Ernest Lundeen casting his ballot in the 1936 election.
Ernest Lundeen casting his ballot in the 1936 election. Credit: Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society

WASHINGTON — When former Minnesota U.S. Sen. Ernest Lundeen was killed in a plane crash in the foothills of Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains on Aug. 31, 1940, he likely knew the Justice Department was investigating his part in a Nazi-driven plot to overthrow the U.S. government.

Lundeen’s secretary, who was tasked with driving the senator to the airport for that ill-fated trip, testified to the FBI that she found Lundeen in his Capitol Hill office crying inconsolably. The senator would not say why.

According to the secretary, “I’ve gone too far to turn back,” was about all Lundeen said.

The cause of the mysterious crash was never resolved. Lundeen, 62, was among 25 passengers of the plane, which also carried two FBI agents and another Justice Department official.

All passengers and crew on the plane perished. But miraculously, a copy of the speech Lundeen planned to give at a Labor Day event in Minnesota was found unscathed in the Virginia countryside, which was scattered with body parts and debris from the crash. It was not written by Lundeen, however, but by an agent of Hitler’s government who paid the Minnesota senator to promote Nazi propaganda.

That’s just part of the story that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow tells in an eight-part podcast called “Ultra” that uncovers a series of seditious plots to sow discord in the United States 80 years ago. The plots also included plans for a violent overthrow of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to impose a fascist dictatorship in the United States.

The story, unearthed while the nation is still trying to grapple with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, is a reminder that democracy in the United States has been under threat before. The story also shows how the Justice Department failed in its effort to punish most of those involved, and it was the American people at the ballot box who removed many conspirators from power.

Lundeen was not a part of the efforts to commit violence. His role was to use his talents as an orator – in 1905 he was University of Minnesota’s champion of debate and oratory – to help the German government.

Eric Ostermeier, curator of the Minnesota Historical Election Archives, said Lundeen would have given that pro-Nazi Labor Day speech found among the wreckage of the plane crash “with a lot of flair and what not.”

“He was very confident in his talent as a public speaker,” Ostermeier said.

Lundeen was also enlisted by German agent George Sylvester Viereck, because of his status as a senator and the perks that came with the job. Those included being able to mail out thousands of copies of speeches written by Viereck at taxpayer expense thanks to the Congress’ franking, or paid postage, privileges.

Having succeeded in partnering with Lundeen, Viereck eventually enlisted another two dozen or so U.S. Senate and House members to help him establish a mass-mailing Nazi propaganda effort run out of the U.S. Capitol.

Viereck provided moral and financial support to a range of virulently anti-Semitic and racist organizations across the United States. Maddow’s podcast reveals some of those plots Viereck and Hitler’s government fomented.

For instance, there’s the story of Charles Edward Coughlin, a Catholic priest based in Detroit. Coughlin had a huge following through his popular radio program and was a virulent anti-Semite and defender of the Nazi government.

In Brooklyn, N.Y., members of the Christian Front, a national organization inspired by Coughlin’s broadcasts, planned an armed para-military coup of the U.S. government. Other seditionists blew up weapon plants in the United States, killing and maiming scores of workers.

Attempts to destabilize and even overthrow the U.S. government, as conversely efforts to fight fascism by the Justice Department and ordinary citizens like Los Angeles attorney Leon Lewis, who with his friends infiltrated the American “brownshirt” movements and uncovered violent plots, may soon come to the big screen. Steven Spielberg’s production company, Amblin Entertainment, has recently purchased the movie rights to Maddow’s podcast.

How did a Minnesota senator become a Hitler ally?

There was a natural path that took Lundeen from a progressive Midwestern politician to a key player in Hitler’s propaganda war. It involved Lundeen’s passionate embrace of isolationism.

A  South Dakota native who graduated from Carleton College and the University of Minnesota Law School, Lundeen had a passion for politics. He was elected as a Republican to the Minnesota state House and in 1916 to represent a Hennepin County-based district in the House of Representatives.

Lundeen was adamantly opposed to the United States’ involvement in World War I and campaigned on that stance.

“He felt the United States had become a great power because it maintained its independence and wasn’t constrained by alliances,” said Ostermeier.

That isolationist view did not cause much of a stir before the United States entered the war, but Lundeen’s refusal to support the U.S. war effort in any way when America’s young men were fighting overseas eventually did not bode well with Minnesota voters.

