we find Russia and England fighting France and Germany. Winter before last, when Russia was fighting Finland, the interventionists demanded that we send all possible aid to Finland. Now, when Russia is fighting Finland again they demand that we send all possible aid to Russia.... Finland and France are now our enemies; Russia our friend. We have been asked to defend the English way of life, and the Chinese way of life. We are now asked to defend the Russian way of life.... Judging from Europe’s record, if we enter this war, we can’t be sure whether we will have Germany or Russia for a partner by the time we finish it. We don’t even know whether we will end up with France or England on our side. It is quite possible that we would find ourselves alone fighting the entire world before it was over.”_

A. The confusion is of Lindbergh’s own making. There is a simple key to all the apparent contradictions he brings out. The key is that Hitler Germany was, is, and will remain the enemy until Hitlerism is destroyed. The correct way to express the relationships which Lindbergh has put so confusingly is: All nations fighting Germany are fighting on our side; all nations fighting on the side of Germany are fighting against us. When a nation, for any reason, switches sides, for or against Germany, it automatically switches sides for or against us. The question of friendship, of liking for any of these nations, or of approval of their “way of life” does not decide the matter. The matter is decided solely by the effect the particular nation is having on Germany’s war.

Let us examine each of Lindbergh’s statements in turn. He says the longer the war continues, the more confused its issues become. Not at all--the longer it lasts the more plain it becomes that the issue is: Germany against the world. Do not be confused by the fact that some countries which were fighting Germany, now come out on Germany’s side. As Germany conquers one country after another, she attempts to force them into fighting for her, as in the case of France. No matter what Hitler’s puppet government in France does, we know that the true France is no friend of Germany, but an implacable enemy. Napoleon at one time had half a dozen armies raised from among the peoples he had conquered, marching under his banners. But the moment Napoleon suffered reverses, they revolted. So it will be with Hitler.

Finland’s position is easy to understand if you reflect that she was so much subject to Hitler’s coercion that she had to behave almost as though she too had been conquered. It would have been suicide if Finland, resisting Germany’s demands that she join the German side, should have had to fight both the German and the Russian armies. That way Poland was torn to pieces. It would have been unthinkable that Finland, so recently mutilated by Russia, should have admitted the Red Army to her territories. It was inevitable that Finland should choose the lesser of two evils. And so we, understanding Finland’s plight, must classify her on Germany’s side and embargo goods to her. But we can still think of her as a friend, and only as a technical enemy by force of circumstances.

The position of Russia is equally clear. Bolshevik Russia, the Soviet Union, is nobody’s friend, and never pretended to be. She, like Germany, is “against the world,” and by making the pact with Germany at the beginning of the war she expected to see the world eventually collapse and become her loot. Now that Germany has forced Russia to fight, Russia should enjoy every material aid we can give her. As long as she continues to fight Germany, we should do all we can to help her blows injure our enemy. So it is only in order to confuse us that Lindbergh phrases it the way he does: “Finland and France are now our enemies; Russia our friend.”

Lindbergh says we are asked to defend the English, the Chinese, and now the Russian way of life. It would not make any difference to us if the English, the Chinese, and the Russians lived like lizards, crocodiles, and alligators, so long as they were aiding directly and willingly as the British, or directly though unwillingly, as the Russians, or indirectly as the Chinese, to protect us by opposing our enemies. We are only helping ourselves when we help them.

Lindbergh ends: “It is quite possible that we would find ourselves alone fighting the entire world before it was over.” No, it is not just “quite possible,” it is absolutely certain that we will find ourselves fighting the entire world if we do not intervene to save some part of the world to fight on our side.

Q. _In one of Lindbergh’s speeches he made the statement that “the only reason we are in danger of becoming involved in this war is because there are powerful elements who desire us to take a part.” Is this true?_

A. There are powerful elements who desire us to take part, namely all the intelligent patriotic Americans who wish to defend their country while there is yet time, but that is not what Lindbergh meant. He is using veiled language to express what his admirers, the Nazi Bundists, the Fascists, and the Kluxers say openly when they charge that America is being “driven into war by the Jews, the international bankers, and the armaments manufacturers.” It is a rule of the politics of this era, as Alexander Woollcott pointed out, that if you are not against Hitler, you are for him, and sooner or later, willingly or unwillingly you become lined up for all the things he stands for, some of which you may not have wished to embrace, as racial hatred, anti-Semitism, and the rule of the man with the gun.

