race and led to many inequities. so that was one consequence of the 1990, 1920. >> host: paul johnson, are we still in the modern world or we in a postmodern world? >> guest: i don't like this term postmodern because it is meaningless. we are in the 21st century and a lot of things have happened since the beginning of the modern age that i describe with einstein, which have transformed the world in a number of ways. but some of the dangers that i outlined then are still with us. and certainly, the question of moral relativism is still with us. there are all kinds of people who want to bring out the stems or morality, which go counter to the absolute values of right and wrong, which are in try and for

instance in the ten commandments in which we've inherited through judeo christian morality. so that is one point. it's interesting, of course, that one of the lessons that einstein introduced when he was with his special theory and his general theory of relativity was he said every theory is a hypothesized and that means not just to be confirmed by observations, but it also needs to be falsifiable because if they can survive test of plausibility than it's much more likely to be true. your confirmation doesn't mean that the theory is true. but if it can survive, if it's shaped so that it can be falsified and it can be subjected to falsification test, then if it survives those tests

and we laid down the three test that i mentioned. then it's much more like you to be true. now, we get today in the theory of man-made global warming, something which doesn't really fit einstein's standards in the first place with a very vague theory, which is constantly being expanded and added to accommodate new information. and in the place, the people who support did say that it's been confirmed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. but it hasn't been devised in such a way as to be falsifiable. so it doesn't really meet einstein's standards. and at the moment, there's a great deal of evidence coming in to show that the theory in fact is false. and that was to be expected. if you're going to have a general theory about the universe, it must be made very precise. it must meet all the standards.

it must be falsifiable and those who hold it must be just as anxious to look for evidence that it is false as they look for evidence that it is true. so that is one lesson that we all should learn from the beginning of modern times and apply today. and we don't seem to be doing it. >> host: what jump in the beginning of modern times to the end of a history of the american people. and this is how you conclude that book, which is nearly a thousand pages. the great american republican experiment is still the finisher of the world's eyes. it is still the first best hope for the human race. looking back on past, and forward to the future, the auguries are that it will not disappoint and expect and humanity. and you wrote that in 1997. after the last 13 years, is that still hold true? >> guest: yes, very much so.

one of the things that i have learned through studying history in my study of history has embraced the asian world in the medieval and modern world as well as the modern world. one of the things i have learned is that if you have a society, which is truly free, not just in having elections but allowing people to speak their minds into do their work in an atmosphere of intellectual and academic freedom. if you have that kind of society, you are much more likely to survive because you are much more likely to produce new ideas leading to new inventions, new and better ways of doing things in better ways of increasing the general wealth and so the particular wealth of individuals. if you have that freedom, then you're in a much better chance than societies which haven't.

>> now at the moment you have the united states which does have that freedom. it has a very large number of entirely for universities to begin with. it has a free media. it has schools where freedom is taught and practiced and of course it is a free political system at all levels. the united states we are told is in danger of being overtaken by communist china. no communist china is not a free society. it is much freer than it used to be in the days when communist rule saw absolutely absent. but it isn't free and that you can always speak your mind. you can't always do the work you want in the way you want. you can't always listen and hear what is going on in the airwaves and so forth. but recently, there's been withdraw by google because they

weren't allowed to operate freely. and that is one indication of what chinese cultural civilization is like. now, although china has advanced very rapidly, i think in the long run the united states will stay well ahead and probably increasingly ahead simply because it has that kind of free society, which china doesn't. i would put more money myself on india coming up. i think probably during the process of the 21st century, india will overtake china in terms of production and productivity in inventiveness and so on because the indian society is much more of a free society than china. it's much more -- it's much closer to the united states society than china's. and therefore it has this precious gift of freedom from which springs the enormous material benefits. >> host: do you think the

indian example that you just cited could be perhaps because of his former association with the british empire? >> guest: i think to some extent that helped. i think the indian mind as much whenever an enterprising than the chinese mind, which tends to fit into certain categories. so that of course is helpful. but what britain did in the two or three centuries when it was running india, was to give india the notion of political freedom and above all intellectual freedom. i think we had a very big influence on the educational system thanks to the great historian thomas babington mcauley who devised it. we had a great influence on the indian educational system. and that is a very impressionist legacy, which we left the indians and which they have exploited and are exploiting to the full. so that is going to give them the edge. and i've noticed that although

china has leapt ahead in the traditional smokestack industries as we call this sort of productive mechanical industries producing consumer goods and sammy durables. on the intellectual side of the really high tech industries, india has tended to concentrate on those cities going ahead on those. so as i say, my money would be on india to overtake china. but i still think that the united states will remain well ahead of the field. >> host: paul johnson, are americans unique? we tend to think of ourselves as unique. >> guest: well, i think you are unique in that she's had a different history. you see, the european and indeed the asian ones, their history goes back a very long time.

and we don't know about the origins of many of them, even despite a lot of historical research. the united states is a different matter. of course where the indigenous people before the europeans arrived in the 16th century. nevertheless, it is possible to trace the origins of the united states from its very first beginning and to show how it evolved, what were its earliest documents, what were the key events that took ways during its formative years and so one? that in itself is a form of uniqueness, unique to the world. but secondly, right from the very start, there was this element of constitutional freedom and political freedom. when the founding fathers came

across on the mayflower, already while the mayflower was still afloat in the mid-atlantic, they held their first as it were constitutional meetings, in which they decided certain things they were going to do when they started the colony and massachusetts. so right from the very beginning, there was an element of constitutional freedom in the makeup of america. and that is the second element of uniqueness minutes. there is however a third. although it is true that the first settlers of the united states came from england, mainly from the west of england and from east anglia and they were very much english people. from a very early point in the evolution of the united states, they began to attract settlers from other parts of europe.

first in the netherlands and germany and so on. and gradually that settlement coming from the whole of europe spread and spread and spread until really by the time the america achieved its independence it was already very much a multiple society, coming from many different nations and absorbing the culture and interest in languages and vocabulary and ideas of all these different nations. and then gradually in the 19th century, its intake spread to the whole world. and that has continued aired in the united states still receives a very large number of immigrants from all over the world who quickly create very, very prosperous societies. now that is a third element in the uniqueness of the united

states. it's always been a country, which is not homogenous in that sense, that takes its people from all over the world and absorbs very different cultural ideas and inspirations. but it also management there was first called in the 1890's the melting pot system. it manages to homogenize to some extent these people so that it does have a common culture and a commonsense of a political morality. and that is a very, very important element in the uniqueness of the united states. >> host: welcome to booktv's "in depth." this is her once a month or a program with one author. this month it is historian paul johnson who is joining us from london. we want to put the numbers on the screens are you can participate in this conversation.

(202)737-0001 for those of you who live in the very slowly eased timezone or the central time zone. if you live in the mountain or pacific time zones, (202)737-0002 with a number for you to call. you can also send paul johnson and united booktv@booktv.board. or you can send a tweet that twitter.com/booktv. here are some of mr. johnson's books. as you can tell from the first 15 minutes we've covered and dipped into several different topics here at that sub one is about a thousand pages. "modern times" is another book. "churchill," this is his latest, a new bio on winston churchill. and then there's this trilogy of books that we will also talk with mr. johnson about. the creators, "intellectuals" and heroes. he has also written about george washington, history of

christianity. and the quest for god. a lot of mr. johnson's writings are infused with different religious thought, which will also talk with him about. and mr. johnson, before we leave america uniqueness in america in 2010 and want to read this quote from velasco, the former president of poland to you. mr. bolesta made this statement on january 29th, 2010 at a campaign event in illinois. and this is what he had to say. the united states is only one superpower. today they lead the world and nobody has doubts about it militarily. they also lead economically, but they're getting weak. but they don't lead morally and politically anymore. the world has the leadership. the u.s. has always been the last resort and hope for all other nations. there was the hope whenever something was going wrong, one

could count on the u.s. today we lost that hope. >> guest: well, that is one man's opinion. and i don't share it. there are times, there have been many times in the last 50 years or so when american leadership has tended to flag a bit. when it's? articulation or it? courage or it? perception. and there are times when it gets very clear leadership. for instance, under jimmy carter, i thought american leadership was rather flagged and lacked inspiration and articulation. but then under president reagan, it came back again in a big way and reagan led the world, helped of course by two other great figures, margaret thatcher and

pope john paul ii. in the three of them together managed to destroy the great seemingly impregnable soviet empire and reduced soviet communism to rubble. so that was the case of a resurrection of american leadership. it's a matter of opinion, whether they flagged again under bill clinton and then was resurrect it again. and whether it is flagged again under president obama. president obama has had a year or so in office and the feeling in britain, for instance, is that he perhaps talks too much and thinks too little. so you could say there is a flagging of american leadership there, too. however, underneath it all, i

don't agree that america is lacking in political or other variety. america is a highly religious society with complete freedom of religion and very flourishing churches and all kinds of religious organizations. and i don't think there's any lack of morality they are or is their lack of moral leadership. i think the american people attend to sometimes they make collective mistakes. but generally speaking, they speak out loud and clear on the right side. so i don't agree with the opinions expressed. >> host: , mr. johnson, how many u.s. presidents have you known and as a u.s. president cary almost absolute weight worldwide? >> guest: well, i've known most of them since mr. truman on

words. some i've known better than others. i knew mr. nixon very well. and your last president i knew quite well, too. the present one, mr. obama, is quite difficult to get to see and i haven't met him yet. i'm reserving judgment on him. but i think this is an office, which is unique in the world because it's the only office in the united states, which everybody votes for. so the person who was elected resident of the united states has a unique claim to represent. the nation is a very big nation of over 300 million people. it's a very rich and powerful and productive nation. so inevitably, the president of the united states is a very powerful figure indeed.

