>> good afternoon, everybody. my name is mort rosenblum. welcome to the tuscon festival of books. it's only march. i grew up here. i love it. thanks to george davenport for making this possible and i want to add my appreciation for all of the thought and work behind this amazing fistful. if anyone thinks books are dying, just look at the mall outside. one announcement. any self on that rings will be said to the scavenging a molina's outside. [laughter] this is the point where the presenters says it gives me great pleasures but in this case

nah. he may not be able to judge a book by its cover but you sure can buy the author. lynne olson and i have not only learned to make our sources lives miserable right here at the university of arizona, journalism department now school, but we also joined the noble tried of animals reporters for the associated press as a former professor of your. lynne quickly joined ap's hot off squad new york and then worked in the moscow bureau during the much miss medieval in place. she worked at the "baltimore sun" which has now been set. [laughter] 1981 she went straight to be a free lancer and unlike most freelancers, she made a great life out of it. and the secret is, among other things, her reporters ear further rightwards.

i'm going to read a couple of points from the end that will explain the title of the book. ..

>> >> take a subject we did not know we were interested in and keep us riveted. so tell us about this book at 140 characters? [laughter] >> i got a question. you focused on edward murrow. perhaps the most crucial. succeeded joe kennedy. what do you think the world would look like today if that little pack of americans in london had managed to convince people back home much earlier that hitler was an extremely bad dude and have to be stopped? the u.s. forces would join forces at the out set? >> that is a great what if question. i am not sure.

it just wasn't in the cards that that was going to happen. the book is really a behind-the-scenes look at the partnership between the u.s. and great britain during world war ii, with these three americans as the main characters. one reason i am writing about them or wrote about them is that they were really key players in the whole debate in 1940 and 1941 over whether britain should be saved. britain at that time was the last country in europe holding out against hitler. desperately in need of american aid. really close to defeat. hanging on by the skin of their teeth at that time. they needed american aid, but american aid was incredibly skimpy. that was true until pearl harbor. so these three americans, and there were others based in london, did everything they could to get, not only more

american aid, to get american public opinion changed. edward murrow really tried to sway and did, in fact, sway american public opinion to a great degree. averell harriman was this hard-charging elbows-out multimillionaire businessman who had been sent over. as you said, mark, winant was the guy he replaced joseph kennedy as ambassador to great britain. that and by the way, it was not a hard act to follow. an appeasement minded ambassador, a pal of nevel chamberlains. thought britain was going to be defeated. it was a businessman first and foremost. he really thought business in the u.s. is going to suffer a

loss some accommodation was made for hitler. he tried very hard to try to get fdr not to give anything to britain. he really thought britain was going to be defeated. he basically poisoned the well between these two countries. the poison the relationship between roosevelt and churchill. he could not stand churchill. and kennedy would tell roosevelt that churchill was a drug. he did not know what he was doing. he was an imperialist. and so things were pretty dark, not the least of which because of joe kennedy. winant had a big job, a very difficult job to fill when he came over. >> what is going on in washington and the rest of the country that was making people so isolationist and, you know, as we always say in times like

this, when it was so clear what had to be done. >> well, it was clear to some people, but it wasn't clear to most americans at that time. i mean, the fact that there were two motions on either side of e of this country played a big role. the war was 3,000 miles away, more than 3,000 miles away. many people did not see the urgency or the need for us to go to the brink of war in order to help the british or even to go to war. there was a lot of isolationist. a lot of anti british feeling in the country. i grew up in the west, and i went to school here. i have been an anglophile all my life. i love the literature, everything. i thought, well, everybody is an anglophile. i soon saw that was untrue. so i really found out doing

research for this book how deep the anti-british feeling was in this country. american industry did not want to produce war-time goods at that point. they were not forced to by roosevelt because we were not in the war. there was no, there was no force at all. so they had finally started making money after the depression and not surprisingly they wanted to keep making money. there was no great push within the country. roosevelt himself clearly wanted to help england. there is no question. he was very a loaf to get ahead of public opinion. he was very cautious. he wanted very much not to get into the war if he could help it. so while britain was, you know, being bombed, while german submarines word strangling british supply lines, you know, america wasn't sending over much stuff at that point. >> and when they did, 50, 66 from world war ii.