The rich men in the America First Committee of Lindbergh and General Wood, fancy they are protecting their investments by lining up against beating Hitler, but if they permit him to win they will lose their wealth as surely as if they had helped run up the Red Flag.

Q. _Can you give us a brief, objective resumé of Lindbergh’s argument against our entering the war?_

A. Yes, he has set it forth very clearly in his “Letter to America” published in _Collier’s_ magazine, where his principal ideas are summed up, without any omission save the fact of his contempt for the democracies and his admiration for the totalitarian system. It runs as follows: England and France have only themselves to blame for their defeat. (He takes for granted that England is defeated.) First, because they did not make a reasonable adjustment with Germany while there was still time. Second, because they made the Versailles treaty too harsh to appease Germany and too lenient to hold her down. Third, because when Germany rose under Hitler they did not take advantage of the last chance to stop him when they could, at his reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936. They were always too late, and now we in America are too late to stop him. We are unarmed and unable to fight. We have not as many thoroughly modern fighting planes in our Army and Navy combined as Germany produces in a single week. “If we enter the war now, it would mean humiliation and defeat.” It is impossible for us to invade Europe. On the other hand, it is impossible for Germany to invade us. They cannot invade us by air over Greenland because it is too cold, nor by way of South America because it is too far, and the South Americans with our aid could prevent them from constructing landing fields. We can stay out of the war, make ourselves impregnable, and afterward force other nations to trade with us. That should be our policy.

Counterattacking, he demands to know if we enter the war, first, how are we to defeat Germany? Second, how are we to “impose our ideology” on our enemies? Third, what would it cost to win the war in American lives and how long would the war last? Fourth, what are our war aims? But he always comes back to the question: “How could we win the war if we entered it?”

Q. _How can we win?_

A. I have an answer. There are too many surprises in warfare--witness the German attack on Russia--for anyone, including the military experts, to be sure of anything, and I am not a military expert. But I should like to preface my reply to Lindbergh’s whole argument by remarking that he assumes we have a choice in the matter, and that we can avoid going to war if we want to. I do not believe we have any choice except in the matter of timing. I should like to ask Lindbergh if he believes that by adopting his complete program, even withdrawal of all aid to Britain, thus insuring British defeat, we could thereby induce Hitler to grant us better terms? Leaving aside all national honor and pride, suppose we were to switch our policy completely and not only abandoned Britain but like Vichy France made clandestine war upon her, or openly stabbed her in the back with a declaration of war à la Mussolini. Even in that case can anyone believe we would receive any better treatment than Hitler has in store for Vichy France or his ally Italy? It is plain that all we should gain by such conduct would be an increase in the unbounded contempt he already has for us.

We have not the choice of war or isolation. We have only the choice of war or surrender.

Let us take his points one by one. First, that England and France have only themselves to blame for their defeat. But England is not defeated, and I am convinced that she can be defeated only by our defection on the lines advocated by Lindbergh. She was to blame for her refusal to see her danger in time, and for the same reason France was to blame for her defeat. I agree to this, but to waste time now in such recriminations is folly. Lindbergh says England and France were always too late and that now we in America are too late to save England. But it is our Lindberghs who are making us late. We are still not armed, agreed, but how can we win the time to arm? We can gain the time to arm only by upholding Britain, keeping her fighting, and keeping the Germans out of control of the Atlantic. We can do that now by going to war with Germany and reinforcing Britain with all the force at our disposal, which is adequate when ranged beside the present strength of Britain but inadequate to fight alone. Only our entry into the war now, before it is too late, can guarantee that Britain stands, and as long as Britain stands we can build our arms in perfect security until the combined British and American might is strong enough to defeat Germany. Lindbergh’s argument is that if we fight beside Britain now we lose; if we fight alone later, we win.