and the constitution of the united states does give him enormous powers. of course, he is to some extent limited by congress and by the judiciary, but he still has very, very large powers. so the president to the united states is a figure in the world that has to be reckoned as probably the most powerful person on earth. >> host: how was it you gotten to know while the president since president truman? >> guest: well, for many years i have been an active journalist , crossing the atlantic many times, taking part in international events, covering american elections and so forth. and so, occasionally one is privileged to be invited to the white house and to meet the president in person, which is

always a very memorable and dramatic occasion for an individual, humble journalist like myself. >> host: what other world leaders have you gotten to know? >> guest: well, over the course of the years i've met quite a lot of them. general de gaulle, the man who brought back screams from the dataset were twice. once in 1840, when france surrendered to the and he came to britain and put out that created the free french. and he saved france's honor. and then again in 1958, when france was nearly submerged in the algerian crisis and taken over by the army. general de gaulle once more rescued france. and it's very rare i think for any statesman to rescue his country twice over. some leading de gaulle was a

very important event in my life in a very privileged and experience. and again, i met general -- dr. eisenhower who we deemed germany after the second world war and rebuild germany with very, very important statesman. i met alcide gaspari which did roughly the same sort of thing and i've met others. i met famous and sometimes rather sinister cloud, it nikita khrushchev. and i saw him make his famous speech, in which to emphasize his point, he took off his shoe and hammered away on the wahlstrom. that gave an extraordinary indication of his rather savage determination and his willingness to believe that he was always right. so he was an interesting fellow

to meet, too. and i met mr. nehru who was the creator, to some extent, of modern india. and he was a very interesting person because he went to an old-fashioned english topic school as we call them. you call them private schools. he went to harrow and in many ways he was a typical old herodian. but he was also very much an indian of the birmingham class. and so, he was another very interesting person to have met. so in the course of my duty as a journalist, i've been privileged to meet quite a few of the big shot and that has helped me in my work as a historian. because to me the people who make history gives you interesting insights into how history is made and therefore how history ought to be

returned. >> host: did you ever get a chance to meet your hero, with churchville? >> guest: jeff, i did. and i was very lucky indeed because when i was about to go up to oxford. i was a young man, 16, churchill came to my hometown. he was going to make a speech nearby and he was staying at a rather exclusive little hotel in the town and the manager of the hotel knew my mother and he said, this is a 1946, he was then out of office, but he was the sole leader of the opposition of the conservative arty. and the manager said to my mother, if paul would like a chance at meeting winston churchill, if he'd be in the lobby of the hotel at a quarter past 9:00 tomorrow morning when he's about to set off to make his speech, then i'll see that

he's well-placed so is the chance to talk to him. and churchville duly appeared here do with lighting his cigar into light his cigar he had specially made giant matches. i've never seen anything like it. there were quite pieces of timber. and anyway, he was lighting his cigar and then he saw me and he came over and gave me one of his giant matches. and so, i was encouraged -- mr. winston churchill, to what do you attribute your success in life? and churchville looked at me and without any hesitation at all, he said, conservation of energy. never stand up when you can sit down. and never sit down when you can lie down. and he then marched into his limo and drove off to make a speech. and i've always remembered this. of course he followed his own

advice because he spent the morning as a rule in bed, but he wasn't idle. he was comfortable, but he was making telephone calls. he was dictating telegrams. he was the taking letters. he was receiving people. he was taping when he was going to do with the rest of the day. in other words, he was conserving his energy because he was laying down. but he was very act that the same time. and i think one of the great names about churchville and it's a point i make strongly in my little book is that he always worked very hard indeed. the whole of his life. i especially wrote my book to be read by young people. that's why i made it so short because young people are not always keen on reading long books. but i especially directed at young people. and one of the lessons i'm

anxious to read in that book is always worked hard, follow churchill's example. he worked hard all his life. he played hard he cuts he realized that exercise and recreation is important to the efficiency of your work. so he played hard as well as he worked hard. but always he was at it and he led long days full of activity. and that is one of the principal lessons of this magnificent life. >> host: while another thin volume is about george washington, the founding father. did anyone else have done in your view what george washington and winston churchill did during their political lifetimes? >> guest: no, no. i think one of the great strokes of luck, which the united states had was george washington. of course it has a fundamental

lack of occupying and exploiting a uniquely rich and fertile country, wonderful agriculture, all the minerals you could possibly want and plenty of space. so that was the primary stroke of luck, which the american people have had. but i think to have george washington was another very valuable and unique streak of luck. because george washington was two things. he was a general and he was a statesman. and he pursued the kind of strategy during the long war of independence. and it was a long very exhausting work. he pursued the only kind of strategy, which was open to the american people of the 13 colonies. and he won the war. but he then went on to supervise the constitutional arrangements

and when the constitution was drawn up and approved, he was voted into power unanimously. he went reluctantly perhaps but recognized he had to do it and he implemented the constitution. he made the constitution work. and it's because of his laying the foundation stone, not just of the constitution itself, but the way it was actually applied in part this, that the constitution of the united states has worked so well. and suitably amended, it's lasted a quarter of a millennium, 250 years or more. and all that is to some extent due to george washington. now, at the time, some people did not have a high opinion of george washington. john adams, for instance, was very critical of him and thought he was stupid and so on. i don't think these views will spare examination once you get

down to what george washington actually did here do with not a showy manned. he was not a brilliant man in the sense that he was having flashes of wit or intuitional sign, but he was found, solid, patient, he had judgment and those are the things you really need. so i think i can't imagine any other figure who could have performed those military services and those constitutional and statesmanlike services with a wonderful way to george washington did. so, just as we only great deal to churchill in 1940, so i think in the 1770's in the 1780's and 90's, the united states owed a lot to george washington. >> host: well, let's take some calls for historian gaddis, paul johnson. mike in tucson, arizona. you are first.

mike, are you with us? all right, we've lost tonight. let's go to boston. doug in boston, please go ahead. >> caller: i wonder if paul johnson approved the law in europe but a lack of your stories are having a skeptical viewpoint on certain aspects of the second world war. just specifically, david irving, who i actually considered pretty good historian and i'd be interested in these views. thanks a lot. ..

was, by the british electorate. and he was dum >> in 1945 he was reject by the british electorate. and he was suddenly dumped into opposition, and the opposition labor party was given a landslide victory. and when that happened, on that same sad day for him, his wife comforted him by saying, well, darling, maybe it's a blessing in disguise. and churchill replied, it appears to be very effectively disguised. but his wife was right. because not only did churchill recover his health in

opposition, he wasn't subjected to the strains of government and was able to good on for another 20 years. but he also had the time to write his great history of the second world war. it wasn't completely finished by the time he returned to power in 1951, but nearly all the work was done. and, therefore, he got this huge work finished and it was published early in the 1950s. this was the first great history of the second world war, by one of the people who had been a principal combatant, and he got his word in first. of course, hitler was dead, fdr was dead, and stalin was dead, and most of the generals and

admirals and air marshals and so ing for had not yet got permission to use the documents so their versions came out later. so, churchill got his word in first, and his account of the second world war, which is based upon the documents to which he had unique access, is imagine steeral in tone, and very long and full, and he had a lot of people to help him do it. he got his version -- his version became to a very great extent the accepted version of the second world war, and so he not only made history, but he wrote it, and he wrote his version of it. >> host: next call for paul johnson, michael in philadelphia, please go ahead with your question. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. johnson, it's an honor to speak with you i read your wonderful book, "history of

christianity," even though i'm a jew, greatly enjoyed it and recommend to everyone i encounter who is interested in the question. on a different subject, i watch bbc news primarily. do you think that israel in the way it is portrayed in the british media, gets singular focus on what is perceived at failings because of domestic issues, for political considerations having to do with oil, because of the historical legacy, some combination of these things. and will talk my call off the air. >> caller: that's a very long question. could you make it a short one and then i will trial -- tritones it.

>> the caller is gone, but why don't you answer the portion you would like to. >> guest: well, it was so long. are you talking about, is british a questioned country? >> host: well, what if we take it this way, and this might not be what michael was looking for, but in your most latest book, "churchill," you talk about the creation of the middle east, and you talk about winston churchill's role and the british empire's role, and it's a rather brief section where you talk about that. and there's a lot of -- there's some criticism out there about how brief that section is. but on the whole, britain's role in creating the mideast. >> guest: well, churchill, as i point out in the book, was unique in that he played a decisive role in the ration of not one but three countries. first of all there was iraq, and

jordan, which he created after the first world war, when he was secretary of state for war and air in the british government. he was decisive in creating those two arab states. but secondly, in the 1920s, he was, i think, decisive in making the state of israel possible, because it came under a great deal of pressure, a lot of pressure was placed on the british government to make it very difficult for the jews in israel to expand they're settlements and accept a great many refugees from europe. and there was a possible -- there was a real possibility that britain would withdraw the ball four declaration of 1917,

which made the state possible. there was a key debate in the british parliament which could have led to the withdrawal of that declaration. churchill, who was well briefed upon israel and the middle east generally, made a remarkable speech, which absolutely silenced opposition and led to the debate being concluded in a definite determination to maintain the jewish settlement in israel. so i think without him, without that vital speech he made, probably israel would not exist at this time. so, there you have churchill playing a decisive role in the creation of three countries, and to some extent in the present problems of the middle east.

>> host: in 1976, paul johnson wrote "a history of christianity," and in 1987 he wrote "a history of the jews." here is an e-mail we got. the world is going hell. the refrain of every generation about the world that succeeds them, is it true this time? >> guest: no, i don't think it is true. and of course, in any stage in human history, you can produce a lot of evidence to show that the world is going to pot, and that it is not going survive. but the world does survive. and we're pretty well briefed on at least three of four thousand years of human history. now, even before that we know quite a bit. but we know a great deal about the last three or four thousand years, and during all that period -- and it's a long period, after all -- during all

that period, on the whole, the world has become a better place. now, i'm not saying that we haven't invented new horrors and new sins, because we have. but if you look at it from the point of view of the average, ordinary family, whether in the united states or britain or anywhere else in the world, on the whole, their standard of living has increased generation to generation, particularly during the last 2,000 years. now, there have been periods in the last thousand, for instance, or a bit more, when there have been very serious setbacks; in the 14th century, for instance there, was the catastrophe of the black death. the worst pandemic to affect the world we know of, which in england, for instance, killed a third of the population and

setting thises back. but with that exception, standards of living have gone on increasing every single generation since, and what we have witnessed during my lifetime, and it's been very agreeable to witness it, too -- is that in large areas of the world, despite a very rapid increase in population, everyone has been getting a square meal. they have had enough to eat, enough -- they have some kind of roof over their heads. they're get something kind of health care, and they're getting a chance to travel around. now, that doesn't apply, ahas, to everybody, but the number of people whom it doesn't aemploy to at all, who are still in great poverty, has been dwindling as a proportion of total population every year, and one of the things we have witnessed in the last 15 years

or so is that the two most pop pop pop -- populace countries, china and india, have been able to provide a decent living for the great majority of their populations. that is an amazing fact, and and a very welcome fact, and i think it's one of the most comforting facts today. i like to think -- i was brought up as a child before the war to think -- we always had to think of the poor starving millions in asia. that's no longer true anymore. they aren't starving anymore. they are getting enough to eat, and they're getting a great deal more. i thought it was very interesting that quite recently, the market for cars, automobiles, in china, is now bigger than in the united states. that doesn't mean to say that china is richer than the united

