in hong kong that the party is allowing a certain amount of light to be shined in this corner, and to what extent do you think that means there will be more movement with regards to perhaps more exposure and what happened during the cultural revolution period? are we seeing the beginnings of a trend or is this an isolated corner that doesn't have much to do with other issues? >> i'm afraid i have read news for you. spew my second question is this. china scholars as a whole can particularly in the current political climate have to be very careful about what they study and the steps and depth of intensity of that study. i wonder to what extent do you feel you are vulnerable now in terms of access to these types of archives in the future? do you feel you might be vulnerable to a potential blacklist? ..

i too thought for a while that that law that allows the archivist to open up material as old as 30 years would gradually increase the amount of material that is available, but with hindsight i think that was rather naive in the sense that by feeling now is that a lot of these places simply went to little bit too far in opening material. since the olympics a lot of that

material has been reclassified. today i would not be able to carry out the research for that book. i was pretty much there at the right time, which is not to say that everything has been reclassified, but it has become much tougher. still very interesting material out there, but it has become a lot tougher. let us just hope, let us just hope that over the coming years the authorities of the people's republic will adopt the same attitude as elsewhere, including in the ex-soviet union, making it available for systematically. as for the second question, i don't really believe that i'm important enough to be banned from the people's republic. ' in the book. a very interesting piece of ground work in the book. there are others who have published. i am not really the first.

i don't really think something that happened 56 years ago is sufficiently important to warrant a ban. in fact, given the number of e-mails i get from people in the mainland to are very keen to read the translation that will be published, given the number of immense i get, maybe i will be welcomed. >> is there any evidence of any, you know, in other countries they have food riots or, you know, non-communist countries they have food riots in response to something like this. is there any evidence -- is this on? can you hear it? is there any evidence that there

were any revolt among the people and if so, what happened to them? >> yes, it is a wonderful question. i did talk about strategies of coping, in particular lying, obstructing, teaching, pilfering, smuggling, but at some point in these villages it does happen that that passive, that shield that outsiders, the protective shield that outsiders mistake for civility and submissiveness actually breaks down and farmers become really violent. in one county in hunan province out of 500 about 30 are attacked in the space of two months alone in 1960. there are even armed rebellions. about 12 of them in 1960, just for the southwest provinces a round man. in one province, for instance, about 100 farmers take weapons

with the support of local village leaders and a number of high-ranking party officials. the army has to be sent ten to deal with that incident. and a further you get -- the further you go the more rebellion you encounter. some of them are extremely violent. others really relying on the sheer number of farmers, for instance, in guns and province in 1961 there are a reported 500 cases of assaults on freight trains. in one case up to 400,000 farmers just wait by the side of that real rates. here comes the freight train. the assaulted and remove every removable piece from that freight train. a number of them actually find military uniforms. this is very cold, january of

1961. they put them on. on the prowl a couple of days later they approach the state greenery. the doors open naturally because they mistake them for militia. so there are all sorts of extraordinary acts of resistance that happened from single farmers who simply can't take it anymore and basalt officials with cleavers to large gatherings of farmers who used the number to get to a train coming get to a granary, assault and office that represents the communist party. >> if you could stand up. >> howard friedman, united nations. one of the things that i think was most poignant about what you had raised was the idea of all of the violence which is not violence i have heard people

discuss that much. can you give us an idea of roughly what percentage of the deaths you would say were associated with violent death as a suspect -- as opposed to starvation? >> yes. an extremely attractive question. i'm glad you raised it. on the basis of a whole series of very different types of documentation one gets of rough sense of how many and died in violent conditions, how many were tortured to death, buried alive. why? because some of the investigation teams actually want to find out for themselves. so they come up with a number of figures. it ranges from about 6-8%. it could be less, it could be more, but it means that about 2-3000000 people were violently killed during this time. as a percentage that is actually higher than the number of people who were killed deliberately.

most of the victims died of deliberate starvation and overwork in the countryside. a quite high number. even more interesting is, of course, the use of food as a weapon. why beat somebody, why expend energy when you can simply ban that person from the canteen? if you were too weak, too old, too sick to work, if you speak out during a meeting before steal some grain you will be banned from the canteen, and you will start very quickly. so the deliberate starving of people considered to be unfit or undesirable is one of the key characteristics of this famine. and in the number of counties in szechuan estimated at about 80 percent of those who died actually died because they were banned, cut off from the food supply. a very large number of those.

