discussions on about two terms. and he asked president eisenhower, why you will not run for third term? and the president answered him, it will be against our constitution. he said you can change the constitution because you're very popular. >> host: that's why i refer to him as a dictator. maybe by the standards of stalinist russia he was not a dictator but was a benevolent dictator, but by american standards he was certainly a dictator. and there's an illustration in the book of why i say that when khrushchev was being driven around los angeles, he saw a woman on the street dressed in all black, carrying a sign that said death to khrushchev, butcher of hungary. and he turned to henry cabinet lodge, who was his tour guy, who was the american ambassador to the u.n. he said, what is this woman and

what is her sign? and lodge said, well, mr. chairman, she is someone who doesn't agree with your foreign policy and your father said, well, why would eisenhower invite me here only have to this woman standing here in sutting me and lodge said, wait a minute, do you really think eisenhower invited you here and made sure you would see this woman standing here with this sign. and xour father said, in the soviet union she would not be there unless i wanted her to be there. so that kind of illustrates he was more of that dictator we are used to among our american presidents. >> host: so it's different use of this world. en we talk about this story of this woman that can be true, it was so much that he did not think that the president sent

her here and he don't understand american policy even if it was, of course, different from russia. because in russia, the khrushchev time, it was beginning of the demonstration and protesting. it was the wife of the ambassador thompson told me this story. went to demonstration against -- i don't remember. something near the american embassy and they're throwing eggs. and she went out and put her head out as the policeman. she was angry. when do you think we'll ever stop and he looked at his watch and he said half hour. so of course it was different so it sound a little bit insulting but understand it is different cultures. and we can turn to some other things now.

let's talk about a little bit serious things about the relatis between khrushchev and eisenhower. and we talk about invitation, there was many discussion that really -- the white house want to impose conditions. if khrushchev will do this and this and this, then we will invite him. it show not understanding khrushchev because khrushchev want to be treated as equal. and if you put the conditions of him, he would never come and maybe we'll go deeper in the cold war and the distant

relations. what's your understanding of the adjustnt to eacother because khrushchev didn't understand how eisenhower control his country. and the white house didn't understand how to treat your counterpart. by this happening now, too, i was very surprised when the administration said we will not negotiate with other countries until they agree with us. in that case, we don't need the state department. >> guest: i thoht it was interesting during the presidential campaign when an issue was made of obama's willingness to negotiate and mccain said we won't negotiate unless there's preconditions and khrushchev came here and there were no pre, which no one seemed to mention that during the campaign. maybe that's been forgotten now.

but what happened is that president eisenhower was eager to solve the berlin crisis. of course the west and the soviet union shared -- >> tell the listeners know the berlin crisis. >> many may not remember, but berlin was at the time, after world war ii divided between three western zones, occupied by the united states, britain and france. and eastern zone occupied by the soviet union. those were the four powers that had liberated berlin. and west berlin was communist germany. >> east berlin. >> east better lip, excuse me. stalin had cut off the roads to berlin in 1948 and there was the famous berlin airlift. in 1958, khrushchev had made some menacing remarks about

berlin and gave a six-month ultimatum about having some kind of treaty about the future of berlin. and the six months had passed and nothing happened. and the soviet union and the three western powers were negotiating about it in geneva at the time. eisenhower hoped to break the stalemate, and he hoped to do so by issuing this information to khrushchev to come to the united states. the invitation was written out and delivered to a soviet official by an american state department official named murphy. murphy was instructed to tell his soviet counterpart that the invitation had strings thatched that in the event that the talks in geneva resulted in a plan, in other words, if they came to fruition, then khrushchev would be invited to the united states.

unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, as it turned out, murphy either didn't understand or forgot to tell his soviet counterpart that strings were attached so the invitation was delivered to khrushchev without any strings attached. he read it and immediately said, sure, i'd love to go to the unit states to talk eisenhower and in the meantime, could i also travel around for 10 days to two weeks? so that's why the trip happened. and perhaps as you say, it's better that the strings were not attached because it probably would never have taken place if the strings were attached, right? >> yes. because it was very easy to resolve berlin problem with the united states recognizing germany, which is the subject of the international law and the

united nations it will be no problem. it was a problem that the soviet union and my father -- they pushed through the world leader and we have our allies ande have to beespected and recognized as equal and, you know, that americans don't want to recognize anybody as equal so they say no, all the problem as i remember is about who will check american papers? it will be east german official or it will be soviet official. americans don't know. we'll never show our papers to east german papers and they can do this forever. so i think that murphy was very good diplomat because i don't think diplomats forgetting something but in his mind that it will be better to our relations if khrushchev will come without any conditions. i thought it was really better

for the relations when they came. and when you talk about this long trips, it was part of diplomacy of the time. i remember each visitor to the soviet union have a long trip around the soviet union. they have to go to the lake and others. and i think it was very useful because at that time a where we were very far from the possibility to reach agreement, it was not very useful to sit in the white house or in the sta department and repeatinghe same word one from oneide and knowing what the other side will answer. we have several people -- they could do it forever. it was much better when you can look in the eyes of the people

