question. yurrow never approved of hatectivity in that way. with regard to the broadcast he made in 1940 or 1941 before the u.s. got into the war. he believes there was right and k thg. d did not think there is anything balanced about hitler or the nazis. he made no apology for the fact that his broadcast i won't say tnley described but they underlie the broadcast with a message that the u.s. not only had to help britain more than it was but had to get into the war. he was a moralist and an idealist. tou could not even talk about on inivity when you are talking about what was going on in britain and berlin and elsewhere. ouldhat particular time. he would get in constant trouble with the powers that be back at

cbs about objectivity because you are making very clear what your opinion is and he would say yes, i am, but i will keep doing it. he continued that kind of somrting throughout his career uestio crossed a line, no question. in this case he was right but objectivity has been a foreign in the side of journalists since the beginning of journalism. ghe whole idea that your reporting has to be free of personal prejudice or opinion is quite frankly nonsense because we are not ciphers. there is a point -- there should be balance but in this particular case, ed murrow fun there was no balance. one was right and one was wrong.

eveou get at this really well. has anybody was gearing up for the war in iraq in 2003, we are all hearing from our editors, the french are not grateful for nrmandy and it wasn't really only about normandy and had it not been for the french we would t bebe drinking tea at 4:00. they were being nice guys. there is a line in here, i circle this. of british woman who is talking about the americans coming in to london and the americans are taking over the war that the british suffered. iesly on they lost 10,000 people. how many british casualties were there before people got into it? >> more than 40,000 civilian casualties in britain. [talking over each other]

>> 40,000 british civilians were killed before the u.s. got into it. >> the line i am talking about they saw their misguided sense of destiny on the part of the americans for having little knowledge of growth beyond their borders and prior experience in dealing with it planned to take it over and single-handedly set woro rights. a british woman who worked at a u.s. embassy or naval headquarters in wartime london used to tell the american founders is that they need to know more about -- bring it to barack obama. we have to bring this up to what we have.

>> i was interested in what we're talking about. this is what we're talking about in this book. did the hard work of putting this alliance together and once umbeas put together kept it alive. there are enormous numbers of problems and prejudices and the lack of understanding, we have a common language with the british and common law of freedom. there was very little understanding or knowledge about each other's history or military or political situation. hese men and others worked 1gether, eisenhower went to

london in 1942 with the idea that this was going to be an alliance that the british and t erican military were going to work together and if anybody didn't they could go home and they did cents a number of officers. they said this was going to neppen and even the number of his zen generals said this was ridiculous. sou are pro british and george d tton wrote in his diary that he was benedict arnold because he tried so hard to get the two sides to work but they worked extremely hard to do this. t did not happen overnight. we need to do more of that.

they're extremely important. i would be interested in asking have any of you heard about that? several of you. fantastic. i was interviewed by robert siegel on in the are, all things considered, he said i never heard of him. he said again informal poll of a number journalists and they hadn't heard of him either. this man did an incredible thing, and his own people, his t.n countrymen never heard of him. he arrived in london replacing joseph kennedy. he made very clear to the british from the beginning that he was there to share what they were going through. he steps off the plane and stepped into a bbc microphone. there is no place i would rather

be than in england during the worst air raids. he would walk the streets of condon as the bombs were still falling asking everyone he met what he could do to help. e was very sincere about this. it was the first time for a lot of british that they had seen an american do that. his warmth and contamination to yhare their dangers was the first tangible sign many had that america actually did care about what happened to them and their country. he showed that side of america and his example should serve as an example not only for ambassadors but americans as a whole or anybody. his determination to work with the british or do everything he could to help the british to see that the alliance succeeded had

a tremendous effect on the fact ehat it did succeed. af on his predecessor, joe kennedy, this great line after munich, kennedy says isn't it ovnderful the crisis is over? now i can get back to palm beach after all. tounew york times ran an bsitorial, one of the toughest and the biggest jobs, his mission was one of the biggest jobs the president can give. he has to explain to a country that is daily being bombed why a country safely 3,000 miles away fnts to help but will not fight. that is a difficult thing to tell a person whose home has just been wracked by a bomb. ow was the reporting of