of course it varies enormously from one place to another. i think it is fair to say that the cruelest proportion of those who died or actually deliberately starved. the food is in the canteen. pots and pans. there were added, collectivized, or taken away during the movement to produce more feet -- steel in backyard furnaces. potbound the food is enhanced of the party, of the militia. it is handed out by the spoonful. one man we interviewed had a very interested way of looking at it. he said that even if you work hard, even if you got enough work points to be entitled to your bowl of food you were still afraid to enter the canteen. as he said it the ladle, the ladle can read people's faces.

by that he meant that the man who yields the ladle was either go very deep into the pot and give you some substantial food or merely scan the surface and give you some greenish concoction if he did not like you. >> we have a -- we have time for a couple more. right appear in the front. >> mark the spring air. i would like to ask you about the untold story, the unknown story which you are probably familiar with. i think many of the conclusions regarding this time are similar to what you have concluded. >> a very difficult question. you may have noticed that the young john actually endorses the book. it's on the cover. it has been very much criticized

i have a very simple attitude. i'd like to see what is good in something. now, andrew nathan is a review for the new york review books and describe that particular bibliography as bits of plastic and jade. i would rather focus on the jade and take that. i don't have time. i could take the jade. and not one to go and jump up and down because of another piece of plastic in the book. i would rather take that. the way i look at it history left a graphically is that book has actually made it possible for others like myself to write about this time and about mao in a much more critical manner. so i still believe that book is

a fundamental from a historian graphical point of view, and i keep on going back to it. now that i am working 1949 to 1947i still go back. i read once, twice, check the foot notes. of course there is plastic, but there is still a lot of jade and there. what else is there to read? not an awful lot. >> exaggeration. but contained in decisions. >> it seems to me my biggest reservation is as follows, it portrays now as a monster, which he was. but it does not really look at all of the others who were there to support now, all of the others who were there as key points to make sure that he got

his way. all those who stood behind him and supported him. for instance, during the purge in the summer of 1939 people like the mayor of shanghai who stood right behind tim and others like the man who was in charge of szechuan was also very much a gung-ho supporter so that is also what i've been trying to do with this book, move away from a narrow focus on mao to look at how this, in fact, not just everybody in the party, but human beings at every level if you wish, of the social hierarchy and how it creates moral degradation all the way through the moral fabric of society. >> i think we have time for one final question. >> you mentioned before that you got e-mails from the mainland but you were waiting for the translation of the book.

when exactly will it be published in taiwan or hong kong? will it be centered in a way? >> it will be published in hong kong, and hopefully it should be out by january or february at the latest. so quite soon, within half a year. it will, be it of course, in contact characters. once it will be, -- published somebody will copy it in simple characters that will be scanned and copied and downloadable from the web. >> one last question. >> greatly developed, can you speak a little bit further about the roles, especially when they started getting reports back from the revolution which was just ten years ago and the relatives in the villages of what was happening, the loss of life and the fabrication and

also one last thing, if you could just mention a little about cannibalism. >> i will give you, because there is not much time left, but i will give you a quotation. this is what he says in 1962 when he was fully aware of the fact that in his home province, such 18-10000000 people had died. he said that he admired the szechuan style because when a command was issued by the center szechuan province actually delivered the goods. so he said that maybe there were some excesses', but overall he was proud of szechuan. that is what he said in 1962. fully aware of the amount of deprivation and death caused by his man and says one.

ben himself said again in 1962 we are not weaker. we are stronger. he compared it to the long march. he said we have tapped the backbone. by that he meant all that had died unnecessarily were actually bad elements, slackers, counterrevolutionaries, righteous conservatives. it kept the backbone. so, the beauty of gaining access in a very limited way, a very limited way to some of those minutes of the top speeches and conferences of to find out that it was not just one man's shop, so to speak, he got a lot of support from the crucial people at the top

including the ocean algae in the beginning, joe and july after a couple of months. well, here is somebody who mao really needs to actually implement that plan. once you decide that you are going to have to go forward. you have that vision, there has to be somebody to do the paperwork. and again, this is something that comes out of the archives. then he is the one that goes around and will make sure that each province contributes the amount of grain and has been mandated from above. here is a man that sent a telegram after a kilogram or harassed people in personal meetings or pressure, bush to make sure that the grain is actually delivered. so a very short chapter on cannibalism. the beauty of the archives is