He says we cannot be invaded: “I believe that we can build a military and commercial position on this continent that is impregnable to attack.” But in the preceding paragraph he says that for us to win a war we must prepare for it “not for one year, or for two, but for ten years or for twenty as Germany has done.” Does he imagine that Hitler would give us twenty years to prepare for war, or ten, or two, or even one after he had beaten Britain?

But they cannot get at us, says Lindbergh, citing the difficulty of air-borne invasion by Greenland or South America. Nobody imagines an exclusively air-borne invasion of America is possible. But if the British lose the war before we complete our two-ocean navy in 1947, sea power goes to the Germans. Lindbergh at no time discussed this all-important fact. Nor the fact that a defeated Britain, like defeated France, would be yoked into the Nazi war machine to be used against the last enemy, ourselves. Does he really believe that if this happens within the next year or eighteen months, much less in shorter time, we shall be able alone to repel a German attack on this hemisphere, an attack supported by all the navies and warplanes left on earth except our own? We have already set forth the fact that after conquest of Britain Germany would possess shipping to transport millions, twenty to thirty thousand tanks, five or six times the number of warplanes we shall be able to produce in eighteen months, and the most formidable army the world has ever seen, driven by the indomitable will of Hitler to conquer the globe or die.

Leave aside, though, the possibility of direct invasion of the continental United States, and let us discuss with Lindbergh the possibility of German invasion of South America. He declares this, too, would be impossible “in opposition to the armed forces of Brazil backed by our own Army, Navy and Air Corps.” But it is 4,258 miles from New York to Pernambuco, Brazil, the place nearest to us where the Germans might want to land, while it is only 3,847 miles from New York to London. Lindbergh advocates that we should attempt to defend Pernambuco though it is 400 miles farther from New York than London, which he says we should not defend because, among other things, of the difficulty of sending an expeditionary force so far. Does Lindbergh truly think Pernambuco easier and more worth while for us to defend than London? Does he really believe after Germany had conquered Europe and Britain that Brazil or any other South American state would oppose Germany or invite us to help it fight Germany?

But he demands to know, how can we defeat Germany if we do go to war? He knows the answer to that better than anyone. We can defeat Germany only by obtaining mastery of the air over Germany, then destroying the German air force; once the Luftwaffe is destroyed, the impact of that blow alone may cause the first crack in the military and civilian morale of Germany and lift the morale of the conquered peoples to aid in expelling their conquerors. Let me reiterate that the conquered peoples will never revolt until they see the possibility of successful revolt and that will come only with the first serious military setback of the Germans.

Would we have to send an expeditionary land army? We probably shall have to send our best units, and do it quickly, to prevent German seizure of the West African ports and islands affording springboards to America. Our troops would be useful now in North Africa and the Near East. Wherever contact with the enemy can be had, we should be represented as strongly as possible. It is also likely that we shall need to send an A.E.F. to the continent, although not necessarily as large as in the last war. If we can get air superiority, it will mean the war is practically won. I should expect Germany then to crack up.

Even if she did not break down at once, the demoralization entailed by loss of control of the air would be so great that landings on the continent should be feasible at almost any place the Allies chose. Lindbergh persistently asks where we could land an expeditionary force. The answer is that if we get there in time we shall have an excellent base of operations across the seas, Great Britain. From there the coast of Nazi Europe presents hundreds of opportunities for invasion, once the Nazi air force is eliminated.

Lindbergh demands to know how long it would take to win if we think, contrary to his judgment, that we can win. I should think it would take a minimum of three years after we enter the war, maybe four, possibly five or six. It can be accomplished only by expanding our present aircraft production program, which has orders now for 80,000 planes, to whatever dimensions prove necessary. This depends on how many planes the Germans are able to produce from their own and conquered factories, including all the facilities of their conquests in the East. We shall certainly have to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of planes. We and the British will have to supply the pilots and crews and ground crews for these planes, and it may be that our Air Corps will number upwards of a million before we are through. We have the men and the machines to do it.

