Talk:America First Committee

Lindbergh speech

Lindbergh Des Moines speech is very important and should go back in Rjensen 21:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Refounding

This article should be updated due to the refounding of the America First Committee. The current site is America First Comittee

They don't appear to be much of a movement. Off hand it looks like a handful of people who are a single person usurping a previous name. The website gives very little actual info about the group, and I can't find any third party mention of them. Without more info they do not appear to be significant or noteworthy. -Will Beback 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Source?

good article, but who is the quoted source CMH ??? --87.185.120.168 13:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why has the quote been removed?

The way it is now, it looks like some people still admire America First because Pat Buchanan says it. Before, it had Buchanan explaining why supporters like it. What he is saying is not particularly controversial. I don't think anyone, supporters or detractors, have challenged the well-known fact that the isolationists were a serious roadblock to American entry into the war. And no one can deny that the bloodiest fighting happened on the Eastern Front, and that the Soviet Union suffered the worst casualties. I'm reverting it.Shield2 07:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article reads as if delaying the US entry into the war made Stalin weaker. This is arguable; certainly, an inordinate number of Soviet persons died as a result of the Nazi invasion. This may not have weakened Stalin's political status, however, and one might surmise that it gave him the "excuse" to murder thousands more.

The delayed US entry likely cost many European lives, not that America First cared.PedEye1 13:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie Song "Lindbergh"

I recently acquired a CD of Woody Guthrie songs with one entitled "Lindbergh" which is very anti-Lindbergh and anti-America First. The CD is from Smithsonian Folkways and the recording seems to be from 1964, but I imagine the song must have been written soon after Pearl Harbor since it exhorts working men to fight Hitler. I was wondering if anyone could add some information as to whether this song was popular in that era and the impact it might have had on the politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkowski (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to have been "sanitized". While many of the America First Committee members and supporters were primarily non-interventionist, it is a disservice to not note that many of its supporters (and certainly its chief spokesman) were driven primarily by opposition to multiculturalism as well as support for Germany's National Socialism. I don't believe the NPOV rule means omitting relevant characteristics and views of notable members and supporters. It was simply a fact of the times - those who volunteered to fight or sell their services in other wars to fight fascism (i.e. Spain) were declared PAF (Premature Anti-Fascists) and excluded from officer commissions due to the prevailing sentiment which the AFC embraced. Woody Guthrie recognized it. 47.185.13.146 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No Mention of Outmoded and, Frankly, Racist Policies

I came to this page from the anti-war section of Wikipedia, looking for anti-war groups I might want to join. From the Wikipedia page alone, I was planning to join the group, until I visited their website through the external link at the bottom. Under the link "Core Principles," I found this list of ten beliefs:

"1. That all men are not created equal in mind or body and that this natural inequality among men and races is of Divine origin.

2. That the Natural Law governing all Human life is based on the maintenance of Racial Integrity and genetic heredity.
3. That the basis for all social development in Human affairs is preservation of the Family; Property and respect for all duly constituted Authority.
4. That it is the duty of the State to safeguard the lives and property of its citizens; to provide avenues for Honorable men to provide for themselves the necessities for a decent Human life.
5. That the basis for all prosperity in a Society lies in the talents and productivity of its People.
6. That a Free and sovereign People are the masters not the servants of Money in their own land.
7. That the purpose of Education is to preserve for future generations the highest elements of White, Western Culture.
8. That in foreign affairs, the rights of a Free People are not subservient to any foreign states, alliances, or international bodies.
9. That it is the Duty of the State to provide for its own self-defense; and it is the Right of a Free People to keep and bear arms to defend themselves against any Intruder or Oppressor.

