Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av Ormen Långe
Att Lindberg blev en paria hade ingenting med "den amerikanska judenheten",
eller "den judeägda pressen".
Det hade med att den kristna presidenten offentligt kritiserade Lindberg
och att japanerna bombade Pearl Harbor.
Du har helt fel. Smutskastningen av Lindbergh påbörjades flera månader innan angreppet mot Pearl Harbor. Det som utlöste smutskastningskampanjen var att Lindbergh i ett tal den 11 september 1941 påpekade att judiska intressen arbetade för att få med USA i kriget mot axelmakterna. Om man läser de dagboksanteckningar som Lindberghs hustru gjorde strax efter att hennes man hållit talet, får man en god inblick i vad det var som hände:
Citat:
September 11, 1941:
Then [he gave] his speech, throwing me into black gloom. He names the "war agitators," chiefly the British, the Jews, and the Administration. He does it truthfully, moderately, and with no bitterness or rancor, but I hate to have him touch the Jews at all. For I dread the reaction on him. No one else mentions this subject out loud . . [Charles], as usual, must bear the brunt of being frank and open. What he is saying in public is not intolerant or inciting or bitter and it is just what he says in private, while the other soft-spoken cautious people who say terrible things in private would never dare be as frank in public as he. They do not want to pay the price. And the price will be terrible. Headlines will flame, "Lindbergh attacks Jews." He will be branded anti-Semitic, Nazi, Führer-seeking, etc. I can hardly bear it. For he is a moderate.
Citat:
September 13, 1941:
He is attacked on all sides: Administration, pressure groups, and Jews, as now openly a Nazi, following Nazi doctrine.
Citat:
September 14, 1941:
I cannot explain my revulsion of feeling by logic. Is it my lack of courage to face the problem? Is it my lack of vision and seeing the thing through? Or is my intuition founded on something profound and valid?
I do not know and am only very disturbed, which is upsetting for him. I have the greatest faith in him as a person, in his integrity, his courage, and his essential goodness, fairness, and kindness, his nobility really . . . How then explain my profound feeling of grief about what he is doing? If what he said is the truth (and I am inclined to think it is), why was it wrong to state it? He was naming the groups that were pro-war. No one minds his naming the British or the Administration. But to name "Jew" is un-American, even if it is done without hate or even criticism. Why?
Because it is segregating them as a group, setting the ground for anti-Semitism . . . I say that I would prefer to see this country at war than shaken by violent anti-Semitism. (Because it seems to me that the kind of person the human being is turned into when the instinct of Jew-baiting is let loose is worse than the kind of person he becomes on the battlefield.)
Citat:
September 15, 1941:
The storm is beginning to blow up hard. America First is in a turmoil. . . . He is universally condemned by all moderates. . . . The Jews demand a retraction. . . . I sense that this is the beginning of a fight and consequent loneliness and isolation that we have not known before. . . . For I am really much more attached to the worldly things than he is, mind more giving up friends, popularity, etc., mind much more, criticism and coldness and loneliness.
Citat:
September 18, 1941:
Will I be able to shop in New York at all now? I am always stared at, but now to be stared at with hate, to walk through aisles of hate!
Se särskilt de meningar som jag har fetstilat. Det framgår med all önskvärd tydlighet att det var ytterst riskabelt att kritisera judar i USA på 1940-talet, eftersom man då, precis som idag, riskerade att bli anklagad för att vara antisemit.