you know, brat invested. holes in the halls. you could only use a couple of them. we made the brits pay for them. >> that's right. it was a great amount, a great sense of the british tricked us into world war i, and we weren't going to let that happen again. if we were going to help england then we were going to, it wasn't going to be strict altruistic aid. all of the aid, we are talking about 1940, early 1941, the british had to pay for it. cash-and-carry. so the destroyers. 18 destroyers. the british really could use. they got them in exchange for british bases in a number of

british territories. so it was a much better deal for the u.s. then for britain, which winston churchill well knew and was very furious about. that is really the only way that roosevelt felt he could sell this aid to the american people. we were getting something for it. it wasn't just helping the british. >> you know, beneath this exterior this book is pretty racy. tell us about ed murrow's sex life and pamela and churchill's daughter. >> i have to back up here. this is not just thrown in there. [laughter] >> but it is in there. >> it is very germane to the story. winston churchill was brilliant at wooing people that he needed. he knew that these three men;

winant, harriman, and murrow were key to the survival of this country. there were very, very important americans that he needed on this side. so he brought them into his official family. his door was open for ed murrow. ed murrow would drop in at 10 downing street for a couple of, you know -- churchill would come out and wave him in. do you have time for several whiskey's. so they would sit and have whiskey's and talk. he included winant and harriman even more. they were government officials. so he made himself available to them in ways that had never been before. he made himself available and teammate members of his government available. the really interesting thing goes to what you are saying. he made them part of his own personal family as well.

they really work, especially winant and harriman, the fact of members of the churchill family. they spent many, if not most, weekends with the churchill's at the various country houses that they would get to during the war. the relationships was so close that all three of them did have more time with members of the churchill family. churchill's middle daughter, favorite daughter. harriman and murrow. she was married to randolph churchill. i should add that there was not, these affairs were not at the same time. i mean, london was a fairly romantic city, but not that much. they were sequential. they were sequential affairs. it goes to the aura of london during that time. i mean, it was anything went in

london. you know, it was an incredibly exciting, vibrant city. probably the most exciting city during the war in the world. and it wasn't just murrow, winant, and harriman. it was going on all over the place. there was a real carpe diem mentality. live for the day for tomorrow you may die. most of the people in london did not die. churchill actually after çóthe r is actually in the beginning of the book. talking to one of her biographers, and she said, it was a terrible war, but if you were at the right age and the right place it was spectacular. end for many people who had a serious important jobs during the war there was this other

life that they had outside of the deadly serious work that they were doing. it was really an incredibly emotional charge time and an emotion charged place. >> a lot of these events turned around. the personification of france behind it. infuriated his allies, but he managed to whip up this and of spirit to save france rance fro. how did roosevelt and dugal play out? >> caused enormous amount of friction. the only french leader a very minor figure. the only french important figure to basically denounced the

armistice that the french made with germany and he came to london and founded a movement, a very few tiny movement in the beginning, the free press, but a movement nonetheless. church show basically threw his is support behind dugal. no none of the other major government leaders came out. and so he had dugal. roosevelt could not stand dugal from the beginning even though he had never met him. he thought that the french were bankrupt morally and in every other way because they had agreed to an armistice with the french. and so he wanted nothing to do with france. he wanted nothing to do with dugal. church held throughout the war knew he had his on problems. he was not an easy person to deal with on any level. he knew that he needed them. churchill and the british knew that dugal was the only figure who had any support in france

once outside of france. he was the main kind of symbol of the french resistance. there was nobody else. there was absolutely nobody else. even though churchill get furious at him many, many times. there was this back and forth between churchill and roosevelt brought the war until as you know until the end of the war. after paris was liberated. >> even then. >> roosevelt did not want anything to do with dugal. he refused to acknowledge that his government was a provisional government. it was really a huge blow of contention. and it's really tainted the well between france. he can speak more to that. he lived in france for many years. between france, england, britain, and the united states. we see the results to this day. >> tell us, and curious about