that there are a number of cases where it is not just a few cases, but a very systematic lists of how many people committed cannibalism in one particular village. i have only one conclusion about cannibalism. namely, most people who have seen so much violence and horror and to have managed to survive through it all, surely this was not the worst form of disrespect and desecration to eat somebody who had already died. far greater order to inflict on human beings. >> and on that note, is there anything that we have not asked you? that you wish we had asked you? >> i would love to point out --

i would like to come back to what i put said that earlier about people being reduced to mere numbers. this is not statistics. numbers are important. it is vital, i think, that one should try as a historian to really discover the human faces, the tragedies, the stories behind all of that. i spent a lot of time trying to make this book as engaging as possible. if only because this is a book, a topic that is far too important to be reduced to mere theory about state power or this or that. far too important to be reduced to a mere number about how many people died. it has to be a part of something that people will read in order to gain the same level of

knowledge about this great crime against humanity as they might gain from reading books, for instance, by saul friedlander on the holocaust or other books on crimes committed. so please don't be -- don't be repulsed by numbers. there are very few of them in the book. >> although it was not intended that way, that is actually a perfect introduction to invite you all to the back of the room where if you like you can purchase a copy of the book. then you can ask any other questions you have to professor frank dikötter. thanks for being such a tough audience. [applauding] >> frank dikötter is that share professor of humanities at the university of hong kong. for more information visit this

website, web at. >> reporter: dot com / the cutter. >> c-span is local content vehicles are traveling the country is visiting cities and towns as we explore our nation's history and some of the others who have touched upon it. this weekend we take you to downtown indianapolis for a look at the new kirk what it memorial library. >> kurt vonnegut was perhaps the greatest american writer. a world war ii veteran. he was a user. he was a satirist. he was a political activist. he was a husband, a father. he was a friend, a friend to his fans. he would write back to his fans. he wrote more than 30 pieces of words including praise, novels, short stories, some of his most familiar books,

"slaughterhouse-five," which is perhaps his most famous. "breakfast of champions," "cat's cradle," and many others. kurt vonnegut always brought in his midwestern accuse and often wrote about indiana and indianapolis specifically. if i may read a ," many people ask me why should this vonnegut library be here in indianapolis. i have many different answers. then i found this great one that said all of my jokes are indianapolis. all of my attitudes are indianapolis. my adenoids our indianapolis. if i ever separate myself from indianapolis i would be out of business. what people like about me is indianapolis. so we take that as a green light to go ahead and establish the vonnegut library here in indianapolis. we have an art gallery, museum

room, reading room, a gift shop, and i would like to share details about these with you today. this is the first vonnegut timeline. if you would allow me i would like to read a quote from the top of this beautiful painting which was created by the artist chris cain and by a vonnegut scholar named rodney allen. both of these individuals live in louisiana. it reads all moments past, present, and future always have existed, always we will exist. the trough and the dorians can look at all the different moments just the way we can look at a stretch of the rocky mountains, for instance. they can see how permanent all of the moments are. it is just an illusion we have here on earth that once a moment is gone it is gone forever. something that is unique about our time line is we actually start on the right side and move

to the left rather than the left side and move to the right. but one thing we wanted to mention about this ," we hope that vonnegut would know that while he may think -- may have thought that once a moment is gone it is gone forever, we like to think that the moment of kurt vonnegut will live on forever here at the vonnegut library. he went to cornell university. he was studying chemistry. he did not plan to go into architecture, like his father, but he did think he would move into a science career and discover -- discovered at cornell that he was not very much interested in doing that. he enlisted in the army during world war two, and i would like to point out a moment here on the timeline that is very important in the life of kurt vonnegut in that it is 1944.

