Charles Lindbergh was a Nazi puppet—and his famous flight was overrated. Here's why.
The aviator was so impressed by German propaganda that he grossly overestimated Hitler's airpower.
I have to declare a personal stake that shapes my opinion as I write this story. It has its origins in 1940, 85 years ago this month. I was seven years old, living near London. I watched the choreography of a great battle underway, etched in vapor trails high above in the crisp blue sky of summer, the combat that became known as the Battle of Britain. I wasn't scared. I watched with the detached excitement of a child unaware of how perilous those days were for us. That understanding would come later, from my work as a journalist, spending years discovering how closely fought that famous victory was.
Had that battle been lost it is doubtful that Britain, then alone as most of Western Europe fell to Hitler, could have survived, as it did, until Pearl Harbor made American intervention inevitable. As things have turned out, one of my most unsettling discoveries has been that a man long hailed as an American legend, Charles Lindbergh, worked avidly with the Germans to undermine the chances of a British victory.
Much has long been known about Lindbergh's alliance with American fascists between 1939 and 1941, and particularly his speech in Des Moines, Iowa in September 1941, in which he blamed three groups—the Roosevelt administration, the British and the Jews—for pressing the nation to confront Hitler. Much less known is the role Lindbergh played in England during the 1930s as Hitler's useful idiot, spreading the idea that Nazi Germany had become an invincible air power.
The first Nazi to spot and exploit Lindbergh as an effective agent of German disinformation was Hermann Goering, Hitler's deputy and head of his air force, the Luftwaffe. Goering recognized that Lindbergh's celebrity gave him oracular authority on aviation—whether justified or not. Portrait of Charles Lindbergh Photograph by The Stapleton Collection, Bridgeman Images
A decade after Lindbergh's epic solo flight across the Atlantic, on October 16, 1937, the Nazis made their master move, allowing him into their secret test field at Rechlin, near the Baltic coast. Virtually all the Luftwaffe's future aircraft were revealed to him. Credulous and convinced that no other European power rivaled Germany in the air, Lindbergh thereafter became a powerful influence on the 'peace at any price' factions in Britain and France.
Lindbergh had no background in military aviation, but when he spoke on the subject of anything with wings, a lot of important people listened.
There were numerous reports of Lindbergh pressing his views on leading European politicians, some of whom found them unnerving and demoralizing. For example, the British military attaché in Paris, seeing how rattled the French were by Lindbergh's assessments, reported to London, '…the Fuhrer found a most convenient ambassador in Colonel Lindbergh.' Limited Time: Bonus Issue Offer Subscribe now and gift up to 4 bonus issues—starting at $34/year.
Lindbergh's impact in Britain was equally effective. In a single meeting he could turn a stern patriot into an abject appeaser. In 1938 a highly influential Tory, Thomas Jones, noted in his diary that before listening to Lindbergh he had been for standing up against Hitler but: 'Since my talk with Lindbergh I've sided with those working for peace at any cost in humiliation, because of the picture of our relative unpreparedness in the air…'
(How the Battle of Britain changed the war—and the world—forever)
Lindbergh also had a willing ear in the American ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy. In 1938 he told Kennedy that Germany was then able to produce 20,000 military airplanes a year and gave a dark prediction of likely British defeat in the air. (In October 1938 Goering, on behalf of Hitler, awarded Lindbergh the Service Cross of the German Eagle.)