states. but it means that the average chinese person and chinese family now has a chance of getting a car. and all that involves in movement, mobility, and human contentment. so, we are living in an age where material advances are really very comforting and very considerable, and we must be grateful for that. of course, where your e-mail correspondent is nearer the truth is over the moral condition of the world. there hasn't been much improvement there. we have expanded enormously in a material sense, but our morality appears to be no better than ever in the past, and i'm afraid that is true, and if we go back through history, and look at the time of george washington, or go further back and look at the

time of queen elizabeth and the armada, or the middle ages and the crusades, or back to the age of julius cesar, we have to admit the public morals on the whole have not substantially improved. there are still a large number of dreadful things that occur, and anyone who has lived through the middle decades of the 20th 20th century, as i did, must take a certain pessimistic view about the ability of the world to improve its moral standards. nevertheless, i am not without hope that this can be done. i still take the view that, on the whole, the world is a good place, and it's getting to be a better place. but we must all do our -- work our hardest to improve the moral standards, because that is what

is required. >> host: janice from kirkland, washington, e-mail in in your history of the american people, i was struck by your thesis that british colonialism actually was a drain on great britain, rather than a source of wealth, that in fact the cost of maintaining the empire costs more than the gdp generated from it. how do you view britain0s involvement in the current middle eastern wars in afghanistan and iraq, and do they have an economic advantage? >> guest: two different questions. first, did we make profit on the empire. i think you can produce figures -- and i have produced such figures -- to show on the whole we spent more than we gained by it. on the other hand, we did gain -- we did have a feeling we were doing a good job in the world. we felt we were bringing

enlightenment and education and all kinds of things things to hs of millions of indians. we felt we were improving conditions in africa. so the moral return, the return in self-respect, which we got from the empire, confiscated -- compensated for anything we lost in a purely material sense. and that, i think, applies to the middle east today. now, there's all kinds of arguments about whether we should have gone into iraq, and whether we should have gone into afghanistan. these two very important campaigns we fought with the united states. and certainly there is a great deal arising -- a rising tide of criticism about them to in britain today, particularly since there's been a commission of inquiry looking into the iraq involvement, which has produced some rather disquieting

findings. however, we have to remember that if you are a great power -- and britain, together with the united states, are two of the great powers in the world today -- if you are a power, you have responsibility, and if you think there is something wrong in a region where you have got interests, and you can do something about it, even if that involves using military force, then it's a matter of fine judgment whether you use that force or not. the united states constantly, over the past 50 years or so, has been faced with this dilemma, and american presidents, time and time again, from the time, for instance, of mr. truman, who had to decide whether to intervene in korea, on many, many occasions, perhaps 20 or 30 occasions, has had to decide whether to use force or

not. in the interests of the area in question, and also in the interests of the whole world. and sometimes mistakes have been made. but generally speaking, the american president has been correct, and i think this is also applied to britain, and i still believe we were right to intervene in iraq, and right to intervene in afghanistan. now, history may prove me wrong. and we can't say. but at the moment, on the evidence available, we had to do that, and even though it may cost lives, and even though it may cost a great deal of money, our position as a great civilized power demands we should act if, in the judgment of our elected leaders, we aught to act. >> host: john in costa mesa, california, thank you for holding. your on with paul johnson.

>> caller: thank you. mr. johnson, are you concerned with the situation in the u.s. where fewer and fewer citizens control and more and more offer the wealth of the u.s.? >> guest: well, this, of course, depends on what sort of statistics you take to examine, and i would have thought that in the united states, as always in the past, wealth is pretty widely distributed. i think one of the great things that happened in the united states was the policy applied almost from the beginning of the nation, to make land available to people who wanted to farm it. in immigrants could come from europe to the united states, and they could land in new york without much money at all, and they were enabled to buy land

very cheaply, and sometimes on credit, and to farm it. and that meant that a hugeing a cull agricultural industry was created in the united states, involving millions of people, and agricultural wealth was very widely spread, and from the savings of that agricultural industry, ordinary farmers and their families were able to invest in industry. so that, again, from a very early point in the nation's history, the wealth -- the actual ownership of american industry was very, very widely spread. so, that is something which is a central fact in the american economy, and in american history, and in the sense of the feeling in the united states that the people and the country are one, because the ownership

of the country is very widely spread. now, if it is indeed true -- and i'm not convinced of this -- that there is a substantial tendency in the united states for wealth to consen trait in fewer and fewer hands, there to be an overconcentration of wealth in a minority, that is a very serious criticism of the way the country has been conducting itself, and any american government aught to take important and fundamental steps to put that right. it is part of america's uniqueness, and part of america's quality, as a successful society, that wealth is very widely distributed. that must be continued. >> the next call for paul johnson is from brian in

michigan. please go ahead, brian. >> caller: thank you. and thank you, mr. johnson. one thing i do always enjoy is speaking to someone that is a little older than me, and i can always learn something. america's strength has been -- must from world war ii to today has been from manufacturing, and our way of pushing forward and figuring things out, as you put it. we asked our politicians today, as we look to manufacturing -- we have lost a lot of our auto industry -- how we can truly compete at 1.50 or 3.50 an hour with mexico and china. we just don't see that. we have lost one out of every ten jobs associated with the auto industry. can you give us a little guidance and look ahead? because right now we just don't see that. our jobs have been lost to the

new world order. we're glad that china is getting better and india is feeding itself, starting to, and china also. we're happy for all these things. we relish it, but we don't know where we're going to stand on this. even at minimum wage, sir, we cannot compete on these jobs that we have lost, and it doesn't look like we're going to get them back. >> host: mr. johnson. >> guest: well, i worry myself so much about the jobs that are lost to overseas competitors with lower living standards and lower wages. what i am concerned is by the jobs that are being created. that is what really matters. because it is inevitable that some industries, as they spread throughout the world, as the expertise spreads and the capital becomes available, that in the advanced countries like the united states, that these industries are domestically should decline as foreign

competition increases. that doesn't matter. so long as the advance power like the united states is moving into new industries which require less labor, which require more capital and more expertise. and i think the united states will remain strong and remain economic leader of the world so long as those three conditions are in place so long as it has enough capital which is freely available to go where it's needed, industries, to provide the expertise to shape and fashion and make expert these new industries, and, thirdly, where it has the freedom to develop these new industries. there are industries starting up in the united states today that

we don't know about, but which in 20 or 30 years' time will be world leaders, which will be a huge -- things like enternational business machines was once quite a small company and gradually developed and became very important and world leaders. again, in the software revolution and things like google, america can lead the world so long as it has the available and flexibility of capital, so long as it has the intellectual leadership and the freedom to enable these things to operate. i think, if you look at american universities, you will find all kinds of things going on there which are rich in promise to the future. so, don't worry too much' about

the jobs that are being lost in old industries. worry about whether there are sufficient jobs being created in new industries, because that's what america is essentially about. and so long as those new industries come forward and are pressed forward with sufficient capital and sufficient intellectual energy, america will remain a top nation. >> host: this is book tv venezuela in depth program, and our guest this month is historian paul johnson, who is joining us from london. here's just a little bit about mr. johnsonment he was born in manchester england in 1928. he fare was a head master at anard school, and mr. johnson graduated from oxford. he spent several years as the editor of the new statesman and was former lay member of the labor party in england and has been a member of the conservative party since 1977, and has been associated with the american enterprise institute

here in the u.s. what is your association, mr. johnson? >> guest: well, in 1979, '80, the american enterprise institute asked know come across as a visiting professor for a year, and i was delighted to do that. and that is where i did the basic research, or a lot of it, for my book, "modern times." more than that, the aei is a place which has close associations with government, and a lot of the fellows there have had important positions -- have held important positions in government, both in the bureaucracy and in congress and in ministerial positions, too. so when i was there, there were about 40 fellows, and if -- and

it was based on a -- almost like an oxford or cambridge college, and if i wanted to know something, if i wanted to know something about how the american system worked, i could walk along the quadrangle and find someone who new the angles and held an important position in the american government. so that was hugely useful and fascinating experience for me, and i have always been very grateful to the aei for making it possible. it was one of the most valuable years i ever spent in my life. >> host: mr. johnson wall a columnist for the spectator in london, received the presidential medal of freedom from president bush, and currently writes a column for forbess.com. in modern times, you start with

a psalm here. how to shot break the with a rod of iron, how to shall dash them like a potters vessel. be wise, judges of the earth. second psalms, verses 9 and 10. >> guest: that was i thought quite a good quotation to use for the opening of a history of the world, because the history of the world is the history of great shocks and terrifying events, and the rise and fall of powers and empires, and wars and catastrophes, and as well as long periods of peace. and i think it is very important that one should learn the lessons of this and that's why one writes history, and that's why i like people to read history. in the middle ages, history was

defined by the preachers as the school of princes, and that was right, and princes were taught history so they would learn how to rule wisely. now, in 21st century, history taught be the school of peoples, and people should read history so they learn how to vote wisely and how to judge their rulers wisely, and how to choose them wisely. so i'm all for people reading history, and that's one reason i write it. and also, i like to read -- to write history which is readable, so that people not only read history in theory, but actually read it in practice. that, of course, is one reason why i have written my little book on churchill. it's quite short. it's 170 pages, and churchill has a very long and rich and active life. but i was asked to write this

short book by kennedy who runs viking press in new york, and she said the american people are very interested in churchill, and not least young american people are fascinated and interested in churchill. and fortunately, young people, we find, are reluctant to read long books. do you think you could do winston churchill in a short book? i said i would certainly do my best and try. so, one of the things i do when i'm writing history is to think in terms of the reader. can i write a history -- can i write a history book which a reader will find is entertaining and is interesting and is unput down-able as a novel. that's what i try to do. and i think i am in a good tradition in that because there

have been a number of historians who have done this. gibbon did it and mccauley and some of the great american historians have done it, too. so i try write history which people will read because they find it readable. >> host: well there, was a criticism written by jamesman in the washington post. winston churchill made many huge blunders during his long career. in this slim but woreshipful new boyography, paul johnson wants to explain it all away and give us us a cartoon version of the man. >> guest: he can try and write that book himself. i point to churchill's mistakes, which were many, because he had to take a lot of decisions in

the heat of the moment, and you do make mistakes, and some of his mistakes are quite serious. some mistakes he made in the first world war. he was probably unwise to get involved in the gallipoli invasion because he didn't have sufficient power to be in charge and to run it properly, and he was blamed for that for the rest of this life. he made a mistake in india. he was against giving rule and freedom to india, which i think was a mistake. and of course he made mistakes in the second world war. a lot of people would say that the bombing campaign against germany was a mistake, particularly the bombing of dresden. i don't agree with that view but it's a tenable view, and there are many 0 criticisms which could be levied against

churchill. i don't minimize his mistakes. if you are running a world war and concentrating a great deal of power in yourself, which he had to do, and that's why the second world war was run much more successfully then the first one because churchill has suffered power to run it properly -- if you are running a world war on 20 different fronts all over the place, all over the globe, you're bound to may -- make mistakes. you have to accept that fact and press on regardless, and i'm sorry if the viewer thought i was writing a cartoon version. that's not the general review from the reaction i have got. if you are writing the life of a very great man who lived to a great age and was more than 55 years in parliament, nearly ten years as prime minister, 20, 30, 40 years in office you have a long story to tell, and if

you're trying write it briefly, then you have to simplify it, and people can easily say, oh, this is just a cartoon version. but i think it is better that people should read a short book than not read anything at all. and i think that there are more lessons to be learned from the life of winston churchill which apply today than there are from any other great man who lived in the 20th century, and, therefore, i think it's better to write a short version with all its faults and limitations and handicaps, which people will read, than to -- not to write at all and say that people don't know about him. so, i'm quite unrepentant on that point. >> host: vince in los gotos, california, thank you for holding.

>> caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. johnson, i want to make a comment and ask your opinion. i love my country, as most americans do, and most americans would probably be willing to lay down their lives to protect this great land. and there have been in mistakes in the past. america has made, but eventually american people get around to correcting the wrongs that are done in this country. well, getting on the issue of morality, before you talked about how -- i think it was the polish president who said that america is still strong militarily and somewhat economically, but seemed to be losing their morality edge here. i would like to point one thing out to put this in perspective. in this country, millions of people a year lose their health insurance, and millions more don't have health insurance, so in america, as far is a know, the only major industrialized

country that allows its citizens to good bankrupt and lose almost all they have because their child gets sick or they get sick. so could you understand why other countries may look at america as less than moral these days? >> guest: well, i don't think that's what most people would base their criticism of america on, because america spends a great deal on health, and it has on the whole a very healthy population, and it is leading in many fields of medical research. so i don't think that's how they were criticized america chiefly. to devise the perfect system of public health for a great nation of 300 million people or more is a very difficult thing. i'm very glad that president obama has tackled the problem, and i hope he succeeds in solving it in a way which most

americans can accept and make workable. but it is a very difficult thing, and nobody really has solved it yet. the british have -- we have our own system, which goes back to 1948, of the national health service. it's very, very much criticized in britain. the french have a somewhat different system which i will say is very much criticized. the russians have one, the chinese, the indians. it's one of the most difficult things facing the world today, because everybody wants not just to be saved from disease and unfortunate things that happen to them, bought to have good health, and good health is obtainable because of medical research and medical practice and excellent hospitals and other health centers. but it's very, very, very expensive, and it gets more

expensive all the time. as research intensifies and the practice and the instrumentation backs more complicated and expensive. so, we are tackling something which is ultimately an insolvable problem because it's changing all the time. i think that america is making efforts to get an he equitable system, and i don't think that is one way in which america is lacking in moral leadership. >> host: next call for paul johnson, bernie in brooklyn, good ahead. >> caller: mr. johnson, i'm glad you brought up gallipoli in particular. i read churchill's experiences, his version of world war i. i only have two questions. the first one is about gallipoli and the second one is about

writing history. in gallipoli, hi initial idea was to force -- label assets and to bomb istanbul and force turkey out of the war. the idea of an assault at gallipoli i -- think was originally his idea, and i'm wonders whether or not you can shed and light on his responsibility to the armed am am -- amphibious assault, and the second question is on the history of the united states. he has a point of view, clear point of view of how he writes his history, and i'm wonder,ing

with respect to historians, should they and can they minimizes this aspect in their writing? >> guest: well, the answer to those two questions are as followses. the first question, i don't want to go into the details of gallipoli, but there is a general principle here. churchill did not have overall control of the gallipoli invasion operation. if he had, it would have been better planned and more likely to have been successful. the government itself was weak because the prime minister was essentially a peacetime prime minister. he didn't really know how to run a wartime government. and he allowed the power over the gallipoli operation to be widely distributed between the generals, the admirals and the politicians and that was the real reason for the failure. it wasn't churchill's fault.

if lloyd george, who came to power shortly afterwards, and was a true wartime leader, had been in charge then instead, would have given churchill overall command of the operation, and then i think it would have been better planned and pressed through to a successful conclusion. that's the answer to the first question. the second question concerns the opinions and views of historians. i am quite clear about this. i think historians inevitably should have views and it's quite right that they should have views. you cannot but have views if you're writing history. you're bound to reach conclusions as to why things happened, and whether what happened was excellent or bad or indifferent. you're bound to have views, and i don't think it matters if historians have views, so long as they make it clear to the

reader that they have views and are expressing the views. that is my method. i always make it clear to the reader, as clear as i can, that i have got certain views about the subject, and i underline the point when i express those views. i don't claim an objectivity which is unattainable, try to be honest with the reader, and say i have views and these are what my views are. i thing so long as you are straight with the reader, is doesn't matter if you have views. you ought to express them but make it clear to the reader you are expressing them. >> host: mr. johnson, did you know the led howard zen, and who of some of your american historian friends? >> guest: i think mr. zinn was a

very bias historian, and i don't think he was a very good one. but, however, i think he made his opinions fairly clear. everyone knew that he was leaning heavily on to the left. so i think he was reasonably honest with his readers but that isn't a sufficient reason to read him, in my view. now, a good example of an american historian whom i respect was the late arthur schlessinger. he began life with a wonderful book about the age of jackson. i still think it's his best book. he then went on to write some very important books about modern history and the age of roosevelt and the kennedys and biographies and so forth. and i very much admired

schlessinger because he was right in the thick of it. he wasn't afraid to take office. he helped jack kennedy with his administration very substantially, and he learned about how government works, and how decisions are taken, and that improved the quality of his history. so, i think there's a lot to be said for historians entering into the think of things. i think mccoy was a better historian because he held office and served in parliament, and i like historians to have a spell in congress, or even a spell in government, because they learn a lot about it. and to revert to the aei, one of the reasons i found it so valuable is some of the people there had actually served in

administrations, and, therefore, knew how things were done. so, i like a historian to oscillate between government and the writing of history. i think that results in better government and better history. >> host: marian sends in an e-mail, how did winston churchill's relationship or lack of there have an influence of fdr and the u.s.a.? >> guest: you have to remember about churchill, was that he was half american. indeed in my view -- and i say it in the book -- the american half was more important than the english half, because i think his mother, an american lady, was the dominant figure in his genetic competition -- composition in his life, because after her husband died, she entered her whole hopes in young

winston, and helped him enormousfully allicins of ways to get launched in the world. so the american element in winston churchill was very, very important. that meant that he was favorably disposed towards what went on in america. he got on well with americans. he had -- i mean, he was a typical product, you might say, of the english system in that he went to a typical english upper class school, and he went interest the -- went into the army and a cavalry regiment, and he was the grandson of a duke, you have to remember, too, and he also had a kind of openness and egalitarianism which he got from his american genes, and this was very, very important. when he bowed to queen elizabeth

second as he did, his bow was worth watching. it was very slow, very stately, very humble, and it was very low. but churchill was not bowing to monarchy as such. he was bowing to the constitution. he was bowing to parliamentary history. he was bowing to english history as a whole. and in that bow, he expressed his belief in the system that he had inherited of the anglo saxon side of him. so i think it was natural that he should get on well with fdr. he didn't get on as well as he would like to. he often said that he devoted

more emotional energy to trying to manage roosevelt and getting him to agree what he wanted and so forth, than he did to anything else in the whole of his life because fdr disagreed with him out a lot of things, and he was all together much to optimistic about the good feelings of stalin, and of the soviet union in general, much more favorably disposed of them than winston churchill wanted, and when churchill couldn't get his way with fdr, and particularly at the famous yalta conference. nevertheless, any other english leader would not have got on so well with roosevelt as churchill did. their partnership was unique in modern history, and it was very successful one, and often when

i'm talking to english leaders, like tony blair or margaret thatcher, i'm often inclined to same to them it's very important to study the relationship between fdr and churchill, and to read the letters they exchanged, because that gives you a kind of guide as to what anglo-american relationships should be, and how the special relationship should function, and the special relationship with all its faults and all its limitations, is still the most important geopolitical fact in the entire world, and long may it flourish, that was laid down in its modern form by churchill and fdr together, and i always try and encourage british leaders to stick to that formula and to make it work. >> host: mr. johnson, how well do you know the queen, and what's the significance of her role in history?

>> guest: well, i don't claim knowledge of the queen. i met her only formally. but her role is very important. every government needs a top tier above them to complete the constitution. the united states government is unique in that it doesn't have this system, because the president, elected by the entire nation, it is true -- is head of state as well as head of government. on the other hand, to balance that, you have the division of powers with a very powerful congress and a very powerful judiciary, particularly the supreme court. so that's how you solved that problem. but in most countries there is a led of state as well as head of government. we have a monarchy. we're not the only one. there are half a dozen or so where the monarchy works well and sometimes it's even in our

times it's been shown to be a very useful instrument. the notable case being modern spain, where they restored the monarchy and seems to have worked well there. we find that the british monarchy works well. it suits the british people. they like it because it's old, but it's also refashioning itself all the time, and i think the queen, though a remarkably modest and unpretentious person, who never shows off, and who never is trying to put her point of view all the time, a remarkably mod test person, has in fact ruled with a considerable degree of wisdom. and we have to remember now she is a very experienced person. when a new prime minister takes office, he discovers that he has

to report every week, sometimes oftener, to a lady whose experience goes back to the early 1950s. who has been on the throne for half a century, who has known allicins of wars and constitutional crisis and economic crises and who has learned from them. so she is a great fund of wisdom, and i remember telling tony blair, just before he became prime minister, you make proper full use of her majesty, the queen. consult her always. bear considerable attention to what she tells you, because she is a great repository of experience and has a great fund of human wisdom. so i think the queen, though unusostentatious shoes, and

minimum who is prime minister in britain has to bear that in mind and pay full attention to it. >> host: rhythm richard in cast, you're on the air go ahead. >> caller: mr. johnson, i heard you speak with robert conquest about intellectuals intellectuat makes an intellectual. i was wondering if you can comment whether you think president obama is an intellectual and if you think he is intelligent. >> guest: i have written a whole book book intellectuals which i commend to you. i hope that president obama is not an intellectual because i define it as follow. it is someone who believes that

ideas matter more than people. well, ideas matter a lot but they don't matter more people, and i think if you go on that assumption, if you're running a big nation, you will make terrible mistakes and they could be very fatal mistakes. so i hope he is not an intellectual, certainly in that sense. i think he is someone who pays a lot of attention to intellectuals and that is fine. mean so long as you -- it's like what churchill said of economists. he said economists should be on tap but not on top. and i think it's fine for presidents to consult intellectuals and indeed to listen to what they have to say, and if necessary, read their reports and read their books. but they should be on top and -- on tap and not on top.

