"America First,” by H. W. Brands, is an account of two charismatic Americans who were at odds with one another. Until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt used his bully pulpit to counteract the propaganda of Charles Lindbergh and his fellow isolationists. Initially, FDR insisted that the United States would not send her young men to wage war against the Axis powers. However, Lindbergh did not trust Roosevelt, whom he dismissed as a deceitful politician who said one thing but meant another. After Germany invaded Poland in 1939, and then continued its onslaught across the continent, the question arose: What should the United States do, if anything, to counteract Hitler’s acts of aggression?

Lindbergh was adamant that Americans should not become entangled in World War II. He accused England and France of being unprepared for war and predicted that they would either negotiate a peace deal or be defeated militarily. On the other hand, as a knowledgeable and skilled aviator, Lindbergh supported the idea that the U. S. should have a strong air force to ensure that no enemy would dare to attack her. In any case, he did not believe that the Nazis posed a threat to America. FDR, who disagreed, yielded to Churchill’s pleas to supply England with arms and other much-needed supplies. President Roosevelt spoke eloquently about the inadvisability of standing by while dictators conquered independent countries and brutalized innocent citizens.

This work of non-fiction is intriguing and thought-provoking. However, Brands quotes too many of FDR’s and Lindbergh’s speeches verbatim, which slows down the pace considerably. In addition, except for a few passages, the author glosses over Lindbergh’s opinions on racial purity. Brands suggests that Lindbergh was a naïve idealist who meant well, but a study of the aviator’s life shows that he admired Hitler and subscribed to some of the Führer’s odious theories about non-Aryans. Furthermore, Brands portrays FDR as a skilled politician and superb communicator who intended to involve America in WWII, and was disingenuous when he said otherwise. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions.

4.5 stars, rounding up. Imagine, if you will, a small European country at war with a much larger, militarily formidable neighbor. The United States is providing that country with a large quantity of arms, ammunition, and other supplies, while some members of the Republican Party object to this on the grounds that there is no way the smaller country can possibly win in the long run, it's not our fight, and the military aid is either secretly a strategy meant to get America itself involved in the war, or foolishly a strategy that will unintentionally result in America getting involved in the war (and Americans getting killed), and conversely some Democrats argue that supplying that smaller country is the best way to avoid Americans having to fight that larger country in the long run.

Are you imagining Ukraine, fighting Russia? Or Great Britain, fighting Nazi Germany?

Certainly, the two situations are far from identical, and I wouldn't want to be Godwin's-Law'd for equating them. But it's fascinating to read about, in part because the narrative of WWII presented in American media or history classes is so compressed (or back-loaded) that it's easy to forget just how wildly imbalanced the war must have seemed and felt between the fall of France and the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Brands does a good job of putting you right into that time period and faithfully presenting the arguments of both isolationists and interventionists; for one thing, you do have to appreciate the point of view that yeah, it sure did look like Britain did not have a shot at a real victory, and backing them seemed a bit of a sucker's bet.

Lindbergh is quoted extensively (including from his diaries) and it's fascinatingly ambiguous whether you can consider him a villain. The aforementioned simplistic high-level history paints him as a Nazi sympathizer (when it mentions him at all), and his statements are weird - I think I take him at his word when he disclaims any conscious anti-Semitism, and yet his private diaries have some kooky references to Jewish control of the media - the weird kind of prejudice doublethink that a lot of people still engage in today.

Brands does a good job humanizing both Roosevelt and Lindbergh - and that means, showing that Roosevelt was not all angel, and Lindbergh was not all devil. I believe Roosevelt was right to believe that war with Germany was inevitable, and Lindbergh was, at best, misguided in thinking that the USA could sit things out, but it was interesting to note where Roosevelt was operating in bad faith and where Lindbergh or the America First crowd was operating in good faith. Brands sums the latter up nicely at the end of the book, that Lindbergh was living in the past when it would have been possible or desirable for America to stand aloof, while Roosevelt recognized, as Brands puts it, that countries get the foreign policy they can afford, and the United States could now afford to take a major role in the world, and the war -- indeed, could hardly afford not to.

If your knowledge of the Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt feud over American involvement overseas comes from Philip Roth's speculative fiction novel The Plot Against America, you are in for a surprise. The strength of Brands's account is that it is entirely devoid of presentism, and he helps us see the events of roughly 1938-1941 as they would have been perceived by Americans as they were happening. It's very easy to understand why a nation that had gone through the first world war would be largely opposed to meddling in European affairs again. And Lindbergh was certainly right about one thing - Roosevelt was being disingenous when he said he was going to keep us out of the conflict. Roosevelt knew it would take time to win the American people over, and on Dec. 7, 1941 he finally got some big help from Japan.

I'm very certain that Brands will get some criticism for going soft on Lindbergh, who emerges as a sympathetic, if naive character. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the criticism will be merited, but I do think that Brands didn't address Lindbergh's or the movement's antisemitism sufficiently, and the accusations of German influence over the America First movement are alluded to but not addressed. I don't think that Brands is saying the America Firsters were right, but for better or worse Brands is at minimum trying to lift the stain that hangs over the movement by helping us understand why they felt the way they did.

The discussion provoked by this book will be interesting. I'm looking forward to reading reviews, particulary those by historians.

H.W. Brands is one of my favorite authors. I've read many of his books and I was primed to enjoy his newest, America First. The setup is simple. FDR wanted to move America towards taking on Hitler. Charles Lindbergh, American hero, felt the U.S. had no business intervening in World War II after what World War I did. This is the story of a consummate master politician versus a man who seemingly had no fear.