he enters combat and is captured by germans during the battle of the balts. riding in a boxcar with other american pows to a safe german city unlikely to be bombed. dresden was this beautiful cultural city that was not a military target. as vonnegut rode in on a train he was able to view this beautiful city, and then he was placed in a slaughterhouse with the rest of the prisoners of war were held. the slaughterhouse of "slaughterhouse-five." over here we have an exhibit that we call the dresden exhibit, but it is really his world war two experience that became so important in his riding and his world view later in life i will start with his photo that

was taken right after he was released as a prisoner of war along with fellow prisoners. we also have his purple heart that was donated by his son, mark vonnegut, to us. he received a purple heart for frostbite. kurt vonnegut was embarrassed to have received the purple heart for frostbite when so many of his friends had had suffered from other types of physical problems and disease. we have a fine first edition of the book at 11. this is important because "slaughterhouse-five" is probably the most well-known book written by kurt vonnegut of the 30 some pieces of writing that he completed. this is possibly the most famous -- excuse me, famous.

right. so let me give you of little bit of history about what happened to him but my impressions of why it affected people so much. as i read, he was taken to the slaughterhouse. while he was in dresden the allies bombed preston. so his own countrymen as well as allies bombed the city. it was a horrible bombing. it was literally a firestorm. tens of thousands of people were killed, and these were noncombatants, women and children, you know, and old people but vonnegut was cast as a prisoner to go out and remove the bodies, you know, from these burning buildings. he also was required to get barry these bodies of women and children. that affected his life

tremendously. he came back from his world war ii experience being completely against war. he was searching for peaceful resolutions to conflict and supported the policy and other approaches to solving problems. i would also point out the photo that was taken after he came back from the war. he got married to jane cox vonnegut who was from indianapolis, as well. this photo was taken from their honeymoon. as you can see, he is in uniform. vonnegut and jane had three children, march, itt, and net. then many years later his sister alice died just a day or two after her husband had died in a freight train added accident. alice had four children, and

three of them came to live with that vonnegut family. they had quite a large household, seven children. vonnegut at that time was writing books that at that time were less familiar, but he had published several books and articles for magazines as well as working a job as a car salesman for saab. the experience in writing about dresden and what happened to him was a tremendously difficult for vonnegut. took him about 20 years to be able to publish the books, "slaughterhouse-five." jane, his wife, had encouraged him to write it. she worked as his editor on the book. she asked prescience and that clarity on issues and helped him to receive a lot of the memories

that he had repressed. because of the family situation, the addition of more children and the success that was coming with the publishing of "slaughterhouse-five", his marriage with shane was rocky. his daughter had mentioned about a month ago that the experience and the publishing of the book and all that brought to vonnegut contributed to their marriage dissolving. at that time vonnegut had not the photographer jill krementz. he married jill krementz and as the only other person he married during his lifetime. we move over to the political

activity exhibit. vonnegut continued test talk about his interest in finding peaceful solutions to complex. i think that is another thing that made him very popular during the vietnam years and after. this photo which was given to us by the new york times was taken during the first goal for. there is vonnegut out there at columbia university. you know, i'm sure it was a large crowd. and to the his dying day vonnegut would attract a large crowd. i have been told that he was like a rock star coming in to his different speeches and large auditoriums, always filling the auditorium. so here we are in the art

gallery portion of our library. i would like to take you over here and show you 84 "that is signed that was given to us by his sadistic collaborator, joe pit row. i don't know what it is about hoosiers, but wherever you go there is always a hoosier doing something very important. this "was an the book "cat's cradle," and is a very funny exchange said the main character has with a fellow traveler on a plan. that fellow traveler. next we have possibly his most famous piece of artwork. this feature. vonnegut, in his humor, he is associated the * with the anatomical features. we actually have used this * in

other pieces of our exhibit including our timeline which you may have thought had stars in the sky. actually they were these from vonnegut. we also have life is no way to treat an animal. this is his famous character, kilgore trout who appeared in many, many of his books. it is understood that kilgore trout is based on vonnegut himself. interestingly the character died at the age of 84, and vonnegut also happens to die at the age of 84. >> what did kurt vonnegut die from? >> he collapsed. he fell down the steps of his new york city home.