In fact, Lindbergh's numbers were absurdly inflated. They were, literally, being used by the Nazis as a force multiplier. Moreover, Lindbergh's propaganda had masked a systemic weakness in the organization of German aircraft production. It was far from being a model of Teutonic efficiency. Production was dispersed among many manufacturers competing for resources and slowed by supply chain bottlenecks. In contrast, British aircraft production was far more rigorously directed and resourced from a central command. Charles Lindbergh receiving the Service Cross of the German Eagle from Hermann Goering on behalf of Adolf Hitler Photograph by SZ Photo/Scherl, Bridgeman Images
More crucially, Lindbergh had no inkling of a game-changing technical leap in the deployment of air power that the British pioneered, the world's most advanced radar-based early warning system. Incoming waves of bombers could be pinpointed and tracked before they reached the British coast. Their size, direction and altitude were precisely plotted on a map in a central operations room, enabling the Royal Air Force (R.A.F) to deploy its precious hundreds of advanced fighters and pilots sparingly in the most efficient and deadly way. Britain's 'finest hour'
At the outbreak of war, in September 1939, Germany did have a clear lead in numbers: 2,893 available front-line airplanes versus 1,600 in Britain. But by July, 1940, when the Battle of Britain began, the difference had narrowed. Britain had 644 front-line fighters to 725 German (with their time over England critically limited by fuel). By the end of September, when the RAF's famous victory was achieved, they had 732 fighters available while the Luftwaffe was reduced to 438.
Weeks before the battle in the air began, Britain's expeditionary army in France had been nearly wiped out, saved only by the evacuation at Dunkirk. Few foresaw that its air force, the most scientifically advanced of its forces, was actually capable of saving the day. But—a point mostly overlooked by historians—Prime Minister Winston Churchill, fighting off a last-ditch resistance by appeasers, made his confidence in the R.A.F's strengths the bulwark of his case for carrying on the war.
(Searching for the remains of two early transatlantic pilots)
This is testament to Churchill's remarkable openness, at the age of 65, to technical transformation: As a young man he had served in the army, and had then twice served as First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1911 and 1939, running the Royal Navy. But, as much as he loved Britain's imperial-scale navy, he understood in 1940, ahead of many others, that the island nation's last line of defense was now in the air.
On June 18, 1940, in one of his greatest speeches, Churchill warned, 'The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us…if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age.' Yet, if Britain prevailed, the world would say, 'This was their finest hour.'
The battle engaged remarkably low numbers of men in combat, only a few hundred on each side, almost like medieval knights, each alone in a cockpit. When it was over, Churchill made the indelible tribute to his airmen: 'Never in the history of human conflict have so many owed so much to so few.'
Victory in the air ended any chance of Hitler carrying out Operation Sea Lion, his planned invasion of Britain. And it finally laid bare the pernicious extent of the disinformation spread by Lindbergh—swallowed whole by many, including Ambassador Kennedy. Even then, Kennedy, a hardened isolationist, had learned nothing. Unmoved by the victory, he said, 'The British have had it. They can't stop the Germans and the best thing for them is to learn to live with them.'
(Charles Lindbergh's wife was a record-breaking aviator in her own right)
It's important to note that Lindbergh's crossing of the Atlantic in 1927 was an act of superb airmanship—particularly of navigation—but it did nothing to advance the science of aviation. His airplane, the Spirit of St. Louis, was a one-off bespoke model built for only one purpose: for one man to safely cross the Atlantic. It was not in any way a precursor. The science necessary to carry passengers safely across any ocean was an American achievement, developed mainly in a wind tunnel at Caltech in California, where two companies, Boeing and Douglas, created the first twin-engine all-metal airliners.
In fact, the need for a larger, twin-engine airplane to cross oceans was foretold by two British military aviators, Captain John Alcock and Lieutenant Arthur Whitten Brown, who were the first to actually fly across the Atlantic, 1,890 miles, from Newfoundland to Ireland, in 1919, in a converted World War I bomber. They landed, unheralded, in a field and came to rest, nose down, in a bog, not like Lindbergh on a floodlit runway with the whole world listening on radio. As a result, to this day few people realize who was first.
It will fall to President Donald Trump to decide how the nation will mark the centennial of Lindbergh's 1927 flight from Long Island, New York, to Paris. This will confront America with a challenging moral judgment: Can a legendary human endeavor ever be celebrated if the 'hero' turns out to have been so deeply flawed?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Prince William and Prince George to be separated by ‘morbid rule' for monarchy's protection: experts
Prince George recently turned 12 years old, and according to royal experts, one "morbid rule" is now expected to go into effect. Royal protocol advises that George will no longer be allowed to fly with his father, Prince William. Heirs are required to fly separately to preserve the line of succession should an accident occur while they are traveling. William, 43, is heir to the throne. "The Prince and Princess of Wales and their children are the future of the royal family," royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams told Fox News Digital. "Accidents do happen, and this seems like a sensible precaution which ought to be observed, as it was with King Charles and William during Queen Elizabeth's reign." "There are reports that the king and William, who is a pilot, disagree over this," Fitzwilliams shared. "But it should be necessary to point out that Harry is fifth in line to the throne... and only four working royals are under 70… The need for Prince George as second in line to the throne to fly separately from his father surely makes sense." Fox News Digital reached out to Kensington Palace for comment. WATCH: PRINCE WILLIAM ADAMANT ABOUT GIVING HIS CHILDREN A NORMAL LIFE: AUTHOR The king's former pilot, Graham Laurie, previously confirmed on "A Right Royal Podcast" that he initially flew Charles, William, Harry and Princess Diana together, but that changed when William turned 12, Us Weekly reported. "After that, he had to have a separate aircraft, and we could only fly all four together when they were young with the written permission of Her Majesty," said Laurie, as quoted by the outlet. "When William became 12, he would fly normally in a 125 from Northolt, and we would fly the 146 out with the other three on." British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard claimed to Fox News Digital that the king had made it known that he expected George to travel separately from his father. She noted that father and son will have to "adjust to the change." "Traditional royal travel protocol expects a future heir to travel separately from their father, especially when 12 years old," Chard explained. "Direct heirs should not fly together. Previous generations left children at home with governesses when traveling. This, however, caused a lot of upset for the children. King Charles can vouch for this; he desperately missed his parents when they were away on tour." Still, Chard said that it's likely George and William will ease into the change. "This important matter is being debated as it could impact the future of the monarchy," she claimed. "Travel arrangements for the heir to the throne are important at any age. And the Wales family have always traveled together… There are many rules, expectations and traditions that the royal family is expected to follow." British royals expert Hilary Fordwich pointed out to Fox News Digital that the rule isn't set in stone. However, she noted that it's a travel protocol that monarchs have taken seriously over the years. "Rules, such as not traveling by plane or car together, now that Prince George is 12, are unwritten but a tradition," she explained. "This ensures that the next in line and heir are not lost. It has, on occasion, been relaxed or bent. Now, with the king's health issues, combined with his advanced age, it is considered extremely important to ensure Prince George's safety." "Prince William and Princess Catherine are adhering to many rules, especially those protecting the succession," Fordwich shared. "But to a certain extent, they've reinterpreted other rules, relaxing or even disregarding others, in an admirable attempt to become a more relatable modern family. Every royal generation has likewise updated traditions, thereby remaining relevant." "The restrictions on William and George flying together are a decades-long edict to ensure continuity should one die in a travel accident," added royal expert Ian Pelham Turner. "Whether this will change or be challenged by William in the future and break decades of tradition is not known," he said. "But these days, with the royal family, that is not uncommon." Royal author Robert Jobson previously wrote in his biography, "Catherine, the Princess of Wales," that the king "raised concerns" with William over his helicopter use with his wife, Kate Middleton, and their three children. William had expressed a strong desire to fly with his entire family. Not only