“When American troops are actually in combat, virtually every member of Congress, every politician sort of makes a show of supporting the troops and even goes over to visit the trenches of the Western front and things like that,” historian Bradley Hart says in the podcast. “Lundeen doesn’t do any of these things. He, he sort of refuses to support the war effort. At one point he does try to visit the troops and is turned away by the military because he’s seen as a, an almost unpatriotic figure.”

The podcast describes an event in which angry constituents pushed Lundeen into a refrigerated rail car. He was not rescued until the train had traveled for 20 miles down the track.

While Lundeen lost reelection, he did not stop pursuing political office, running for state Legislature, governor, Minnesota Supreme Court chief justice, U.S. Senate and other offices. In the process the perennial candidate switched party allegiances to independent, then became a member of the Minnesota Farmer Labor Party, a precursor to the DFL.

He eventually won a seat in the U.S. House again, as a Farmer Laborite, and was accused by Republican rivals of being a Communist sympathizer for sponsoring the Workers’ Unemployment Insurance Bill and addressing a meeting of “Friends of the Soviet Union” at Madison Square Garden. No matter, in 1936, Lundeen won a special election to the Senate.

Although he switched party affiliations several times, Lundeen remain an isolationist and opposed U.S. involvement in World War II. That high-profile stance drew Viereck’s attention.

Nancy Beck Young, a historian specializing in 20th century American politics at the University of Houston who is featured in the podcast, said Viereck was on the lookout “for members of Congress who were susceptible” to his pitch, which included splitting the money Berlin was paying for the operation.

“There was a quid pro quo on the table,” Young said. “Lundeen wasn’t even doing the bulk of the work, Viereck was writing the speeches.”

Young also said Lundeen was “a dupe and a fool” but wasn’t ready to fall on his sword for the fascists he was helping.

“He was a fine player of the politics of subversion until he discovered the FBI was on to him,” she said.

Having succeeded with Lundeen, Viereck expanded the number of congressional collaborators, which included former Rep. Hamilton Fish, R-N.Y., and former Sen. Burton Wheeler, D-Mont.

These powerful men were able to use their political influence to prod the Justice Department to remove a competent, ambitious prosecutor from investigating Viereck’s operation and the slew of other Nazi-promoted plots to destabilize the U.S. government. The seditious lawmakers said the Justice Department and the FBI were embarked on politically motivated prosecutions.

Meanwhile Lundeen’s widow, Norma, kept up a constant defense of her husband and threatened media outlets with lawsuits if they wrote about the conspiracies.

Right after her husband died in the crash, Norma Lundeen traveled to Washington, D.C. to remove a file that contained all the correspondence between Lundeen and Viereck from her husband’s Capitol Hill office. She later told federal officials the file had been lost in a burglary of her home.

Ernest Lundeen with his wife Norma and daughter Joan in 1936.
[image_credit]Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society[/image_credit][image_caption]Ernest Lundeen with his wife Norma and daughter Joan in 1936.[/image_caption]
Another Justice Department prosecutor failed to convict the accused seditionists after a wild trial that featured 22 defense attorneys filing thousands of motions and the death of the judge, causing a mistrial. But the prosecutor, John Rogge, went on to collect new information about the conspiracies in Germany after the U.S. military obtained control of Nazi government documents.

Rogge was forbidden from making the new intelligence public, presumably because it contained new information about U.S. lawmakers in the pay of the German government. The podcast said President Harry Truman was involved in that decision.

The information contained in those German files leaked anyway. After Rogge made public appearances to discuss those findings, he was fired. But Rogge’s continued warnings of the fascist threat to the United States had an impact.

“The removal of Hitler and Mussolini and a few of their collaborators does not mean that fascism is dead,” Rogge said in a New York city speech in 1946.

Rogge’s campaign succeeded in a way his attempts to send the seditionists to jail did not. The lawmakers involved with Viereck all lost their seats in their next election.

[cms_ad:x104]
“The voters exacted their retribution even if the Justice Department did not,” Young said.

She also said that parallels could be drawn between the attempts of Nazi Germany to undermine American democracy and in the 1930s and 1940s and the efforts of Russia and other nations to sow discord in the U.S. political system now.

“It’s pretty stark just how much the events of those times rhymes with what we live through now, and continue to live through,” Young said.

Join the Conversation

76 Comments

  1. “There was a natural path that took Lundeen from a progressive Midwestern politician to a key player in Hitler’s propaganda war. It involved Lundeen’s passionate embrace of isolationism.”

    Oh please. So now being opposed to our involvement in foreign wars is equated with fascism? Good grief.

