The Pittsburgh Press (January 23, 1941)
‘I HOPE NEITHER SIDE WINS WAR’
Lindbergh urges negotiated peace
….
Says fall of Royal Navy would not menace U.S., opposes export of planes
….
By John R. Beal, United Press staff writer
Washington, Jan. 23 –
Col. Charles A. Lindbergh told the House Foreign Affairs Committee today that he would prefer that “neither side won,” in the European war “and would like a negotiated peace.”
Lindbergh said:
I would prefer to see neither side win. I’d like to see a negotiated peace. I believe a complete victory for either side would result in the pristration of Europe such as we never before have seen.
Col. Lindbergh, opposing the administration’s British-aid bill, expressed his view when Representative Luther A. Johnson (D-TX) noted that Col. Lindbergh never had expressed sympathy for either side.
‘Better without victory’
It would be better for us if the war ends without a conclusive victory. It would not be best to see Germany defeated. A negotiated peace is the best for us. I have sympathy for the people of both sides, and not with their arms.
Col. Lindbergh added that the fall of the British Navy would “not seriously menace the United States,” and asserted his belief that even American entry into the war on the side of Great Britain could not bring victory without an internal collapse in Germany. He said he was opposed to export of American war planes at this time.
Mr. Johnson repeated his question, asking which side’s victory would be better. Col. Lindbergh replied tersely:
Neither.
Applause burst out in the committee room where 500 spectators had gathered.
‘Opposed for two reasons’
Representative Charles A. Eaton (R-NJ) said:
The main problem here is the pending bill, ostensibly to aid England. Do you favor it?
Col. Lindbergh replied:
I am opposed to it. I’m opposed for two reasons: First, it is one more step away from democracy. Second, it is one step closer to war and I don’t know how many more steps we can take and still be short of war.
Col. Lindbergh said he did not believe the measure could enable Britain to win.
I don’t think anything short of war, or beyond war, will win this war on the present basis.
Substitutes offered
Even with the active help of the United States, Britain could not invade the continent and win unless there is a German internal collapse.
While he was on the witness stand, Senators Ed C. Johnson (D-CO) and Robert A. Taft (R-OH) introduced in the Senate substitute British aid bills. Senator Johnson’s bill would authorize an outright gift to $2 billion worth of materials to Britain provided that nation give America complete information on performance and would agree to make all of its purchases in this country. Senator Taft’s measure would authorize the Reconstruction Finance Corp. to lend $1 billion to Great Britain, $500 million to Canada, and $50 million to Greece.
I think that Europe would be in a more peaceful condition if we take no part in her wars, either the last or this one.
‘We can’t force peace’
I don’t believe we can force peace on Europe. I think it would be constructive if the attitude of this country were for peace.
He told Representative James A. Shanley (D-CT) that the pending bill would be a step toward “projection of the United States into European quarrels.”
Col. Lindbergh said he saw no signs as yet of German collapse.
Representative Joe L. Pfeiffer (D-NY) asked:
In other words, the Germans are sure to win?
Col. Lindbergh replied:
She already controls the continent. I don’t say she can invade England.
What makes you think Germany will stop after conquering England?
The only thing that will stop aggression is sufficient strength to stop that aggression. I think we can build sufficient strength to stop it.
‘Mistake to export planes’
Col. Lindbergh told the committee he believed it a mistake to export American war planes at this time; that this nation has “but very few hundred at best” thoroughly modern warplanes while in Europe each side “has some thousands.”
Col. Lindbergh told Representative John M. Vorys (R-OH):
I think our export at this time is injuring our defense.
Signs of prostration already are evident in Europe, Col. Lindbergh said. Any attempt to invade before a collapse comes, he said, would result in a loss of life “incomparably greater than in the last war and Europe won’t stand that.
He said he did not believe England could be invaded before she collapses internally, but “of that, I am not sure.”
‘Encouraged British’
Col. Lindbergh contended and adding that attitude probably would be resented after the war:
America encouraged the British to declare war. I think we encourage them to get into the war when they were not prepared for it.
Col. Lindbergh said that Neutrality Law revision brought the nation closer to war, added to blood shed abroad and will not have much effect on the outcome.
Mr. Eaton asked:
Would you drop all aid to England now and let the devil take the hindmost?
Col. Lindbergh said:
I don’t believe we can justify dropping a position already taken.
What steps should we take to get a negotiated peace?
‘Create desire for peace’
I’m not prepared to say. The first step would be to create in our people a desire for peace in Europe.
Mr. Eaton said the Axis powers proposed to create a new world order by force and “place one race – theirs” in control, so that “we will be slaves for them.”
He asked:
Under those circumstances, can we begin negotiations for peace unless Mr. Hitler has a change of mind, if he ever does?
Col. Lindbergh said:
I believe we are strong enough to maintain our way of life regardless of what the attitude is on the other side. I don’t believe we are strong enough to impose it on Europe and Asia.
He added he was “worried very little” about the economic results if Britain falls.
I believe this nation and this hemisphere are well able to take care of ourselves economically and militarily.
Doesn’t fear invasion
Col. Lindbergh said his estimate that Germany had facilities in 1938 for building 20,000 planes of all types a year “probably has been increased several fold since then.”