so i hope mr. obama is not an intellectual himself, and i hope he makes proper but not indiscriminate use of intellectuals in deciding how to do his constitutional duty at american president. >> host: in your book, intellectuals, some of the people you profile include leo hole city, ernest hemmingway, and lillian helmand. are you not a fan of intellectuals? in other books you have not been a great fan of some of these people. >> guest: well, as i say, they put ideas before people. a very good example was brecht, who always treated people badly because he was only interested in ideas, not in people. and satre i knew when i lived in

paris. he tended to be rather the same. he would make use of people but ultimately it was ideas that mattered to him. and i think that's a great fault, and i suspect lillian helmand was very much of the same kind. i think occasionally you get intellectuals who realize, sometimes late in life, that ideas should not take precedence over people, and i cite an example of that, edmund wilson who recovered from his absolute belief in ideas, and i called that a brand snatch from the burning. a case where a man was interested in ideas and realized that people are more important. people matter, and ideas should guide you, inspire you, help you, give you something to live by, but it's people that matter, and i think it's particularly important that the president of

the united states should be very much of that mind, that people come before ideas. >> we're about halfway through our in depth program. we're going to take one america call. and then take a little break, about seven minutes, and then be back live again until 3:00 p.m. eastern time. sherry in kansas city, missouri go ahead. >> caller: hi. what i'm curious about is you hold george washington in such high esteem, and we're taught that our founding fathers are old and outdated and their premiers aren't relevant anymore, and i'm wonder over the perspective of who he wins gets to write history, why the britains are more pride of our history than we are, and would that be? why can't american hold up george washington and salute him

and the britains are? >> guest: well, i don't know the answer to that. i think on the whole, the americans -- the american people have cause to be very grateful to the founding fathers. they were a very remarkable group. they combined knowledge of the world with knowledge of books, they combined all of the best that had happened in france with the best that had happened in britain over the -- during the 18th century. they were men of action in many cases. and they were men of decency. they were decent people. they had the right sort of notions about how to behave in the world and how to behave in government. they didn't agree about many things. certainly jefferson didn't agree with washington, for instance. or adams for that matter. but taken collectively they had

the right answers. so, i think america is very fortunate in her founding fathers. now days they -- some people may say they're irsvelte. i don't agree with that at all. if you read the papers of those days, and study the debates they held and what they said, if you read washington's farewell address, for instance, it's very relevant for today. it's got lots of good things in it. and an awful lot of what washington thought and felt and wrote and is very well documented is still relevant today. a lot of what jefferson wrote, what adams wrote, a lot of those people had things to say which still resonate in the early part of the 21st century.

that's why we ought study them and revery them. >> host: do you think americans know enough about their history, mr. johnson? >> guest: no. snob knows enough about their history. i think it's one of the weaknesses of our educational system. both sides of the atlantic, and the french have the same complaints, and even the germans, that school children don't learn enough history. as i have said, history was the school of prince in the old days, and it's the school of peoples today, and the more history they can learn at school, and above all, learn the taste for history so they go on reading it as adults. i think it is very important to read books of history and read books of biography, and the more history we know, the more sensibly we will view our rulers and help to correct them or help to encourage them. >> host: and finally, this e-mail before we go to break from atill la in towing ton,

connecticut. who are some of the leading intellectuals in america that you have known and we should know more about. insure... and i'm not sure that -- i praised arthur schlesinger. i think he was a very great man. i like edmond wilson, myself. i often read his books. and i'm -- i find his book on the civil war particularly good. there's a lot of americans today who are writing in certain publications. for instance, the new criterion. i get that every month and i enjoy it very much. i enjoy national review. i think that's another very good paper that i read.

>> i think there is some very good writers writing in the ball street journal today. somebody mentioned bob cod qwest was strictly speaking he is of englishmen but has lived in america for many years it always has very good and sensible things to say. he is another person i would praise and distinguish. there is no shortage of good writers in america are breaking about important subjects. of what of my reading is spent treating american publications and books. >> host: we are live with paul johnson. we will take a break of seven minutes then come back with your lives of phone calls and e-mails and

tweets. he received a presidential medal of freedom from president bush. we would say that ceremony also his favorite authors and what he is reading now part of finally mr. johnson appeared on "booknotes" in in 1998. he will talk about his writing habits that we will be back live. [applause] >> we struggle between tyranny the past 500 years and nobody has greater skill that paul johnson. his book modern times the world from the '20s to the '80s is a masterful account of the previous harm put it on by the ideologies of power and coercion. paul johnson shows great moral clarity and a deep understanding of the challenges of our time. he has written hundreds of articles and dozens of books including the history of the jews, the history of christianity the quest for

god and the birth of the moderate. obviously the man is not afraid to take on big subjects. [laughter] eight years ago he publishes three of the american people which dr. henry kissinger said was as majestic in scope as the country it celebrates. in the preface he called americans the most remarkable people the world has ever seen and said "by love them and i salute them such a tributem a man. our country honors paul johnson and proudly calls him a friend. [applause] >> paul johnson a brilliant historian and journalist paul johnson's writings have captivated it the educated people around the role.

to the defining events and ideas of the 20th century to the story of the american people, he has chronicled the shapes our world he holds a mirror cut in the special regard calling into creation the greatest of all human adventures. the it is states honors paul johnson for his landmark contributions to sharing the lessons of the past to inform the present and shape the future. [applause]

>> where do you write? >> where do you write? >> mainly in my a study which overlooks the garden and it is quite small and i have a desk with two electronic typewriters at it in the else shaped formation with a swing chair. of the first of those on the left to right the

name -- the main text of the book on the second i write to the source notes so i can do them at the same time by a swinging the chair that saves an enormous amount of time for the few bright the tax then come back to it and start doing the source notes it is a nightmare and a lot of writers do that i am afraid it is a serious error in that is what leads to a lot of mistakes but what you do it my way at the same time and you can do it on a word processor too obviously, that is the way i do it. also, my study is sufficiently small so that all of my 300 principal works of reference like dictionaries and dates are all within one arms reach. that is the way i write books. >> what time of day? >> guest: i can start as early as 4:00 in the morning when it is summer and a nice and polite and in the

telephone does not ring and you can work for hours did people do not interrupt you. also ibm a morning man and my brain seems to work better in the morning. some writers late often very late at night and i may bring him at lunchtime and he is not up yet because he was working throughout the night because his brain works best in the evening but mind works best in the morning of that is when i get the bulk of my work done between four and 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 that i have some lunch. i go wide right thing until i am tighter -- tired. >>cspan: are you a fast writer? how many words per day? >> guest: yes. if all notes are in order, i can do 3,000 words per day sometimes on a good day i

cannot it at 4,005,000. 2000 is a bad day 217 1/7-- per week? >> guest: is sometimes. are not absolutely put myself in a straitjacket. i do have targets and deadlines but if i am tired, i stop for you can always tell that because i have to think for words more than usual. if i am tired i stopped and if i wake up in the morning and something tells me not to write to but to take good day off, i do so.

>> host: we're back live with paul johnson, a historian joining us from london. we haven't hour and a half left to go with in depth. mr. johnson, who is karl popper? >> >> guest: he was an austrian who came to english and who talked in new zealand philosophy and died here not so long ago at a great age.

he did two important things in his life. first of all, he wrote a book called the open society and its enemies in which he identified the nature of totalitarianism. and contrast it with said nature of truth democracy and republican governments. that is one of the important things he did. secondly, he wrote to an excellent book on how science operates what is good science and what is bad science. and i think really he has had more influence on my thinking and writing than almost anybody else and one of my proudest possessions is a wonderful letter he wrote to to me when my book "modern times" was published and he read it and he strongly approved of the

book and of course, you lived through all of those years. and he wrote me this wonderful letter which i have framed and it hangs over my desk. in a way he is my favorite philosopher. i think he is particularly important today because it is a vice as to how science should be conducted and how my hypotheses and theories should be framed or substantiated or justified but is falsified birth all of that is highly relevant to the current debate of man-made and climate change. i think if karl popper's example and instructions and advice had been followed, some of the mistakes that are now coming

to light and discrediting the whole scientific establishment, would not have been made so he is an important philosopher of science and politics whose example and retains a are highly relevant today. and his book on the scientific method ought to re-read by all scientist whatsoever. >> host: paul johnson, we just showed our viewers your favor historical figures and writers and books. one of directors is mark twain and we have this twitter message cover your favorite author mark twain considered you're favorite politician roosevelt a revisionist work longer. >> guest: all opinions differ. mark twain was a man of strong opinions zero to his long life. some of his opinions are not very sound in my opinion but

no doubt if he was alive today he would reject a lot of my opinions to. he was a very great man and like many, he has sharp opinions about the enormous sufficient -- opinion summer right is some were wrong and sell more arguable. that is the kind of man he was. he did not like theodore roosevelt but i do. so we differ there but that does not stop me to enjoy mark twain's books. a few years ago the oxford university press published a very modest price complete reproduction of all of mark twain's books, i have them in my library in london. and i read them constantly. i get to enormous enjoyment

he is best known for "huckleberry finn" which is one of the greatest books in whole of american literature and i suppose it is his best book. but he roche many other good books and shorter essays and other little entertaining notes. so i salute to mark twain but that does not mean i have to agree with all of his opinions particularly with my favorite president come with the door roosevelt. >> host: why is the door rose about your favorite president? >> guest: net six good reasons. first of all, he was say very active man always in the saddle or on the move were doing things. he was a very hard-working man. like winston churchill. second, he did not take anything for granted pervez a young man he wanted to see for himself and went to the

far west through the badlands of dakota and all those places and saw it for himself. number three, he thought that war was a great evil but also sometimes necessary and determined to see more at close quarters so he took an important part in the ku been a liberation movement and joining that campaign and that was the third reason. number four, he had a strong idea of american leadership in the world his most famous saying was speak softly but carry a big stick. that is always very good advice for an american president, that he should be

modest with his use of adjectives by careful with his choice of words. never grossed or threaten without absolute compelling necessity. about the same time america should always have the physical means of by teeing for what it believes to be right to and putting down aborted believes to be wrong. speak softly and carry a big stick. finally coming he believed in the open air and always been this much time as he possibly could in the open air. and founded or expanded the american and public park system on a very large scale. which i think is due to a great extent to his leadership and example what he did win u.s. president america has these magnificent public parks and