10. That the ideals of government for which we shall strive are Liberty without Anarchy; Law and Order without Tyranny."

The supposition that "this natural inequality among...races is of Divine origin," or that "the Natural Law...is based on the maintenance of Racial Integrity and genetic heredity" is genuinely disturbing to me. Yet these radical beliefs are not a part of the article--why? Further on, Core Principle 7 states, "That the purpose of Education is to preserve for future generations the highest elements of White, Western Culture." (Emphasis mine.) This is blatant racism, and intolerable to my conscience. I would hate for others to join the organization without a true understanding of the group's goals, and I don't believe the Wikipedia page presents those beliefs.

I, and many others who are anti-war, I feel safe saying, feel very uncomfortable with these bigoted policies. Something about the "conservatism" or "traditionalism" of the AFC should be included on the page, but I don't feel I'm the one to write it, as I surely couldn't maintain NPOV in the discussion of such a topic.

Words for the wind (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)words_for_the_wind

It's not the same group. The historical AFC, which this article deals with was disbanded a few days after Perle Harbor. The website you are referring to id from another group that took the name that was founded in the early 1980's. CountElvis (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)CountElvis

See also

I removed the link to McCain. --Tom (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of George Sylvester Vierick, Pro german activist

No mention of Pro german Activist George Sylvester Vierick freind of inventor Nikola tesla and backer(with german funds!) of America First!

See also section redux, see above

Again, I have removed the redirect to McCain as unrelated or not really spelled out in that section per WP:SEEALSO. Is there a good reason not to do this? I have no problem having others comment. Thank you, Tom (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues section

Is the Buchanan material properly written, weighted, NPOV, ect for this article? TIA Tom (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "Project Victory" and America First Committee

Readathat the America First Committe got hold of a seceret FDR admistration plan to commit US troops in1943. if US wasnt in war by then. Called 'PROJECT VICTORY" No mention of this in article nor ANY mention I can find in ANY Wikipedia artice !Why?USALONE (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is a reference to the copy of the actual war Department war plan, which Sen. Burton Wheeler of Montana received surreptitiously in late 1941. Wheeler turned it over to the Chicago Tribune, which published it on the front page a few days before Pearl Harbor. there is a nasty name for a politician who reveals secret war plans to the enemy. Rjensen (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti British?

If the AFC opposed joining the world war, why did it attack Britain specifically? The AFC slogan was "England will fight to the last American". Is this not an indication that the group was anti-British - or pro-German?

The A F. C. argued that intervention was a British plot designed to serve British imperial interests, and would seriously damage American interests. they did not support Germany in any way. They argued the war would kill hundreds of thousands of American boys, cost many billions of dollars, and threatened democracy inside America as a police state took over. (they had World War I in mind, and did not predict that the US government would incarcerate Japanese-Americans) Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The "plot designed to serve British imperial interests" was the Rhodes/Milner Round Table agenda to reincorporate the United States into the British Empire's security and defense apparatus around the turn of the century. They ultimately wanted to control the ideas taken seriously by the State Department. After World War I, at the Paris Peace Conference, they put together the notion of an Atlantic security profile along with the policy institutions The Royal Institute for International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations. This is the same group the John Birch Society eventually stumbled onto. It was first written about by Professor Carroll Quigley, in his books The Anglo-American Establishment and Tragedy and Hope, and today has many academics that specialize in its history, from Oxford to the European University Institute. It is still not well known, however. Their task was basically accomplished with the Atlantic Charter, the War and Peace Studies Group formed to conduct the US end of post-war planning, and at Bretton Woods. The War and Peace Studies Project and its British Imperial heritage is detailed in the book Imperial Brain Trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.77.90 (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Kauffman quotation

Is this right? —" Lindbergh “was one man in the last broad peace movement in American history, almost a million strong.” What about the 1960s Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War?86.42.219.23 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Too slanted to be helpful to students

