The First "America First" Movement should tell you all you need to know about the Second one

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,949
36,372
187
South Alabama
This is something that has tugged at my soul for a long long time. I think Americans tend to view things in “yeah for my side” and too much in the lense of “America is the best” to the point we forget that in many cases we only love heroes who further our political beliefs and bury anything negative in American history to cover up where we don’t live up to the image.

Take WW2 for example… We constantly want to downplay how powerful the “America First” movement was. Yet Gallup polls have shown that more Americans believed in American isolationism and the treatment of Jewish persecution was over exaggerated by the FDR administration to get us into the war.

But probably one of the craziest moments was when Lindbergh started attacking FDR. This sparked a war hero from WWI to come out of the shadows to attack Lindbergh after retiring from public life for nearly two decades. He had this to say about Lindbergh:

“ Twenty long years have gone by since I came home, and yet if you pick up your newspaper today, the same topic occupies the headlines as blazed across our front pages then. War . . . Russia's record of military success is rivalled [sic] only by Hitler's record for honesty. I will be sorry if Russia is defeated quickly, for a number of reasons. The first is Hitler must [his emphasis] be stopped. The second is that a long, drawn out war between Russia and Germany would weaken both dictators. The third, and most important reason for my sorrow at a speedy German victory is that it will give fuel to such isolationists and appeasers as Senator Wheeler and ex Colonel Lindbergh, and ex-President Hoover. They will burst forth with long, windy statements to the effect that this effort proves that the German Army is the greatest military machine in the history of the world, and that it therefore makes our helping England a little stupid, since no country, no matter how strong, can possibly stand up before the punishment dealt out by the Nazis.

Stalin did everything he could to make himself a super-Neville Chamberlain. And before two years of that counterfeit friendship had run its inevitable course, Germany was sending its armed legions across the border to attack its recent strange bedpartner. Can ex-colonel Lindbergh now say that appeasement hasn't been given every conceivable chance to prove itself? . . .I hope that the former Colonel is not too hurt by what I have said here this afternoon and what I will continue to say on other afternoons and evenings. I hope he understands how I feel, and believe me when I say that I have tried to understand how he feels. I have failed in that, but that may be because of the fact that of all the medals I was fortunate enough to get, none of them came with the personal blessings of Adolf Hitler.*"

After this, the veteran received a letter that quickly became public from a woman in Michigan. The letter said:

" “Well you skunk and ignoramus, you got fooled yourself in the last war, and now for a few dirty dollars that you are getting, you are betraying millions of young men… You ought to kiss every step the Hon. Chas. Lindbergh and that Champion of Men, Mr. Nye is making (sic), just to stop others from getting into the same stupid conditions as you are at the present time. It’s a shame that such people as you cam back, it would have been a blessing if you were shot to pieces. May you break your neck right now as you and others like you are a menace to civilization.

Dear Mr. veteran, if you need hospitalization make the ones who look after this give it to you, and I hope success for you.”



That veteran.... was Alvin York.


My overall point is that Im always hesitant of the "We support the troops", "America First", and "American history in public schools should be all positive" crowd because historically it translates to "we pick and choose what history and which heroes we want and our support isnt absolute." Because if someone has the guts to say that about probably one of the two greatest soldiers in US history (Audy is possibly the greatest), then it means heroes from war are only useful if they are quiet or a champion for your side. We saw this with how Trump went after Mccain's service record and we still see it with how the America Firsters defend General Flynn's service record. The Second version of this movement feels eerily similar to the first in how they bash military servicemen that speak up and how they have no empathy to the suffering at the hands of brutal dictatorships. They are also hooked on cults of personalities that are determined to tear down democratic institutions in order to make their power absolute.

sorry for length and format. Flame away.

* Lindbergh was awarded medals from Goerring and was given many gifts from the Nazis that were very publicly known.
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
86,705
45,082
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
BTW, some historians are of the opinion that Chamberlain carried on a vast charade, which he knew it to be. The reasoning goes that the UK was in pitiful shape, defense-wise, and needed the two years which were bought in order to rearm to face Hitler...
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH and JDCrimson

some_al_fan

1st Team
Jan 14, 2024
573
872
117
BTW, some historians are of the opinion that Chamberlain carried on a vast charade, which he knew it to be. The reasoning goes that the UK was in pitiful shape, defense-wise, and needed the two years which were bought in order to rearm to face Hitler...
Unfortunately, it is not showing up in defensive spending.
Here is the graph of UK defensive spending:
1753664183784.png