    It used to be that liberals were anti-war. But they’re no longer liberals, but progressives who along with the neocons are this society’s war mongers. (“What’s the point of having this superb military if we can’t use it?” – Madeleine Albright.)

    When I navigated a fleet ballistic missile submarine, we all agreed that the idea was to PREVENT war by acting as a deterrent to our adversaries. This is why we need divided government.

    1. Many folks, including me, are anti war but when there is an armed bully on the block, ” please leave me alone” doesn’t work.

        1. “On the block” absolutely includes Europe. Like it or not, we are a part of a global community. Our economic and defense interests are tied to Europe.

          1. The “global community” is not entitled to $100 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money. And Ukraine’s not even part of NATO.

            1. If the Russians win in the Ukraine, it will be a green light for China to take over Taiwan. That has two potential outcomes: 1. China ends up controlling 80% of the semiconductor manufacturing in the world and can hold us and the rest of the world hostage; 2. The Taiwan fabs are destroyed in the war, and the world looses 80% of its semiconductor manufacturing capacities.

              Either scenario would be catastrophic for the West. Winning the war in the Ukraine is essential to maintain our economy and democratic institutions in the rest of the world.

              1. And thanks to draining our weapons inventory helping a corrupt nation we have no agreement to defend, we would lose a war with China.

                1. Total nonsense. What’s been drawn down is ammunition for some land-based artillery assets. Don’t worry, the MIC can make more. I think I trust the US logistical officers somewhat more than you.

                  And where’s your confidence in the USN, and particularly our submariners? China appears to have more confidence in their abilities than you! If you are so obviously correct in your strategic assessment, why hasn’t China invaded already?

                  While I don’t think Mr. Schumann’s point is the main reason to provide aid to Ukraine in its battle against Putinist fascism, it is definitely being considered an important aspect of US geostrategy. Russia’s defeat in Ukraine deters Chinese thoughts of militarist aggression (to the extent they actually harbor them). So your opposition to our aiding Ukraine likely aids Chinese hardliners, too.

    2. No one is equating being opposed to involvement in foreign wars with fascism. The path Lundeen took was influenced and guided by his passionate isolation. Other isolationists took different paths and never became tools of Hitler, and certainly other supporters of the Nazis got there by their own different paths. I think the lesson to draw from the series is to see how incremental steps can lead one to a place they wouldn’t recognize.

      1. But the writer specifically tied his isolationism to his reasoning to support Hitler.

        1. That was the historical context. Many isolationists at the time were fans of Hitler (Hitler returned the favor – the Nuremberg Laws were based on American Jim Crow laws). America First was riddled with anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers.

          I can recall the time when Senator McGovern’s “Come Home, America” slogan was attacked as “isolationist.”

    3. Well, when “isolationism” turns one into a stooge for pro-Nazi activities (and payoffs!), I think we can say one has let their commitment to the isolationist “ideal” go rather too far…

      As for your military service, it’s remarkable to me that the Cold War turns out to be about the only use of the US military you now claim to support. No “isolationism” espoused by you then! And spare me the supposed huge “differences” between the 1980s USSR communism and Putin’s 2o20s Imperialism. (Leave aside that Putin’s illegal war of aggression didn’t exactly stay cold, yet that doesn’t raise your level of concern.)

      I’ll end by noting that if this fascist-sympathizing Minnesota moron Lundeen was around today, it sounds like he’d be arguing for letting Fuhrer Putin’s fascist government annihilate Ukraine on the altar of “isolationism”, too. So a cautionary tale, for those “conservatives” with the sense to heed it…

      1. If Putin or anyone else invaded the U.S., I would be the first (if not the only) among us to take up arms against him. That’s the role of the U.S. armed forces, to defend this country. Let Europe defend Europe.

        It’s always amazing to me how people who never served are always willing to use the military for their own political purposes. Madeline Albright’s quote was directed at General Colin Powell.

        1. Neither Kaiser Wilhelm nor Adolf Hitler invaded America. And I think you’ve aged-out of your military service obligations by now.

          And doesn’t your back ever ache from all the self-administered congratulations?

          1. Hitler declared war on the United States before the US took any official military action against Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm indulged in a number of provocations against the US, such as trying to instigate war between the US and Mexico.

        2. “to use the military for their own political purposes. ” Or, not to use it, but still give it shovels full of tax dollars to enrich the likes of Lockheed, Martin Marietta and oodles of other corporations and consultancies.