understanding when they're saying there so mr. murphy, i think, was very good person on this. >> if did that on purpose, he did not mention that to eisenhower. of course, there was quite the tongue-lashing in the white house. >> in this case, he will defy and nobody wants to defy from the state department. >> that's true. now, when your father received that invitation, he writes in his memoirs that he was invited to camp david to talk to eisenhower and he did not know what camp david was. and he asked his various aids in moscow and they didn't know and they asked the embassy in washington and they didn't know either. is that true? is it possible that somehow they didn't know what camp david was? >> but i don't think that too many americans knew that and he

wanted to be treated equal so he was very precise looking on -- he did not care and he asked why they don't want to speak with me at the white house and try to bring me to some camp? maybe it's humiliation. and it came to his mind when it was first not recognized soviet union, then invited the soviet delegate to princess island and then they reported they send their stray dogs. so it was true -- >> it's a good example of how much both sides didn't understand about each other at that time. >> oh, yes. and now we're coming to the break and we'll be returning in some minutes. >> okay.

>> we're back discussing the peter carlson book "k blows top" when nikita khrushchev came to the united states and it's a very interesting book and i advise everybody to read this and we talk about funny stories but it was not only true of the united states. that it was very important because when we look -- when i

read about president roosevelt, when he traveled around the united states and looking from the windows and he tried understanding how people dealing, how they look in their backyards. khrushchev did the same thing, talking to people. the soviet union lived under the fear that americans can attack us every moment. >> well, we lived under the fear that the soviet union could attack us. >> yes. but it was discussion in the congress. it was part of this negative thing of democracy, how many cities we have destroyed, how many weapons we have. and the strategic air force until it's too late we have to attack the soviet union.

why understand iranians now when we attacking their nuclear sites and allow israel to attack this and when khrushchev toured this we're looking at the preparations for the war. before war ever go to the germany, to hitler germany, each second male person in the street will be in the uniform. maybe in the soviet union there will be many people in the uniform. there's no people in uniform in americ streets. >> is that something that surprised him? >> he never talk about this, but, of course, it was important, maybe not surprise but it show the atmosphere, it show the atmosphere that they remember this when it was in by travel by train from los angeles to san francisco and it was men with big sign freedom to

kazakhstan. and i remember this because i was surprised that america knows something about kazakhstan. >> very few did. >> and there was sign, welcome, khrushchev. and he smiled it was very -- but also it was the discussion in the camp david that creating the different atmosphereecause it was two leaders, last leaders in united states and soviet union who were in the war and w knew the war. and my father even could not watch the movie about the war because he couldn't sleep after that because everything in this movie untrue because war is much more dirty, cruel.

and he told me when i'm sitting, efforts in the front military consul and listening to his political comments counting the division until the first day we would lose 50,000 people, second day to have maybe 70,000 people and i'm sittinghere listening to them an seeing it. they are real people. it is young boys who sitting there. they don't know. the same with the president because he -- my father was not fully responsible for this and the president was responsible. i think it was most peaceful people in the world who were ready to fight back but they never wanted to start the war and they have their complicated relations, military industrial. can you talk about what were the discussions at camp david? >> well, they discussed, of course, berlin, which was what ike wanted to talk about.

they also discussed disarmament, which is what your father wanted to talk about. your father was eager to spend less money on armaments and more on consumer goods. and ike would have like to do that, too. both were wary, of course, of disarming unilaterally and they came to no agreement on disarmament, but i think ike -- ike revealed later in a personal letter that he wrote to mcmillan, the prime minister of england, that he thought your father was sincere in wanting to cut back on arms. and when your father returned to russia after this, he did cut back on the military budget, which was not a politically easy thing for him to do. but i think atamp david they came to like each other. would you say that's true? you talked to your father about

it. >> difficult to say they liked each other. i think that they -- i think they can trust each other. why my father so humiliated by the u2 fly when an american fly in the soviet union next year may 1st, 1960, and the powers -- they showed the plane and felt you betrayed me. but it was a conversation between relations of military and the funding. do you remember this that you wrote in your book? >> yes. as khrushchev and eisenhor walked around camp david, khrushchev said to him something like, i don't know the exact quotes -- but something like my generals have come to me and they say we need such and such because the americans have that and so i say we don't have any money and the americans have it

and if we don't have it then the americans will be able to attack us and find the money and i buy it and eisenhower said, you know, that's exactly what happens to me. the generals come to me and they say we need such and such and i say we don't have enough money for it. and they say the russians have it and we need it so i find the money for it. so it was thus the two of them realized this crazy escalading madness of the arms race. >> yeah, they understand at the times, maybe we'll sign our personal treaty between the two of us against our military. >> your father also attending a meeting with a bunch of capitalists in the new york artment of admiral harriman who was from a hugely american capitalist family. and when harriman had been

talking to your father earlier he had said -- your father had said that america was run by a small circle of powerful capitalists and harriman said, oh, that's not true. so he decided to for some reason convince khrushev that this wasn't true by inviting him to meet a bunch of rich american capitalists. and it was kind of funny because they all started telling khrushchev, we have no power. what we say doesn't go. if we ask for something, the congress immediately votes against it, which was, of course, pure baloney. and your father recognized that and said to them, oh, i guess that means i'm talking to the poor relations of america. and they all laughed. the funny thing to me was that they thought, i guess sincerely, that they really didn't have much power and that the capitalists were not lobbying for greater armaments which

khrushchev believed but the day khrushchev came out with a disarmament plan at the u.n., the stock market plunged particularly the companies that created armaments which proved khrushchev's point and a year later when eisenhower was leaving the white house, he made his famous speech on tv about the military indtrial complex. and how it was unprecedented in american life and how this combination of generals and military contractors had too much power and was exerting too much influence in american lif which is basically what khrushchev had been attacked for as naive. so they strangely agreed on that point. >> yeah. they agreed on this point and i think -- i'm repeating, they're the last pekple because when khrushchev was in power in 1964,

the military industrial complex took over the soviet union. it was not american threat. it was not even president reagan star war-initiative. it was bureaucrat who wanted more and more. it brought soviet union to disaster. i think many things in this country with antiballistic missile defense. i'm not talking about russian problems in europe. i'm talking in europe in large because you're spending more and more money because you think you need them andhen you fully protect yourself and then you're finding without -- >> and our armaments budget, at the time your father came here, the military budget was $40 billion. now it's $620 billion.

just a little bit less than for defense than all the other countries in the world combined. yesterday as we talked there was a debate in the senate in which the -- a large number of senators wanted to fund a program where the pentagon said no, we have enough f-22 planes and these senators who have factories in their state were trying to get them to make even more even though the pentagon didn't want them. ultimately they lostut they came close to winning. it shows you the military industrial complex is well. >> but from oversight, what is your feeling? they have similar background to old man with all their wisdom but from the other side, they have a mutual understanding but they were children of their time. and they lived in that role that was created by stalin and churchill with the iron curtain

and all this cold war mentality. what do you think really could reach an agreement with something sious or not? >> well, they failed to really ach agreement with anything at camp david. they didn't have much time, perhaps they would have reached an agreement if they'd been here longer. i think -- and i wanted to ask you this question because many people have asked me after reading the book -- in the book i say that when khrushchev went home, things looked good. the relationship had improved. he cut his military budget. he invit ike to come to the soviet union and ike was going to come. he aven had a golf course built for president eisenhower to play. things looked good and, of course, as you mentioned earlier webs sent the u2 over the soviet union. it was shot down, and that kind of threw a monkey wrench int the relationship. let them ask you the question

that a lot of people have asked me, and that is, if we had not had that u2 flight or if the soviet union had not succeeded in shooting it down, do you think we would have had a detente earlier? for sure if you will not send this u2 flight, no, i'm serious, because in this time because this overflying soviet union started just after second world war. and, of course, there was humiliation and for khrushchev it was humiliation that they did it and really that -- it was not only send this plane but also that the state department told after the shot that they will repeat this flight until it' in

your national interest even when the president cancelled all these flights. >> right. >> really, he didn't know how to deal with this. and here i am coming to another question. i was surprised and interested that the vice president nixon have his own objective that he was aggravated with khrushchev from the very beginning. it start with the kitchen debate where you show your famous picture that khrushchev -- that nixon point his finger at khrushchev. and i look for my own pictures where khrushchev point his finger to the nixon. it is part of this policy.

it finished peacefully because khrushchev has this humor and he didn't take this very serious but again, it was repeated and repeated in the united states and culminated in san francisco whe theyrought khrushchev to the empty street changing the road of his entourage. did not allow him to go to the disneyland and khrushchev asked him why and he said it's not secure. i'll go for my own and he answered that they throw the tomato in the chief of police and khrushchev asked that he hoped it was a fresh tomato. so we have this from one side and it was eisenhower and nixon. from there it was the mayor of

san francisco and khrushchev. i met him before he died in 2000. and khrushchev had told me that president eisenhower call him in the middle of the night and that dead son of a bitch, meaning paulson, that he destroyed -- >> simply by being friendly. >> and you remember what he told with khrushchev is arrived and going away and khrushchev was short and fat and he looked at him and told, where's your boss, asking my father. my father thinking another provocation. and he look at him and took the pose we're only pretending we

are really around all this piece. my boss showing his wife with roses and they change all these things and it was also with khrushchev the same relations where they don't propose they have to start the workers in the united states and my father saw that he didn't think he was serious. he was serious -- we will lose half a billion people but still we would win. >> that is one of the most chilling things i've ever read in your father's memoirs where he and mao are talking in beijing and mao says, i'm not worried about losing a half a billion people as long as we win. >> yeah. so it is many cases we are talking that the u2 flight, it was my own