your reporting process. you have always had this way of peeling away the hang in layers and telling asset detail that makes this tear up or crack up laughing. this particular item in has gone through a lot. over the years, it has been told in a different ways. we become so much material that i have never seen or heard. >> well, i have written five books. four of them have dealt with england and britain. i get the mails from people saying it is not england. it is britain. but if i go back and forth i am really talking about the same place. i have written about britain in different ways during world war ii and four books. so when you do it that much you start acquiring a body of knowledge. i'd just like finding little parts of history that nobody

else has covered or at least i don't think is covered. the book i wrote representative for this was about how churchill came to power. so i wrote about how he actually did, this group of members of parliament who helped bring him to power and get rid of neville chamberlain. it was not just a something that was automatically going to happen. these guys really have to work very hard to do this. that was kind of a little tiny bit of history. the same way with this. i was really interested. actually, the main reason i wanted to write this book is to write about london during the war. then i started thinking about how to do that. i thought, you know, we all have this idea or many of us have this idea that the partnership between britain and the united states was a done deal. it was going to happen. it was automatically going to happen. churchill and the british people were going to stand alone

against hitler just long enough for roosevelt and the americans to come right into the rescue and create this great alliance and that it was going to save the world. but, in fact, as i mentioned a little bit, it wasn't a done deal. it was not clear that it was going to happen. once it was created it was a very difficult relationship. so i thought, let's back up a little bit. that's, you know, look at the relationship before it became a done deal. let's see how it actually happened and she was involved in making it happen and what was going on with these people. i like to write about people. history is about people. history is, people make history. these events don't just spring forth. people have to make them. people are fascinating. their lives are fascinating. if you could intertwine and

interweave what people do and how they do it then you come up with really good stories. that is what i try to do. it always has to be a good story about people. you know, they may have love affairs. they may not. you have to be involved. you have to be drawn into their lives, at least i have to before i can write a book about them. >> so i guess you just use google and wikipedia? [laughter] what kind of sources do you use? >> one reason i like writing about england is that primary sources are fantastic. especially writing about britain. british leaders, british writers, british everybody kept diaries and journals. they wrote letters, letters,

letters. and it's true in this country as well. not as much as the birds. the breads are just just leaving behind this wonderful colorful record of what happened. i don't know if any of you are familiar with harold nicolson. he was a british mp during the war. the premier diarist, i think, in britain. he was an mp. he helped bring churchill to power. their son wrote a book called portrait of a marriage. wonderfully colorful guy. his real value is that he left this first hand account of history in his diary. he brings everything to live. if you have access to diaries like this or letters like this and it makes it much easier to write in the style where you feel like you hope your readers feel like they are there when

you are describing it. he and many, many others did that. and so if you have access to their papers then you are halfway home. with the americans that i am writing about that was also true. ed murrow wrote wonderful letters. the one who really wrote wonderful letters was his wife, janet. she wrote to her parents virtually every week. so when they were caught in an air raid she wrote this very long letter back to parents in which there is a chapter in the book. it begins with this air raid and having this wonderful dinner in london and strolling home and all of a sudden hearing the planes. almost all of that comes from

and janet tomorrow. if you have that, then your job is made a helluva lot easier. in fact and that is what i've relied on most. what i do rely on most. primary sources. >> congratulations. one syllable. okay. back to the sex life. [laughter] >> not really. today we have certain journalists to declare themselves to be fair and balanced and aren't really either. back then it was really crucial. this is the beginning of the spoken word. so many other people at that particular point. it was a major story to tell. the business of objectivity. objectively is a really difficult word. it is essentially impossible.

there is real fairness. balance is always a tough one to call. what was the wall of the broadcasters and the good journalists? >> that is a really good question. never really approved of conductivity in that way, especially in regard to the war and especially in regard to its broadcast that he made in 1940, 1941 before u.s. got into the war. he really believes that there was right and wrong. he did not think that there was anything balanced about hitler or the nazis. he made no apology for the fact that is broadcast, they certainly underline his broadcast was the message that the u.s. not only had to help bring in more than it was, but it had to get into the war. he was a moralist, an idealist.