The book writes itself. And even better, Brands knows this book is already written for him. What I mean by that is Brands litters this book with direct quotes (my favorite!) from FDR, Lindbergh, and various other people. I love it when a historian lets people speak for themselves while the author guides the reader by the hand. I don't want to hear what an author thinks about what Lindbergh thinks. I want to hear what Lindbergh said. I want to know the context. And then I want to make up my mind from there. Additionally, Brands stays laser focused. Yes, Churchill and other famous people pop into the narrative, but they serve their purpose and then exit. This book is about the two antagonists and it stays that way.

Brands' narrative is exceptional. I am sure of this because I am not terribly fond of FDR or Lindbergh and yet I was still riveted from page 1. This is not to say either is painted as a saint. FDR is still the political (conniving?) animal who won the presidency four times. Lindbergh is still a determined man who is painfully naive. The book made me find a new understanding with both of them amidst the greater discussion of American involvement in World War II. Brands presents them as they were in their own words. They both deserve that either for good or bad.

(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and Doubleday Books.)

This book covers two sides to the issue of whether the United States should be an isolationist versus globally involved country in the years prior to World War II. Lindbergh, along with the America First organization, led the charge that America should be militarily strong, but refrain being involved in the conflict in Europe. Roosevelt countered with a steadily progressing movement towards supporting countries fighting the Nazis in order to prevent a future war involving America. Both sides did not trust the other and firmly believed in their positions. Roosevelt won in numerous legislative and elective confrontations. The bombing of Pearl Harbor quickly brought a halt to the divergent points of view and united the country. This book was well researched and written as have several other of this books that I have read. I recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in the divergent views in this country prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

America First by H. W. Brands takes the reader back to the immediate years prior to World War II, focusing on the conflict between our longest serving President (Franklin Roosevelt) and the nation's aviation hero, Charles Lindbergh. In short, FDR wanted the US to enter the war against Germany, while Lindbergh was a staunch isolationist. The story is one most Americans never heard about and helps us understand the contextual pressures both for/against entry into WWII.

Brands does a very good job in presenting both sides of the issue, and in my opinion does so in a very fair and objective way. America in the 1930s was very much an isolationist country, having been frustrated by having to enter the first World War and seeing continuing political problems in Europe in the aftermath. While most Americans did not want to send their sons to war, Hitler made it all but impossible to ignore as the Nazis conquered one country after another. Britain and France declared war on Germany after the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939, but neither country was prepared for war as Brands points out. In just a few months France fell easily to the Germans and the anticipated invasion of Great Britain was expected to happen at any time.

With France gone as an ally British Prime Minister Winston Churchill lobbied FDR intensely for airplanes, destroyers, munitions, and other armaments. FDR was constrained and had to find creative ways to provide arms and material to Great Britain, such as the controversial lend-lease program that Congress eventually supported. One of the surprises in the book was the disinformation used by both the British and the Roosevelt administration to persuade the American public to support entering the war.

Lindberg believed America needed to be able to defend itself in the Western Hemisphere, but was strongly opposed to another global war. Lindbergh used his notoriety as the first man to fly transatlantic along with the publicity the terrible kidnapping and murder of his child brought him to speak out strongly against Roosevelt's efforts to move into war through his membership in the America First Committee, a group of conservative anti-war isolationists active in the 1930s and early 1940s.

What is fascinating is how FDR and Lindbergh challenged one another and their philosophies. There were newspapers and radio networks, but no television, no social media, no mobile phones. FDR would offer interviews to the press or present one of his fireside chats; Lindbergh would go around the country and offer rejoinders at America First rallies and national radio broadcasts.

Another interesting exchange is how both men viewed the invasion of Russia by Germany. It is quite possible that if Hitler hadn't started a second war on his Northern front that Germany could have successfully invaded Great Britain prior to 12/7/1941. Lindbergh didn't trust Stalin or the Russians, and saw the conflict as another reason for the USA to stay out of the war. FDR was not especially a fan of Stalin's, but at the same time was happy that Churchill had an ally to help in the European theater.

The book takes the reader on a chronological trip as both men do their best to convince Americans of their position. Of course, December 7, 1941 would change everything when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the US declared war on Japan. But it was days later when Germany declared war on America that FDR achieved his goal of entering the war and helping the allies in their fight against Hitler. FDR didn't want to also have a war in the Pacific but had no choice.

I don't believe FDR was a war monger, and Brands doesn't label the President as such. To me FDR recognized that Hitler and the Nazis had to be stopped, but Lindbergh was a loud dissenting voice that made his job of convincing Americans that much more difficult. Charles Lindbergh lost a lot of his heroic brand with a speech in Des Moines late in 1940 where he spoke out against capitalism, Jewish business leaders, and those who wanted war. Public opinion turned against Lindbergh for his pro-Hitler and antisemitic remarks, but once Japan attached America First was no more.

If you enjoy military history you will be interested in this book. I want to thank the author, publisher, and NetGalley for the opportunity to read an advanced review copy of this book. I attest this is my own original and unbiased review.

A gripping battle between two titans with diametrically opposed views, Brands shows the back and forth that existed between Roosevelt and Lindbergh in the run-up to WWII. Told mostly in speeches and in Journals, we see parallels to the politics today even as this was a battle fought 80 years ago,

Another winner from H.W. Brands! He tackles the divide between those who believed America would be best served by engaging with the world, and those who felt America should withdraw (both sides believing they were putting America first). One of the best things about this book was how Brands engages with both sides and treats them as more than black and white or good and evil. Isolationists weren't just Nazi sympathizers (though there were certainly those present), but often men men who fought in the World War and didn't want to see their sons repeat the experience. Subsequent propaganda and the myth of "The Good War" have obscured this division, but it was great to read a work that treated this period with the depth it deserves.