What do you think?
Rate this book
Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt: The Rivalry That Divided America
Was aviation pioneer and popular American hero Charles A. Lindbergh a Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite? Or was he the target of a vicious personal vendetta by President Roosevelt? In Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt , author James Duffy tackles these questions head-on, by examining the conflicting personalities, aspirations, and actions of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Charles A. Lindbergh. Painting a politically incorrect portrait of both men, Duffy shows how the hostility between these two American giants divided the nation on both domestic and international affairs. From canceling U.S. air mail contracts to intervening in World War II, Lindberg and Roosevelt’s clash of ideas and opinions shaped the nation’s policies here and abroad. Insightful, and engaging, Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt reveals the untold story about two of history’s most controversial men, and how the White House waged a smear campaign against Lindbergh that blighted his reputation forever.
270 pages, Hardcover
First published September 23, 2010
13 people are currently reading
113 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
July 17, 2012
Let's start by accepting Duffy's basic premise: that Col. Lindbergh was no Nazi sympathizer and was badly used by President Roosevelt. There's sufficient documentation elsewhere to accomplish that objective. But Duffy strains credibility with a text that portrays FDR in the absolute worst possible light, the politically naive Lindbergh in the very best light, and that makes troubling assertions about the United Kingdom. I wonder if Duffy's real agenda is to smear Winston Churchill and the entire British nation! For example, it's hard to imagine that British intelligence would even bother to "penetrate" (!) Gallup and other survey houses -- a claim made about the "Brits" (derogatory language Duffy employs regularly) at least five times. Further, too much malevolence is written into FDR's conspicuous efforts to aid the beleagured British in 1940-41, and Duffy is willing to incorporate the most questionable documentation in buttressing his argument. Overall, I'm inclined to not recommend this book.
January 14, 2011
I tried, but I literally couldn't get past the author's bias and agenda. Perhaps later on I'll be able to attempt it again and ignore those things, but I'm sure I won't be paying any money for it.
August 24, 2022
Charles Lindbergh is one of those historical figures who Americans today are expected to despise. Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of those historical figures who those same Americans are expected to revere. The case for understanding the former as a villain and the latter as a hero, rather than both being understood as complex individuals, is reductionist in the extreme, and requires virtues and vices to be alternately ignored and amplified, depending on which figure is under consideration.
James Duffy's Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt is one attempt to bring a bit of realism back into the discussions of these two figures, and a mostly successful one at that. Framing Lindbergh's life as something of a foil to the foibles of Roosevelt, Duffy's accounting of Lindbergh depicts a serious and reserved man who thought and spoke seriously and honestly. Conversely, Roosevelt comes across as an impetuous, vindictive man who targeted the aviator for special scorn for opposing him twice during his presidency (first, over army pilots delivering the mail, and second over FDR's attempts to insinuate America into World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor). Are these comprehensive studies of either person? Hardly. But they are helpful correctives to the way the two figures are often discussed today. Duffy's book is not objective, nor does he pretend it is. It's a rejoinder to fallacies he believes are all too prevalent.
Which leads to some of the other reviews of the book, which by this point are close to a decade old. Some other reviewers have taken Duffy to task for not producing a work of impartial history, or for framing Lindbergh in an overly-positive and Roosevelt in an overly-negative light. These strike me as somewhat silly objections to the book, because Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt is clearly a polemic, and not a work of objective history. Now, works of objective history have their place, but so do polemics, and this is especially so when falsehoods have been accepted as truth, as is the case with both Lindbergh and Roosevelt. Duffy able shows that the most incendiary claims about Lindbergh - his alleged anti-Semitism and pro-Nazi views - are bunk. Similary, his depiction of Roosevelt as a petty, vindictive politician, consumed with the idea that his own judgments were unassailable, reveals a side of the man that is supported by mountains of evidence. One need only reflect on FDR's attitude towards Herbert Hoover, another earnest man who opposed Roosevelt's policies, to see a pattern of behavior not at all flattering to Dr. New Deal.
Does Duffy present an impartial view of Lindbergh or Roosevelt? No, and he doesn't pretend to. Rather, he presents his book as a correction of received errors which have persisted for too long. Moreover, Duffy is correct that the treatment Lindbergh has received at the hands of Roosevelt and his sycophants, contemporary and succeeding ones alike, has not only been unfair to Lindbergh, but provided a model by which subsequent dissenters from mainstream opinion could be tarnished by similarly dubious methods. To take only one example, even today, when conservatives (and only conservatives) resist the call to military belligerence, they are said to be behaving like Charles Lindbergh, which everyone understands to mean appeasement, fascism, and latent racism. That none of this was true of Lindbergh matters, and Duffy has provided a service to by pointing that fact out.
That said, not all of Duffy's attempts at application work. Specifically, when the book was written, during the Obama presidency and the height of the Tea Party movement, the attempt to analogize the treatment of Lindbergh to the treatment of, say, Rush Limbaugh is a bit of a stretch. Similarly, Duffy's case would have been better served by fewer attempts to make the connection to "current" events obvious. Most readers, however, should be able to slide past these (now anachronistic) comments and see that the story of Lindbergh and Roosevelt is both more interesting than we've been told, and is faintly applicable to our world today. To those who can't, I would say their time wasted in reading the book has been exceeded only by their time spent in reviewing it.
James Duffy's Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt is one attempt to bring a bit of realism back into the discussions of these two figures, and a mostly successful one at that. Framing Lindbergh's life as something of a foil to the foibles of Roosevelt, Duffy's accounting of Lindbergh depicts a serious and reserved man who thought and spoke seriously and honestly. Conversely, Roosevelt comes across as an impetuous, vindictive man who targeted the aviator for special scorn for opposing him twice during his presidency (first, over army pilots delivering the mail, and second over FDR's attempts to insinuate America into World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor). Are these comprehensive studies of either person? Hardly. But they are helpful correctives to the way the two figures are often discussed today. Duffy's book is not objective, nor does he pretend it is. It's a rejoinder to fallacies he believes are all too prevalent.