he thought that there was no question. you could not even talk about objectivity when you're talking about what was going on in britain and berlin at that particular time. so he would get in constant trouble with the powers that be back at cbs about objectivity because the set, you are making it very clear what your opinion is. he would say, yes, i am. i'm going to keep doing it. he continued that kind of reporting throughout his career. he crossed the line sometimes. there is no question. i think in this case he was right. objectivity has been a thorn in the side of journalists says the beginning of journalism. the whole idea that your reporting has to be free of personal prejudice or opinion is

quite frankly nonsense. there is a point. there should be balanced. and this particular case he thought that there was no balance. one was white and one was wrong. >> you did that this really well. it is a brief introduction. as everybody was gearing up for the war in iraq in 2003, the editors, the french are not grateful for normandy. we would remind them it wasn't really only about normandy. had it not been for the french we would all be drinking tea at 4:00. it wasn't because they were being asked guys. you have got, their is a line here are kind of circle. the british woman, talking about the americans coming in to london.

the americans taking over the war that the british had just suffered. early on they lost 10,000 people. how many british casualties were their? >> well, there were more than 30,000 civilian casualties in britain. there were many more than that. more than 30,000 or 40,000 british civilians were killed. >> but they saw their arrogance, misguided sense of destiny on side of the americans to have little knowledge of the growth beyond their borders and scant prior experience in dealing with it in the last planned to take it over. a british woman who worked in the u.s. embassy, sorry, a british woman he worked at a u.s. naval headquarters told her co-workers they needed to know more about the world.

he now, people now were getting a little bit tired of the fact that we were during that. we have to bring this up to the question to what we have learned from that to what we ought to be learning today. >> that is another reason why i wrote the book. at least i was interested in how these men, the three that i have been talking about, there are many others that i talk about in this book. they did the hard work of putting this alliance together. once it was put together the captive allied. i made reference to the fact that it was a typical relationship. it was full of tension. there were an enormous number of problems, prejudices', lack of understanding. we have a common language with the british. we have a common heritage. back then there was very little

understanding or knowledge about each other's history, about each other's military or political situation. and so these men and others were quite crazy to kind of bring people together to create understanding. i mean flight eisenhower went over to london in 1942 with the idea that this was going to be an alliance. the british and american military were going to work together. if anybody didn't they could go home. this actually did send a number of officers of. even though a number of his own generals said this is ridiculous. in fact, george patton wrote in his diary that he was in benedict arnold because he tried so hard. they worked extremely hard to do

this. it did not happen overnight. it did not just happen. we need to do more of that. international cooperation and teamwork are extremely important. test in regard to that i wanted before i before i forget bringa john gilbert winant who i talked about before. i would be interested in actually asking you. is there anybody here who has ever heard of john gilbert winant? several of you. fantastic. i was interviewed. he said i have never heard of them. then he said i'd take him an informal poll of a number of journalists in washington. they hadn't heard of him the the. this man did an incredible thing

in london. his own countrymen have never heard of him. let me just tell you why he is important. he arrives in london replacing joseph kennedy. he made it very clear to the british right from the beginning that he was there to share what they were going through. he steps off the plane and it says, there is no place i would rather be than here in england. during the worst air raid he would walk the streets of london while the bonds were still falling asking everyone he met what he could do to help them. he was very sincere. it was the first time for a lot of the british that they had seen an american do that. his warmth and compassion, his determination to stand with them and share their dangers was the first tangible sign that many had that america actually did care about what happened to them and their country. he showed them the best side of

america. his example, i think, should serve as an example for not only ambassadors, but for americans as a whole or anybody. his determination to work with the british, to do everything he could to help the british delicacy that a have an effect t it did succeed. >> on his predecessor, joe kennedy, this great line after meeting. kennedy is all excited. isn't it wonderful that the crisis is over and now i can get back to palm beach after all. the new york times, they ran an editorial. one of the toughest and biggest jobs that the president, his mission was one of the toughest and biggest jobs the president can get.