so much of the american and wilderness is in the public domain and can be visited and enjoyed by all american citizens and indeed from the foreigners to come to america. those of the reasons why i like theodore roosevelt. but perhaps, one also committed to add a final reason, it is that he got such joy and pleasure out of life. an example to all of us. but i may say that he did not always approve of my other great to favorite to winston churchill. he said they have a lot did come in and you would have thought because he was somewhat senior but he met him when churchill came to america and he said that winston churchill has no

manners broke he does not stand up when a lady enters the room. he was a bit critical part bride daresay churchill was critical of him as well as. >> host: thank you for halt -- holding tennessee your of that era. >> caller: mr. johnson, i read history of the american people a few years ago and as i recall you were someone critical of fdr with his treatment of the depression-era. how would you compare how the president is currently treating were following up the depression and? >> of course, you have to remember that fdr was operating keynesian was the favorite sorts of solution middle grainger left-wing economists. he was pre-keynesian in that respect. keynes was active it and had

written a number of books already come a but with employment interest and money is the foundation of keynesian theory were not published until 1936. when roosevelt began in 1933, he did not have gains as a bible. but in some respects he carried out the keynesian policies. i am extremely critical of fdr, i think in a way, he prolong to the depression and with one of the things i will illustrate in my book i think if he had been less of a pro keynesian and i say that of course, it really came after, and more of and

a conventional economist and had allowed the storm to blow itself out, probably the united states would have come out of recession and 1933 or 34, certainly by 35 per crowd as it was, the american economy pop/rock to prosperity only the beginning of the second world war. that is when the dow jones reached the three 2% levels with the armament. if it was a long depression and i think fdr of was somewhat responsible. and i am glad to say this deal is confirmed by the latest really big book to appear about to fdr on the recession by a brilliant

young economist and her book is called "the forgotten man" about roosevelt's treatment of the recession. and it is very much the same sort of view based upon the latest research. i stick by my view of fdr and the great depression. >> host: you write too quite a bit in "modern times" of john maynard keynes and his influence. could do give us a little thumbnail? >> ganes it is often quoted and often misquoted and often misunderstood. he is now presented as somebody who says you can spend your way out of favor recession or depression but that is only a half truth.

certainly keynes believe it is not wrong in a time of depression or recession to run a budget deficit. but that does not mean he was a profligate spender at all cost. he was a much more of a sensible economist than people realize. i wish that those who quote to keynes as the authority for almost limitless spending would actually read his works because they will find there is no justification for them. now those in the united kingdom under gordon brown and the united states under barack obama, there has been an explosion of what i would call will occur keynesian is some two say the

misinterpretation of keynesian is them in the huge deficit spending i think in both cases it has gone too far and i think this will delay the resumption of a fully fledged economic expansion. in that respect mccain slauson has been misinterpreted and if keynes were alive today i think he would take the lead in criticizing these huge government deficits which will be a burden to our children and great-grandchildren. i think he would be extremely critical of the spending policies both the barack obama and of course, gordon brown. >> host: you are on with paul johnson please go ahead >> thank you mr. johnson and four years' time to have any insights regarding the

current economic crisis which are of the jurors could drop on? >> do i have any economic insights to give me an idea as to what ought to to be done? i take the view and in a way it is rather old-fashioned i suppose that running an economy is not to all that different to running a family's finances. people seem to think because the government can print money come it can operate in quite a different world but the same laws apply to our country as to a family. if you spend too much and continue to spend too much and considerably more than what you are earning, sooner or later you'll get to into

trouble. the likelihood is it will be sooner rather than the tour. there is not all that much difference. it is perfectly true the government can print money and get away with big debt -- deficits for some time but it cannot print money indefinitely or get away with deficits in definitely but sooner or later there is a financial reckoning therefore i think it is very good for a president to say to himself as he sits in the oval office i can do all of these things for the economy which do not apply to family life but at the same time, would i do this in my own family finances? if the answer is no, then he should think again and take a bit more advice before authorizing enormous spending plans.

that is my advice to mr. obama and also the advice i give to gordon brown but he will not take it of course, of being a very dogmatic fellow but i hope that mr. obama is open night minded enough to take the price to be careful of the deficits and of the big spending he does not want to go down in history as the last of the big spenders. >> host: fort pierce florida go-ahead. >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i would like to hear your view on how winston churchill would have reacted immediately after 9/11. >> i think he would have taken roughly the same view that mr. bush did. that this was a challenge to american in a sovereignty and a challenge to america's way of life and a deadly

challenge to the american people and the very gravest you should be taken of it and the most fundamental of serious efforts made to counteract. i think he would have declared a state of emergency and take appropriate measures. but if he were in power for some time, he would have already taken many of those measures that have since been taken but certainly he would have regarded islamic fundamentalism as a mortal threat to the american people and to the american stage and would have taken whatever measures were in his power. >> host: we have to e meadows that came in and although i will read them both very quickly. this islamic ascendency a real threat to western society?

howard you view the increasing assertiveness of that in europe and the land? >> guest: they are very closely related point to think the islamic threat is serious from a demographic point* of view. the islam and -- islamiyah is, those who settled in western europe where they have the advantage of public health services and hospitals have a very high birthrate and several have told me we're weak militarily at the moment but we intend to conquer you demographically. they have a definite policy of having as many children as they possibly can. as for the assertiveness, there is no doubt about that it is very

deeply rooted america values and british the views are threatened and european values and in some european countries that already exercise a good deal of power. however, this has to be borne in mind with the long history of islam. . .

you have to listen to them. and they will, in turn, listen to you. i think the lesson of history is that hard work and honesty and moderation and common sense and decency prevail in the end over militancy, and i think that lesson will be learned, so that possibly within the next ten to 15 years, islam may begin to present a quite different face. in that case, the period of crisis and danger will be over. of course, if the fundamentalism

continues, sooner or later there are going to be very drastic events, but i believe that the west, having freedom on its side, will emerge from those testing times with its essential culture and freedom intact. so i'm not too gloomy about it. >> host: william, you're on with mr. johnson. >> mr. johnson, i have been listening to your program for the last hour or so and one thing you said was -- [inaudible] two short questions, the fun was in reference to i'm a veteran and i was drafted. what's your opinion on the draft? second question is -- this is black history month. what's your opinion of witson,

an african-american historian. >> guest: i wouldn't like to express an opinion on that. on the question of long and short books, i think there's room for both. i have written some very long books in my life, and i now write short books. i'm getting quite old. i'm 81. i will be 82 next year. and i now only write short books. in the past i have written books on big subjects. the history of the jews, for instance. it's impossible to write a good history of the jews which isn't a long book. again, my history of the modern world is a long book because there's a great deal to describe and a great many events to cover, so it had to be long. and equally, "a history of the

american people. " if it's going to be a true history and a useful history, it has to be long, and mine is well over a thousand pages, because a lot of the most interesting things about the history of the american people lies in the detail, and that detail has to be described. so there is a strong case for long books on important, big subjects. but equally, because of the patience of human beings, not least the impatience of young people, there's a case for short books. i have written a number of short books in recent years. one on george washington. one on the renaissance, and here is a short life of winston churchill, because i want to bring in to the churchill story, young people who are impatient with long books, but who will read a short, readable book, and i want to make them churchill fans, as i am, and to learn the

important lessons from churchill's life, which will be of use to them in their life. and, therefore, i think there's a case for long books and a case for short books i used to write the first, and now i write the second. >> host: and in fact, here's "modern times," "a history of the jews." colin sends us a team. mr. johnson, why is the dictionary listed as one of your favorite books? >> guest: it's an essential book. i don't know if you're familiar with the oxford english dictionary. it's based upon historical principles. so if you look up a word, you not only gate definition of the word -- get a definition of the word, or a number of definitions

if it's used in other senses, then you get a history of the word, and when it was first used, and that history includes a lot of quotations from famous authors, from jeffrey chaucer, and shakespeare and modern times through dickens and zachary, mark twain, and its uses in the 20th century. for instance, it's interesting that -- and i learned this from the oxford dictionary. the first use of the word crunch was the work of winston churchill. he used it in about 1930 in this new sense. he talked of the crunch coming in foreign affairs. well, that was a sense in which

we now use it today, as in credit crunch and so on. so, one learned from that that they of the word goes back to 1930, and the originate for of the use was winston churchill. i find that kind of information fascinating, and that's the kind of information of which the oxford english dictionary, in its full 20 volume set, a surprise on every page. so it's very close to my desk. i can reach out and pull out a volume and consult it when i'm writing an article or a book, and i always learn something from it. it's a huge mine of information, and that's one of the reasons it's one of my favorite books. >> host: steve in kansas city. >> caller: let me first compliment mr. johnson on his incredible accomplishment in "history of the american people" i fine it to be written by an

englishman, but it reads like a motivational novel. i have one question, and i'm glad to be able to ask the question. i fine that mr. johnson treated president harding a lot more favorably than most people have written about him. i think of him as one of the founders of the capitalism that we're seeing so much today. his favorite friends got special deals through relationships with the government. and so i would just like to ask mr. johnson if he still has what seemed to be at least in reading the book, more sympathetic view toward harding than we normally would here in the united states. >> guest: yes, die. i think quite a lot of the americans who go into harding's record actually take the same view as i do. the trouble with harding was he was a soft-hearted man, and he

wasn't tough enough with his friends. it wasn't him. so he didn't himself do anything wicked. it was his friends, and he wasn't discriminating enough with his friend. in some way he was a very old-fashioned month, and -- man, and he ran an old-fashioned campaign. people came to him, they queued up and asked him questions. he was accessible and available. he campaigned in roughly the same way that someone like general jackson did in the first part of the 19 under -- 19th 19th century. he was a man who was there for the public to come and question, and on sunday he would take a

ride through washington on his horse, and he would ride through washington, and people would salute him, and he would stop, and they would ask him questions, and why answer them. again, he was the last president, i think, who answered the front door himself. the bell rang, and out he -- the door of the white house would open, and there would be the president, welcoming you into the threshold, and he would ask you in, and you could ask him questions. when i think of the trouble and business it is getting into the white house today, i think, my, those were the days. so, there's all those kind of nice homely old, fashioned reasons for liking mr. harding, who has had a rough treatment from history, and there are good reasons for respecting him. >> host: arvid e-mails in, do you feel people's influence of events are the cause of the

influence or simply riding waves? hitler would be a prime example of this. >> guest: well, i think that's true. i think it was victor hugo who said, nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come, and if somebody can personify the idea, then, of course, he becomes automatically very powerful himself, and i think there are occasions when people do personify the idea. i have seen it happen in my own observation. for instance in england, during the 1970s, the trades unions were becoming all-powerful, and they were destroying governments and destroying entire british