“How much would it cost in American lives?” Lindbergh demands. Who can tell? We know only that until the Germans went into Russia the casualties in this war had been inconsiderable compared with the last war. As long as combat was confined to the air and the sea, the numbers of combatant lives lost were in the thousands compared with the hundreds of thousands of soldier lives lost in comparable periods in the land fighting of the last war. The bombardment of civilians has been ghastly, but the number of lives lost has been on the whole surprisingly small--41,900 persons killed in Britain from January 1940 to June 1941. It has even been asserted that in Britain, despite the hardships, war has so elevated the tone, the spirit of the population, that death by disease has declined until the gain has made up for the loss of life by bombardment. The relatively small number of deaths is explained by Mr. Churchill as the result of air raid precautions. After the bloodiest month of the Battle of Britain, September 1940, Mr. Churchill made a remarkable analysis.

“We are told,” he said, “by the Germans that 251 tons of explosives were thrown upon London in a single night, that is to say, only a few tons less than the total dropped on the whole country throughout the last war. Now we know exactly what our casualties have been. On that particular Thursday night 180 persons were killed in London as a result of 251 tons of bombs. That is to say it took one ton of bombs to kill three-quarters of a person. We know, of course, exactly the ratio of loss in the last war, because all the facts were ascertained after it was over. In that war the small bombs of early patterns which were used killed ten persons for every ton discharged in the built-up areas. That is, the mortality is now less than one-tenth of the mortality attaching to the German bombing attacks in the last war....

“What is the explanation? There can only be one, namely the vastly improved methods of shelter which have been adopted.... Whereas when we entered this war at the call of duty and honor we expected to sustain losses which would amount to 3,000 killed in a single night and 12,000 wounded, night after night, and made hospital arrangements on the basis of a quarter of a million casualties merely as a first provision; whereas that is what we did at the beginning of the war, we have actually had since it began, up to last Saturday, as a result of air bombing, about 8,500 killed and 13,000 wounded.” This was after three months of the Blitz; today with the figure of 41,900 as the total dead, the Prime Minister’s point is all the stronger as he concluded: “This shows that things do not always turn out as badly as one expects.” Mr. Churchill might have been speaking directly to Lindbergh.

Q. _But if air bombardment is as ineffective as these figures of Churchill indicate, how do you expect us to be able to beat Germany by winning air superiority and destroying the German air force? Isn’t there a discrepancy in your argument?_

A. No, because Britain has come off so lightly precisely because the Germans never have gotten air supremacy over Britain. If they ever did, it would mean they would win the war, just as if we ever get air supremacy over Germany, it will mean that we will win the war. Air supremacy means you can come over in the daytime, and bomb with precision. Antiaircraft guns are unable to prevent bombing. If there are no fighters to beat off the bombers, the bombers can do just about as they like. They can dive-bomb and destroy any objective they choose with about ninety per cent accuracy. If the Luftwaffe is ever destroyed, British and American planes can annihilate the entire German war industry and then what will it avail Hitler to be the conqueror of all Europe, or of Asia, too?

The R.A.F. has never been out to bomb civilians. The Germans have proved how useless civilian bombing is against a brave people. The R.A.F. has preferred the more difficult job of bombing military objectives and already it has affected the Reich’s war-making capacity. British bombs on the invasion ports had much to do with Hitler’s postponement of his trip to England. With the addition to the R.A.F. of hundreds of thousands of American machines, and with our own hundreds of thousands in the American Air Force, there is no reason to doubt that eventually the German military apparatus can be smashed.

Q. _What damage have the Germans done to the British war machine; or to the buildings of London? Lindbergh insists Britain is already beaten to her knees._

A. Exactly! Well, you have seen the loss of civilian life, amazingly small. Now Mr. Churchill has given us an interesting estimate on the damage to London. He said: “Statisticians may amuse themselves by calculating that after making allowance for the working of the law of diminishing returns, through the same house being struck twice or three times over, it would take ten years at the present rate, for half of the houses of London to be demolished. After that, of course, progress would be much slower. Quite a lot of things are going to happen to Herr Hitler and the Nazi regime before ten years are up.... Neither by material damage nor by slaughter will the people of the British Empire be turned from their solemn and inexorable purpose.” Does Lindbergh really think the British are beaten?