          I dread invoking the Martin Niemoller quote ending in “and then they came for me”, but I think that common sensical Americans and Europeans understand why challenging Putin by aiding Ukraine is the right thing to do.

          It seems Minnesota had more than one high profile Nazi sympathizer (Lucky Lindy), interesting story, I had heard about it from a friend re the Maddow podcast.

        3. Who’s arguing to use the military in Ukraine? Thus far we’ve sent arms & participated in training Ukrainians to use them. So far as I’m aware, nobody serious is suggesting we engage directly with the Russians.

    4. Such a clear example of the simplistic thinking foundational to conservative beliefs. It completely fails to acknowledge there are any differences between things like initiating the invasion of another country and coming to the defense of one that has been invaded. Well, maybe that isn’t wholly true. They supported invading Iraq and admire Putin’s actions but the idea of stopping fascists and autocrats has never been attractive to them. Seemingly because, just like the current batch of conservatives, they have always been more interested in overthrowing the U.S. government and installing their own autocratic/theocratic rule than assisting anyone under attack by somebody like anyone, such as Putin, who shares those ideals.

    5. The train of logic here isn’t THAT difficult to follow Dennis. Isolationism doesn’t necessarily advocate on behalf of a Fascist government, but obviously keeping the US out of WWII would have been incredibly advantageous for Fascist, and staying out of the war was the isolationist agenda. Obviously these isolationist were easy targets for Fascist recruitment. Can you point to some OTHER feature these guys all shared that might have made them so vulnerable to Nazi sympathy?

    6. I opposed our involvement in Vietnam. But as a staunch anti-communist I chose to join the military service that posed a direct threat to the Soviet Union and would have died in that mission if it came to that.

      I opposed our involvement in Vietnam because I don’t believe in involvement in civil wars or protracted wars without an exit strategy. But if we were going to be at war, including with North Vietnam, we should have used everything at our disposal to end it quickly. Yes, I would have nuked them.

      1. By that logic, do you also think it was a strategic failure by the Soviets that they didn’t nuke our troops?

      2. Dennis, clearly you did NOT oppose the Vietnam War. Your concept of opposition is obviously incoherent.

      3. Excellent geopolitical strategy during the height of the Cold War. Fortunately cooler heads were in charge. This is why having served in the military does not automatically confer credibility or heightened legitimacy to one’s views on national strategy.

        We can be thankful there was a chain of command in the USN and the lower ranks peanut gallery merely followed orders.

    7. “we all agreed that the idea was to PREVENT war by acting as a deterrent to our adversaries”

      Would you see trading a $5,000 Javelin rocket for a $2.5m Russian tank an effective determent strategy?

  2. Great story – thanks. Today, those who speak for Russia and against Ukraine have equally suspicious motives, particularly as they tried to overturn an election and install Trump as an unelected dictator.

        1. In what sense? It’s that obvious? Have you ever met people who “speak for Russia and against Ukraine”? Of course not. How about in the news? Nothing, unless you count rabidly partisan sites that read tea leaves and find coded messages.

          This is what’s wrong with extreme partisans. They embrace an alternate universe of innuendo and hysteria. There are Americans who support Russia’s war in the Ukraine? Are you now immune to common sense?

          1. Well, I wouldn’t be too quick to invoke “common sense” here, Audrey. Fuhrer Putin is likely delighted when elected US officials take openly anti-Ukrainian positions and oppose sending military and financial aid to Ukraine. Or otherwise undermine NATO’s efforts. He doesn’t need Repubs (and Fox Infotainment talking heads) to positively sing the praises of his fascist invasion, too. He’s happy just getting their (effective) aid and support!

            Obviously…

            1. That’s not what we’re talking about, and you know it. Zig and zag however you want, but no Americans are supporting Russia, period.

                1. For some reason, I’m just not sure that Audrey has reviewed and cataloged every social media posting in America’s alt-right fever swamps, populated by those Americans who profess to believe that Ukraine is run by actual Nazis.

                    1. Using freak (Americans) to disprove a silly absolutist statement is quite rational. But your conception of that word appears unique to you.

                    2. The “freaks,” as you so aptly describe them, are Americans. No rational person is proud of that fact, but there it is. They are Americans.

                      As far as Tucker Carlson’s support of Russia, there is a reason the Kremlin is using his show in their propaganda. It is an insult to everyone’s intelligence to pretend that there could be some other reason for it, so please don’t even try.

                    3. Let’s show Former President Trump a little more respect:

                      “Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies.”