As a professor I'm grimly aware that students turn to Wikipedia first, for elucidation. No student, hearing a journalist or historian contemptuously discuss how American isolationism and British appeasement led to World War Two, could turn here and discover the source of that contempt. It may not be gentlemanly of me to say it, and forgive me if I repeat what I've said about other articles apparently written by Pacifists about their predecessors, but the jury is not out on Neville Chamberlain and Munich, or on Charles Lindbergh and American First. You'd never know it from this article. If history is written by the winners, is Wikipedia written by the losers? Historians adopting a man as their own tend to write apologies for him. I've made the error myself. At one point the article makes it seem as if only left-wingers hold less than a forgiving view of Lindbergh and America First's continuation of Chamberlain's foreign policy delusions, which nearly destroyed the civilized West. Where is the discussion of Lindbergh's deep affinity with German racist philosophy-- his writings, his decorations by the Nazi's? The Wikipedia article on Lindbergh does a much better job of describing all this. One should add Anne Morrow Lindbergh, and her powerful writings in favor of abandoning England to its fate. Roosevelt could not defeat America First, only Pearl Harbor did. (And if America First had not kept America convinced it could put its head in the sand and safely ignore the Axis powers, could there have been a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?) College students coming here should read synopses of all the evidence, as well as this article's scholarly equivocations. Charles Lindbergh and America First fought against America helping England during the Blitz, and kept America out of the war until England was nearly beyond help. That is not my judgement. It is the general one, among historians left and right. Students have to hear it. Profhum (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ProfHum wants Wikipedia to condemn America First, apparently because of his very high regard for England. We are not allowed to do that by Wikipedia rules. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor is a red herring--The White House, the Navy and the Army were the ones surprised and they were not part of Am First, which indeed did not oppose aggressive measures against Japan. (It focused on Europe.) Rjensen (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Profhum reads like a true Anglophile. For a "professor" he seems curiously unaware that the British and Germans each had their own imperial operations in the United States and each were basically successful. The British attached their influence to shipping, finance, and diplomacy while the Germans attached theirs to oil and manufacturing. I'm not going to cite the well know academic works on these subjects because, if Profhum responds, I'd like to see him squirm and attempt to downplay or disprove these things. There is also the well studied pedagogical influence that Britain (empiricism) and Germany (historicism) achieved in the United States due to ideational drift after the US Civil War, of which Woodrow Wilson can be said to typify - British/German administrative statism. This foreign pedagogical influence is still present in academia and most political scientists, historians, and economists either don't know about it or are trained in that pedagogical environment and so perpetuate it. People generally refer to it as "progressivism." Profhum wants to say these two individual people were responsible for these major trends of political and economic thinking which stretch back generations before Lindbergh and Chamberlain. The camarilla matters. Profhum's slant is the one that is not helpful to students. What an amateur.

Further, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise to anyone in the higher levels of US policy planning. It was only a surprise to those there who were attacked. There are many books published on the Roosevelt administration's knowledge of the movements and intentions of the Japanese Navy, as well as about the US war planners conscious agitation of Japan stretching back to 1898 in War Plan Orange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.77.90 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sterling Morton? Morton Salt? Impossible!

Why does this say Sterling Morton of Morton Salt was a significant contributor? It is true that Sterling Morton (who died 43 years before America First Committee existed) had a son, Joy Morton, who founded Morton Salt; but, like his father, Joy Morton was dead well before AFC existed. We should either source or delete the claim.DKPhilosophy (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research

There seems to be a lot of original research in this article that is not cited. Several statements need citations:

1. Architect Frank Lloyd Wright attempted to join, but he was rejected when the local board decided that he had a "reputation for immorality".
2. They profoundly distrusted Roosevelt and argued that he was lying to the American people.
3. Charles Lindbergh, a frequent guest of Hitler's in 1930s Germany and an admirer of the buildup of the Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe, had been, unsurprisingly, actively involved in questioning the motives of the Roosevelt administration well before the formation of the AFC [especially the use of "unsurprisingly"]
4. Nothing did more to escalate the tensions than the speech Lindbergh delivered to a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11,
5. Lindbergh urged listeners to look beyond the speeches and propaganda they were being fed and instead look at who was writing the speeches and reports, who owned the papers and who influenced the speakers.
6. Lindbergh's presence at the Hollywood Bowl rally was overshadowed, however, by the presence of fringe elements in the crowd.

