Joe Kennedy interview in November 1940

[walkitout]

Watching Countdown, Craig Crawford mentioned that in the Democratic primary in 1960 LBJ and Kennedy got down and dirty and there were accusations of Nazism.

R. and I went, what?!? and started googling like mad. Well, we're still not sure what that was all about, but we found this speech by Joe Sr., a speech worth reading and thinking about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kennedys/filmmore/ps_globe.html

There is a _lot_ in this speech that Joe got very right: the government never did shrink again post WW2; we never got paid back for lend-lease. And go Joe for emphasizing the need to leave the Pacific fleet in place. But for as much as he got right, it's quite understandable why this position torpedoed his career. And it should have.

Worth thinking about, especially when getting all cranky about the Iraq resolution (and trust me, I was cranky about it _at the time_, not just years later when cranky was popular -- I marched in two protests against the war in Iraq _before_ the war started). Having done that thinking, it's worth remembering that (a) Joe was an anti-Semite who was kinda hoping that the Germans would fix all his problems (Communists, Jews) at once for him and (b) overstepped his bounds in trying to make deals with the Reich.

I think the historical moral would be that a person could be forgiven for being taken in by some of this rhetoric (because parts of it were right) -- but Joe can't be forgiven for being who he was and doing what he did.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I guess I'm missing the point, or didn't see part of the speech, or something. Are you taking "national socialism" as being the same thing as Nazi? Because I was assuming he just meant that Britain would become less capitalist, as in fact happened, with the Beveridge report and consequent social reforms.

Not that I'm defending old Joe on all counts, mind you.

It's entirely possible, too, that I'm wrong and he did mean to insinuate a reference to the Nazis. The whole terminology problem is *huge* in 20th-century history. I remember my head absolutely spinning when my mother pointed out that what was going on in Russia and China was in no way really communist, any more than the Nazis had actually been socialists -- they were all just different flavors of fascists, really.

Helen S.

ole Joe

[walkitout]

I agree with you, that he meant Britain would have social reforms that he would probably term socialist; I did not take National Socialism to mean Nazi, altho now I'm wondering if I should have -- I agree, it makes my head spin, too.

Joe got pounded for that interview because it was perceived as defeatist/appeasement, at a time when it was going out of style -- fast. The later accusations of Nazism centered around several different activities and remarks which are not in that speech.

(1) Joe tried to meet with Hitler several times, and did meet with at least one high-ranking German official, who then referred to Joe in his report back home as German's best friend in England. I'm still trying to find out if he really did try to offer Germany a whole lot of bucks to not attack the US.

(2) Joe jr. toured Europe, including Germany in the leadup to the war (I think early to mid 1930s), commented on the anti-semitism being encouraged as a way to create a common enemy, unite and encourage the Germans. He noted that this was a good choice, since the Jews really did control all the banks, were the judges, etc. !! Had he not died during the ensuing war, and lived to engage in the political career his father had envisioned for him, I can only imagine the political hay that would have been made out of these journal entries.

(3) Jack toured Germany after the war, and after visiting Bechtesgaden etc., wrote that once all the hatred died down in a few years, people would remember Hitler as a legend.

Jack also wrote a senior thesis that Joe sr. had published as a book, somethingorother England Slept (I think Why -- referring to Churchill's book, While England Slept). Jack argued (apparently -- I haven't read it) that it wasn't really Chamberlain's fault. The Peepul as a whole were isolationist, and therefore the leader could only be held partly responsible, also, Churchill was regarded as a dangerous wack job prior to the war, even tho he proved very useful and effective during the war.

My post was really unclear. We found the speech when pursuing the Nazi comment and found the speech really interesting, but not as an explanation for the Nazi comment. The numbered stuff above is my theory for what the Nazi accusations were all about, but I haven't found anything contemporary with the 1960 election to confirm or deny. You got exactly what I did out of the speech: wow, for a jackass, he was really right about some stuff.

Re: ole Joe

[(Anonymous)]

I think what Joe really admired was power, plain and simple -- and in the long run, if that's what you admire, anyone who is ever willing to let ethics get in the way is just too much of a wuss. It's surprising he didn't do more harm, really.

Far more puzzling to me is how many other people, not obviously power-hungry sorts, admired Hitler in those days. Within Germany I can kind of understand it: all the folks who had lived through the dreadful poverty and inflation after the war must have welcomed better times and new ideals to live for, and not wanted to examine them too closely. But there were piles of people in the thirties, English and American and so forth, with no real stake in the matter, who thought Hitler was lovely. I suppose it was considered something like admiring Napoleon (who seems to me quite a bit of a thug, but who was widely held to be a hero).

Helen S.

Alice Miller's theory about Hitler-worship

[walkitout]

Alice Miller (_Drama of the Gifted Child_ is probably her best known, but I think her more recent stuff is better), who presumably got an up-close-and-personal view of all this, growing up in Poland, theorizes that when parents beat children and generally act like unreasonable tyrants, their children may well grow up to (a) be unreasonable tyrants like Hitler and/or (b) admire/love/respect/worship unreasonable tyrants. She goes into quite a lot of detail on Hitler's childhood, and the childhood of some other gruesome dictators. I find the thesis compelling, but not everyone else does.

I completely concur with your opinion of Joe re: power, and Napoleon being a thug.

It's sometimes hard for one generation's charismatic leader to be recognized as charismatic even by their children. I get Elvis; I never did get Frank Sinatra. I really, really didn't get Elliott Smith. Certainly, people in Germany in the 30s perceived Hitler as a charismatic leader.