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. pñle,x2ñdist

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 fo