Chamberlain became the Prime Minister in 1937. Churchill replaced him in 1940.
UK was indeed in a pitiful shape, defense-wise, but Chamberlain did not go into a full re-armament / defensive-spend phase like Churchill did
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,875
19,309
337
Hooterville, Vir.
Unfortunately, it is not showing up in defensive spending.
Here is the graph of UK defensive spending:
View attachment 51908

Chamberlain became the Prime Minister in 1937. Churchill replaced him in 1940.
UK was indeed in a pitiful shape, defense-wise, but Chamberlain did not go into a full re-armament / defensive-spend phase like Churchill did
That was my immediate question.
British defense policy in the late 1930s was predicated on the "ten year rule" which postulated that a major war would not happen in Europe in the next ten years. Thus, the British Army was optimized for imperial policing (lots of lightweight kit that could defeat bedouin, African tribesmen, and Indian rebels, but not Wehrmacht regulars.
That assumption obviously did not pan out, so British defense spending should have shot up like a rocket in 1938, 1939.

The Great War had been so terrible for all involved (except the Americans) that everyone was desperate to avoid a recurrence, as if wishing a thing made it so.

As for the America First crowd in the 1930s, the First World War was maybe the stupidest war in history, stupidly fought. The senselessness lent credence to those who said the US should avoid the next one, simply to avoid the wasted blood and money. The problem was the Second World War was a more worthy war, and was fought more intelligently (at least by the Western Allies.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AWRTR and UAH

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,949
36,372
187
South Alabama
As for the America First crowd in the 1930s, the First World War was maybe the stupidest war in history, stupidly fought. The senselessness lent credence to those who said the US should avoid the next one, simply to avoid the wasted blood and money. The problem was the Second World War was a more worthy war, and was fought more intelligently (at least by the Western Allies.)
“We are told that the American soldier doesn’t know what he is fighting for, but now he knows what he is fighting against”

Eisenhower after Buchenwald’s liberation

The problem is that we knew who Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were far before we got involved or liberated one camp. We nearly boycotted the Olympics over it and we knew countless instances in which the truth was abundantly clear. But these “America First” traitors couldn’t say enough good things about Adolf Hitler and his theory of a master race. God it’s funny that the first two major defeats of Nazi Germany were to two black men born in Alabama.

As Alvin York (a true hero) said to Charles Lindbergh (a controversial one) “none of my medals were given to me by Adolph Hitler”. Pretty much drawing a firm line between being an isolationist and a Nazi sympathizer. It was pretty much a given that America First was mostly a group of antisemitic and anti communist isolationist who applauded everything Hitler did and cursed everything that FDR tried to do. It was being called out for what it was by people who weren’t drinking the FlavorAid at the time. People like Dr.Seuss… (even though he went pretty racist when it came to the Japanese)



 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,949
36,372
187
South Alabama
BTW, some historians are of the opinion that Chamberlain carried on a vast charade, which he knew it to be. The reasoning goes that the UK was in pitiful shape, defense-wise, and needed the two years which were bought in order to rearm to face Hitler...
I just have a hard time in believing Chamberlain was that forward thinking in it. I think it was more of a drawing of a line that everyone thought Hitler wasn’t stupid enough to cross and were proven naive in believing it.

Had Chamberlain called his bluff it would have probably been the same reaction that Hitler had when Mussolini called his bluff in 34. However, after Hitler got the tanks and resources from the Sudetenland he was ready to cross any future line being drawn. So the consequences weigh alot more than the political strategies that were possibly taken.

There has been a movement lately in historical communities to take a far more sympathetic view on Chamberlain and a far more critical view of Churchill. While I have largely become more accepting of Chamberlain as of late, I’m still not to the point that some historians have arrived at in that he saved Europe by forcing Hitler to expose his true intentions with Poland.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,875
19,309
337
Hooterville, Vir.
I guess for me, the context is the difference between the reluctance to get involved overseas in the 1930s and that of today.
36 trillion reasons.

In 1939, the US national debt was $40 billion (51% of GDP).
In 2025, the national debt is $37 trillion (123% of GDP).
Whatever we might want to spend aiding Ukraine, or fighting AIDS in Africa, we have already spent that money on something else.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,949
36,372
187
South Alabama
I guess for me, the context is the difference between the reluctance to get involved overseas in the 1930s and that of today.
36 trillion reasons.

In 1939, the US national debt was $40 billion (51% of GDP).
In 2025, the national debt is $37 trillion (123% of GDP).
Whatever we might want to spend aiding Ukraine, or fighting AIDS in Africa, we have already spent that money on something else.
So if Vladimir Putin offered you medals would you accept them and then go to America spouting how great of a guy he was and how America is wrong for not supporting his cause? Because there are quite a few America Firsters today they are far more critical of Zelenskyy than they are of Putin to the point that you wonder if the point is that they want a Putin like government here in America.