but he went into a, and never came out. he often joked that palm all cigarettes would kill him and he would sue the makers because the warning label on the cigarette package said that paul malls would kill him and they had not yet done so. but he actually happened to be smoking a palm ball while standing on the steps. so next we have here two pieces of artwork created. one of our honorary board members. he was a close friend of kurt vonnegut. they actually both shared a close friend who was the -- wrote the introduction for the last vonnegut but that came out. but these two pieces of art, the first on the occasion of the birthday of kurt vonnegut was created in 2003 as a gift to

vonnegut. the second was created when he found out that vonnegut had died. that was 2,007. we are in the front of the kurt vonnegut library in the gallery ram. we have the typewriter of kurt vonnegut that was used in the 1970's. this was donated to us by his daughter. he wrote many of his more familiar books during the 1970's. we are happy to have this typewriter. he was not a fan of high-technology, and he did not use a computer. he preferred to use the typewriter. he liked to work in his home on an office chair on the coffee

table. he would slump over his typewriter. vonnegut would go out into the world every day, but he talks about how he had learned that you could buy postage stamps over the internet. he just thought that was horrible because then, you know, if he chose that route he would not have the everyday experience of going to the post office. those everyday experiences and the people that they encountered during his daily walks, they were the basis for some of his stories. he met a number of very interesting characters in new york city. going out and meeting people, you know, was away for him to the capture new material. vonnegut is timeless because the issues, we still have the same issues. we are still suffering with war, disease, famine, environmental

issues. you know, he said your famous indian system is trying to get rid of you. he felt we should take care of the planet. these issues, you know, have resurfaced. it does not look like we have found any viable solutions to these problems. you know, i think his work is timeless. >> c-span local content vehicles are traveling the country visiting cities and towns as we look at our nation's history and some of the authors who have written about it. for more information go to c-span.org / lcv. >> now recalling the life of american general walter bell smith. general smith, the right eisenhower's chief of staff from 1942-1945, served in the military for more than four years and played a significant

part in the allied strategy in world war ii. discusses his book at the annual association of the u.s. army meeting held at the washington convention center. >> now, why would somebody in their right mind -- that might be a stretch, spanned 25 years of their life studying, grant, sherman, sheridan, lee. but a man past middle age bear, rankled, intelligent, cold, noncommittal, with eyes like a codfish. at the same time unresponsive, cool, calm, and composed as a concrete post. a heart of sulfur and without charm,-balls, passions, or a sense of humor, happily to never reproduce and finally get to hell. there is no doubt who the

template for patton's description was, the quintessential the soldier. known as the biggest square wheeled son of a bitch in the states army known as a hatchet man, known as an empire builder, known as someone fought way above his weight. perhaps. the point is that any book above smith equally at least as chief of staff must deal with eisenhower, his personality and his. this book, if it makes any contribution at all beyond telling us smith's story is a re-evaluation of eisenhower and his in the second world war. now, as i said, two points. the first book was good.

it was good. a part of my dissertation, i was twentysomething at the time. i felt prone to a common pitfall which was received wisdom. received wisdom about general marshall bradley, beavers, hodges, patton, the british, churchill, alum rock, alexander and of course montgomerie. and eisenhower. so basically what i did, i simply in fused smith into the story. i did the best job i could. the thing is that once i dug deeper and deeper into the research i found that there was a great deal more to smith and less to eisenhower. the point being, again, that eisenhower was what one might term a passive-commander. passive meeting he never look for problems to solve. in fact he tried to evade them. , the only time he was firm and a decision is when he was determined not to do something.

conversely he was a person who was the inverse. aggressive, affirmative chief of staff. could not be the backstop. he had to be almost deputy commander. in addition to which eisenhower always engaged political commitments which meant that essentially served as his foreign secretary. the other point was that my first book was a military biography. i did not to a thorough job on his postwar career, which was the oversight. that was the product of a member of the committee who insisted that at this chapter. frankly, i did it as a service both in terms of not telling the full story the first time around and not dealing with his post-war career, which was important. smith was committed to his duties. he could not say no. what he wanted after the war was

what he thought was his just desserts, a fourth star and to follow marshall eisenhower into the chair of chief of staff of the army, and it never happened. and when the secretary of state burns was looking for a hard boiled son of a bitch to go deal with stalin and the boys in the kremlin he suggested smith, and tremendous agreed. back as eisenhower said, it serves those bastards right for soviets to get smith as their ambassador. he met sullen twice, once when he presented his credentials. he told stalin, bringing the message from german that we want to cooperate with the soviet union. we do not mistake that for weakness. the next time he met him was during the height of the berlin crisis that eventually spun into the berlin airlift.