he has to explain to a country that is daily being bombed why a country safely 3,000 miles away wants to help it will not fight. that is a difficult thing to tell a person whose home has just been wrecked by a bomb. my question is how was the reporting of u.s. correspondents newspapers and radio, not websites and tv, but how was the reporting from london and from what was left? >> very much in the line of ed murrow. he, of course, was the most prominent, the most notable. american correspondents overall, actually, they were londoners, too. they were facing the bonds. they were going through bombing raids every night. they knew what it was like. they can see firsthand what this

country was experiencing. they could see how not only londoners, but all britons, not all of them, but the courage and the endurance and the resolution that they had in putting up with this. this was night after night after night. so they reported, and they were like murrow. very few of them could be called objective. they really believe that america had to get into the war. there was a lot of reporting. it wasn't just tomorrow. a lot of reporting from both print and broadcast. wired service newspapers. all of it contributed to a slow swinging of american public opinion toward the idea that we have to help. the key character in this was murrow. he really was. is broadcast probably had more

impact than any other journalist. >> and the correspondence back then, there were talking about military stuff and civilians. what reporting was coming out of germany? there wasn't many reporters who were able to get much out. packard, for example, we used to joke around. when you see stuff from the other side. >> the germans really cracked down on allied reporters. bills buyer reported from germany until 1940. but the germans were really starting to of sensor british

american, throwing western reporters out of the country. claimed that he was about to be arrested and that is why he left. i think they tried to get the story out, but it is very difficult to do. obviously they all left before we get into the war. >> let me throw this open for questions. >> yes. >> would you like to come up? yes. we are being recorded. [laughter] >> you mentioned that kennedy poisoned the well by telling fdr

that churchill was a drug, was, you know, whenever. how is it that he ends up deciding to send the next ambassador? >> of very good question. roosevelt had tired of kennedy longer for a left. kennedy also was a political problem. roosevelt feared that he would come back. this is the 1940. read before the 1940 presidential campaign. kennedy would come back home and campaign. he wanted to keep him over there for as long as he could. he wanted, roosevelt wanted somebody who could hopefully correct the damage that kennedy

had done. he also wanted somebody who was liberal, who had ties to the labor party in britain. reso was pretty sure that the labor party in britain was going to come to power either during the war or immediately after. it happened. he had been close. the former governor of new hampshire. he was a liberal and a republican and a very strong supporter of roosevelt and the new deal and had been ever since he was governor of new hampshire. in fact mark roosevelt made him the first head of social security. he sacrificed his own political career because of that. the republicans tried to kill social security as soon as it was passed in 1935. thirty-six presidential

campaign, the presidential nominee for the republican mounted a smear campaign against social security. and winant resigned his job. he campaigned around the country for security and announced he would be supporting roosevelt . political career was over. the republicans would have nothing to do with them. from that moment on he was roosevelt's man. but the two of them had a longstanding relationship this. he was exactly the kind of person that roosevelt thought would appeal to the less of britain which turned out to be true. at the same time he also became very close to churchill. you know, he had a foot in both camps. >> and just to follow slightly up, and to what degree do you keep there was an antipathy?

>> will certainly the fact that kennedy was irish helped play a big part in what he thought about churchill and the british i think kennedy's business ties were more important to him in regard to appeasement. certainly the fact that he was irish did play a role. absolutely. >> it would probably be easier. >> thanks so much for coming to the book festival. >> pleasure to be here. >> just to broaden the topic. if you think about writing about history he spoke about telling the stories being important. we have to yang adult children who are fascinated with history. how do you, how would you help

toe bring young people in and understand the story? probably a lot of young people have limited knowledge about the war? how do we broaden that as parents and educators? >> i think you have to make clear that people who create history are people just like us he no, they start out, you know, in some cases with nothing. for whatever reason they do great things. again, and going back to the previous book. they helped bring chamberlain down. these were guys with no political power. they were backbenchers and parliament. and yet thanks to the courtesy of their conviction and their absolute determination to help britain when it needed the most help, they were able to put together a coalition to actually

change the course of history and helped bring winston churchill to power. i think that sends a powerful message to the don't have to be powerful. you can do something even if nobody thinks you're going to. explaining stories and describing how they got to where they got to. to draw hopes that the people will see the similarities or parallels of what one can do. but i remember when i was growing up i hated history class is. i usually had teachers to read history books at the podium. memorize dates. i can't remember when the battle of hastings is now. but if they are taught through people. how can you resist winston churchill? one of the most fascinating people ever to have walked the

face of the earth. i think you can get people hopefully interested and then draw, talk about what these people did and how important it was. did you have something? >> i asked this question. i am kind of collecting stories and dancers. because it is something i actually feel powerful about. how do you deal with and how do you see the changes that the digital revolution has caused on first source material? >> for me because i write about, at least before i was writing about the world or two time frame, i have not been affected. the letters are there. the journals are there. people fought about writing.