Which leads to some of the other reviews of the book, which by this point are close to a decade old. Some other reviewers have taken Duffy to task for not producing a work of impartial history, or for framing Lindbergh in an overly-positive and Roosevelt in an overly-negative light. These strike me as somewhat silly objections to the book, because Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt is clearly a polemic, and not a work of objective history. Now, works of objective history have their place, but so do polemics, and this is especially so when falsehoods have been accepted as truth, as is the case with both Lindbergh and Roosevelt. Duffy able shows that the most incendiary claims about Lindbergh - his alleged anti-Semitism and pro-Nazi views - are bunk. Similary, his depiction of Roosevelt as a petty, vindictive politician, consumed with the idea that his own judgments were unassailable, reveals a side of the man that is supported by mountains of evidence. One need only reflect on FDR's attitude towards Herbert Hoover, another earnest man who opposed Roosevelt's policies, to see a pattern of behavior not at all flattering to Dr. New Deal.
Does Duffy present an impartial view of Lindbergh or Roosevelt? No, and he doesn't pretend to. Rather, he presents his book as a correction of received errors which have persisted for too long. Moreover, Duffy is correct that the treatment Lindbergh has received at the hands of Roosevelt and his sycophants, contemporary and succeeding ones alike, has not only been unfair to Lindbergh, but provided a model by which subsequent dissenters from mainstream opinion could be tarnished by similarly dubious methods. To take only one example, even today, when conservatives (and only conservatives) resist the call to military belligerence, they are said to be behaving like Charles Lindbergh, which everyone understands to mean appeasement, fascism, and latent racism. That none of this was true of Lindbergh matters, and Duffy has provided a service to by pointing that fact out.
That said, not all of Duffy's attempts at application work. Specifically, when the book was written, during the Obama presidency and the height of the Tea Party movement, the attempt to analogize the treatment of Lindbergh to the treatment of, say, Rush Limbaugh is a bit of a stretch. Similarly, Duffy's case would have been better served by fewer attempts to make the connection to "current" events obvious. Most readers, however, should be able to slide past these (now anachronistic) comments and see that the story of Lindbergh and Roosevelt is both more interesting than we've been told, and is faintly applicable to our world today. To those who can't, I would say their time wasted in reading the book has been exceeded only by their time spent in reviewing it.
May 20, 2014
The book Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt by James P. Duffy is a very mind changing read. The book starts with Lindbergh and Roosevelt’s first quirl with how the airmail would be shipped and delivered. The Roosevelt administration wanted the airmail to be shipped by the Army Air Corps, and to have it happen he had false accusations made about private air carriers’ corruption. Lindbergh was working for one of those companies and decided to stand up against Roosevelt, arguing that even if the accusations were true, the companies never received the right to a trial to defend themselves. After months of mudslinging and deaths of over forty inexperienced Army Air Corps pilots, Roosevelt returned the airmail back to private companies. The book then goes ahead to the truth behind the accusations of Lindbergh being a Nazi. In the late 1930s, Germany began rebuilding its military and the US Army wanted Lindbergh (one of the most helpful and knowledgeful aviation expect in the world) to survey the Luftwaffe. On one of the three visits to Germany, Goering awarded Lindbergh The Order of the German Eagle (Germany’s highest civilian decoration), which would be damaging to Lindbergh as an non interventionist in World War Two. Finally, the book talks about Lindbergh’s showings for staying out of the European war against Germany. The Roosevelt administration used all the dirt they could to discredit Lindbergh and make him forever seem like a Nazi. Throughout everything Lindbergh stood up against, he never backed down or ran away. He stayed in the fight over the airmail until it was returned, stood up to American intervention in Europe until Pearl Harbor and then Hitler’s declaration of war against the United States.
The book contained many interesting and well researched facts and topics I have not seen anywhere else. Throughout the book, the author used many word for word facts from many sources and points of view. The book would be a good read for anyone who is interested in aviation, the Second World War, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, or Charles Lindbergh. The book would be best for young adults to the elderly, male or female.
The book contained many interesting and well researched facts and topics I have not seen anywhere else. Throughout the book, the author used many word for word facts from many sources and points of view. The book would be a good read for anyone who is interested in aviation, the Second World War, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, or Charles Lindbergh. The book would be best for young adults to the elderly, male or female.
October 5, 2019
One of the worst books I’ve ever read. If I could give this half a star, a quarter of a star 1/100 of a star I would. As a historian, you should be unbiased going into your subject. This is the most biased book I’ve ever read. The author clearly had an agenda and went in thinking one thing and it tainted his entire approach. And because of it, I can’t believe a word he says. He took something and tried to ram it down my throat. He doesn’t care for his reader. He would be fired from any institute for teaching like this.
Don’t waste your time or money on this crap!!!!!!!
I’m going to have to read another book to get some actual information that can be trusted.
Don’t waste your time or money on this crap!!!!!!!
I’m going to have to read another book to get some actual information that can be trusted.
November 14, 2017
I approached this book with some interest but was disappointed - because, in my opinion the author deals with black and white.
Black: Roosevelt and his close advisors were unscrupulous politicos whose nasty aim was do get America into the war "and send our boys" to their deaths. In addition, the New Deal was a near Socialist plot to destroy American self sufficiency;
Whit: Lindbergh was a blonde Nordic hero who had flown the Atlantic alone in a single engine plane (even though it had been flown earlier by British airmen, Alcott and Brown (two airmen, twin engine plane) his heroism enhanced by the tragedy of his son's kidnapping and murder. His use by Hap Arnold to gather intelligence on the German air force placed him in a position he was unable to handle. The Supreme Court was a group of heroic conservatives rolling back Roosvelts's revolutionary legislation.
Further, there is an anti-British trend to the argument citing the wartime activities of the BSC, William Stephenson (Bill Donovan misled by Stephenson, somehow being nefarious attempts to propagandize the British cause.)
Finally, offensive to me is the constant use of pejorative language against the president and his followers, against the British, and for Lindbergh and the America Firsters.
What the author failed to realize, as did Lindbergh and did the rest of the America Firsters that this was not to be a repeat of the trenches of WWI but the rise of an evil development that threatened, eventually all of the free world. Even as a teenager, it was obvious to me in the late 'thirties that the world was facing something different from WWI - a truly evil body of men with objectives that could not be condoned by free people. It was there in Mein Kamph to read Lindbergh failed to see that in his intelligence trips to Germany to assess Luftwaffe aircraft; he only saw a repeat of WWI slaughter enhanced by aviation. He failed to see the repression and evil in the streets - not only against the Jews but against anyone who disagreed with Hitler. And it is true that there were few who were willing to come to the aid of the Jews in any of the democracies.