There is a huge difference between an isolationist and being a pseudo fascist hiding behind the American flag. Alot of the people who say “America First” today resemble alot of the people who said “America First” in the 30’s. Just change Jews and brown people and you don’t see much difference. You see people getting behind a draft dodger who openly criticizes a pow’s service from a war he dodged the draft from, you see people calling for institutions in our democracy to fall because they are fearful of a socialist coup in our society, and we see shocking support and admiration for violent dictators who invade their neighbors.

America First ultimately translates to America democracy last.
 

dtgreg

All-American
Jul 24, 2000
3,753
2,635
282
Tuscaloosa
www.electricmonkeywrench.com
I guess for me, the context is the difference between the reluctance to get involved overseas in the 1930s and that of today.
36 trillion reasons.

In 1939, the US national debt was $40 billion (51% of GDP).
In 2025, the national debt is $37 trillion (123% of GDP).
Whatever we might want to spend aiding Ukraine, or fighting AIDS in Africa, we have already spent that money on something else.
SO, if I'm understanding you properly, we need to give billionaires more money so we can reduce that $36,000,000,000,000 debt?
 
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: 92tide

dtgreg

All-American
Jul 24, 2000
3,753
2,635
282
Tuscaloosa
www.electricmonkeywrench.com
Where did Tidewater suggest such?
This "it wasn't me" nonsense is tiresome. We are the richest country on earth but the money is held by 500 families. The Trump tax cuts are going to increase the deficit by an extra 3.4 trillion dollars (conservatively, per CNBC) over the next ten years.

Europe is doing more for their citizens with less. Since Reagan and his Voodoo economics we've gone from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. But we're gonna raise taxes on the workers by minimum 15% across the board (tariffs) and give people, if you can call them people, who have more money already than they can ever spend, even more money! Their excess money has already distorted the housing market and rentals, pricing out first-time homebuyers. The business rental rates are so high for mom-and-pop stores that the numbers don't work. The maniacs are buying up all the arable land and even the water supplies. There will be a reckoning.

I NEVER hear deficit hawks talk about tax reform. If you give the rich all the money and borrow the money to do it, and then complain about entitlements, you're ridiculous.
 

some_al_fan

1st Team
Jan 14, 2024
573
872
117
Whatever we might want to spend aiding Ukraine, or fighting AIDS in Africa, we have already spent that money on something else.
If you have a leak in your roof and are short on cash, will you fix the roof or wait until your house is flooded?

Ukraine is a good example of that; if Ukraine falls, then Putin will have the resources to attack a NATO country, and it could force us to send U.S. troops to fight.
To clarify… We should not be sending blank checks or sending money to Ukraine at all. Instead, we should provide Ukraine with military equipment and satellite data to fight the Russians
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg and 92tide

AWRTR

All-American
Oct 18, 2022
3,190
4,707
187
If you have a leak in your roof and are short on cash, will you fix the roof or wait until your house is flooded?

Ukraine is a good example of that; if Ukraine falls, then Putin will have the resources to attack a NATO country, and it could force us to send U.S. troops to fight.
To clarify… We should not be sending blank checks or sending money to Ukraine at all. Instead, we should provide Ukraine with military equipment and satellite data to fight the Russians
First off I'm for supporting Ukraine. I don't think Biden or Trump or Europe has done enough to help them. That being said. If Putin took Ukraine that doesn't give him the resources to attack NATO, and any thought of that is ridiculous. He might try it because he would make the Hitler gamble that NATO won't really fight back, but taking Ukraine gives him nothing he doesn't already have to fight a war with except for some more cannon fodder if he forces conscription on Ukrainian men.

Russia can't fight NATO in a conventional war at all. It would have to go nuclear and there is a lot of doubt out there if Russia can even effectively fire their nuclear missiles. I don't want to find out so let's not give him any hope by allowing Ukraine to fall.
 

some_al_fan

1st Team
Jan 14, 2024
573
872
117
taking Ukraine gives him nothing he doesn't already have to fight a war with except for some more cannon fodder if he forces conscription on Ukrainian men.

Russia can't fight NATO in a conventional war at all
. It would have to go nuclear and there is a lot of doubt out there if Russia can even effectively fire their nuclear missiles. I don't want to find out so let's not give him any hope by allowing Ukraine to fall.
You are partially correct because Russia can fight and win against NATO in a conventional war.
I don’t know how close you are to following the Russian-Ukrainian war, but cannon fodder + drones & artillery is all that the Russian army does. What do you think NATO can do against that formula?