people spent hours at night no matter -- the head of the british army wrote the most wonderful diaries during the war. huge, large diaries. i'm going to have a nervous breakdown. he did that every night. he felt it important to sit down and write what happened that day. and you know, writing on the computer, i don't know. that is why i am really glad to be back in early 20th century, mid-19th century. i don't have to deal with it. >> is it something that you talk to other historians about? >> not really. not really. it is something that historians should be very concerned about. maybe it is just because i am so focused on the history that i am writing and this particular time. it is something.

>> thank you. >> would you comment on the theory that roosevelt engineered pearl harbor. in other words, to get us into the war and save the brits and the idea that this is proven that he agreed to the european theater first. >> i am not an expert on that conspiracy theory. i have done enough research on the time. i don't believe he did. both he and churchill and the british and american government knew that the japanese were on the move. there is no question. the u.s. had broken the japanese code. they knew that the fleet had left and it was on its way somewhere. but i don't think they knew where it was going. i know that there was some message traffic saying, you know, i don't know if it was pearl harbor. i don't think it ever got through. i really do believe that neither

of them knew. as a matter of fact on the day of pearl harbor before he found out about the attack churchill agonized about what would happen if, in fact, the japanese attacked british territory in the pacific war in asia and what would america do. britain would then be faced with a two front war with no american line. and judging from roosevelts reaction, he may have been an incredibly good actor. ed murrow was in the white house that night. he talked about how roosevelt was just ashen and upset. i don't know, but i don't believe either of these two men knew. i don't think there was a conspiracy. >> if you will permit me, i really don't like to ask questions. i like to make statements.

i think a lot of people should like to make statements to set history of to get right, is it more about history that is more pertinent to our lives now. i was wondering if you might be interested in writing about this history. first of all, about the tax when kennedy came into office the tax rate for corporations was 93%. we don't hear that at all. all we hear is when the taxes. >> we are kind of short on time. we will probably have to skip that one if you don't mind. >> that is not my area, my expertise is world xdwar ii. let's give us better government. if we can get our taxes picked up. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> two quick questions. i heard your interview on npr. could you recount again what joseph kennedy's attitude was toward churchill and england in general at that point? i was astonished. and secondly, could you talk briefly about what drove churchill out of office and how that all can about? >> i think i addressed the joseph kennedy and church of thing before today. joseph kennedy, churchill was a drunk. has been. he was going to lose. person was going to lose. we need not to get into the war we needed, we meaning the united states, should not give any money to burn. what drove churchill out of power is one of the saddest things in the book. the churchill was a fantastic war leader. no question. he not only saved england, he

saved civilization. if it had not been for him i'm not sure the british people would have stood up the way they did. he was not a man to leave the country after the war. the british people by the end of the war had six years of hardship, of rationing, of shortages, of being bombed. they wanted something. they wanted something in return for what they did. they were on the front line just as much, the civilians just as much. they were under attack not as much, but they certainly were under attack during the war. they wanted a new world. they wanted reform. they want to social reform. they wanted to bring an end to the class society. they wanted a lot of things. churchill, all his wonderful qualities and could not give them. he really was an old-fashioned tory at heart. he was bewildered and this new

situation. he could not fathom how they could possibly, you know, be so ungrateful. well, they weren't ungrateful. they acknowledged how important he was, what a tremendous leader he was, but they basically, i think, figured that they needed somebody knew were something new. and so roosevelt turned out to be absolutely right the british people turned to the labor party's right after the end of the war. and churchill was totally bereft. he did not know what had hit him. the transfer of power in england is like that, unlike here where it takes months and months and months. bowling and scraping to you. it was devastating to him. was really devastating. that is why in politics he stayed for as long as he did. he came back when he publicly

should not have. he was way too old. he could not get over the awfulness of being turned out of power after the war was over. >> it is interesting, the parallel that has been involved. thanks to you guys. so much else. continued to kind of rest on that and then all of a sudden. very, very similar. in no, let's come back to pearl harbor. as you all know, a large vessel in the book we have been focusing on the big three. what went on in london and britain? i mean, when the news of pearl harbor came what was the