                      Freak indeed…

              1. “A cursory google search blows your statement to bits.” No doubt you can find some hyper-partisan site to confirm your opinion. But take a moment. You’ve never met anyone who supports Russia. No one has said plainly and clearly that they do. What’s wrong with this picture?

                “I honestly can’t figure out if this is some sort of social experiment or a school project that you’re engaging in.” Why is this? I have been clear and concise. Why should non-partisan analysis confuse you?

              2. Please note we have gone from simply needing to demonstrate the existence of such Americans to having personally “met” one for their existence to “count”.

                Goalpost-moving, rigidity in thought, literalism and simple contrarianism reigns supreme…

                  1. I do agree I accused you of logic chopping in this discussion. That you think it somehow applies to the arguments being asserted against you is called “projection”.

              3. “Before I go—earlier in the show, I noted that I was rooting for Russian in the contest between Russia and Ukraine,” Carlson said. “Of course I’m joking. I’m only rooting for America.”

                Guess ya didn’t read the whole thing.

                1. It wasn’t presented as a “joke” and even the later “clarification” does not retract or alter his earlier statement of actual support for Russia. You need to work on interpretation of statements.

                  1. Because walking back an earlier statement that, in retrospect, doesn’t sound so good is convincing only to those who weren’t especially offended the first time they heard the statement.

                    Or those who fill their days by being contrarians.

            2. This reads like a propaganda screed.

              “elected US officials take openly anti-Ukrainian positions” This is a lie. None have.

              “and oppose sending military and financial aid to Ukraine” Another lie. 69 House members from both parties voted against the bill, for a wide variety of reasons. None because they “oppose sending military and financial aid to Ukraine”, but because they found the bill dangerous, impractical, or the details unwise or insufficient.

              “Repubs (and Fox Infotainment talking heads) to positively sing the praises of his fascist invasion” More lies. No Republicans or Fox commentators have praised anything Russia’s done.

              1. There’s little point in responding when you apparently can’t understand what I wrote.

                Nor is there a point in playing the “cite” game you desire, since you discount even the most direct evidence when provided. Suffice it to say you are massively ignorant of the statements of many members of the far-right Freedom Caucus.

                1. And since you’re not “ignorant” you should be able to cite. And yet you can’t.

          2. Republicans in the US House have announced their intention to end support for Ukraine. You did notice Trump’s position and alignment with Putin, and his followers are the ones currently threatening to end support for Ukraine? Obviously, under the circumstances ending support for Ukraine is lending support to Russia.

              1. Trump’s affinity with Putin is a matter of record. Trump Publicly repudiated his own intelligence agencies when accepted Putin’s denial of having interfered in US elections on Trump’s behalf, and there are instances. Likewise Trump’s hostility towards the Ukraine government for refusing to help him smear Hunter Biden is well documented, as is his withholding of aid to Ukraine as a from of blackmail.

                As for the GOP, you DO realize that the GOP is Trump’s Party, and that the Republican majority in the House recognizes Trump as their Party leader right? One of them actually nominated Trump as their Majority Leader. You’re not seriously claiming that the GOP and Trump are on different pages on this are you?

                1. You mean the same intelligence agencies that called Hunter’s laptop a hoax? Yeah, we can believe them.

              2. Some pretty serious intellectual dishonesty on display here as well, citing the very first bill to approve aid to Ukraine, which was included in a broader defense appropriation act, which progressives routinely vote against. Why not cite the later May 2022 Ukraine Supplemental Aid Act, which only Repubs voted against? I think we all know the answer…but I’m sure these extremist Repubs do appreciate all the clouds of dust being thrown up as cover for their actions (and almost certainly their actual motivations).

                1. The point we were discussing is whether Americans are “speaking for Russia and against Ukraine”. Now you bring this other stuff up in headlong flight. And I’m the one who’s dishonest?

                  1. Um, countering a point you asserted is hardly a retreat. Especially when it so destroys your narrative that you have no choice but to ignore it entirely.

                    1. I think it comes down to opinion. In your opinion, a Republican vote against a bill (you conveniently forgive Democrats) is “speaking for Russia and against Ukraine”. I find this on it’s face ridiculous, a gross distortion, gleefully passed around by hyper-partisans, and not at all the reason any of the Republicans would give or have given. You think otherwise.

      1. “…“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”…”

        You really do embarrass yourself at times with your assertions.