But you may object, surely we shall not have to suffer bombing of our civilian population. No, not if we enter the war in time to keep it on the other side of the ocean. The oddest thing of all about the Lindbergh policy is that it would wait for the war to come to us, so that the bombs should fall on our homes, not on the homes of our enemies. He represents precisely the fatal “Maginot line policy” which he so decries in the French. He advises us to sit behind our Maginot Atlantic and dream of our security until the Germans break through.

Finally Lindbergh demands that we “define our war aims,” and tell “how we are to impose our ideology on Germany, Russia, Italy and Japan.” We do not wish to “impose our ideology” on anyone. All we wish at the moment is to preserve our nation, keep from becoming slaves of the Nazis, and prevent Hitler from imposing his ideology upon us. We want only to make the world safe for the United States, which means also for the friends and allies of the United States, and if victory is ours we shall attempt to include in the circle of security all the nations of good will on earth. If this means “policing the earth,” let it mean that. The first step to organize common security was taken when men agreed to have a police force and for it sacrificed their individual right to exercise individual justice, and agreed to pay taxes for the protection. We are just now vigilantes trying to rid the community of bandits.

It is a troublesome matter and after it is settled we may have sense enough to organize at least for transient tranquillity and hope against hope that education may help us to permanent peace. I have not much hope of that myself, but if we, the United States of America, were to put our heart into the effort, I would have hope. Unless we do there is no hope at all.

Q. _But how many lives could it cost America?_

A. Nobody can say how many lives it will cost us to preserve our liberty and independence. Maybe surprisingly few, maybe heart-breakingly many. But is this a matter for bargaining? Does Lindbergh ask us to say: “We, the United States of America will give so and so many American lives in order to preserve our national independence, our institutions, our children’s lives and our liberty, but we will give so many and no more? If it costs more, we will surrender! If it takes two years to win, we will make the trade; if it costs ten, we give in!” If that is our attitude, we are beaten before we begin. It is not America’s attitude. It was Vallandigham’s, but not America’s.

Index

Abetz, Otto, 243, 251

America First Committee, 311, 345, 346, 361-362, 367

American Expeditionary Force, 278, 293, 314, 333, 371

Anabaptists, 56

Angell, Sir Norman, 193-194

Anti-Semitism, in Germany, 13-14, 64-65,82, 360
in Lindbergh’s philosophy, 361-362

Assassinations, political, 60-79, 239

Atlantic Charter, 184, 185-187, 200-202,227, 333-334

Atrocity stories, 79-83

Australian armed forces, 155

Austria, Dollfuss Putsch, 8-10
independence guaranteed, 7-8
seizure of, 27

Baltic states, fate of, 193, 227-228

Baruch, Bernard, 170

Bayes, William D., 43

_Berliner Illustrierte_, 42

Bernstein, Henri, 148-149

Bezbozhnik Society, 99

Birdsall, Paul, 286

Black Guards, 15, 39, 56, 62-63, 83

Blood Purge (June 30, 1934), 12, 32, 34, 39-40, 64, 78

Blum, Leon, 267, 279

Brest-Litovsk treaty, 58, 107

British Expeditionary Force, 21-22

British Intelligence Service, 66-68

British Navy, and American safety, 276
Churchill’s tribute to, 168-169
as a fighting force, 152-156

Bucharest treaty, 58

Cagoulard movement, 243, 251-259

Canada, and the war effort, 152, 154, 155, 204

China, 320, 366
war economy, 109

Churchill, Randolph, 26, 166, 172, 176, 177-178

Churchill, Winston, 139-183
address to French people, 284
Atlantic meeting with Roosevelt, 184-185
aversions, 176-177
as a bricklayer, 178-179
characteristics, 144, 148-151
on effect of air bombardment, 372-375
gift of prophecy, 148
military judgment, 156-161, 182-183
opinion of Roosevelt and the New Deal, 145-148
opinion of United States, 144-145
as a painter, 179
place in history, 139
popularity in England, 139-142
principal interests, 166-183
realist and idealist, 142-144
secret of success, 163-166
as a speaker, 171-174
speeches on defense of Britain, 151-153, 160, 164-166
as a writer, 163-164, 169, 170, 179

