and your lawyers computers are being taken over and your documents are being stolen so when you are negotiating with them you are not going to get as good a deal because they know more about your playbook then you do. humored about the google attack the year and a half ago. that was one of 80 companies and intellectual property and what i mean by intellectual property as current products, future products, engineering work on current products so other people who want to compete with us don't have to do all that r&d so so it is not just espionage in the old sense of espionage, and is having a massive economic impact as well as a military one. guest: it wasn't that long ago, back in the 80's, we were worried about the japanese and we were worried that they were getting technology and leaping ahead of us, china as well, through the best of our intellectual property. it is a national security concern, but under policy and

legal decisions, how one responds to espionage versus a use of force or an armed attack is different. there are different rules apply as to what one does using law enforcement efforts possibly versus internationally recognized authority to use force. >> guest: sometimes people say well, the u.s. stole intellectual property from britain in the 19th century and is in that part of what helps make us grow? and so should we not criticize the chinese for doing this? my answer is always that we should tell the chinese, steal as many books as you like, and that is not relative to what is going on. is the ability to download massive quantities of information, entire plans and if you have ever read a book and try to, how to build your own f-16 you make a lot of mistakes. if you get the electronic version might be simpler. >> host: we are almost out of time but i want to ask -- we are

coming up on the anniversary of 9/11. cuday 911-size attack occurred via cyber warfare? >> guest: if your question is good people die, could 3000 people died based on on a nuclear accident, that was facilitated through, not caused entirely by its bill of that -- facilitated through cyber, yes. >> guest: maybe i'm a little more optimistic or hold up out the hope that we are not there yet. the anniversary is very close. i think still the biggest threat,, especially on an anniversary like this, is similar to 9/11, conventional terrorist attack. >> so there is a classified example of a cyber attack that resulted in multiple deaths, and what we know from that, we can start to assess the

effectiveness of this as a weapon. it is not that powerful. you can heard a few people and that is bad of course but i don't think you could have a 9/11. you could have more fun doing something else. you could mess up the financial system or turn off the electrical power but casualties in the thousands would be difficult to achieve in a cyber attack. >> host: we are out of time unfortunately. very quickly jim lewis is the director of technology and public policy program at csis. he got his ph.d. at the university of chicago. also joining us today was catherine lotrionte, who is director of the cybersecurity project at georgetown university, ph.d. from georgetown university, law degree from new york university and alan paller founder and research director of the sans institute, degrees from cornell and m.i.t.. mr. paller very quickly what is the sans institute in how did you get involved in this type of work?

>> guest: sans is the main training organization. we have trained 20,000 people year in the techniques that they are used to -- computers and exploit computers. i got involved because the software companies sold to another company in the security area and learned it that way. >> host: do you train a lot of government folks? >> guest: more commercial and defense industrial base of a small number of government folks in law enforcement particular and the intelligence community. >> host: catherine lotrionte how did you get involved in working in the general counsel office of the cia and cybersecurity? >> guest: so my background in cyber started actually at cia when i was given the information warfare account akin 1997 as a lawyer and sunrise and -- were just around the corner and kept interest in it and found a spot at georgetown eventually outside of the government where i could bring in what i think is

necessary a multidisciplinary approach to the topic we have. technical and our sciences with the policy and legal to try to deal with some of the problems. >> host: mr. lewis? >> guest: when i was cool it -- i would have to write computer programs so i thought about dropping out and eventually got through it. and a few years later, clarke was walking down the hall one way and he said to me you know how to program computers don't you? i should've should have said no. instead he said, i want you to to -- so that is how i got involved. >> host: also joining us today was siobhan gorman it covers national security type issues for "the wall street journal." thank you all for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you.

>> coming up next, booktv presents after words, an hour-long program where we invite guest host to interview authors. this week, former u.s. secretary of state henry kissinger in his new book, "on china," the diplomat who accompanied president nixon to the conyers nation presents his thoughts on the history of china's relationship with the united states and its current influence on american politics and monetary policy. he shares his perspective with former nixon aide and "fox news" contributor, monica crowley. >> host: dr. kissinger, great to see you, sir, as always. so nice to see you and congratulations on your extraordinary new book, which is called quite simply, "on china." and i can't think of anybody else i would rather talk to about china. china has gone over the last few decades from being a very important concern for the united states to an important, urgent and primary concern for the

united states and there are so many layers to the sino-american relationship and we are going to get into it all with you so thank you for being here sir. let's begin with how china sees itself and how it is traditionally seen itself. as i was making my way through your book you write, both the united states and china believe that they represent unique values in the world. and you say that the united states elite that has an obligation to spread its values to every part of the world whereas china acts on the basis of its singularity and that it has expanded through what you call cultural osmosis. tell us what you mean. >> guest: america believes that its values apply everywhern adopt them and their institutions can be spread everywhere. the chinese believe that they