These statements need sources. I think there should be an "original research" template and "citation needed" warnings on this article. Cleeder (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the ideas. I made revisions and added sources. Rjensen (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No evidence of anti-semitism

Other than the personal views of Charles Lindbergh, there is zero evidence that AFC was an anti-semitic organization or opposed the entry of the United States into World War II because of it. The articles cited are guilt-by-association hit pieces trying to tie Donald Trump's reuse of the phrase "America First" to Lindbergh. Norman Thomas, Gerald Ford, Sargent Shriver, Robert Taft, and John F Kennedy were anti-semites? If there is no contemporaneous sourcing about AFC being anti-semitic, this needs to be deleted. It can't stand on present day irrelevant Donald Trump criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:467F:49E0:18E3:9BE3:7FE0:A78E (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources provide ample evidence of anti-Semitism extending to other prominent members, not just Lindbergh. The article itself could stand to go into that in greater detail. Not everyone affiliated with AF was an anti-Semite, but it was a prominent feature of the organization's rhetoric, and that should be described. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Who are the other prominent members who were anti-semitic and what are the sources? What evidence of anti-semitism is in any of the printed or spoken material of the organization itself? Are there any contemporaneous sources accusing the AFC itself or any of its members vis-a-vis the AFC of being anti-semitic? Again, if there is "ample evidence" in the sources, then they should be cited. And if there is ample evidence, then why are the two sources provided in opening paragraph articles about Charles Lindbergh and Donald Trump? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:467F:49E0:18E3:9BE3:7FE0:A78E (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Henry Ford is the most prominent. Lindbergh and Avery Brundage made statements that were considered then and now to be at least tinged with anti-Semitism. They are mentioned in the sources you condemn. I think the lead needs a rewrite, as it was not central to the organization, and (Henry) Ford and others were eventually purged, but it was a significant feature for many adherents, not just a minority. I'll work on it as time allows. I agree that anti-Semitism should not be given equal prominence to isolationism, but it should not be whitewashed. Acroterion (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on developing a bit more in the body of the article, but the general drift would be along the lines of "While America First did not explicitly hew to a particular ideology beyond isolationism, a number of prominent members came under criticism for explicit and implicitly anti-Semitic views, which led to criticism of the organization itself." I'm working on sourcing the purge of people like Ford and its context and timing, as well as overall sourcing. Sources I've looked at emphasize the leadership's tolerance for Lindbergh's admiration of German and suspicion of Jewish influence as factors that led to the organization's discredit after refusing to disown Lindbergh's rhetoric. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ford was dumped in September 1940, during a largely unsuccessful drive to recruit Jewish supporters. This analysis has a number of valuable references [1] from a symposium in 2003, and is one of the references in the article. It mostly uses:

• A. Scott Berg, Lindbergh, New York, 1998
• Wayne S. Cole, America First: The Battle Against Intervention, 1940-1941, Madison, Wisconsin, 1953
• Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II, New York, 1974
• Wayne S. Cole, Roosevelt and the Isolationists, 1932-1945, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1982
• Donald F. Drummond, The Passing of American Neutrality, 1937-1941, 1968
• Manfred Jonas, Isolationism in America, 1935-1945, Ithaca, 1966
• Ruth Sarles, A Story of America First: The Men and Women Who Opposed U.S. Intervention in World War II, Westport, Connecticut, 2003
• James C. Schneider, Should America Go to War? The Debate Over Foreign Policy in Chicago, 1939-1941, Chapel Hill, 1989
• Michele Flynn Stenehjem, An American First: John T. Flynn and the America First Committee, New Rochelle, New York, 1976

