and then made a tour of the editorial offices of the country. We have
seen Max Aitken bob in and out of the White House. I am particularly
glad you mentioned the house organ of the House of Morgan Foreign
Affairs and the Foreign Policy Association which is nothing but a pro-
English committee. Many of these people consider their American citizenship just a formality and act as though they were really Englishmen.
This Anglo-American tie-up has lines into the most inner secrets of our
Government. . . . Lord Cecil is a great friend of the Roosevelt family,
and when he comes to the United States, he stays at Hyde Park. Interesting point--the President's brother James was first secretary of the
American Embassy in London when Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister,
was the head of the League of Nations Association in Great Britain.
In the past Hyde Park has been sort of an English Hotel for visiting
propagandists." October, 1939
As a result of the artfully selected and slightly distorted news that was
fed to the American people, rapid change of opinion was going on as illustrated
in the following letters written a year later. Witter Bynner writes, "I am not so
sure as I was that America's changing attitude is due mostly to British propaganda.
Self-preservation is a prime instinct amongst all peoples; and there are too many
obvious reasons why we should be feeling that instinct for me to feel its stirring
is due to clever manipulation."
Dixon Wecter writes on Oct. 8, 1940, "Frankly I ought to tell you that the
continuance of my name on your mailing list is not, from your point of view, a
very good investment. I should prefer to see such sums as these bulletins cost
go to the British Red Cross rather than be wasted upon such stony soil as your
present correspondent. I began to disagree with you a good while ago. Just
a year ago I recall writing you that I was interested in comments on the international situation, but that I could not share your suspicions about the direfulness
of British propaganda. It is possible that your views have remained consistent
and unchanged; I know at any rate that mine are clearer and warmer than they
were a year ago. Your treatment of the Finnish episode was perhaps the first
major irritation to me. Then in the spring, after the German offensive swept
over Western Europe, your apparent admiration for men like Shipstead, the late Lundeen, and Rush Holt--whose speeches and views you helped to circulate--
left me with a dubious taste in the mouth. To my way of thinking these men,
both the quick and the dead, symbolize scoundrelism of the first order, rivalled
only by the instance of Colonel Lindbergh. I believed, and hope I still believe,
that you are honest and acting according to your lights. But I disagree with
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Book title: Getting US into War.
Contributors: Porter Sargent - Author.
Publisher: P. Sargent.
Place of publication: Boston.
Publication year: 1941.
Page number: 154.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may
not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.