present a unique civilization. you can't really become a chinese. you have to grow up in its cultural environment. you can't clearly naturalized as a chinese. so, as a result americans have thought of the world as composed of more or less equal societies and the concept of sovereignty. the chinese come until the end of the 19th century, thought of the world as tributaries to what they called the celestial empire. tributaries didn't mean that they have to pay tribute. they had to bring -- it was expected if they bring gifts but they were often -- they could give in return but what it did mean is that they indicated respect for the nature of

chinese society and chinese supremacy, so chinese relations for other nations are based more on mutual respect ban on a concept of equality. but, the chinese, as we do, believe that their values are unique and it makes them even more sensitive than we would be to outside pressures telling them how to redo their society. >> host: is it a superiority? to the chinese -- >> guest: . [inaudible] >> host: you also write that when europe entered the modern age it had a tremendous experience with diversity by then and you had these cities across europe that govern

themselves and you had an entire political philosophy built on that concept, that is liberalization, right? you also say when china enter the modern age it had been a fully functioning imperial bureaucracy for over 1000 years. tell us what you mean about them. zero or are perceived. >> guest: china evolve actually about 2000 years ago, and when china was unified and then it was governed by a bureaucracy that was elected by competitive examination, so in that sense it was more modern during that period. but, china had a governing philosophy which was confucianism and a governing bureaucracy which operated on a

national basis, and therefore when other occasionally china was conquered by its neighbors, but they didn't know how to govern it and they needed the chinese bureaucracy. so on at least two occasions in chinese history, foreigners came in, conquered the country, used the chinese pair christie to govern net and became sanctified themselves. china explained that sometimes by the opposite of western ways, not by conquest, but by being conquered and then -- the conquerors. the mongolians on one occasions and the manchus from the north. >> host: it is a much more efficient way, isn't it? you also say that because china was never really forced to

engage with larger civilizations in the world, it remained basically insular, but because of that it also considered itself the center of the world. does that still hold true? >> guest: in a way it is still held true when nixon and i went to china. the conduct of mao and the first revolutionary leaders in china still was influenced by the chinese. for example you never had a -- you were sentenced to see mao and that was also the same with any foreign and boy they came previously. there was a british, at the end of the 18th century, the british sent an envoy to beijing and he was supposed to offer

them trade and diplomatic relations and everything the europeans were familiar with. he was marvelously received that he couldn't get in hot -- audience with the emperor and it took him three them three months before he was summoned. and then they said, you have nothing we want and we have nothing you should want. what you have portrayed is not possible and we don't receive ambassadors because anyone who lives in beijing has to wear chinese clothes, live in a chinese house and can never leave china. so, your question is do they still think this way? of course, not exactly this way, but -- and with globalization of

the economy and the daily contact there is still a tendency to -- terms though it is much attenuated in the modern period. >> host: you mention mao tse tung of course the father of the chinese communist revolution. you knew him, you worked with him. >> guest: i met him three times along. >> host: what were your impressions of him both as a strategic leader and as a movement leader? >> guest: first is a movement leader, one has to understand that tens of millions of people who were killed under his rule and the reason for that was because he wanted to complete the communist revolution at that time, he knew that in chinese history the leader was an

emperor of the unified china, and then 20 years after his death, all the vestiges of his rule had disappeared except the unification. so he for example organized what was called the great leap forward in which china was supposed to move from total under development to a steel production at the level of great written. in three years, and in order to do that they had to get resources from the countryside and they melted down all of the steel implements. the result was a famine in which as many as 40 million people may have been killed. 10 years later he started the cultural revolution which was another -- produced another huge

quantity of casualties so on the moral ground on the movement he did not. he was an enormous cruelties and disasters. at the same time as the ruler of china, he he had to maneuver china among a whole host of other countries and a china that was poor, underdeveloped, not very strong militarily and had just emerged from a century and a half of colonial deprivation. so on that strategic, he was a great leader. he had an enormous skill and strategic analogies, and he maneuver china. of course the only major communist country that survived the collapse of communism all

over the world and he managed to switch from the communist side to the winning side in the cold war without missing a beat. so, from that point of view, from a strategic analyst which is how we got to know him first, he had extraordinary abilities, as you would expect from somebody who had started and unified a huge society and for a decade-long civil war. one cannot forget the suffering he caused. >> host: you mentioned that you met with him a total of five times, three times along one on one. what were your impressions of him as a man? >> guest: it was never totally one-on-one but i was the principle. mao in those contexts, and i