Ciano, Count, 7

Clapper, Raymond, 350

Cole, G. D. H., 141-142

Communism, compared with England’s wartime socialism, 231-233
compared with Nazism, 84-87
economic failure in Russia, 116-134
in France, 241, 249-250
in Germany, 13-14, 214-215
in Spain, 98
threat of revolution in Europe, 101-103
in the United States, 273-274

Compiègne armistice, 283

Conant, James B., 323

Conscientious objectors, 321-324

Cooper, Hugh, 107

Corrigan, Douglas, 353-355

Crete, battle of, 153, 158, 303

Croix de Feu, 250

Curie, Eve, 281, 318

Czechoslovakia, 51-52
occupied by Germany, 27-28

Darlan, Admiral, 266-268, 272

Darre, Walther, 54, 309

_Das Kapital_, 85

Deloncle, Colonel Eugene, 243

Deuxième Bureau, 243, 251-256

Dneiper dam, 107-108

Dollfuss Putsch, 8-10

Dunkirk, evacuation of, 21, 22, 151, 152, 303, 316

Duranty, Walter, 90

Dusseigneur, General, 243, 251

Einstein, Albert, 323

England, at war, 139-183
defense against Hitler, 300-306
and wartime socialism, 231-233

Fayard, Arthème, 252-253

Faymonville, Colonel, 135

Fifth Columnists, 339-376

Finland, 100, 105, 175, 364-366

Fish, Hamilton, 344-345

Foreign trade, effect of Nazi slave labor on, 192-197, 208-212
and Nazi economy, 53-54

France, compared with America, 273-280
declining birth rate, 234, 263, 277-278
future under Nazis, 283-284, 290-291
hope for, 281-282
indemnity and reparations to Germans, 285-292
Maginot line complex, 234, 240, 274-275, 296, 375
reasons for fall of, 30, 234-273
venality of press, 234, 280-281

French Army, equipment of, 234-235
morale of, 235-238
treason in, 238-262

Franco, General, 264

Fuller, Colonel Horace M., 20

de Gaulle, General, 266, 315
recognition of government, 292

Garvin, J. L., 174

Gaxotte, Pierre, 252-253, 256

George, General, 243

Georgiev, Vlada, 63, 77

German Air Force, strength of, 299, 333, 359, 372-374

German Army, 16, 297
Hitler’s ascendancy over, 8-9, 17-34

German people, attitude toward America, 329-331
character of, 55-58, 217-218, 226-227, 282
Hitler’s relation to, 36-38

Germany, 1-87
Communism in, 15-16, 214-215
deindustrialization vs. military occupation, 219-226
postwar reconstruction, 56-58

Gestapo, 15, 62, 67-68, 228, 243
in Holland, 67
murder monopoly of, 79, 83-84
and Nazi economy, 53-54
political position of, 74-76
in Spain, 25, 356

Goebbels, Joseph, 8, 15, 33, 163
and propaganda, 80, 243, 330-331
as a public speaker, 37

Goering, Hermann, 14-16, 24, 32, 163, 359

Glass, Senator Carter, 51

G. P. U., 70-71, 83-85, 119-120, 133, 228
political position of, 74-77

Greece, 158-159

Hackett, Francis, 43-44

Haushofer, Karl, 17

Hayes, Carlton J., 357

Hemingway, Ernest, 97

Hess’s flight to England, 15, 161-163

Hillenkoetter, Lieutenant-Commander, 20

Himmler, Heinrich, 15, 64, 67, 163, 243

Hitler, Adolf, 1-69
assassination attempts analyzed, 60-69
attack on Russia, 23, 30, 110-111, 160-161
compared with Hohenzollerns, 263-264, 328
and homosexuality, 34-35
impressions of, 1-3, 10-12, 43-51
military mistakes, 19-30
and Mussolini, 4-10
and Napoleon, 17, 30, 113-114
occupation of Czechoslovakia, 27-28
personal bravery, 30-33
physical appearance, 1-3, 43-44
plans for invasion of Britain, 300-305
principal interests, 167
as a public speaker, 37-41
relation to German people, 35-36, 60
reoccupation of Rhineland, 24-26, 148, 226
responsibility for war, 12-14
successors to, 14-17
seizure of Austria, 8-10, 27
treatment if beaten, 58-60
and the United States, 306-309
as war lord, 17-19
and women, 36-37
and world conquest, 37, 190-199, 202-209, 213-214, 323-325