It should also have been obvious retrospectively to the author what was going on, although he seems to be hampered by his own biases in his views. Not good for an historian.
It should have been obvious but most of the appeasers heads were in the sand. They were terrified and politically emasculated by the horror of WWI and their own ineptitude in making timely preparations to deal with Hitler and other Fascists. As long as it was somebody else's backyard that was sacrificed it was acceptable to the likes of Chamberlain.
Both Roosevelt and Churchill (the latter not yet in full power) saw the clouds approaching rapidly on the horizon but were chained by politics and public opinion: Churchill at first by his lack of political position and heft (also discounted because of his several blunders in WWI, some of which were to be repeated in WWII) ) , Roosevelt by public opinion, exacerbated by those only saw the possibility of another slaughter like WWI and they were "determined not to send our boys to war". This was exacerbated by the political measures taken by Roosevelt to attack the Great Depression and the intransigence of the Republican party (including an ultra conservative Supreme Court which took a negative view to almost all of Roosevelt's legislative initiatives (perhaps they felt they were holding the fort against a Democratic Congress and President).
It is this lack of understanding of what the real threat was that motivated Lindbergh and the America Firsters. Not only that, but Lindbergh, a technocrat, was politically naive in the extreme.
The view of the America Firsters was that the equipment and munitions that Roosevelt later sent to Britain should be saved for use by America, even though they could not explicate who the enemy was until the Pearl Harbor attack.
The author is meticulous about the use of references from which he draws quotes and comment but a careful review of these results in an array of anti-Democratic Party and pro-Republican sources (such as Time and other right wing organs. ) While this is off-the-cuff the author reminds me of others influenced from Ireland and from the thinking that emanated from the Chicago Tribune and its masters.
To me, Lindbergh was simply the target and the casualty of a president who would brook no opposition from anybody he could deal with by the tools of dirty politics, particularly when the stakes were so high. Roosevelt was also frustrated that those who disagreed with him could not see the worldwide breakdown facing them in the fascist threats.
Black: Roosevelt and his close advisors were unscrupulous politicos whose nasty aim was do get America into the war "and send our boys" to their deaths. In addition, the New Deal was a near Socialist plot to destroy American self sufficiency;
Whit: Lindbergh was a blonde Nordic hero who had flown the Atlantic alone in a single engine plane (even though it had been flown earlier by British airmen, Alcott and Brown (two airmen, twin engine plane) his heroism enhanced by the tragedy of his son's kidnapping and murder. His use by Hap Arnold to gather intelligence on the German air force placed him in a position he was unable to handle. The Supreme Court was a group of heroic conservatives rolling back Roosvelts's revolutionary legislation.
Further, there is an anti-British trend to the argument citing the wartime activities of the BSC, William Stephenson (Bill Donovan misled by Stephenson, somehow being nefarious attempts to propagandize the British cause.)
Finally, offensive to me is the constant use of pejorative language against the president and his followers, against the British, and for Lindbergh and the America Firsters.
What the author failed to realize, as did Lindbergh and did the rest of the America Firsters that this was not to be a repeat of the trenches of WWI but the rise of an evil development that threatened, eventually all of the free world. Even as a teenager, it was obvious to me in the late 'thirties that the world was facing something different from WWI - a truly evil body of men with objectives that could not be condoned by free people. It was there in Mein Kamph to read Lindbergh failed to see that in his intelligence trips to Germany to assess Luftwaffe aircraft; he only saw a repeat of WWI slaughter enhanced by aviation. He failed to see the repression and evil in the streets - not only against the Jews but against anyone who disagreed with Hitler. And it is true that there were few who were willing to come to the aid of the Jews in any of the democracies.
It should also have been obvious retrospectively to the author what was going on, although he seems to be hampered by his own biases in his views. Not good for an historian.
It should have been obvious but most of the appeasers heads were in the sand. They were terrified and politically emasculated by the horror of WWI and their own ineptitude in making timely preparations to deal with Hitler and other Fascists. As long as it was somebody else's backyard that was sacrificed it was acceptable to the likes of Chamberlain.
Both Roosevelt and Churchill (the latter not yet in full power) saw the clouds approaching rapidly on the horizon but were chained by politics and public opinion: Churchill at first by his lack of political position and heft (also discounted because of his several blunders in WWI, some of which were to be repeated in WWII) ) , Roosevelt by public opinion, exacerbated by those only saw the possibility of another slaughter like WWI and they were "determined not to send our boys to war". This was exacerbated by the political measures taken by Roosevelt to attack the Great Depression and the intransigence of the Republican party (including an ultra conservative Supreme Court which took a negative view to almost all of Roosevelt's legislative initiatives (perhaps they felt they were holding the fort against a Democratic Congress and President).
It is this lack of understanding of what the real threat was that motivated Lindbergh and the America Firsters. Not only that, but Lindbergh, a technocrat, was politically naive in the extreme.
The view of the America Firsters was that the equipment and munitions that Roosevelt later sent to Britain should be saved for use by America, even though they could not explicate who the enemy was until the Pearl Harbor attack.
The author is meticulous about the use of references from which he draws quotes and comment but a careful review of these results in an array of anti-Democratic Party and pro-Republican sources (such as Time and other right wing organs. ) While this is off-the-cuff the author reminds me of others influenced from Ireland and from the thinking that emanated from the Chicago Tribune and its masters.
To me, Lindbergh was simply the target and the casualty of a president who would brook no opposition from anybody he could deal with by the tools of dirty politics, particularly when the stakes were so high. Roosevelt was also frustrated that those who disagreed with him could not see the worldwide breakdown facing them in the fascist threats.
January 18, 2011
Charles Lindbergh won fame at home and abroad by being the first person to fly across the Atlantic ocean. Not only was he a pilot but he was an aviation pioneer that helped develop the aviation industry and became an enemy of FDR during the air mail crisis of 1934. FDR had the last laugh succeeding in labeling Lindbergh a Nazi sympathizer since Lindbergh was for the United States staying out of WWII until after Pearl Harbor. Black listed and unable to join the military effort Lindbergh lent his services to Ford manufacturing and before the war ended spend some time flying fighter planes in the Pacific shooting down one Japanese plane and flying something close to 50 combat missions as a civilian. He came up with a way to economize fuel to allow fighter planes to fly for 2 to 4 hours longer on missions. After the war and FDR died Eisenhower awarded him the rank of brigadier general in the Air Force and as a civilian was very active in conservation activities. He was one of the most influential people of the 20th century. And yet, to this day the smear campaign mounted against him prior to WWII casts a shadow over his legacy. Unjustly, as the author of this book argues.