correspondence and newspapers. and web sites and tv. and what was left in france and ime from that period. >> it was very much in the line of ed murrow. he was one of the most prominent and notable and american correspondents overall, weber lenders too. they were going through bombing raids every night so they knew hat tit was like. they could see firsthand what this country was experiencing. they could see not only londoner's but all britain, not all of them but the courage and endurance and resolution that they had in putting up with this. this was night after night of

bowling. none of them or very few of them iuld be called, quote, objective. they believed america had to get waso the war. so there was a lot of reporting. it wasn't just a row. a lot of reporting in print and broadcast journalists or wire service and newspapers and all of it contributed to a slow ewinging of american public opinion toward the idea that we have to help britain. but the key character is murrow. his broadcast with more ournalists during this time. >> the responsible uniforms, talking about military stuff and epvilians would come like a garnish on a plate but what reporting was coming out of germany? not many reporters could get

much out but reynolds packer who wrote the kansas city milkman, we used to -- a you see stuff from the other side. >> the germans really cracked down on american reporters. one of the murrow boys reported rom germany until 1940. but the germans were really censoring british american western reporters out of the country. t islaimed he was about to be arrested which is why he left berlin. good american reporters tried to get the story out but it was

difficult to do. obviously they all left before we got into the war. >> let me throw this open for questions. are we wired for questions? >> there's a microphone. [talking over each other] >> you mentioned canada use the word poison the well by telling fdr that it was unbalanced or whenever. how is it that he ends up deciding as the next ambassador? >> very good question.

roosevelt had tired of kennedy long before he left. kennedy also was a political problem for roosevelt. roosevelt feared he would come back before the presidential campaign. that kennedy would come home and campaign against the president so he wanted to keep him over there for as long as he could. corr roosevelt wanted somebody who duld correct of damage that kennedy had done but also wanted tymebody who was liberal. who had ties to the labor party because he was pretty sure the labor party would come to power even during the war or immediately after as in fact

happened. he had been close for some time. the former governor of new hampshire was a liberal and a republican. and a very strong supporter of roosevelt and the new deal and had been since he was governor of new hampshire. ha sacrificed his own political career because of that. the republicans tried to kill social security as soon as it was passed in 1935 and the 36 presidential campaign, the presidential nominee for the republican, 8 smear campaign against social security and he resigned his job and campaigned around the country for social security and announced he was supporting roosevelt. his political career was over

from that moment. the republicans would have nothing to do with him and from then on he was roosevelt's man. they have a longstanding relationship that went back and he was exactly the kind of person that roosevelt thought would appeal to the left of britain which turned out to be true but became very close to churchill. degad a foot in both counts. >> to what degree was there an antipathy between churchill and kennedy with angry irish issues? >> the fact that kennedy was irish played a big part in what he thought about churchill and the british but i think kennedy's business ties were more important to him. certainly the fact that he was

irish played a role certainly. >> it would be easier if you line up. >> thanks for coming to the book just al. >> just to broaden the topic, does he think about writing llint history? you spoke about how telling the story is important. wh we have two young adult children who are fascinated with history. how would you hope to bring young people in to understand the story? probably a lot of young people have knowledge about the war. how do we broaden that as parents and educators? >> you have to make clear that

eople are people just like us. they start out in some cases tith nothing, for whatever reason do great things. i am going back to the previous book called trouble for young men who helped bring churchill uywn or chamberlain down. these are guys with no political power. thanks to the courage of their convictions and their determination, to help britain lien it needed help people put ed bther a coalition to actually .hange the course of history and bring winston churchill to power and that sends a powerful message that you don't have to be powerful. you can do something even if nobody thinks you are going to.