Homosexuality, 33-35

Hoover, Herbert, 344-345

Huntziger, General Charles, 235-238

Hutchins’ Four Freedoms, 309-313

Imro, 77-78

Irish neutrality, 144, 305-306

Jankowsky, Frau Marie, 81-83

Japan, 112, 316
publishes Axis peace terms, 199, 202-207

_Je Suis Partout_, 243, 251-258

Jews, persecution of, 64-65, 82, 360, 362-364

John of Leyden, 56

Jung, Dr. Carl G., analysis of Hitler and Nazism, 45-51, 54-55

Keynes, John Maynard, 286-287

Kirov, Sergei, assassination of, 69-71

Korff, resigns from Ullstein Verlag, 41-42

Labor party in England, 141-142

La Guardia, F. H., 345

Laval, Pierre, 239, 269-273

League of Nations, 143, 287, 334, 336-337
proposed, 223, 230

Lenin, Nikolai, 69, 98-99, 123
on morality, 103

Lewis, Sinclair, 353

Lindbergh, Anne Morrow, 81-83, 350, 355-356

Lindbergh, Charles A., 339-361, 364-376
admiration for Nazi Germany, 358-360
anti-Semitism, 361-362
character and personality, 347, 348, 351-353
classed as Copperhead, 339-341
and free speech, 343-344
ingratitude to France and England, 349-351
isolationist arguments answered, 368-376
kidnaping and murder of child, 356-357
“Letter to America,” 367-368
and newspaper publicity, 352-354
as one-time national hero, 346-348
political philosophy, 273-274, 350-351, 359, 361
praised by President Coolidge, 346-347
propagandist for Hitler, 198-200, 214
supporters of, 341, 343, 346, 367
visit to Soviet Union, 358-359

von Lossow, General, 11-12, 39

Ludendorff, General, 11, 32, 67, 327

Maginot line complex, 234, 240, 274-275, 296, 375

Mandel, Georges, 253-255

Masaryk, Thomas G., 51-52

Master race doctrine, 37, 191-192

_Mein Kampf_, 1, 31, 37, 41-42, 85, 283-284
Hackett’s index to, 44-45

Miller, Douglas, 111, 213

Morrow, Mrs. Dwight, 353

Mowrer, Edgar, 20, 60

Mosley, Oswald, 361

Munich Beer Hall, bombing attempt, 67-69

Munich Beer Hall Putsch, 1, 32

Munich pact, 28, 61, 360-361

Mussolini, Benito, 4-5, 49, 173
and Dollfuss Putsch, 8-10
first meeting with Hitler, 3-7
and political assassinations, 72-74
and yes-staff, 18

Napoleon, and Hitler, 17, 30
and Mussolini, 4-5

National Socialist German Workers Party, 13-14

Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, 9-10, 61-63

Nazi propaganda, 79-83, 239, 243, 248-262, 275-276

Nazism, 51-53, 83, 360
compared with Communism, 84-87

Nelson, Donald M., 294

Newspapers, American and French, 279-281

Nicolson, Harold, 174, 357

NKVD defined, 119-120

Norris, Kathleen, 345

Norway, invasion of, 30, 157-160

Nye, Senator Gerald P., 149, 214, 344-345

Okhrana, 75-76

von der Osten, Major, 25-26

_Out of the Night_, 68, 83-84, 163

Pax Anglo-Americana, 146, 229-230

Peace conference, 191-192, 214-231
Atlantic Charter, 200-202, 221, 334
Axis terms, 198-199, 202-208

Pétain, Marshal, character of, 262-265, 272
dupe of German propaganda, 239, 255-262
as head of Vichy government, 265-266, 292, 315
Hitler’s promise to, 284-285
request for armistice, 243-245

_Petit Journal_, 250-251

Poison gas, 302

Poland, attack on planned, 18
conquest by Nazis, 29-30, 191-193, 195, 322, 365
fate of, 184-185
and Russia, 100, 174-175