        1. You’re reading tea leaves and coded messages, just like I said. But there’s absolutely nothing there about supporting Russia against Ukraine. Unless you’re nuts, which is pretty much the definition of a hyper-partisan.

          1. Kevin McCarthy is the speaker of the house (just barely). There are no tea leaves involved when HE says House Republicans plan to cut aid Ukraine, and he says it in public… to reporters.

            1. We are discussing whether anyone is “speaking for Russia and against Ukraine”. Not whether Kevin McCarthy thinks we are spending too much on the war.

              1. You’re making a false distinction. Much the same way you cannot defund the police without emboldening criminals, you cannot withdraw support from Ukraine without strengthening Russia. It’s a simple and predictable cause and effect outcome. This isn’t about fiscal policy.

                1. You realize, of course, that they impugned Americans opposing the Vietnam War in the same way, calling them Commie sympathizers. You’ve finally done it. You’ve become a 1960’s Republican.

                  1. Touche, Audrey. I don’t agree with your conclusions, but it was a nice rhetorical touch. I remember those times, it was assumed by many that to fight international communism one had to be pro-Vietnam war. The anti-war movement won out and the country was lost to the communist side. Yet in 15 years international communism was dead. It didn’t require our war in Vietnam to kill it.
                    Today we consider Putin a villain who needs to be stopped before he can realize his goals of Russian empire, and whose success will embolden other anti-democratic actors. We don’t know if history will show the support for Ukraine to be the right strategy, but it’s more useful to see parallel between imperialist Putin and 1940s imperialists than parallel between Putin and Viet civil war combatants.

    1. People who speak against the corrupt Ukraine regime are not by extension speaking for Russia. Let’s find out where the $100 billion of our money has gone before we place a bust of Zelenskyy in the U.S. capitol.

      1. Yes indeed. I’m sure that Ukraine must be getting all those American armaments and ammunition from a third party. Not to mention the massive transport operations. Or perhaps the whole war is staged, like the well-known moon landing scandal. The corruption runs deep…

        Finally, the $100 billion in aid funds Ukraine through this fiscal year, so don’t jump the gun on this (fact-free) nonsense!

      2. “People who speak against the corrupt Ukraine regime”

        Says all subscribing to Rudy Giuliani group think.

        Try reading Marie Yovanovich’s: “Lessons From the Edge”

        And since you seem to respect the opinion of Veteran’s:

        Alexander Vindman’s: “Here, Right Matters: An American Story”

        And get back to me about the “corrupt Ukraine regime”.

  3. I have never heard this story…. But it is a stark reminder to us all that the fascists are always among us. And right now they are really ramped up again. Maddow & Spielberg will do an excellent job spreading the msg to the masses. But ultimately it is ‘the people’–the voters–who must continually tamp down all efforts by refusing to seat fascists in high level government positions of power & authority.

  4. I highly recommend listening to the entire series of Ultra. The first episode released in October of 2022 and the subsequent eight episodes came out weekly. It plays out like a thriller, fact can sometimes be better than fiction. The way things played out then, are very relevant to today. Can we learn lessons from the past? I would like to think so.

  5. Fascinating article. Readers who are interested in this story may also want to check out two books about a home-grown effort to overthrow our democracy (around the same time this Nazi plot was being fomented) that is seldom discussed in the history books. See “The Plot to Seize the White House: the Conspiracy to Overthrow FDR” by Jules Archer and “The Plots Against the President: FDR, A Nation in Crisis, & the American Right” by Sally Denton. (Both should be readily available on Amazon.)

    1. I would also recommend “Hitler in Los Angeles” by Steven Ross, about a private spy operation against homegrown and foreign Nazis in Southern California.

  6. Many of the comments on here are a good example of how complex questions of war and the support for war can become a reflexive exercise in who can appear more aggressive. I wonder for some of the commentators suggesting that if you are against military support of the Ukraine you are supporting Putin what they think of conscientious objectors. Are quakers, Jehovah witnesses, and other who eschew and consistently oppose military support or intervention in the pocket of Putin? Are people who opposed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of American intervention often goes south in the employ of Putin? Do people here support all the past arms running that America has done to various countries and forces throughout the decades, or only now?

    There are legitimate questions about military support and arms running to Ukraine, including the risk for escalation and a spread of the war outside of the boundaries of Ukraine, questions of right wing elements that are within the Ukrainian armed forces, as well as the question of a resolution to the war itself. Simplistic rah rah statements make for great internet posturing, and feel morally superior, but ignore a whole lot of issues.

Leave a comment