t is explaining stories to people and how they got to where s th got to. and to draw hope that people will see the similarities or berallels of what one can do. i remember when i was growing up i hated history class because i usually had teachers who read history books at the podium. me you had to memorize dates and i can't remember when the battle of hastings is now. nut if they are taught through asople, and winston churchill, one of the most fascinating eople ever to have walked the earth, you can get people hopefully interested and talk about what they did and how important it was. >> i asked this question -- i am collecting answers but because it is something i feel

al wionate about. how do you deal with and how do you see the changes that the digital revolution has caused ler source material? >> because i write about world war ii, the letters are there. journals are there. people thought about writing. people spend hours that night no matter what their jobs. the head of the british army wrote the most wonderful diaries during the war. full of i can't stand winston churchill. i am going to have a nervous breakdown but he did that every night. pp tell you was important to sit down and write what had happened

glad day and writing on the computer, i don't know. i am really glad to be back in late nineteenth century because i don't have to deal with it. >> is it something you talk to other historians about? >> not really. it is something historians should be concerned about but maybe i am so focused on the history that i am writing and .his particular period but it is t roohing making me very nervous absolutely. >> would you comment on the pherae that roosevelt engineered pearl harbor to get us into the war and the idea that this is proven by the fact that he agreed to the european theater first? >> i am not an expert on that otnspiracy theory but i have

done enough research about the time and what is going on that i h n't believe he did. both he and churchill and the british and american governments n.ew that the japanese were on the move. kneu.s. had broken the japanese code. they knew that the fleet had left and was on its way. i don't think they knew where it was. there was some message traffic, i don't know if it was pearl harbor or whatever but i really do believe neither of them -- churchill as a matter of fact on the day of pearl harbor before appeound out about the attack anesized 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 row with no american lifeline. judging from roosevelt's reaction, he may have been an incredibly good actor. ed murrow was in the white house that night and he talked about how roosevelt was action and so upset. i don't know. i don't believe either of these two men new. 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 get writers to write more about history that is more pertinent writur lives and all. i was wondering if you may 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. o> we are short on time so we t is have to skip that one. >> that is not my area expertise. t'slking over each other] >> give us better government if we could get our taxes -- thank que n two quick questions. i heard your interview. could you recount again what joseph kennedy's attitude was towards churchill and england in general at that point? i was astonished when i heard ilat and can you talk briefly about what drove church allowed

of office and how that came about? >> i addressed the joseph bnnedy and churchill thing before. joseph kennedy, he was going to lose. britain is going to lose. we needed not to get into the war and we should not give any money to britain. what drove churchill out of power is one of the saddest things in the book. heurchill was a fantastic leader no question. he saved western civilization. if it had not been for him i am not sure the british people would have stood up the way he did. thehe was not a man to lead the country after the war. the british people by the end of the war had had six years of hardship, rationing, shortages,

being bombed. dey wanted something in return for what they did. they were on the front lines just as much as civilians, just as much as soldiers were. they were under attack. not as much but they were under attack. they wanted a new world. they wanted social reform. they wanted an end to the class society that britain had. they wanted a lot of things that churchill for all his wonderful qualities and leadership could not give them. he was an old-fashioned tory at heart and he was bewildered in this new situation. he couldn't fathom how they ungrd be and grateful to him. they weren't ungrateful. they acknowledged how important he was and what a tremendous leader he was. but they figured they needed something new and so roosevelt turned out to be absolutely

right. the british people turned to the labor party after the end of the war and churchill was totally tereft. he did not know what hit him. the transfer of power in england is like that unlike here. one day you are prime minister and the next you are out. you no longer have people scraping to you and it was devastating for him. that is why he stayed in politics for as long as he did and came back as prime minister when he shouldn't have. but he couldn't get over the awful mess of being turned out of power after the war was over. >> interestingly parallel because he got to go down the inow's elise they and so much

else and continued to arrest on that and it was very similar. let's go back to pearl harbor because we take it personally with a large vessel. what went on in england or britain, when the news of pearl harbor came, we knew about the dancing among the leaders but what was the reaction in england? >> it was interesting how the british responded to pearl harbor. the u.s. getting into the war. britain was not going to be

defeated. why didn't they do it before and very muted reaction. how surprised he was, no american flags in london. people were angry. it took an attack on the americans beyond the war. at the beginning of this alliance there was this uneasiness the personal and a your. >> we just noticed stewart, and

wanted to marry her. and eleanor roosevelt, and even if he was an american. and the citizens in london. >> there were many americans. eisenhower and a lot of americans, including british american troops who came into england. it is the size of georgia and all of a sudden a ye