Russia also possesses a very cheap drone weapon that Western countries (including the US) have not found a way to stop.
Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/russians-plan-launch-2-000-015936113.html

Here is the link where they’ve made them: https://nypost.com/2025/07/21/world...ory-used-to-attack-ukraine-state-media-shows/
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
69,040
85,126
462
crimsonaudio.net
This "it wasn't me" nonsense is tiresome. We are the richest country on earth but the money is held by 500 families. The Trump tax cuts are going to increase the deficit by an extra 3.4 trillion dollars (conservatively, per CNBC) over the next ten years.
And nowhere did he say he supported such.

Most everyone on this board that is frustrated by the constant overspending wants both spending and tax reform. Sadly, neither party really seems to care about the transfer of wealth.
 

dtgreg

All-American
Jul 24, 2000
3,753
2,635
282
Tuscaloosa
www.electricmonkeywrench.com
And nowhere did he say he supported such.

Most everyone on this board that is frustrated by the constant overspending wants both spending and tax reform. Sadly, neither party really seems to care about the transfer of wealth.
More "both sides". SMH. You may be too young to remember but Clinton balanced the budget. That was anathema to the crazies in the Republican Party who want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare and end Veterans' Benefits and basically take us back to 1929.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 92tide

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
69,040
85,126
462
crimsonaudio.net
More "both sides". SMH. You may be too young to remember but Clinton balanced the budget. That was anathema to the crazies in the Republican Party who want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare and end Veterans' Benefits and basically take us back to 1929.
I vividly remember Clinton, but his presidency ended a quarter-century ago, and those balanced budgets happened under a repub congress.

And yes, it's 100% BOTH SIDES. Go ahead and show me where the dems reduced the debt:

1753741723395.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: selmaborntidefan

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
39,385
35,088
287
55
And yes, it's 100% BOTH SIDES. Go ahead and show me where the dems reduced the debt:
This is the point nobody ever wants to talk about.

Four balanced budgets with Clinton but the national debt STILL WENT UP.

And they also forget the details quite selectively:
- Clinton walked into office after the Soviet Union imploded, which freed up Cold War monies
- his party adopted spending cuts to take effect in the "out years" but immediate tax increases
- he himself lied about lowering middle class taxes just to get elected and then raised them
- he fought Dole and Gingrich wanting to keep the 1993 budget deal spending cuts


BUT NOW - all these years later - it's "Clinton balanced the budget!" while ignoring the fact he only got one because of the electorate removed most of the big domestic spenders in the 1994 midterms.

I mean, "Clinton balanced the budget" is right there alongside "see, Arnold Schwarzenegger proved Republicans CAN WIN state races in California" as "statements that are literally true but don't mean what the person saying them pretends they must mean." Another one is when you have an unqualified VP pic and they go with, "He's not running for President, he's running for VICE President." Uh....yeah.
 

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
24,875
19,309
337
Hooterville, Vir.
So if Vladimir Putin offered you medals would you accept them and then go to America spouting how great of a guy he was and how America is wrong for not supporting his cause? Because there are quite a few America Firsters today they are far more critical of Zelenskyy than they are of Putin to the point that you wonder if the point is that they want a Putin like government here in America.

There is a huge difference between an isolationist and being a pseudo fascist hiding behind the American flag. Alot of the people who say “America First” today resemble alot of the people who said “America First” in the 30’s. Just change Jews and brown people and you don’t see much difference. You see people getting behind a draft dodger who openly criticizes a pow’s service from a war he dodged the draft from, you see people calling for institutions in our democracy to fall because they are fearful of a socialist coup in our society, and we see shocking support and admiration for violent dictators who invade their neighbors.

America First ultimately translates to America democracy last.
Again, economics is called "the Dismal Science" for a reason. The numbers are unforgiving.
All I am saying is that when you are deficit spending today, you are saying no to some desirable things next year, or thirty years hence.
It is like renting-to-own a $250 flat panel TV from Easy Rental for $25/month for 3 years. By the time you finishing paying for it, your $250 tv will cost you $1200.
In FY 2025, the federal government will spend $749,000,000,000 just servicing the debt already accumulated in past years. Because we said, "yes," to some worthy thing 30 years ago, we are now saddled with 3/4 of a trillion dollars each year to simply tread water. The $749,000,000,000 does nothing to pay off the principal. It merely buys us another year.
So saying "yes" to worthy goals today (and if we were running a $1,800,000,000,000 budget surplus today, I'd be happy to send money to Ukraine) while continuing to deficit spend merely adds to the problem.
 
|

Latest threads