The books has excellent points when it comes with dealing with the history and relationship of Lindbergh and FDR. However, he opens with negative comparisons to Obama and closes with similar observations. This is a horrible mistake, first because history has yet to see how things will turn out with Obama and this book will quickly seem dated because of the way he compares Lindbergh and Sarah Palin. He should have left out any of that type of comparison and let this historical comparison stand on its own merits. The only other thing I would like to have heard more about even briefly is about Lindbergh's contributions after WWII. Telling me he received a commission in the Air Force as a brigadier general and spent a lot of time and effort in the conservation movement is nice but a paragraph on what he did as a general and what he did to further the conservation movement would have been helpful in cementing an understanding of the legacy of Charles Lindbergh. I really want to give this book three stars because I did enjoy reading it and burned through it in a day. But I just can't do it. Let's call it 2 and a half stars....
I do recommend this book to those wanted to read about a successful smear campaign in American politics, someone interested in Charles Lindbergh and his place in aviation history, or someone interested in the darker side of FDR. I just wish the author could have a do over chance to address some of the shortcomings of this book.
The books has excellent points when it comes with dealing with the history and relationship of Lindbergh and FDR. However, he opens with negative comparisons to Obama and closes with similar observations. This is a horrible mistake, first because history has yet to see how things will turn out with Obama and this book will quickly seem dated because of the way he compares Lindbergh and Sarah Palin. He should have left out any of that type of comparison and let this historical comparison stand on its own merits. The only other thing I would like to have heard more about even briefly is about Lindbergh's contributions after WWII. Telling me he received a commission in the Air Force as a brigadier general and spent a lot of time and effort in the conservation movement is nice but a paragraph on what he did as a general and what he did to further the conservation movement would have been helpful in cementing an understanding of the legacy of Charles Lindbergh. I really want to give this book three stars because I did enjoy reading it and burned through it in a day. But I just can't do it. Let's call it 2 and a half stars....
I do recommend this book to those wanted to read about a successful smear campaign in American politics, someone interested in Charles Lindbergh and his place in aviation history, or someone interested in the darker side of FDR. I just wish the author could have a do over chance to address some of the shortcomings of this book.
April 14, 2021
Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt: The Rivalry That Divided America by James P. Duffy explores the rivalry, of sorts, between aviation pioneer and popular American hero Charles A. Lindbergh and popular president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR and his supporters seemed to focus on tarnishing Lindbergh's reputation in order to kill his chances of running against FDR in the next presidential election. He is still associated today as a Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite. And author Philip Roth explores this theme in his novel The Plot Against America published in 2004 (also made into a miniseries for TV) where a nazi-supporting anti Semite Lindbergh runs and wins the presidency in 1940 and begins policies to create closer ties to Hitler and nazi Germany while distancing itself from Britain and allies fighting the nazis. James Duffy, on the other hand proposes that Lindbergh was the target of a vicious personal vendetta by President Roosevelt to keep him out of politics as a serious threat to a continuing FDR presidency. In Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt, author James Duffy tackles these issues head-on, examining the conflicting personalities, aspirations, and actions of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Charles A. Lindbergh. Painting a politically incorrect portrait of both men, Duffy shows how the hostility between these two American giants divided the nation on both domestic and international affairs. Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt reveals the untold story about two of history’s most controversial men, and how the White House waged a smear campaign against Lindbergh that blighted his reputation forever.
February 4, 2016
There was a good book to be written on this topic but Duffy was clearly not the man to pull it off. I was expecting a serious academic-ish book but it was more a polemic with occasional facts thrown in there. Duffy was clearly more interested in smearing FDR and liberalism in general than anything else. There's nothing wrong with reporting on the machinations of a politician. But ultimately, it was just overkill, beating a dead horse long after the point was made. Even in his intro, he wanted about how evil President Obama was unfairly smearing saintly figures like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (none of whom sad an unkind word about the president). What did that have to do with Lindberg vs Roosevelt, other than Obama and FDR are both considered "liberals"? It's a shame. The rare times Duffy actually stuck to the facts, it illuminated my understanding. Sadly, this seem incidental to his intent.
April 1, 2018
I don't think I have ever read a "scholarly" work of history with so much bias in it (in this case, anti-Roosevelt/liberal bias). I should have been skeptical from the start... even the cover is filled with bias. The picture of Lindbergh is of him right around the time he crossed the Atlantic, in his aviator's getup, looking heroically off into the distance. Roosevelt's picture is of him chomping on a cigarette holder, looking ruddy-faced and evil. Clearly a picture from near the end of his life. On the back cover, Duffy calls this story that of a "true American patriot who was silenced by a White House bent on his destruction."Some pretty heavy, and deliberate, word choice there. I should have also been skeptical when the only accolade for this book came from the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." No reviews from newspapers, scholarly journals or any scholar of real repute, although I'm surprised this book didn't get a glowing review from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
Duffy's bias, and shoddy scholarship, starts off right at the start of the book in the preface. His dislike of liberals is clear when he tries to establish a connection between "name-calling and demonizing begun by the White House" under Obama and the treatment of Lindbergh 70 years earlier. I, personally, don't recall Obama calling anyone names... If Duffy was a real historian, he would start with a research question, like "what similarities are there, if any, between the Obama and Roosevelt administrations handling of decent?" He doesn't take a value neutral stance like that, opting, instead, for junk history. This is the same kind of poor methodology that tobacco companies employ when they hire scientists to find "proof" that smoking isn't really that bad for you.
The book itself has the appearance of being a legit scholarly work, with numerous sources and pretty solid footnotes, but Duffy has clearly cherry-picked sources and only focused on Roosevelt administration practices that make him look bad. In the section about the air mail scandal, Duffy goes off on a tangent (not related to the story) about FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with his own appointees. Yes, that is not FDR's finest act, but it is not within the scope of the story Duffy is telling. Also, in several occasions, Duffy mentions how Roosevelt met with various people while he was still in bed, as if to show that the president couldn't be bothered to get up and meet them elsewhere. Nowhere does Duffy bring up FDR's struggle with polio.