coming from london obviously talking to a soviet official. an interesting thing here is that smith was point man for the west. he had hammered a deal. but as it turns out they thought an otherwise and that never came to be. now, smith was suffering from chronic health frost related to ulcers and other complications. he wanted to believe moscow. he returned to command the first army which was where all soldiers go to fade away. he had half of the stomach and much removed in major surgery. he found time to read his book about his observations about the soviet union which in hindsight proved to be back very prescient. again, the duty called. truman asked him to take over direction of the cia, which was

in foundry just after the failure to anticipate the north korean invasion. what he had the only time in his career he did was carboys, power to restructure the cia, which he achieved parity created a vertically integrated structure based on functional lines which serve as the basic foundation for the cia during the cold war. now, with eisenhower's perspective of election as president smith thought that finally he would get the big prize, chief of staff. he was disappointed. again, from the highlights, the mccarthy hearings during the not get along very well. he was also responsible for engineering to regime changes, the overthrow of elected governments in a ron and

guatemala. the job that eisenhower asked him to fill was number two to undersecretary of state. playing behind lou gehrig. the relationship was very testy. dulles mostly wanted smith to trouble shoot for an administration. he handed over the western hemisphere affairs, but basically the relationship, as we said, was not very friendly. his last act was as american representative. dallas would not go. as a finality by conference in geneva that resulted finally in the partition. smith's comment on the elected premier of france, i was had. of lying son of a bitch whose family was loaded with communist

or cryptic comments and there were crackpots, perverts, and assorted nuts. that is intelligent it the way it is. again, he recommended that the united states signed the agreement. again, only to the domestic consideration primarily. and we all know what came. finally smith left office, health failing. when he died in 1961 as british france said that it was not a wonder that he lived as long as he did but that he did not die earlier. he was virtually a cadaver. interestingly before he passed away he had a meeting with vice president nixon. they were founding. bedell smith began to cry. he said, you know what, but always had to have this

frat boy, and we have been a frat boy. obviously better that he never fulfilled his ambition which was to succeed not necessarily eisenhower, but marshall because he was always a marshall man. very close proximity. so again, and interesting and important element of the first decade of the cold war. again, marshall. another aspect of his career that i gave short script in the first book was the important role he played as secretary general marshall general staff as chief troubleshooter, but more importantly, perhaps, is the role he played, fundamental role as the architect of the structure of the combining of the joint chiefs of staff as a colonel and brigadier-general. clearly way above his weight. he also had a major voice in considerations of whether the allies should attack or

operation for richard ward cadaver which smith supported almost alone among the senior players. as eisenhower's chief of staff, of course he had an allied force in north africa which became a model of allied cooperation, plenty of of flak between not only the british and the americans, but also in terms of the problems of north africa. the most famous episode, to probably. one was smith brokered the decision on the invasion of sicily in an algerian laboratory with montgomery. more importantly he led the negotiations -- actually, the extortion that forced the japanese -- are, the japanese, the italians into surrendering. this picture tells it all.

smith, normally no hair out of place, disheveled. after the long continuous negotiations with the italians. eisenhower blows and, crisp uniform. most famously, of course, he as chief of staff. again, still very useful, onlyg? 48 years old. usual suspects, eisenhower, supreme commander, the deputy commander, montgomerie, the commander. naval and air, chief of staff. no combined role, but for american book can see is in the photograph. so again, playing an important role in organizing, shipping,

preparing the maltese innis of problems of both political and military preparations for de-day. essentially the fateful meeting where eisenhower decides not to delay, he turns to smith last as to montgomery. now, after the war eisenhower, smith writes a book called eisenhower's six with decision. now, what transpired immediately after the war, of course, is the on dress of the cold war. folks want to blame the allies primarily general eisenhower for failing to take berlin and the division of europe. surely there after a number of books appeared.