Prioux, General, 241-242

Raleigh, John McCutcheon, 45

Rauschning, Hermann, 160, 309

Reichstag fire, 68

Rhineland, reoccupation of, 24-26, 148, 226
von Ribbentrop, Joachim, 15, 29, 243, 251

Roehm, Ernst, 32-34, 39

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 145-147, 296
meeting with Churchill, 184-185
re-election and German morale, 330
verdict on Lindbergh, 339-341, 344

Rosenberg, Alfred, 15, 163

Royal Air Force, 22-23, 301, 303, 304, 332, 374
Churchill’s tribute to, 166

Russell, Bertrand, 323

Russia, 88-139
approval of Atlantic Charter, 227-228
and defeat of Germany, 101-103
development of Red Army, 92-94, 134-137
failure of Planned National Economy, 116, 121-123, 130-131
Five-Year Plans, 107-108, 116, 122
freedom of worship, 99-100
monetary system, 129-130
morale of people, 95-99
political assassinations in, 67-79
reasons for resistance to Nazi attack, 90-99
as refuge for Jews, 363-364
standard of living, 92, 118-123, 129
Terror under political police, 115-120, 125-128, 131-134
U. S. help for, 88-90, 100-104, 137-138
weaknesses of Soviet system, 115-134

Russo-German pact, 29, 100, 112

Schieffer, Colonel, 242, 277-278, 326

Schuman, Frederick L., defines dictatorship, 146

Selassie, Haile, 76

Shipbuilding capacities, 155-156

Siegfried line, 26, 28

Socialism, in wartime England, 231-233

South America, and the Nazis, 49, 191, 205, 208, 370-371

Soviet Union, _see_ Russia

Spanish Civil War, 25-26, 52-53, 97-98, 356

Stalin, Joseph, 88-115, 133-138
agreement with Churchill, 103-104
and compromise peace with Germany, 106-112
and political assassinations, 69-72, 76, 78
quarrel with Trotzky, 133-134
system of army espionage, 105-106

Stoddard, Lothrop, 44

Storm Troopers, 10, 32-34, 39, 54-55, 83

Swing, Raymond, 157, 299

Third Reich, symbolism of, 54-55

Thompson, Dorothy, 43-44

Tolischus, Otto, 43

Trotzky, Leon, 42-43, 123, 133-134, 176, 180

United States, 292-337
army morale, 318-326
Atlantic Ocean complex, 274-277, 375
battleground for war against Nazis, 331-333
choice of war or surrender, 369-373
and Communists, 273
comparison with France, 273-280
conditions after German defeat, 337-338
dangers to, 197-198, 293-294, 306-309
effect of declaration of war against Nazis, 313-321, 330-331
and the first World War, 326-328, 335-336, 338
and the League of Nations, 334, 336-337
lease-lend appropriations, 190, 292, 294, 317
military preparedness, 296-300
national morale, 295-296
Neutrality Acts, 317, 330
postwar economic condition, 189-190
representation in Peace Conference, 332-334
and Russia, 88-90, 100-104, 137-138

Vallandigham, Clement L., 339-341, 344, 376

Valtin, Jan, 68, 83-84, 163

Versailles treaty, 220, 224, 334, 336
denounced, 24, 25, 40, 290
leniency of, 58, 286-287

War Aims, 184-233

Wave of the Future, 83, 87, 349, 360

Weimar Republic, 12-13, 336

Weygand, General, 151, 242

_What Mein Kampf Means to America_, 43

Wheeler, Senator Burton K., 198, 200, 214, 273-274, 343-345

Wilson’s Fourteen Points, 186-187

Woollcott, Alexander, on Churchill, 164
on Lindbergh, 342-343, 376

World War, first, cost and reparations, 57-58, 193, 286-287, 335-336

_You Can’t Do Business with Hitler_, 213

* * * * *

Transcriber’s Notes:

Punctuation has been made consistent.

Variations in spelling and hyphenation were retained as they appear in the original publication, except that obvious typographical errors have been corrected.

The one footnote has been moved to the end of its section and relabeled.

The following change was made:

p. 41: XIV changed to XVI (Louis XVI had)