Duffy reworks statistics in any way that he can to make FDR look ineffective as president. He states that in the year of his election, unemployment stood at 23.6% (which is a rather low estimate). The author then goes on to say that after 7 years of New Deal policies, that rate had "only" dropped to 17.2%. First, that second estimate is a little high. Second, even with the small range, a 6% drop in unemployment (which, using real statistics, is more like 10-12%) is still significant. In other areas of the book, Duffy claims that British agents had taken over America's polling services and were skewing data to encourage America's involvement in the European war. I have no doubt that those efforts were taking place, but Duffy has a tendency to bring that up only when the statistics make FDR and his cause look bad. He uses much of the same poll data to prove his point, but under those circumstances, fails to bring up the potential issues. In the same vein, Duffy almost praises Hitler for his restraint in not declaring war on the US earlier which is what the author claims FDR was trying to get Hitler to do. Any author who praises Hitler should automatically be approached with caution.
Duffy makes frequent use of "historians" of questionable skill and merit, like Pat Buchanan. Those historians who do have posts at legit universities, like Frederick Marks, have well-known conservative and libertarian leanings, and their works have largely been panned by mainstream historical community.
Even the basics of his argument aren't substantiated that well. His basic argument is that the smear campaign against Lindbergh was orchestrated by FDR himself, but there were only two occasions where the two of them interacted directly. The other efforts were conducted by members of the press and of FDR's administration. Duffy never conclusively shows that FDR ordered the smear campaign. In other words, his argument is a lot of smoke, but no fire. Finally, his attempt to link the FDR and Obama administrations is hardly mentioned after the preface. In the very last few paragraphs he brings it back, as if to put frosting on a structurally unsound cake. The anti-Obama argument clearly seems to be pandering to conservative audiences.
To be fair, I did learn a bit from this book about the air mail scandal and the anti-interventionist movement, but overall, this book is clear proof of what danger historical facts can pose when put in the hands of biased amateur historians.
Duffy's bias, and shoddy scholarship, starts off right at the start of the book in the preface. His dislike of liberals is clear when he tries to establish a connection between "name-calling and demonizing begun by the White House" under Obama and the treatment of Lindbergh 70 years earlier. I, personally, don't recall Obama calling anyone names... If Duffy was a real historian, he would start with a research question, like "what similarities are there, if any, between the Obama and Roosevelt administrations handling of decent?" He doesn't take a value neutral stance like that, opting, instead, for junk history. This is the same kind of poor methodology that tobacco companies employ when they hire scientists to find "proof" that smoking isn't really that bad for you.
The book itself has the appearance of being a legit scholarly work, with numerous sources and pretty solid footnotes, but Duffy has clearly cherry-picked sources and only focused on Roosevelt administration practices that make him look bad. In the section about the air mail scandal, Duffy goes off on a tangent (not related to the story) about FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with his own appointees. Yes, that is not FDR's finest act, but it is not within the scope of the story Duffy is telling. Also, in several occasions, Duffy mentions how Roosevelt met with various people while he was still in bed, as if to show that the president couldn't be bothered to get up and meet them elsewhere. Nowhere does Duffy bring up FDR's struggle with polio.
Duffy reworks statistics in any way that he can to make FDR look ineffective as president. He states that in the year of his election, unemployment stood at 23.6% (which is a rather low estimate). The author then goes on to say that after 7 years of New Deal policies, that rate had "only" dropped to 17.2%. First, that second estimate is a little high. Second, even with the small range, a 6% drop in unemployment (which, using real statistics, is more like 10-12%) is still significant. In other areas of the book, Duffy claims that British agents had taken over America's polling services and were skewing data to encourage America's involvement in the European war. I have no doubt that those efforts were taking place, but Duffy has a tendency to bring that up only when the statistics make FDR and his cause look bad. He uses much of the same poll data to prove his point, but under those circumstances, fails to bring up the potential issues. In the same vein, Duffy almost praises Hitler for his restraint in not declaring war on the US earlier which is what the author claims FDR was trying to get Hitler to do. Any author who praises Hitler should automatically be approached with caution.
Duffy makes frequent use of "historians" of questionable skill and merit, like Pat Buchanan. Those historians who do have posts at legit universities, like Frederick Marks, have well-known conservative and libertarian leanings, and their works have largely been panned by mainstream historical community.
Even the basics of his argument aren't substantiated that well. His basic argument is that the smear campaign against Lindbergh was orchestrated by FDR himself, but there were only two occasions where the two of them interacted directly. The other efforts were conducted by members of the press and of FDR's administration. Duffy never conclusively shows that FDR ordered the smear campaign. In other words, his argument is a lot of smoke, but no fire. Finally, his attempt to link the FDR and Obama administrations is hardly mentioned after the preface. In the very last few paragraphs he brings it back, as if to put frosting on a structurally unsound cake. The anti-Obama argument clearly seems to be pandering to conservative audiences.
To be fair, I did learn a bit from this book about the air mail scandal and the anti-interventionist movement, but overall, this book is clear proof of what danger historical facts can pose when put in the hands of biased amateur historians.
February 24, 2020
A hard -hitting examination of the decade-long conflict between aviation pioneer Charles Lindbergh and President Franklin Roosevelt. Lindbergh vocally opposed American aid to Britain in its fight against Germany in World War II. Such intervention would lead to American troops being sent to Europe again, as in WWI, to solve European conflicts. He became a hero again, as after his first solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927, as millions of Americans shared his stand.
The Roosevelt administration mounted a vindictive campaign against Lindbergh as FDR undertook a series of "steps short of war" to aid Britain. As author James Duffy describes, a number of these steps were contrary to existing law. FDR's war against Lindbergh and his fellow isolationists also involved both extralegal and unethical actions, including wiretapping and the use of FBI investigations.
Lynn Olsen's fine book, Those Angry Days, also examined the bitter fight between the interventionists led by the White House and the isolationist movement that looked to Lindbergh for leadership.
Author Duffy reveals that the tension between the two men preceded the fight over European involvement. The initial cause of animus was the cancellation of airmail contracts with private airlines awarded during the Hoover administration. Senator Hugo Black asked the FDR administration to do this and return the airmail service to the Army Air Corps. Postmaster General James Farley proposed to Roosevelt in February 1934 that the contracts be cancelled as of June 1st. Roosevelt instead cancelled them immediately. As a stopgap, the Army Air corps would carry the mails. This reckless order ignored the fact that the Corps lacked the navigation equipment and trained pilots that fixed route flying required, particularly through darkness and foul weather. Indeed, twelve pilots would crash and die in the first three weeks following the Air Corps takeover of airmail flights. There were also other crashes and injuries.