In a prepared statement, Col. Lindbergh said he did not believe that the United States need fear invasion by air or sea as long as it maintained an army, navy and air force of “reasonable size.”
He told the committee:
An air invasion across the ocean is, I believe, absolutely impossible at this time or in any predictable future.
He advocated that the nation “construct as rapidly as possible a total air force of about 10,000 thoroughly modern fighting planes plus reserves.” Such a number, he said, would be “adequate to ensure American security regardless of the outcome of the present European war.”
Discounts threat
He strongly discounted the possibility of air invasion by way of either Alaska or Greenland, but proposed that we “wage war with all our resources” if an invasion of Alaska or any other portion of America were attempted.
Appearing as an opposition witness to the Lend-Lease bill, Col. Lindbergh said:
I do not believe that is any danger of an invasion of this continent, either by sea or by air, as long as we maintain an army, navy and air force of reasonable size and in modern condition, and provided we establish the bases essential for defense.
That viewpoint was the opposite of that expressed by President Roosevelt’s cabinet members who testified last week that they feared an invasion attempt in this hemisphere by Germany if it is victorious over Great Britain.
Peril cited by Stimson
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson said there was “very great danger of an invasion by air” if Britain fell unless we were prepared to do what the British are doing now.
Col. Lindbergh made a careful distinction between air invasion and trans-oceanic bombing.
It is, of course, perfectly possible, today, to build bombing planes that could cross the ocean, drop several tons of bombs, and return to their starting point.
Trans-oceanic bombing raids could do considerable damage on peacetime standards, but they would have very little effectiveness on wartime standards. The cost of trans-oceanic bombing would be extremely high, enemy losses would be large, and the effect on our military position negligible.
‘Ocean is safe barrier’
Such bombing could not begin to prepare the way for an invasion of this continent. If England is able to live at all with bases of the German Air Force less than an hour’s flight away, the United States is not in great danger across the Atlantic Ocean.
Not only is such bombing ineffective theoretically, but from a practical standpoint it is interesting to note that not a single squadron of trans-oceanic bombing planes exists anywhere in the world today.
Aviation, Col. Lindbergh said, strengthens the defensive position of the United States for three reasons:
- Because it is impossible for an enemy to invade the continent by means of aircraft alone.
- Because trans-oceanic bombing is indecisive.
- Because our own air force makes it more difficult than ever before for an enemy to approach our shores.
Advocates expansion
The situation reverses itself, however, when the nation contemplates sending its military forces abroad, Col. Lindbergh added.
The noted flier said an industry capable of building and maintaining a 10,000-plane air force would have adequate flexibility to meet any emergency which might confront the hemisphere.
He advocated that the expansion of the air force to that figure should be accompanied by the construction of aviation bases in Newfoundland, Canada, the West Indies, parts of South and Central America, the Galapagos Islands, the Hawaiian Islands and Alaska. Secondary bases might be established in parts of Greenland, he said.
‘Aviation adds to security’
Personally, I do not believe it is possible for either America or Europe to invade the other successfully by air, or even by a combination of air, land and sea, unless an internal collapse preceded the invasion. In this sense, aviation has added to America’s security against Europe and to Europe’s security against America….
There has never been an invasion of enemy territory by air alone. The two outstanding examples of what might be called a partial air invasion were furnished by the German occupations of Norway and Holland. But in each of these instances, the landing of troops by air was carried on simultaneously with a ground army invasion on a major scale.
‘Must have ground forces’
The minimum number of troops that could have been transported and supplied by air would have been ineffective without the immediate support of a ground army. If air invasion alone could be successful, it would have been used by the Germans against England many months ago.
Aviation, he said, is unquestionably an asset to the United States, greatly strengthening our position and increasing the security of the entire hemisphere against foreign attack.
Col. Lindbergh opened the second day of opposition testimony, the committee having decided to close its hearing Saturday night after devoting that day to rebuttal by administration supporters.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has appointed a five-man subcommittee headed by Chairman Walter F. George to arrange hearings to begin Monday.
Hull to be first witness
The group met with Secretary of State Cordell Hull and three other cabinet members who testified last week, and indicated that Mr. Hull would open the administration’s case before the Senate.
Wendell L. Willkie, Republican nominee who has given qualified endorsement to the British-aid bill, amy be called by the Senate committee. Senator Frederick Van Nuys (D-IN) proposed that he be called after his return from London. Mr. Willkie left yesterday for a two-week stay in the British capital.
Mr. Willkie was prevented from appearing at House hearings because previous arrangements for the trip interfered with the committee’s schedule. Senator Van Nuys suggested also that Harry L. Hopkins, now in London as President Roosevelt’s personal representative, be called when he returns.
Two veteran Senators whose illness has prevented their participation in Congressional affairs so far this session returned to cast their lot on opposite sides of the British-aid bill fight.
Senator Republican Leader Charles L. McNary of Oregon announced opposition to the measure on the ground that it “grants extraordinary and total power to one person.” His stand differed from that of Mr. Willkie, with whom he ran on the Republican ticket last November.
Senator George W. Norris (I-NE) said he favored the bill, but preferred to see a two-year limitation on the authority granted. He said he believed the war would be over within two years and, if it is not, the bill could be passed again.