industries. our ship-building industry, the automobile industry were virtually destroyed by trades unions having too much power and exercising it irresponsibly. now, a president whose idea -- the idea that the unions had to be resisted and overcome was margaret thatcher. that was an idea whose time had come. the public were ready for it. they wanted to see union power reduced. margaret thatcher embodied that idea, and one of the reasons why she won so many elections so handsomely and ruled us for 12 years, the longest of any british prime minister in the 20th century, was because she embodied that idea, and she fought through tremendous battles, one against the coalminers union and one against the print workers union, and won

them both, and she tamed the unions. so she was an example of a person who radiated power because she embodied an idea whose time has koch. >> host: mitch e-mails, why haven't you written a book on abraham lincoln? do you think his is overrated as a president? >> guest: no. i think he is your greatest president. as for writing a life about him, that is precisely what i'm thinking about at the moment. i was asked to write a short life of winston churchill. i did that. that's already published. then the person said to me is there another very important person you could write a life about, short life about? and i said, yes, jesus christ. i have written that life, too, and that is going be to published this year. so now i'm looking for another subject, and one of the subjects i'm thinking about very seriously is writing a short

life of abraham lincoln, because i believe he was your greatest president. i believe he was an absolutely fascinating man, and a very good and decent man, and a very funny man, like churchill. he had a very good sense of humor, and he made a lot of jokes. and so he is the ideal man to write a book about. now, whether one can write a successful short book about him, which puts in everything you need to know about him, i'm not sure. and that's what i'm thinking about at the moment. because i'm seriously thinking that he is going to be my next subject. >> host: what was it like growing up catholic in england? >> guest: well, i remember once having an argument with your writer, james baldwin, who was

grumbling to me about how difficult it was to be a black in america and all the prejudice and so on. and i said to him, well, i no doubt what you say is true, but let me tell you there's nothing you can tell me about pledge disk because i was born in england, i was born red are@ú

sergeant majors don't live you if your left-handed. and in england, if you are a roman catholic, you are suspect. so i was brought up a roman catholic. my parents and family had always been roman catholic. i went to a roman catholic school, educated by the jesuits, so i know all about the prejudice against roman catholics in england, which goes back to the 16th century, and particularly to the gun powder plot of 1605 when guy folk and his companions were planning to blow up parliament, and they were discovered and executed. and ever since then, on november 5th, the british celebrate with fireworks, and bum fires, they're called to celebrate the fining of the gun

powder plotters, and that has kept antia catholicism alive, and it's a handicap in britain. and one think that has reduced the handicap has been an important hallmark came when president kennedy, romeian catholic, was elected president of the united states in 1960 and became president of the united states. that was very helpful to british catholics, too. so, i know what it's like to be prejudiced against, and i know what it's like to be discriminated against. but thank god things are much better than they used to be. >> host: why does religion permeate so many of your books? you have even written a book called "the quest for god." >> guest: well,'ing is a a --

well, religion is a very important thing in life. my catholicism is very important and always has been important. i studied it. i studied two of the greatest religions in the world, christianity and judaism, so i know a certain amount about it, and ill know how it's shaped -- i know how it's shaped, western civilization and our culture. so i'm very interested in and it constantly reading about it. when you get to be middle-aged. you need to sort out your ideas. when i got to that stage i wrote a book, "quest for god" about what i believed and why i believed and it how i came to believe and it its importance to me. and as i say, i just recently written a life of jesus, which is short and very much on the

four gospels and shows what jesus taught, and the theme of the book is that although jesus lived 2,000 years ago, what he taught had a huge and lasting impact on the whole world, but particularly on western civilization. and the moral of the book is that there are all kinds of things in the modern world, ideas and beliefs beliefs and as and so forth, some of which are good, some of which are bad. but virtually all the ideas and civilized points of view which we have in the modern world, which are good, ultimately have their basis in the teachings of jesus christ. that is why he is a relevant figure today, just as relevant as he was 2,000 years ago, and that is the theme of my little

book. >> host: when will that be published? >> guest: that will be published this year, probably in the summer. >> host: chris in fair banks, alaska, thank you for holding. paul johnson is on the line with you. go ahead. >> caller: ey, mr. johnson, really enjoyed this conversation you have had, and i-some of your heroes are money heroes, too, with george washington, abraham lincoln. but one of my other heroes is electric. >> host: the former president of poland, labor union leader ins the 80s. >> caller: he is one of our great -- he was a great man, and what he did with the union, that i think really was a big thing

as far as bringing down the communistblock. mymy -- communist bloc. have you ever compared the labor movements in england to that in the united states? and are the unions in england -- these people volunteered or are they forced into it sometimes? and -- >> host: tell you what chris, that could lead to a big answer. let's see what mr. johnson has in store. >> guest: well, you raised a very important question, which i have spent a lot of my life trying to consider what i think about it. the unions were very important

to britain in then 1970s, and a great evil because they had too much power in my view, and that was the reason i left the labor party and became a supporter of margaret thatcher because she promised the country she would reform the unions, and by jove she did. working men need to be allowed to protect themselves. employers can be unscrupulous and at times brutal, and the union order employees need to be able to protect themselves. but we must be very, very careful the amount of legal power which we give them. in england, they had far too much legal power, and they abused it. and they have now lost a lot of it. though they still have quite a lot, and they need to be watched very carefully. i think we must always -- this

applies as much to the united states or britain -- we must always be careful to give any institution power which we will not -- legal pour -- legal power which wisconsin we -- which we will not trust to an individual. we must be very careful about giving it to a group of individuals oren institution. that's what what we did in the case of the unions, and it was a terrible error, and we have paid for it. we must continue to correct the error, and it has a broad front to it. if an individual should not be given a certain legal power, then we should not give it to anyone else. institution or a group of individuals, without very careful thought. that is the lesson. >> host: brian, baltimore. good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon. and mr. johnson, i'm certainly

enjoying this conversation. i would love to hear your opinion about the political correctness as we see more and more of it today, in england and in this country, and also the relationship that the legal profession, which helps to perpetuate this -- might make an interesting book, but i would love to hear your opinion. thank you. >> guest: yes. i'm very glad you asked that question. when communism was in power, and then when in the late 1980s it was destroyed in eastern europe, i thought to myself, this has been a horrible thing, our experience with communism and it shows how foolish human beings are, to think of a system which

can do so much damage and cause so much unhappiness. thank god we're getting rid of it. but i wonder what's going to follow. well, it was already happening even then. the new system of political correctness was even more pervasive than communism, more difficult to combat, and it wasn't the property of any particular state so it wasn't visible. didn't stick up over the horizon. didn't have leaders so you didn't have anybody you could organize against. it was just there i compared it recently to settling on society like a great big cloud of gas and getting into ever crevice of our lives. political correctness is a system whereby you mustn't be nasty to anybody.

well, of course, that has its origins in perfectly decent feelings. but there's already plenty of provisions for that. it has a name, and it's known as good manners. if you have good manners, you don't need to be politically correct because you are already doing everything that anyone can expect. good manners teaches you to be polite to people irrespective of their image or sex or color or creed or religion or beliefs. it teaches you to be decent to treat people with reasonable, civilized equality. good manners is something which can be taught and ought to be taught from the earliest age. if you have a society which is based upon good manners, then you don't need political correctness. let alone do you need political

correction not enshrined in laws and so on, which certainly in britain we have a great and growing number. one thing, we have had 12 years of rule by the labor party in britain. the result of it, the country is absolutely-miles-an-hour -- absolutely miserable, and we have been burdened with a whole set of laws based upon political correctness. so, i regard political correctness as a threat to our happiness and state of mind and decent, contentedness, just as soarous as anything like communism or, for that matter, islam, and i think we have to watch political correctness and pounce upon its excesses whenever they lift their heads above the horizon. that's my answer. >> host: if people want to read

your articles or short stories, where is a good place for them to go? >> guest: well, they can buy my books in book shops. i write quite often to the spectator. i don't do it every week because i'm getting a bit old for that. but i write quite often there. i do almost every month i a piece in forbes magazine, an opinion piece there that is more about business and economics, and i bring in all my idiosyncratic views from time to time. but chiefly i try to commune with readers through little books, like this book of churchill i have just written, and this book on jesus, which is coming out this year. but, of course, i have written, i think, 50 books, or there thereabouts, i don't know exactly. and you can get the big ones in

libraries and so forth. so, like most writers, i live by and through my books, and that's where to find out what i think and believe. and know. >> host: how has the internet changed your life? >> guest: well, it hasn't really. i mean, the truth of the matter is, i have come too late for all these things, and i ought to have been on top of it. i'm not very mechanically minded. i often describe myself as a cottage industry. i have a very good secretary, fortunately, who understands all these machines and does all that's necessary, putting my work in the right way communicate with the whole world. but i can't do it myself, and rye great that, but there it is. there are disadvantages toking about your 80s. you're not always on top of all the latest technology by a long

way, and that's my predicament. on the other hand, when you're in your 80s, you have been through a lot, you have learned a lot, and you have, to some extent, learned to exercise your judgment. so, there are compensations, too. pñrt

so, i'm sorry marigold won't be watching this program. it's showing in america. but i will tell her all about it when i go home. >> host: she could watch it only if you're connected to the internet on book tv.org. it will be repeated at midnight here in the states and then again next week. will in massachusetts, please go ahead with your question for paul johnson. >> caller: hell hoe. thank you for taking my call. i wonder if you could speak on this. i'm curious about -- i have been reading a lot of this concerning the times before the battle at marathon, there's a very strict military code, and then it appears in the timeline that greece and -- athens and sparta

united against persia of marathon, and then there was the war. and i'm curious what influence there might have been of portion to the persian forces that might have resulted in these military conventions previous to marathon being eliminated. thank you. >> guest: well, i don't think that was the really vital thing there. you see, it was very difficult to get the greeks to unite. they were a series of city states. they believed in the civilization of the city, and that necessarily rather limited them to quite small areas. some of these states, notably athens, became imperialistic, and began to expand, and they

would found little colonies which became imitation athens all over the aegean and later in sicily, in north africa, africa, and the western coast of what is now turkey. and that meant that athens became a very powerful country, and, therefore, aroused the jealousies and hostilities of other greek cities, notably sparta. and that's what led to the war, and the war unfortunately has been described as the time at which ancient greece committed suicide. you could say that because after the war, greece was never -- or classical greece was never the same again, and first of all it was conquered by alexander, who was really a barbarian, outside

the proper greek civilization, and then later by rome, and the war was this act of suicide. you might say by analogy, that the same thing happened to europe in the 20th century, because it fought two wars, 1914 to 1918, and then 1939 to 1945. which were essentially continental civil wars. and that those taken together was an act of suicide on the part of europe, and europe since has lost its empires and has become marginalized. so that is one lesson we can learn from ancient greece. it's still worth studying, he history of greece, knowing uniting against persia and in