A day later, Lindbergh telegraphed the president that "improper acts by many companies have not been established," and that there had been no opportunity "to receive fair trial." He shortly released the telegram to the press. Roosevelt's reaction to press secretary Stephen Early was "Don't worry about Lindbergh. We will get that fair-haired boy." Getting Lindberg would be a presidential pursuit over the coming decade.
Duffy's case against Roosevelt's actions over the years is harsh. It is based on research drawing on both interventionist and isolationist sources. He documents the underhanded way in which the flyer was smeared by the White House, the administration, and portions of the press.
It is recommended, but it might remind a lot of people of today's news.
The Roosevelt administration mounted a vindictive campaign against Lindbergh as FDR undertook a series of "steps short of war" to aid Britain. As author James Duffy describes, a number of these steps were contrary to existing law. FDR's war against Lindbergh and his fellow isolationists also involved both extralegal and unethical actions, including wiretapping and the use of FBI investigations.
Lynn Olsen's fine book, Those Angry Days, also examined the bitter fight between the interventionists led by the White House and the isolationist movement that looked to Lindbergh for leadership.
Author Duffy reveals that the tension between the two men preceded the fight over European involvement. The initial cause of animus was the cancellation of airmail contracts with private airlines awarded during the Hoover administration. Senator Hugo Black asked the FDR administration to do this and return the airmail service to the Army Air Corps. Postmaster General James Farley proposed to Roosevelt in February 1934 that the contracts be cancelled as of June 1st. Roosevelt instead cancelled them immediately. As a stopgap, the Army Air corps would carry the mails. This reckless order ignored the fact that the Corps lacked the navigation equipment and trained pilots that fixed route flying required, particularly through darkness and foul weather. Indeed, twelve pilots would crash and die in the first three weeks following the Air Corps takeover of airmail flights. There were also other crashes and injuries.
A day later, Lindbergh telegraphed the president that "improper acts by many companies have not been established," and that there had been no opportunity "to receive fair trial." He shortly released the telegram to the press. Roosevelt's reaction to press secretary Stephen Early was "Don't worry about Lindbergh. We will get that fair-haired boy." Getting Lindberg would be a presidential pursuit over the coming decade.
Duffy's case against Roosevelt's actions over the years is harsh. It is based on research drawing on both interventionist and isolationist sources. He documents the underhanded way in which the flyer was smeared by the White House, the administration, and portions of the press.
It is recommended, but it might remind a lot of people of today's news.
January 11, 2018
In this astounding record, my views of both Charles Lindbergh, the magnificent and courageous hero of the first solo flight over the Atlantic, and Franklin Roosevelt, the President who brought the nation through the Great Depression and steered us through World War II, were forever altered. Aviation history recorded the wave of adulation that followed Lindbergh from his landing in Paris through his return to the U.S., and then on to his visit to Germany, in which he assessed that country's progress as far superior to our own, creating his "America First" movement in opposition to war in Europe. What was little known then or later was that FDR, the brave and polio-crippled man who had risen through his devastating earlier period to become the most admired president in our history, whose "fireside chats" were listened to by the entire county as he reassured America of our progress toward prosperity again, now began a vendetta against Lindbergh. Successfully portraying Lindbergh as anti-Semitic and Nazi-sympathizing, FDR kept Lindbergh, the most knowledgeable aviator in our country, from being able to take any part in our World War II efforts, telling his supporters, "We're going to clip that boy's wings." The saddest picture of Lindbergh, other than that of Charles and Anne Lindbergh after the body of their kidnapped child being found, is one showing him standing with the crew of the first Apollo mission. A fascinating read.
July 22, 2019
I cannot help but think that there are those who will claim the author is rewriting history, as it seems to point out where the ‘fake news’ of the day painted Lindbergh into the Nazi corner very effectively on the flimsiest of, or no, evidence. As things turned out, probably, America was going to enter the war eventually when Hitler came knocking - but we can never know this. The work also seems to highlight how the Roosevelt administration sat on the sidelines as the Holocaust unfurled.
The country was then, as it is now, deeply divided on an important matter for which release was needed. Lindbergh and Roosevelt played their roles in personifying the opposing sides. This author seems to have taken the position that ‘evil Roosevelt’ was pitted against ‘darling Lindy’ and history will eventually be more kind to the heroic pilot than the conniving politician. I am sympathetic to that positions, but would have found it a bit more honest had he dealt with, even in passing, the likely bigamy of Lindbergh that came to light only later.
The country was then, as it is now, deeply divided on an important matter for which release was needed. Lindbergh and Roosevelt played their roles in personifying the opposing sides. This author seems to have taken the position that ‘evil Roosevelt’ was pitted against ‘darling Lindy’ and history will eventually be more kind to the heroic pilot than the conniving politician. I am sympathetic to that positions, but would have found it a bit more honest had he dealt with, even in passing, the likely bigamy of Lindbergh that came to light only later.
November 29, 2023
This was really well written, even though Duffy definitely has an axe to grind. The axe is to defend Lindbergh. It was interesting to hear the reasons of defense as well as all the evidence. This book sheds some very distasteful things about Roosevelt, which I don't find super hard to believe. In any case, it demonstrates the agile dance of politics, at which Lindbergh was as decidedly inept as Roosevelt was skilled. It was fascinating to read about the politics of the time in a way that felt very current. I learned a lot, and much of what I've experienced lately with social media getting so blown out of proportion that people's lives are literally ruined by it is recounted here in pre-social media days. It was definitely an interesting book.
January 20, 2025
A really good book as far as I can tell. I conclude that no matter how much you hate FDR, it probably isn’t enough. The last chapter felt weak and forced, though. Given the excellent research throughout the book, there was just so much more he could’ve said in conclusion about neocons, foreign excursions, endless wars, Jewish influence, “rich man’s war/poor man’s fight,” etc., instead of merely the Tea Party. Still worth the read and highly recommended. Lindbergh a hero, FDR a stooge or a menace.
December 28, 2022
There are (at least) two sides to every story, with the truth somewhere in the middle. This is definitely Lindbergh’s side, provided by an anti-Roosevelt author. Knowing that, I can still say that this book helps round out my knowledge of the era, as most of my previous sources have not incorporated Lindbergh’s views. An interesting read, as long as you keep in mind the author’s convictions.
