Lindbergh with his wife Anne.
I
UNDERSTAND that I have been asked to appear before this committee, to discuss
the effect of aviation upon America's position in time of war. I believe that
this effect can be summed up briefly by saying that our position is greatly
strengthened for defense and greatly weakened for attack.
I
base this statement upon two facts. First, that an invading army and its
supplies must still be transported by sea. Second, that aviation makes it more
difficult than ever before for a navy to approach a hostile shore.
In
support of these facts, I cite, for the first, the minute carrying capacity of
aircraft in relation to the weight of equipment and supplies required for a
major expeditionary force; and for the second, the experience of the British
Navy off the Norwegian coast and in the North Sea.
I do
not believe there is any danger of an invasion of this continent, either by sea
or by air, as long as we maintain an army, navy and air force of reasonable
size and in modern condition, and provided we establish the bases essential for
defense.
How
large our air force should be in actual numbers depends, of course, upon
conditions in other parts of the world. Because of the existing European
crisis, I should say that we would be wise to construct as rapidly as possible
a total air force of about 10,000 thoroughly modern fighting planes plus
reserves.
Urges
Protective Bases
This
number would, I believe, be adequate to insure American security regardless of
the outcome of the present European war. Whether our air force should be
increased or decreased in the more distant future will be decided by
circumstances which we cannot now foresee. But an industry capable of building
and maintaining a 10,000 plane force would, I believe, have adequate flexibility
to meet any emergency with which we might be confronted in this hemisphere.
Accompanying
this expansion of our air force should be the construction of aviation bases in
Newfoundland, Canada, the West Indies, parts of South America, Central America,
the Galapagos Islands, the Hawaiian Islands and Alaska. Secondary bases might
be placed in parts of Greenland, but in my opinion Greenland is not of primary
importance from the standpoint of aviation bases.
Sees No
Invasion by Air Alone
Since
many people are discussing the possibility of an air invasion of America, I
would like permission to bring a few points to your attention in this
connection. It is first necessary to establish clearly the difference between
an air invasion where troops are landed and a bombing raid where there is no
attempt to establish a base on enemy territory. I will treat these two problems
separately, for they are entirely different.
There
has never been an invasion of enemy territory by air alone. The two outstanding
examples of what might be called a partial air invasion were furnished by the
German occupations of Norway and Holland. But in each of these instances the
landing of troops by air was carried on simultaneously with a ground army
invasion on a major scale. The maximum number of troops that could have been
transported and supplied by air would have been ineffective without the
immediate support of a ground army. If air invasion alone could be successful,
it would have been used by the Germans against England many months ago.
It
is important to note that the transport of troops by air in Europe has been
over a distance of a few hundred miles at most. An air invasion across the
ocean is, I believe, absolutely impossible at this time, or in any predictable
future. To be effective in America, enemy aircraft would have to operate from
bases in America, and those bases would have to be established and supplied by
sea. Aircraft alone are not capable of carrying a sufficient quantity of
material.
Claims
have been made that America might be subject to air invasion by way of Alaska
or Greenland, where the distance between land is short. But such claims
overlook the difficulties of climate and terrain in these semi-arctic areas. If
air routes to Asia and Europe through the North were preferable to the greater
over-water distances farther south, they would have been used years ago by
commercial airlines.
Discounts
Greenland Route It is, of course, essential for us to maintain defense bases in
Alaska. I believe that we should wage war with all of our resources if an
invasion of Alaska or any other portion of America were attempted. But a sudden
air invasion of this country by way of Alaska is out of the question. The
conquest of Alaska would necessitate the movement of troops and supplies by
ground and sea, the defeat of our own forces and the establishment of enemy
bases. Even if that could be accomplished, there is little likelihood that the
wilds of Canada could be crossed and the United States invaded by an army based
upon remote Alaskan outposts of Asiatic or European powers.
If
an enemy were planning on an invasion of America, I believe that the route over
Greenland is one of the last he would consider. I spent several weeks in
Greenland in the Summer of 1933, surveying the coasts for air bases, and
studying the conditions that would be encountered in operating a northern air
route. I came to the conclusion that of all the possible air routes between
America and Europe the one over Greenland would be the most difficult to
establish and operate. Except for a rugged and mountainous strip around the
coast, Greenland is covered with ice. The climate is uncertain and severe, the
Summer season is short, and the seas are filled with ice during the entire
year.
Considers
Air Bombing Attacks The question of transoceanic bombing is, as I have said,
entirely different from that of air invasion. It is, of course, perfectly
possible today to build bombing planes that could cross the ocean, drop several
tons of bombs, and return to their starting point. Transoceanic bombing raids
could do considerable damage on peacetime standards, but they would have very
little effectiveness on wartime standards. The cost of transoceanic bombing
would be extremely high, enemy losses would be large, and the effect on our
military position negligible.
Such
bombing could not begin to prepare the way for an invasion of this continent.
If England is able to live at all with bases of the German air force less than
an hour's flight away, the United States is not in great danger across the
Atlantic Ocean. Not only is such bombing ineffective theoretically, but from a
practical standpoint it is interesting to note that not a single squadron of
transoceanic bombing planes exists anywhere in the world today.
I
have, up to this point, attempted to show that aviation strengthens the
defensive position of America. First, because it is impossible for an enemy to
invade this continent by means of aircraft alone; second, because transoceanic
bombing is indecisive; third, because our own air force makes it more difficult
than ever before for an enemy to approach our shores.
However,
I believe we are faced with the reverse situation when we contemplate sending
our military forces abroad. Almost every advantage we have in defense would be
a disadvantage to us in attack. It would then be our problem to cross the sea
in ships and force a landing against the established air bases of our enemy.
Japan's
Aviation Held Lacking If one studies the situation objectively, it becomes
obvious that there are three great centers of air strength in the world today:
the United States, Germany and Japan. Up to the present time we have led in the
development of commercial aviation. Germany has led in the development of
military aviation and Japan has led in the development of aviation in the
Orient.
Since
Oriental aviation is far behind that of Western nations, one might say that
there are two great aviation powers: one in America and one in Europe.
Personally, I do not believe it is possible for either America or Europe to
invade the other successfully by air, or even by a combination of air, land and
sea, unless an internal collapse precedes invasion.
In
this sense aviation has added to America's security against Europe, and to
Europe's security against America. One might sum the matter up by saying that
aviation decreases the security of nations within a continent against each
other, but increases the security of the continent as a whole against foreign
invasion.
That
aviation will have a great effect on the future relationship of nations is
beyond question. But we in America are possibly the most fortunate of all
peoples in this respect We have a country and climate well suited to the
development of aircraft. We have natural resources, great industries and a
national psychology ideally adapted to the tempo of the air.
In
conclusion, I would like to say that aviation is to us unquestionably an asset.
It greatly strengthens our position and increases the security of this entire
hemisphere from foreign attack.
Lindbergh was a complicated man. A World War One aviator, he became, obviously, a great hero after making his famous Transatlantic flight. His thereafter suffered a terrible tragedy with the kidnapping and murder of his son.
His public image was, for many years, much like that portrayed in the Jimmy Stewart film about his famous flight, but his actual character is more enigmatic. He was enough of an America Firster that he's been accused of an element of sympathy with the Germans of the period, although he volunteered for service in World War Two and actually flew combat missions as a civilian when he could not gain reentry into the service.
He fathered six children, one of whom suffered the terrible tragedy already mentioned, with his wife Anne. After World War Two he fathered another seven with three different German mistresses' in post war Europe. His legacy is complicated.