The article references two of Cole's books, Berg and Schneider. These sources are where contemporaneous references would be found, as this is definitely a dead-tree subject. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion above gives a footnote link to this statement from David Gordon in his " America First: the Anti-War Movement, Charles Lindbergh and the Second World War, 1940-1941", Gordon's footnote 99 quotes the 1989 book by James Schneider: In the words of one author, many America Firsters “believed that Jews represented a separate, cohesive, and definable interest group on some foreign policy issues, one dedicated to promoting a policy of intervention and possessed of the influence to help bring it about. For this reason, some Committee members regarded Jews as political enemies. But the stray references to Jews in the AFC records contain considerably less malice than those to Communists, anglophiles, or Franklin D. Roosevelt.” They did not believe their views were anti-Semitic, as indeed they were not. It was Lindbergh’s discussing Jews as though they were not Americans, but rather some foreign element within America, that was anti-Semitic. His threat against the Jews if America entered the war was more than that. It seemed a call for persecution. Schneider, Should America Go to War?, p. 210. Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the article mentioning the anti-semitism of individual members like Lindbergh as I think it's relevant. But as you said, it wasn't central to the anti-war and anti-interventionism of the committee. I think the characterization in the opening paragraph for AFC as "anti-semitic" and "pro-fascist" should be deleted. There should be a separate section specifically about certain members and financial backer's (Lindbergh, Ford, Brundage) anti-semitic views with sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:467F:49E0:E934:D426:2BEF:4110 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Already done by Rjensen. Per the extract posted above by Rjensen, AF included Roosevelt-haters, Anglophobes and anti-communists, as well as pacifists and anti-Semites. The bulk of the criticism relating to anti-Jewish prejudice that was aimed at AF had to do with its tolerance of, or refusal to condemn anti-Semitic speech from members, of whom Lindbergh was the most prominent. Henry Ford had a way of poisoning everything he touched, given his status as the leading American anti-Semite of his time. I think we can find a way to work something in, just not at the top of the article in such bald terms. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Pharos has plonked this back into the lede, cited to a couple of media pieces that were written in reaction to current-day usage of the term. Not sure this really fits in with what better sources say or with what has been the apparent consensus of how to treat this matter here. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Main Wiki article for John F Kennedy implies contradiction over his donation/support

The source for John F Kennedy being a contributor/supporter of the AFC stems from reference 14, a 2014 opinion article by Bill Kauffman, a libertarian commentator. This article includes the statement that JFK approved of and donated to the AFC, along with a perjorative reference to JFK's father who is also named as a contriibutor:

, there were Kennedy footprints all over America First. Old lech Joe Kennedy kicked in a few bucks, and John F. Kennedy sent the AFC a check for $100, with a note reading “what you all are doing is vital.”

However this assertion seems in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's own article on John F Kennedy himself, which states at the end of the "Early Life" section :

In 1940 Kennedy completed his thesis, “Appeasement in Munich”,... the book also called for an Anglo-American alliance against the rising totalitarian powers. Kennedy became increasingly supportive of U.S. intervention in World War II, and his father’s isolationist beliefs resulted in the latter’s dismissal as ambassador to the United Kingdom.

The thesis is linked on that wiki page from the JFK library, with a publication date of 25 May, 1940.

Kauffman does not provide any source or reference for his claim that either Kennedy donated. But since as stated in this article the AFC was only established on September 4, 1940, is it really likely that JFK would have approved of and donated to it when it directly contradicts his own views, including his thesis/book published barely three months before?

Dannuk (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The ref is now to Thomas Maier's book, which says "the ambassador's hand was seen in the one-hundred dollar contribution given by his son, Jack". Do any other third-party RS say more? Llll5032 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not view Susan Dunn as a greatly reliable source

I wish she had been more accepting of how the anti-semitic leadership did not get re-organized too much. Lindbergh was even able to envision it as a pro-Nazi party.[2]2601:447:4000:220:5546:9F27:33BC:B5ED (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

What is a better source per WP:BESTSOURCES? Llll5032 (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The best sources are books published by historians in the decades following WWII, of which there are a number, not newspaper and magazine articles written in 2016 and after where everything got filtered through (understandable) dislike of a certain presidential candidate/president. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)