2.5 because I can’t give a 3 when the presentation is biased.
2.5 because I can’t give a 3 when the presentation is biased.
August 31, 2019
Takes a special bias to write this book without taking into account that Lindbergh's position, if followed, would have spelled an unmitigated disaster for the United States by giving control over Europe and Asia to either Hitler or Stalin.
November 16, 2021
An exceptional book which tells the true story of Charles Lindbergh. He was the original America First leader. He was the original staunch opposer to the swamp. He was not a Nazi sympathiser. Charles Lindbergh was a great, great man.
December 31, 2018
While a clear partisan, Duffy has done solid research in published primary and secondary sources to conclude that FDR deliberately smeared Lindbergh, and anyone else who opposed his policies.
April 29, 2024
Good book. I enjoyed it (especially the early part about the airmail fiasco).
December 18, 2022
Good study of not just the rivalry between the subjects, but also the road to WWII in general. Unfortunately, it might get lost in the mists of time due to its tying the events of the 1930s into the politics of the 2010s. Still very recommended.
June 6, 2013
It was clear from the beginning that the author leans to the right, at least politically. As a conservative myself, it made me "want" to read this book even more, although I still found myself questioning the bias the author might have had. I thought the primary sources that Duffy employed were solid, although it's possible that some statements were taken out of context; it's impossible to know with any certainty unless you study each source. I came to the realization when I was a teenager (and wrote an essay on it for school) that FDR needed American entry into World War II in order to bring the United States out of the Great Depression. That Duffy agrees was no surprise. I had not previously heard of the British infiltration into the American polls, or the formation of front groups such as Friends of Democracy, that tried to turn the tide of American public opinion towards war.
Duffy's goal of illustrating that Charles Lindbergh was not a Nazi supporter was well-proven in my opinion. I had heard rumors of him being a Nazi sympathizer, but wasn't sure how much evidence there was. I think FDR, as many politicians are whether they be liberals or conservatives, was an opportunist. He didn't want to be criticized, and he didn't want his legacy to be one of failure, so he tried everything in his power to make those who criticized him and his policies, look badly. What Duffy really portrays is that no matter how ardently FDR tried to cast Lindbergh in a negative light, the American public seemed to still support Lindbergh, as they came in droves to his speaking engagements. In addition, as late as 1941, American public opinion was against getting involved in another European war, and were thus in agreement with Lindbergh. It's definitely ironic that today, Republicans are often viewed as the warhawks, when clearly--as Duffy points out--the US became involved in two world wars after Democratic presidents promised they would keep America out of war.
The author did a great job in showing that Lindbergh merely wanted to help his country in any way he could. He pushed for greater air power, so that we would be prepared if war did come. He also presents a lot of strong evidence that Lindbergh was in fact a spy of sorts, who used his fame to gain entry into German airplane factories that had previously barred all foreigners. Duffy's premise that Lindbergh was basically a patriot who stood up for his non-interventionist beliefs, definitely withstood any evidence to the contrary.
January 8, 2013
"Charles Lindbergh could have used a much better P.R. guy!" That is what my Dad said when he and I were discussing this subject. I couldn't agree more.
Lindbergh was largely portrayed as a Nazi supporter and an Anti-Semite prior to America's entry into WWII. The Franklin White House and the mainstream media presented this image of Lindbergh and the American public seems to have largely "bought" the story.
It appears that this really wasn't the case though...
First: the media reviled him for accepting a medal from the Nazis. However, while he did accept an award from Germany, he had also accepted awards from every other country he had visited after his flight across the Big Pond. He didn't want the award, but to have turned it down, even though this was before any country in Europe was at war, would have been an "American slap in the face" diplomatically.
Second: Lindbergh understood aviation at the time better than almost anyone. After touring German air factories, he had one piece of advice for America and Britain - "Start Building Better, Larger, Faster, More Capable Planes. If you do not, and a war with Germany happens, we will regret how out-gunned we are!" He knew that German aviation superiority over that of the Allies was very real and that the possibility of annihilation was dreadfully real as well.
Third: The author provides a wide range of documents that Lindbergh wrote and speeches that he made during the time leading up to America's involvement in WWII, and when it is looked at through the prism of time, Lindbergh was right! He simply didn't want the U.S. dragged into a war that was a sequel to the "Great War" over territory disputes in Europe. If the U.S. did get involved in the war, then his advice was clear; start building bombs and planes and bullets and helmets and every other conceivable convenience of war in huge amounts. Quickly! Start training LOTS of soldiers and PILOTS! Quickly!
Lindbergh volunteered to do whatever he could to help the war effort after the U.S. entered the war, but he was largely kept in check by FDR's administration.
Granted, the author seems to have taken "Lindbergh's Side" of the story, but I can't say that I blame him. FDR was no Angel. That much is certain.
Lindbergh was largely portrayed as a Nazi supporter and an Anti-Semite prior to America's entry into WWII. The Franklin White House and the mainstream media presented this image of Lindbergh and the American public seems to have largely "bought" the story.
It appears that this really wasn't the case though...
First: the media reviled him for accepting a medal from the Nazis. However, while he did accept an award from Germany, he had also accepted awards from every other country he had visited after his flight across the Big Pond. He didn't want the award, but to have turned it down, even though this was before any country in Europe was at war, would have been an "American slap in the face" diplomatically.
Second: Lindbergh understood aviation at the time better than almost anyone. After touring German air factories, he had one piece of advice for America and Britain - "Start Building Better, Larger, Faster, More Capable Planes. If you do not, and a war with Germany happens, we will regret how out-gunned we are!" He knew that German aviation superiority over that of the Allies was very real and that the possibility of annihilation was dreadfully real as well.
Third: The author provides a wide range of documents that Lindbergh wrote and speeches that he made during the time leading up to America's involvement in WWII, and when it is looked at through the prism of time, Lindbergh was right! He simply didn't want the U.S. dragged into a war that was a sequel to the "Great War" over territory disputes in Europe. If the U.S. did get involved in the war, then his advice was clear; start building bombs and planes and bullets and helmets and every other conceivable convenience of war in huge amounts. Quickly! Start training LOTS of soldiers and PILOTS! Quickly!