fighting the war and committing suicide. >> host: a little more than 15 minutes left with paul johnson. another e-mail from robby. on meet the press this morning, one of our sunday morning political talk shows, alan greenspan and henry paulsen said that a generational crisis facing the u.s. today is the deficit. china sits atop an astonishing level of foreign reserves greater than $2 trillion. british journalist says that not only will china be the next economic superpower but the world order it will construct will look very different from what we have had under american leadership. >> guest: and you want me to comment on this? >> host: yes, sir. >> guest: i don't believe it. it is perfectly true that the deficits are very large, but they can be eliminated or

substantially reduced. that is what we have to set our minds firmly in favor of in the next few years, and a lot of our future will depend upon how we do that. and i think the younger people must insist that the older people take a lead in this and we have created the crisis, we must solve it by cutting down and eliminating or very much reducing the deficit. as for china, the chinese have always made the mistake of thinking that they can sell goods to the world without buying in return. they did this in the 19th century. it was very, very hard to export anything to china, although we were only to glad to boo their silks and tees, and they didn't want anything that the west

produced except opium, which led to the wars because we wanted them to buy more and more opium. now they're tending to do the same thing together. they're saving a lot. putting a lot into gold, they have huge reserves, and they're not buying enough goods from the people to whom they sell goods. that is a mistake which they will have to pay for in the long run. i don't think the chinese are going to take over the world economically leadership. i think i have already said, what matters here is freedom. if you don't have enough freedom, then you won't remain on the top of the economic tree, because freedom is necessary to produce new ideas, new products, new processes, new ways of doing things. that's what made britain the leader in the industrial revolution and what made america the first great economic

superpower and what will keep her there. and i repeat what i said before, that india is taking the proper road to world economic leadership as opposed to china, because india has got economic freedom, it's got political freedom, it's got freedom of speech, et cetera and it's going in for high-tech industries. so i think india is more likely to make a successful challenge to the united states than china. but i would still back the united states, because the way in which america produces freedom, with its political system, its university system, its free expression media and so forth and its love of controversy and exchange of ideas and atmosphere of freedom, will keep it ahead of the rest of the world for the foreseeable future in my opinion. so i would still put my money on america. >> host: newbery, massachusetts,

you're on with paul johnson. >> caller: it's mill berry, massachusetts. critical of churchill, upon his defeat, he said he didn't reside over great britain in its finest our only to see the demise of the empire. when he was a soldier, you're brave. when you're fighting leaders who are spewing air rows or a journalist, or the scorched earth policy that devastated the women and children, killing up to 50,000. so i don't like churchill at all. in world war ii with the bombing. the first time i heard the word holocaust was the bombing of germany. >> host: mr. johnson. >> guest: well, a number of points there. first of all, churchill was

extremely critical of kitchener and his brutality. and in his book, the river war, he is very, very critical of kitchener at a time when i required considerable courage to do. so it is true churchill was old-fashioned about india. he hand been back to india since 1899 and didn't realize the extent to which yeah has changed, and he opposed the grant offering freedom to india, both before and after the second world war. however, once the labor government had given india its freedom, and pakistan its freedom, churchill acquiesced because he regarded parliamental

sovereign and once parliament had spoken, that was the law and re obeyed the law. so he reconciled misdemeanor though freedom given to india. that's the lesson on churchill. he was wrong on many things, but he always bowed to the course of history, and he was prepared to reconcile himself to things which initially he found hostile or undesirable. he learned as he lived, and the longer he lived, the more he learned and that's a lesson to us all. >> host: just to follow that up, phillip sends in an e-mail: can you comment on what might have been in india and palestine had churchill, rather than atway, been prime minister in '7and -- 47 and 48? >> guest: that's one reason i'm glad that churchill lost the 45

election. very few people expected that. i was 16 at the time, i think. and i remember it. and everyone was deeply shocked or most people were. but it was a good thing. as his wife said, a blessing in disguise. and if churchill had tried to continue british rule in india, there would have been a mess. it would have been a horrible mess. it could have ended in the same kind of mess which the french contrived in vietnam. where they tried hang on there and then dragged the united states into it, too. fortunately, the british people spoke in 45, they kick out the conservatives, they put in labor, and labor gave india its freedom. so, it all ended happily. but churchill would have rejoiced at indias position today because india is rapidly becoming a great economic power.

he always thought it could. and like gandhi, who wanted yeah to remain just with a domesticated economy, hand weaving and so on, churchill always believed india had tremendous economic potential, and he thought are in british guidance they could realize that potential. well, it has begun to realize its under its own guidance, and the first person to rejoice in that would have been winston churchill. it would have been a constant delight to him to see more and more indians were being brought out of the subsistence economic into western-type living standards. he would have loved that, would have loved to have seen indians creating high-tech industries, wonderful universities and leading the world in many products. with all his prejudice and so

on, he loved the indians and thought they were capable of great things. and now that they're achieving great things he would have been delighted. >> melissa, kansas city, kansas. >> caller: mr. johnson, a comment and a question. earlier you mentioned the inquiry taking place in britain regarding the legality of the iraq war. there's reliable documentation which detail conversations between prime minister blair and president bush where they both acknowledged there were no wind chills mass destruction iraq, and bush went so far as suggest painting a united states spy plane with the u.n. colors and flying it over iraq in order to provoke the iraqi into firing on it to give the united states justification for the war. i clearly remember that the majority of the british people were against the invasion of iraq. my question is, earlier you said that great powers like the

united states have responsibilities. do you believe those responsibilities also include telling the american people the truth about the lies that took both of our countries to war and punished the leaders who perpetrated those lies? >> guest: well, somebody once remarked in war that first casualty is the truth. i am afraid that states, whether they're democratic states or dictatorships, hardly ever give the full truth as to why they're going to war. we blundered into the first world war, the greatest catastrophe of modern times from which most of the things that are wrong with the world ultimately spring. and the people in britain, for instance, were never told the truth about why we were going war or why we prepared to go to war or they weren't told the

truth about our alliance with france and so on. i'm afraid there is a long history of even civilized and law abiding nations not telling the truth either about the war when it's being fought or the reasons why it's taking place in the first case. and there's nothing unusual about the iraqi business in that respect. on the whole, i think mr. bush and mr. blair were right to do what they did. where they went wrong was in underestimating the difficulties which would follow in administering iraq after we had won a military victory. winning the military victory was the easy thing. handing it over afterwards was the difficult thing. they did that, i think, because neither of them had read enough

history. if they would have read the history of iraq, how it was created, what it was created from, why it was create and so forth. they would have been much more apprehensive about it and taken more care to take proper advice and make proper planning for postwar period. iraq is a very difficult country. struckly speaking it shouldn't exist. it is an artificial creation. it was created as a result of the first world war, chiefly by winston churchill, and he knew it was going to be a very difficult countried a and are run. i remember when i first went to iraq, back in the early 1950s, more than 50 years ago, and saw the prime minister, who was the last really good ruler the iraqis have had, he said, this is one of the most difficult countries in the world to run

because it shouldn't really exist. it's an artificial creation. and it poses extraordinary problems and it's very difficult to run in a democratic manner or law-abiding manner because you have to be very tough, and he explained all the difficulties. and that is all still true more than 50 years later. so, i wouldn't blame bush and blair too much for this. what i think they should have taken more care of was their immediate post war plans. i think a lot of mistakes were then made and a lot of lives lost in consequence. as for the legitimacy and the rightness of the war in the first place, i'm still left-hand side -- inclined to believe they were right. >> host: chris e-mails, you earlier said it was luck for the united states to form and expand. can you geoff your definition of luck.

>> guest: that's a very difficult question and i wish you hadn't asked me because i'm not sure what the answer a is. i should have said, good fortune. i think good fortune attended america from its birth, because if you look at america, it's a wonderful country physically. it's got great big wheat fields, it's got wonderful minerals, it's got on the whole a very good climate. it's got plenty of space. it's got tremendous rivers which can be harnesses and used. it's got health. it's got everything. and i often, when i'm in the united states, i like to listen to the nationwide weather but continue, and i fine it snowing here, it's raining there, drought there, beautiful sunshine there, and i think america is a world in itself, and it's a very rich and

handsome and wonderful world. so, that was good fortune. but i think there was a further good fortune that in the men who created america, who won the war of independence, and then wrote the constitution, and then put it into operation. america was fortunate in that it had a group of, on the whole, very able, sensible and wise men to do it, and i think some of them were outstanding. benjamin franklin, for instance, what a great man. george washington. what a wise man he was. and then coming up behind them, john adams and madison and so forth. they were a very remarkable group of men, and they created a country and gave it a constitution, worked that constitution, and it's lasted 250 years, a quarter of a millennium, without any

fundamental changes and it's still the top nation in the world and, in my opinion, likely to remain so. >> final call for paul johnson, barny in riverside, california. >> caller: good day. sir, i am impressed by your book on jesus. how do you think you could reconcile your reverence for him and o'the politics of the democratic leaders, and i think one who would have brought out the underdog's plight in this situation. how do we overcome this. >> guest: i'm sorry. what is your precise question? can you put it to my briefly? >> host: the call are is gone, mr. johnson. i think she was talking about whether or not -- i hate to

rephrase this because i will get criticized -- america's christianity and how do we reconcile that with our political acts? >> guest: it was once said, christianity has not been tried and found to be wanting. it has been found to be difficult and so not tried at all. and there's some truth in that. america is a christian country, according to overwhelming practice of its inhabitants, but christians often profess beliefs and then don't put them in practice. a lot of americans do, and i think america has come as close as any other nation to trying to create a christian way of life. but it's -- there's a lot wanting there. but this is something that

ordinary people can do something about. often events areon their control -- are beyond their control and there's nothing they can do. this terrible earthquake in haiti, nothing much they can do about that. but whether a country is a christian country or not, and whether it expresses christian practices and shows a christian way of life is something that all the people can do something about. it's something that every individual american citizen can do something about. we can all all lead christian l, set a christian example, we can all talk and behave insofar as ross our private lives and public lives are concerned in a christian way. so, here is something where christianity is not incompatable with good behavior by a great

make. >> host: and finally, mr. johnson, mark in harrisburg, pennsylvania, wants to know, off such an illus treous career, do you have plan on writing an always to biography? >> guest: yet, i'm bringing out a book about all the famous people i have known in the last 6 -- 60 years. i have about 250 names in there. i'm also going write a little book about my experience as a young man, at school, boarding school, at oxford university in the army, and then in my first job, which was in paris. i thought about writing a book about my youth, describing the four great experiences. so if i live, that's what i will do and it will be published in a year or two. >> host: mr. johnson has written over 50 books. one of his first was in 1957, the suez war.

his most recent, 2009,