reaction? >> it was really interesting how the british responded to pearl harbor. this was what was going to help them win the war. the u.s. getting into the war meant that, in fact, it took a long time, but britain was not going to be defeated. at the same time there was this sense of why didn't they do it before? it was very muted reaction. harold nicolson wrote in his diary about how surprised he was that there were no american flags flying anywhere in london the next day. people just were really kind of angry. they were glad that the americans were in, but they were very a agree that they had not come in before, that it took an attack on them come on the americans to get them into the war. so right from the beginning of this alliance there was this kind of uneasiness and, in fact,

enter on the part of the british toward americans. >> overpaid, oversexed. a line here, but even, a whole paragraph that i just noticed. the yellow ss officer wanted to marry a british girl. he was american. his parents would not have it. being related to eleanor roosevelt he done about store. he cleans up pretty good as an american. but what are some other, some of them on top little people that you remember? americans, the citizens of london. >> as i said before, it was not just these three guys. there were many americans. eisenhower. a lot of americans who worked very hard to make this alliance

is success. concluding british troops and british american troops who came into england. there was a sometimes confrontational relations between american troops and the british. think of this island. a tiny island, the size of georgia. all of a sudden within a year-and-a-half 1.6 million gi's descend on this place. and many of the people in england had never ever met a foreigner at that point. >> none of them speaking. >> none of them speaking the language. that is very true. the soldiers would complain, i thought they understood english. a thought they could speak english. nothing like it. so there was this great clash of cultures that sometimes is very funny and sometimes dramatic, especially for the british. you know, american gis tended to be young and not surprisingly brash. we are coming over here to save

you. the british not surprisingly thinking, it took you a long time to get here. we have been putting up with rationing, axa wow you guys are, you know, being paid much more than we are. you know, you have no shortages. there was a great amount of misunderstanding between the two. but at the same time american troops did come to know the british people and vice versa. by the end, you know, it is really interesting that when normandy occurred, when d-day occurred and american censors would go through the letters they found that of third of the letters being written by american soldiers from france were being written to british towns. to people that they had come to know and in some cases love. they certainly have become friends. and so that is one of the really

interesting stories. two people had a lot in common, but really nothing in common at the same time. how they came together and had difficulties but finally did achieve their relationship. >> really cool. any questions hair? >> mine is completely off topic. i am struck by your statement. i had no idea he was. i started thinking about that. i realized i had no idea who the ambassadors to afghanistan or. to think about that just kind of pertains to modern conflicts with foreign policy in america. he was really devalued in favor of defense. i was going to ask, doing your research and law you're writing a book and working on a were you ever given pause to think about

the modern situation and what were those thoughts >> great question. the point is very well taken a lot the ambassadors to iraq and afghanistan. back then what winant did because of who he was made him much more important than the ordinary ambassador. when he left britain the times of london called him the adhesive that kept the alliance together. he went above and beyond what most ambassadors do, and you're right defense is valued over foreign policy. franklin roosevelt was all of that kind of his ambassadors. to answer your question did i think, in no, i did in terms of this whole idea of team work, working on international cooperation, working on a true

partnership, trying to understand the other countries as if their urine. and that is what wind and in particular really put an emphasis on. we can't constantly be confrontational. we have to really try to understand. and so that kept coming up over and over and over again in my fonts. >> you end this wonderful introduction with a , acknowledged that the a congressman of such goals would be an extremely difficult task. but he added so it was d-day. if that can be done anything can be done. given the stage, and i'm going to take you off topic. i know your knowledge and death in all of this. where are we today? trying to accomplish all these

goals. what should we remember today that we pretty clearly learned in the '40's? >> it is just what i have been talking about, putting an emphasis on, not just talking the talk, but walking the walk. to do the work that needs to be done to forge these relationships and partnerships. he no, it is easy to talk about an. it takes an enormous amount of energy and work to do it. and it is a change in philosophy, i think, to some extent, in this country, really put an emphasis on that which really has not been there for quite some time. >> a abcaeight. great. the bishop of the wrap this up. my instructions are to save the sample instructions are, thank you