Lindbergh volunteered to do whatever he could to help the war effort after the U.S. entered the war, but he was largely kept in check by FDR's administration.
Granted, the author seems to have taken "Lindbergh's Side" of the story, but I can't say that I blame him. FDR was no Angel. That much is certain.
September 7, 2013
By chance, I saw this book on the shelf of a bookstore while waiting for my wife to find a book she wanted to red. I had heard that Lindbergh had been accused of being a Nazi sympathizer but had never looked into what was behind the accusations. Because of the book's smaller size, I thought it might be an easy read during the spare moments of an upcoming trip. The author made a mistake very early on when he intimated in his preface that he was an admirer of Rush Limbaugh. From that point on I was skeptical. I consider myself a conservative but I do not recognize Rush as an intelligent example of a true conservative.
That said, I did find the book written well enough to maintain my interest. In the end, I came away feeling that Charles Lindbergh was probably neither a Nazi sympathizer nor anti-Semite so I guess that Mr. Duffy accomplished at least part of his goal. At the same time, however, I constantly found myself questioning whether he was really being objective in his analyses of historical events. I have no doubt that Roosevelt was a man with few scruples but I often found myself doubting the veracity of Mr. Duffy's statements.
If you are looking for convincing evidence that Lindbergh was right and Roosevelt was wrong, I don't think you will find it in this book. I wonder if I would feel differently had I not read the preface first.
That said, I did find the book written well enough to maintain my interest. In the end, I came away feeling that Charles Lindbergh was probably neither a Nazi sympathizer nor anti-Semite so I guess that Mr. Duffy accomplished at least part of his goal. At the same time, however, I constantly found myself questioning whether he was really being objective in his analyses of historical events. I have no doubt that Roosevelt was a man with few scruples but I often found myself doubting the veracity of Mr. Duffy's statements.
If you are looking for convincing evidence that Lindbergh was right and Roosevelt was wrong, I don't think you will find it in this book. I wonder if I would feel differently had I not read the preface first.
October 14, 2014
I found this book a little hard to read due to the writing style and got through it in short bursts. As an aviation enthusiast for as long as I can remember Lindbergh was someone whose aeronautical achievements I was well aware of and from what I had previously read of him the charges of being an anti-semite and a Nazi seemed patently unjust.
This book helped me to understand a little of the background and, cross referenced with other material that I have read, makes me feel that it presents a valid argument. Being British I have been intrigued by the accusations of influence by our secret service in turning public opinion against Lindbergh. It is something that I have seen nothing about elsewhere and I will make a point of researching these claims further, but besides that I would say that this is a good book and puts its case in a reasoned manner with plenty of reference material to support the narrative.
This book helped me to understand a little of the background and, cross referenced with other material that I have read, makes me feel that it presents a valid argument. Being British I have been intrigued by the accusations of influence by our secret service in turning public opinion against Lindbergh. It is something that I have seen nothing about elsewhere and I will make a point of researching these claims further, but besides that I would say that this is a good book and puts its case in a reasoned manner with plenty of reference material to support the narrative.
June 6, 2015
This is a good book. It depends heavily, but not solely on Berg's biography of Lindbergh. Hopefully, it will help rehabilitate an American icon, who was a simple son of the Midwest, one who loved America and did not want America's boys to do the work that the sons of Britain and France should have done.
The organization of the book could have been better, as from time to time, the author seemed to be repeating narrative that he had already addressed earlier. The book is at its best comparing the vindictiveness of FDR to the technical aeronautical knowledge and courage of Lindbergh.
If you have a hagiographic view of FDR, you will hate this book. If you are willing to believe that FDR actually had warts, then give this a read.
The organization of the book could have been better, as from time to time, the author seemed to be repeating narrative that he had already addressed earlier. The book is at its best comparing the vindictiveness of FDR to the technical aeronautical knowledge and courage of Lindbergh.
If you have a hagiographic view of FDR, you will hate this book. If you are willing to believe that FDR actually had warts, then give this a read.
July 16, 2015
This book was extremely well-written and well-researched. The author begins by explaining why he chose to write the book and what his political stance is, but does not let that echo throughout the book. His bias is made known at the beginning which makes the book better because there is not a hidden agenda. The book is a great telling of a part of American history that is often overlooked. The ideals of Lindbergh reflect the hypocrisy of most of the criticisms I have read about this book. People are entitled to their opinion in the United States no matter if it offends someone else as long as it does not induce physical harm. We may disagree, but respectful debates and questioning of leadership should be encouraged. Highly recommend the book.
Read
July 30, 2011Lindbergh ends up being a bit player in the author's diatribe against FDR.
Admittedly, there is plenty of ammo against FDR, but I'd only point out that, as the story unfolds we are told about the USS Niblack and the USS Greer, both American destroyers that were admittedly testing the limits of neutrality prior to our entry in the war... but stayed within the author's story of how Hitler continued to "turn the other cheek."
Not mentioned was the USS Reuben James, which had it's bow blown off by a Nazi torpedo and subsequently sank with the loss of 115 sailors. That didn't fit the pattern.
Admittedly, there is plenty of ammo against FDR, but I'd only point out that, as the story unfolds we are told about the USS Niblack and the USS Greer, both American destroyers that were admittedly testing the limits of neutrality prior to our entry in the war... but stayed within the author's story of how Hitler continued to "turn the other cheek."
Not mentioned was the USS Reuben James, which had it's bow blown off by a Nazi torpedo and subsequently sank with the loss of 115 sailors. That didn't fit the pattern.
October 15, 2012
Interesting story about how Lindbergh and FDR ended up on the opposite side of a political struggle. I have read a couple books about FDR (seems like there are a wide range of views about how effective he was as a president), but I knew little about Lindbergh. Duffy tells a story of how Lindbergh was misunderstood and has his character diminished by FDR political machine. At the same time I was sympathetic to FDR plight since he was trying to determine how to beat Hitler and Lindbergh was arguing that this was not the US's war and that the country should take an isolationist path.
September 19, 2014
One of the most interesting things about this book to me was Duffy's take on FDR. While some historians and many right-wing critics have been hard on Roosevelt over the years, this is the first mainstream, centrist book that really highlighted an aspect of FDR's personality that I wasn't aware of. He really was controlling and often vindictive and mean-spirited.
I guess you don't win four presidential elections without at least being a part-time SOB.
I guess you don't win four presidential elections without at least being a part-time SOB.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews