He also seems to believe that the three groups he cites -- -the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration -- -are in some sense colluding to get America into the war. He creates an entire scenario about how these groups reacted to news of the war in Europe by trying to get American into the war, and he finds that they used propaganda techniques to prepare the people for war, as if they controlled the newsreels, the movies, the newspapers, and radio and so could celebrate the virtues and glory of war while also denigrating the enemy with terms like "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," and "anti-Semitic." Money was also raised to get the country into war, though the money was ostensibly to defend America. Lindbergh speaks her to the men and women of Iowa and insists that the American people do not want war and that opposition is increasing. His speech is a call to action, not to enter the war but to fight against entering the war. He wants the public to express its opposition to leaders across the country and so to raise their voices against the war in Europe.

Of course, opposition in the country was more and more the real minority, while the majority saw what was happening in Europe and wanted the...

To do something about it. Much of what Lindbergh says in this speech is inverted from reality. There is nothing new about someone advocating a point-of-view to claim to be representing the majority: politicians do it all the time, with no evidence at all that they are right. Aspects of what Lindbergh had to say would have been especially galling to the public, such as his statement that the German army was stronger than the American army. He also insists that the country is not prepared for war, though he has also stated before that much money has been spent on preparedness by those who want us to go to war. Lindbergh gives no facts to support any of his contentions about those supporting the war or about how uneven the conflict would be in favor of the enemy. He merely states that the war would lead to "chaos and prostration," the latter term suggesting that America would be vanquished and so lie prostrate at the feet of the enemy. His claim that the war might be damaging might be justified, but his defeatist attitude about how it would turn out would not have been accepted by his listeners. It should also have been clear by this time that the isolationists were in the minority and not the other way around as he claimed.