did this reportedly spark a tense disagreement, but the king presented William, an experienced pilot, with "a formal document acknowledging the risks involved and taking full responsibility for his actions." A spokesperson for Kensington Palace, which handles the offices of the Prince and Princess of Wales, didn't immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace declined to comment. "There have been several royals who have perished in plane crashes," Fordwich previously explained to Fox News Digital. "As a result, Queen Elizabeth II was particularly sensitive regarding who could and would be permitted to fly together. Rules were put in place years ago regarding the prohibition of royal heirs from flying together." "Much of the royal protocol was insisted upon by the late Queen Elizabeth II," Chard pointed out. Still, the Prince and Princess of Wales aren't afraid to bend the rules on occasion, she said. "[In the past], Prince George would have endured certain rites of passage," Chard explained. "However, the Prince and Princess of Wales do not agree with some of the old-fashioned traditions, such as the 'blooding ritual,' especially when these traditions are not etched in stone. This makes perfect sense as some expectations, especially trivial and old-fashioned etiquette, are no longer relevant in today's modern world." "A few traditions that the Prince and Princess of Wales have broken tend to be fashion-related. I imagine not complying with some of the protocol is a much-welcomed shift." "The royals are far more touchy-feely these days, selfies are occasionally permitted, especially by William," said Fitzwilliams. "The king is a hugger, and William and Catherine communicate by video. The succession to the throne is pivotal to the future of the monarchy, and the deep rift in the royal family underlines its importance. [Still], George should not fly in the same aircraft as his father." Christopher Andersen, author of "The King," previously told Fox News Digital that once George turned 12, he and his father would mark the beginning of a lifestyle change after the "morbid rule" kicks in. "Starting at age 12, heirs to the throne are required to take air trips separately to preserve the line of succession should an accident occur," said Andersen at the time. "When William turned 12, he began flying in a separate royal jet apart from his father and brother Harry," he shared. "It's a morbid rule, but then again, when they turn 16, all senior royals are also asked to help plan their own funerals."
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
NTSB finds Army chopper in fatal midair crash was above altitude limit
Investigators probing the January midair collision of a passenger plane and an Army helicopter over Washington that killed 67 people found the chopper was flying higher than it should have been and the altitude readings were inaccurate. The details came out of the first day of National Transportation Safety Board hearings in Washington, where investigators aim to uncover insights into what caused the crash between the American Airlines plane from Wichita, Kansas, and the Black Hawk helicopter over Ronald Reagan National Airport. The board opened the three days of hearings by showing an animation and playing audio and video from the night of the collision, as well as questioning witnesses and investigators about how the Federal Aviation Administration and the Army may have contributed to nation's deadliest plane crash since November 2001. It's likely too early for the board to identify what caused the crash. The January incident was the first in a string of crashes and near misses this year that have alarmed officials and the traveling public, despite statistics that still show flying remains the safest form of transportation. Animation, altimeter discrepancy The hearing opened Wednesday with a video animation showing where the helicopter and airliner were leading up to the collision. It showed how the helicopter flew above the 200 feet (61 meters) altitude limit on the helicopter route along the Potomac River before colliding with the plane. Investigators said Wednesday the flight data recorder showed the helicopter was actually 80 feet to 100 feet (24 to 30 meters) higher than the barometric altimeter the pilots relied upon showed they were flying. So the NTSB conducted tests on three other helicopters from the same unit in a flight over the same area and found similar discrepancies in their altimeters. Dan Cooper with Sikorsky helicopters said that when the Black Hawk helicopter involved in the crash was designed in the 1970s, it used a style of altimeter that was common at the time. Newer helicopters have air data computers that didn't exist back then that help provide more accurate altitude readings. Chief Warrant Officer Kylene Lewis told the board that she wouldn't find an 80 to 100 foot discrepancy between the different altimeters on a helicopter alarming because at lower altitudes she would be relying more on the radar altimeter than the barometric altimeter. Below 500 feet (152 meters), Lewis said she would be checking both instruments and cross referencing them. DC helicopter route permanently closed after fatal Black Hawk crash She said as long as an altimeter registers an altitude within 70 feet of the published altitude before takeoff the altimeter is considered accurate under the checklists. Army officials said a discrepancy of 70 to 100 feet (21 to 30 meters) between the Black Hawk's altimeters is within the acceptable range because pilots are expected to maintain their altitude plus or minus 100 feet. The greater concern is that the FAA approved routes around Reagan airport that included such small separation distances between helicopters and planes when planes are landing. 'The fact that we have less than 500 foot separation is a concern for me,' the Army's Scott Rosengren said. But Rosengren said that 'if he was king for a day' he would immediately retire all the older Black Hawk models like the one involved in this crash and replace them with newer versions of the helicopters. Previously, NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy highlighted that the published helicopter routes around Washington D.C. would allow planes and helicopters to routinely come within 75 feet of each other during landing. Army officials said Wednesday that the flight manual for these older Black Hawks doesn't highlight the discrepancies in altimeters that has been documented previously, but typical flight separations are at least 500 feet (152 meters) around airports. Previously disclosed air traffic control audio had the helicopter pilot telling the controller twice that they saw the airplane and would avoid it. The animation ended with surveillance video showing the helicopter colliding with the plane in a fiery crash. Investigations have already shown the FAA failed to recognize a troubling history of 85 near misses around Reagan airport in the years before the collision, and that the Army's helicopters routinely flew around the nation's capitol with a key piece of locating equipment, known as ADS-B Out, turned off. Aviation attorney Bob Clifford, who is working to file one of the first lawsuits against the government next month, said he hopes NTSB will look beyond the immediate factors that caused this crash to highlight the bigger ongoing concerns in the crowded Washington airspace. Proposed changes Even though the final NTSB report won't be released until sometime next year, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz introduced legislation Tuesday to require all aircraft operators to use both forms of ADS-B, or Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, the technology to broadcast aircraft location data to other planes and air traffic controllers. Most aircraft today are equipped with ADS-B Out equipment but the airlines would have to add the more comprehensive ADS-B In technology to their planes. 'There cannot be a double standard in aviation safety,' Cruz said. 'We should not tolerate special exceptions for military training flights, operating in congested air space.' The legislation would revoke an exemption on ADS-B transmission requests for Department of Defense aircrafts. It also would require the FAA to evaluate helicopter routes near airports and require the Army Inspector General to review the Army's aviation safety practices. Homendy said her agency has been recommending that move for decades after several other crashes. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that while he'd like to discuss 'a few tweaks,' the legislation is 'the right approach.' He also suggested that the previous administration 'was asleep at the wheel' amid dozens of near-misses in the airspace around Washington's airspace. 'Fact-finding proceeding' Homendy said the hearings over the next few days will be a 'fact-finding proceeding.' The NTSB will also post thousands of pages of evidence from the crash investigation online. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said that he expects 'we're going to have some very uncomfortable conversations over the next two and a half days' but that 'they need to be had in the clear light of day – and simply put the best interest of the traveling public ahead of any of our personal interests, perhaps.' The hearings in Washington involve NTSB board members, investigators and witnesses for organizations involved in the crash. Federal officials have also raised concerns over the nation's outdated and understaffed air traffic control system. During January's mid-air crash above Washington, one controller was handing both commercial airline and helicopter traffic at the busy airport. Associated Press writers Leah Askarinam, Ben Finley and Rio Yamat contributed to this story.


Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
Fathers In College Face Competing Demands, Unlikely To Seek Help
Male college student with baby stroller at bus stop Fathers in college spend less time caring for their children than student mothers, but they also face different financial pressures, with a much higher percentage saying they are financially responsible for other family members than student mothers. Parenting students account for one out of every five undergraduate college students, according to research from the Urban Institutes SPARK Collaborative, a collaborative project lead by the urban Institute, The Pregnant Scholar and Child Trends. The majority of student parents are mothers, but 30% are fathers, accounting for approximately 800,000 of the more than three million undergraduate student parents enrolled at American colleges and universities. students. In some cases, student fathers face fewer responsibilities outside of college than their female peers, but once you dig into the details, student fathers face distinct obstacles to success in college that require different supports and solutions. What Does the Data Say About Fathers In College? New research from Trellis Strategies, based on responses to their annual Student Financial Wellness Survey, digs into the nuances of parenting father's experience in college, and how colleges and universities can change and improve support to student fathers to ensure their success. Trellis' 2024 SFW survey gathered data from more than 53,000 students enrolled at 104 colleges and universities around the country. The survey has been running since 2018, and in that time, Trellis has surveyed 3.8 million students. This latest report hones in on the responses form the 1,300 student fathers who responded to this year's survey. Similar to their female peers, student fathers tended to be older than other students, and face huge demands on their time. Data from the Spark Collaborative shows that 46% percent of student fathers are 30-39 years old. Student fathers are more likely to be working full time while in college, with 68% working full time, compared to 53% of student mothers. Student fathers tend to spend less time caring for their children than mothers in college, with 44% spending 40 or more hours on childcare each week, compared to 62% of student mothers. This mirrors the general pattern of women shouldering more of the burden for child care than men. But student fathers were more likely to face additional financial pressures than student mothers. Fathers in college were more likely to be providing financial support to a partner or spouse, parents, or other family members. What Challenges Do Fathers In College Face? Even though student fathers face more financial demands, they were less likely to apply for financial aid than student mothers. 'I think this ties into broader trends by gender where men are less likely to complete the FAFSA compared to women. Approximately 26% of our male parents did not complete the FAFSA in the 2024 SFWS.' said Allyson Cornett, the author of the brief, via email. The FAFSA, is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The form is used to determine eligibility for the Pell Grant, the main federal grant program to help students pay for college, as well as federal student loans and Work-Study. Most states and colleges also use FAFSA information to decide eligibility for state and institutional financial aid. Cornett noted that they asked students who did not complete the FAFSA follow up questions about why they did not apply for financial aid. The most common responses from student fathers were a fear of taking out student loans, that they were paying for school without financial aid, or a lack of information. Lower FAFSA filing rates could be seen as a positive at first glance if viewed as part of lower borrowing rates. However, student fathers might be missing out on better ways to pay for college. They tended to rely more on personal savings, current income, and credit cards to pay for college expenses. Federal student loans have much lower interest rates than credit cards, and come with more protections. The choice to use credit versus student loans may actually be harming student fathers, as they will pay more over time than with a traditional student loan. Not applying for financial aid also means some student fathers are missing out on grants and scholarships they would not need to repay. Changes to FAFSA signed into law at the end of President Trump's first term mean college students with children are more likely to qualify for Pell grants than they were previously, especially single parents. Single fathers in college are especially likely to stop out of college, based on research from Aspen Ascend, so increasing the rates FAFSA filing for student fathers could help relieve financial pressure on them. What Support Do Fathers In College Need? Cornett noted that student fathers were generally less likely to seek help compared to student mothers. 'This is in line with the broader data on student fathers from the SFWS 2024 – where we are still seeing high levels of need, but lower utilization of federal aid and other programs. In fact, 72% experienced financial difficulties (compared to 82% of mothers), 48% were food insecure (vs. 55% of mothers), and 54% were housing insecure (vs. 65% of mothers), but rates of public assistance were much lower than their female peers'. As college demographics continue to change, it is increasingly important to ensure that parenting students can enroll, feel at home, and succeed in college. Trellis' data suggest schools need to think about the different types of support students fathers may need in order to succeed. 'Student parents are often treated as a monolithic group – and much of the conversation is focused on student mothers (which makes sense as only 30% are fathers). Cornett emphasized the importance of colleges thinking carefully about which supports fathers in college need that are distinct from mothers, saying that, "when we disaggregate the data… a more nuanced picture emerges. Our findings stress that student fathers, in particular, may benefit from more targeted financial aid counseling and communication, as well as awareness of public benefit programs and other resources available to them. On-campus or subsidized childcare might not be the best solution for student fathers, as evidenced by the SFWS data. This all culminates in the importance of institutions recognizing the diverse and competing priorities student parents face. Their needs differ not only from their non-parenting peers but also across gender lines,' said Cornett.