Archive for the ‘Deborah Friedell’ tag
Letter to London Review of Books re: Friedell ‘Review’
To letters@lrb.co.uk
In her ‘review’ of two books about journalists and press lords of the 1930s and 40s (‘Everyone Is Terribly Kind’, 19 January), Deborah Friedell apparently decided to ignore what was in the books and give us instead 4000 words mostly about Dorothy Thompson, who I gather is a professional interest of hers. As it happens, Miss Thompson does appear in one of the volumes (Last Call at the Hotel Imperial) as one of six or eight central characters; however the two lead personalities, journalists Vincent “Jimmy” Sheean and John Gunther, are nowhere to be found, beyond one bare mention of each by Friedell. The reviewer gave even shorter shrift to the second book, The Newspaper Axis, by Kathryn Olmsted. This is mostly about Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere, and the American publishing family that included Col. Robert McCormick and his cousins Joe and Cissy Patterson. Friedell mentions none of these newspaper titans, and makes only a glancing reference to the Olmsted book itself.
Besides shirking her responsibilities as a reviewer, Friedell shows a poor grasp of American politics of the era, or at least those controversies not involving Dorothy Thompson. She seems to have written the following off the top of her head:
Lindbergh argued that it was ‘obvious’ the British were losing the war; indeed, they were destined to lose to Germany, no matter how much assistance the Americans provided. Roosevelt had recalled the American ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy, for saying much the same thing.
First of all, Col. Lindbergh did say on at least one occasion (to the America First Committee, 23 April 1941) that ‘it is now obvious that England is losing the war’; however he did not go on to claim that unlimited American assistance would make no difference to the outcome.That is Friedell’s own imaginative interpolation. Secondly, Ambassador Kennedy had not been ‘saying much the same thing,’ nor was he ever recalled from the London Embassy for doing so. To the contrary, President Roosevelt wanted to keep Joseph Kennedy in London as long as possible, lest he distract from the 1940 Presidential campaign. It was rather Kennedy himself who demanded that Roosevelt accept his resignation, which FDR finally did when they met at the White House on the 1st of December, 1940. Finally, as outgoing Ambassador, Kennedy testified before Congress on behalf of Lend-Lease aid to Britain in January 1941, three months before Lindbergh’s April speech. Therefore he certainly was not saying the defeatist words that Friedell wants to put in his mouth.
Thus, in two brief sentences, Friedell manages to misstate the historical record several times, as well as indulge in yet another round of demonization of Joseph Kennedy and Charles Lindbergh.
MVSB
New York City