Evening star., 1939-10-15
Muddyinq the Waters


Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh's re-
statement OF his position with respect
TO the proposed neutrality bill will be
welcomed by the people of the United
States, but 1t cannot be said that he
has made any very substantial con-
trlbution to a clearer understanding
OF the vitality important issues under
lying the debate as to whether we
should repeal or retain the arms
embargo.
In general, most Americans will be
In thorough agreement with Colonel
Lindbergh's contention that we, as
basis of any neutrality program,
must be prepared to defend-by re-
sort to arms If necessary-the ter
ritorial integrity of this hemisphere
and our right to trade freely within it.
But it does not follow that we can or
should be Indifferent to the outcome
OF major war in Europe simply be-
cause we are determined to defend
the Americas in any event. It is in
this respect that Colonel Lindbergh
falls into a curiously illogical and in
consistent line of reasoning.
Summing up his conception of why
the nations of Europe are at war, he
said: II do not believe that repeating
the arms ambargo would assist de-
nlocracy in Europe, because I do not
believe this is war for democracy.
This is war over the balance of
power IN Europe-a war brought
about by the desire for strength on
the part of Germany and the fear of
strength on the part of England and
France" That analysis, in the
opinion Of The Star, is both narrow
and superficial.
When Colonel Lindbergh says the
war was brought about by Germany's
desire for strength and the allies
fear Of that strength he is guilty of
masterful understatement. France
and Britain went to war after Ger
many invaded Poland, following the
rejection by the Polish Government
OF impossible demands from Hitler.
Prior to that Germany had been
strengthened" by the absorption of
Austria and the destruction of
Czecho-Slovakia in utter disregard
OF specific pledges made by Hitler.
AT every turn the Reich has trans
lated her "desire for strength" into
accomplished fact by the employment
OF ruthless force and complete dis
regard OF the rights of weaker powers.
II France and Britain feared Ger
manys desire for strength it was be-
cause they could see no end to it.
Does Colonel Lindbergh, who properly
espouses our right to defend this
hemisphere against any encroach-
ment, believe that France and Brit
ain should have waited until Hitler.
the self-avowed enemy of all democ-
racleS, could make himself so strong
that resistance to his imperialistic
ambitions would have been futile?
Or does he believe that the two de-
mocracles, because of past mistakes.
should have surrendered without
struggle to the ever-expanding usur-
pations OF Nazi-ism? The simple fact
OF the matter is that this is not war
to maintain balance Of power in
Europe, but rather war to prevent
the lodgment of overwhelming power
In the hands of man who has con-
slstently and wantonly abused the
great strength he already possesses
and who has shown no indication of
stopping short of making himself
master of the Old World. For the
French and the British it was a
choice between fighting now or in
viting their own ultimate destruction
at the hands of totalitarianism.
This statement of the reasons for
the war presumably is unacceptable
to Colonel Lindbergh, and yet, curl
ously enough, he is in favor of sup
plying the European countries with
defensive weapons by a partial re-
peal Of the arms embargo and the
adoption OF cash and carry plan.
Since, for all practical purposes, only
the British and the French would be
able to acquire these defensive
weapons, it is difficult to follow his
reasoning. If he believes the allies
are fighting an unjust war, why aid
them in any respect? If he sees
nothing more menacing or reprehen-
sible in Germany's conduct than a
"desire for strength" why interfere
with the qualification of that desire
by strengthening the defenses OF her
foes?"
And he is inconsistent on still an
other score. At one point in his ad-
dress he said: "The more munitions
the armies obtain, the longer a war
goes on, and the more devastated
Europe becomes, the less hope there
Is for democracy" If the Colonel
has thought that statement through,
one wonders why he advocates the
sale Of purely defensive weapons, the
only effect Of which Is to prolong a
war.
The policy that he suggests is not
/