one of the debased on a diary, what eisenhower called. [inaudible] a person as churchill, his famous iron curtain speech told smith that he was the perfect guy to write the definitive insider history of world war ii at a higher level. smith is looking at the chief of staff, and so he passed, but he did write a series of articles for the "washington post." it later became his book. eisenhower was also writing his version of the war called crusade in europe. this was the advice that smith gave eisenhower. state frankly and fully your own estimate of the tools with which you were working. by that i mean your commanders like pat and montgomerie and bradley. a free pass. we all know about patent and montgomerie. i feel strongly that you owe it

to yourself, your associates, and history a simple and unvarnished truth. plus he never got the simple and unvarnished truth. eisen has our sat through an account all about eisenhower, even though he did not much appear in it. now, if we use smith has our modus operandi here in terms of the decisions, again, d-day. the normandy break out, the battle of the bowls, the crossing of the rhine, the completion and decision on berlin. what he argues is that eisenhower always had it right. he was an affirmative commander. he stayed true to the plan from the very beginning. this was ironic because montgomery had suffered under 50 years of abuse because of his claim everything went according to plan. but eisenhower and smith argued

that, indeed, the whole operation in northwest europe went according to the overlord plan. it also gives the opinion that smith always agreed with eisenhower. that is not the case. in terms of the normandy break out, the whole plan was basically president did on taking and seizing the brittany peninsula. the decision was to hold the peninsula and use it as a staging area for manpower and material to flow along the lines of communications that flow through and from britain to paris and beyond. of course the decision was not to complete the operation in brittany as envisioned, but instead, attempts to encircle the germans.

everybody suffered from the victory disease including smith, but smith was always more aware of the logistical requirements. so there was a difference of opinion over that. the full motion of the broad front. smith argued that they should either cancel anvil, the operation. those troops and the british certainly agreed. move now and stage to complete the operation. it did not take place. again, smith agreed with the british against eisenhower. eisenhower got his way. the whole issue of why the u.s. army and the british were unable to complete the construction of the german army is this plan. everybody wants to blame that decision because they hated. it is easy.

but the real problem was a structural problem. from the moment that eisenhower became chief of staff, december of 1942 he was pressuring eisenhower to restructure the staff and to give priority and a separate manpower command as well as centralizing the logistics'. it never took place. there were other reasons for the breakdown, but it is overly simplistic to simply blinded upon the legislation. the other issue, of course, was brett's to far our numbers is antwerp. smith was livid because eisenhower would never issue a definitive commands to montgomery. he was right. he was never ordered to open up. it was always a tertiary priority. in fact, the order was formally written by smith and eisenhower

could not evade that because marshall happens to be in the theater at that point. again, how that dynamic worked between smith and eisenhower. the bowls we needn't go into. the crossing of the rhine, smith played a very important role because he is lead man. he defends eisenhower's approach. at the most bitter of all the conferences between the combined. and finally the decision not to go to berlin, again, not to get to berlin. says smith goes in front of the press and he argues, we are not taking berlin because we need to deal with the idea that the germans would pullback and stage in operation, guerrilla warfare in the alpine spirit of course that did not happen. there were smart's differences of opinions. it was not all smooth.

again, you might argue that it there were pretty mediocre. it was the unforced errors. his decision to launch the counteroffensive. with so puny it cannot even be called a counter offensive. a counter attack sealed the fate of the german armies and france. his decision to launch the battle of the bulge and to unleash l'vov to and the red wings meant they had herded away all their offensive capability. heller's decision to not yield an edge of the fatherland was meaning that the germans could not defend the rhine. anyway, just throw that out there. and finally, of course, eisenhower distances himself from the whole of the negotiations and final surrender. so smith has the honor of signing the german surrender.

now, smith's place in history. truman says his contributions were of commendable value. winston churchill says is comradeship tested in war always found to be of the finest. churchill spoke more highly of smith that he did any other american. after smith's death only president eisenhower and the late general of the army george c. marshall was said to have met the range and duration of bedell smith more than four decades of service and military and civilian branches of the service. talking about marshall and eisenhower and smith. now, marshall says right after the war, spoke of his admiration

for the manner in which you have discharged your vast responsibilities, assuring smith that he had carved out a place in the history of the great epic. well, of course that did not take place. that only did not take place for bedell smith, it had not taken place for general marshall either. he had lost a great organizer of victory, the graded soldier of world war ii was lost. he had the misfortune of being a chief of staff. final words, a very great soldier and a friend once assured me that my place in military history was secured says the only requisite was an enduring spot in the history of battle, the wisdom of selecting a chief of staff. he went on to say that no one was ever quite as wise as i was in this regard. finally, no single man in europe contributed more