didn't have to deal with him on a -- level, think it is important now these meetings came about. as i said he was summoned, so the chinese escorts would take off almost always in chinese -- and he undoubtedly had many places. they showed foreigners -- in which there was, it was none of the majesty of say european palaces. the first time i saw him, the empty room had it a roundtable in it and he had received one in his study in which books were

scattered all over the place. he sat in the middle of a semicircle. he had a very subsonic matter -- manner. almost every other leader i knew knew -- most leaders would say i have five points to make in here are my five points. mao wouldn't do this. mao would begin his conversation, what is your consideration of, and then he would pose an issue. then you would say whatever you wanted to say and he would say, but have you considered the following? and every once in a while he would make an interjection. at one point, we were discussing

the contribution europe could make to the common defense, and he had said, it reminds me of swallows who fly up into the air into an approaching storm and flap their wings, but you professor and i will know that the flapping of buildings does not affect the coming of the storm. so he achieved in that two things. one he gave me equal status with him, a as sort of a philosopher professor, you and i you and i and then he had this metaphor of the. this is how he would conduct a composition.

sometimes he would get pointed but if it was usually in an indirect way. but very forceful and when he spoke you knew that his voice was -- that he vibrated physica. the last two times i saw him he had had a stroke and he had great difficulty speaking and h. the interpreters had to hold up what they understood him to say before they could determine it. but even then, he conducted a meeting of over two hours without physical disabilities. so he obviously was a formidable bersin. >> host: let's talk about

1973 -- 72 in that dramatic diplomatic breakthrough conducted by u.n. president nixon of course. it is interesting because president nixon told me in the 1990s that the thing that brought the two of you together, china and the united states, was a major should teach a concern over the going soviet power and the chinese lived across the border. they saw it growing so they had assertiveness and based on accelerated nuclear buildup, very concerned, so they push the united states and you approached china. you came together for strategic reasons. could you describe the strategic dynamics at the time that allowed the kinds of triangular diplomacy that u.n. president nixon were trying to develop? >> guest: as you say we saw the growth of the soviet union and the soviet union in the space of 10 years had occupied hungary and subjugated poland a second time. it had occupied czechoslovakia.

now and december of 69, they were beginning to build up along with -- along the chinese border and there were a series of military clashes and between the two sides. we were sort of watching this, and then the soviets made a mistake that accelerate our considerations. the mistake was that they sent in their ambassador to brief us periodically about clashes with the chinese. they did that because they were considering attacking china and they wanted to prove that they had a good reason for doing it. it had to practically think that i created a map for nixon and me and our staff to look at of the location of these incidents, and

then we called in an expert in said, if they are incidents and these in these places, what would that suggest to you? who is the attacker? and that experts said well, this is all close to soviet supplied and pretty far from chinese supplied. therefore it is unlikely that the chinese, if they wanted to attack, what do it from such a posture. then we picked up a few other signals. then nixon gave an unannounced but important, most important decision, which was, we discussed, assuming there is a war, what position does the united states take? and we concluded that it was

against the american interest to have china defeated even though we had no contact with them, and so we decided that in case of a war, we would be technically neutral but tilts towards china and try to give it as much ability to survive as we could. we didn't communicate that to the chinese because we had no way of communicating with them, but what we did do is to step up statements that we would not be indifferent to such a war, and we had director helms, the cia director's speech. i think it was too political

sides in which in a low-key way he made that deputy secretary of state. and then we began looking for channels into china at the same time and we did a number of little things. for example in retrospect, it looks very miniscule. the chinese -- no american could buy chinese goods anywhere, and so we lifted that restriction so that as a tourist you could buy 100,000 chinese goods. the chinese intern released some people that had strayed into chinese waters and the occupancies -- anyway, they had been captured.

we found it hard to sever contact because for example, we sent some messages to romania or rather we told the romanians what -- the chinese. we chose the romanian channel because nixon had been in romania and the romanians had been the most independent of the european communist countries. so, we thought they would have the most credibility in beijing. the problem was that the chinese communists didn't trust any communist, so they were reluctant to be very specific through romania. finally again, on a trip around the world, nixon talked to the pakistani president and that

established a contact which we venues. host to let me ask you about the media backdrop to what you were doing with the opening to china which was the vietnam war. we talked about the strategic dynamics between the united states, and the soviet union which was growing at leached in strategic terms in china. talk a little bit if you would about how you expected the opening to china to affect the war in vietnam? >> host: one has to remember that nixon didn't start the war in vietnam. dickson and hair did the war in vietnam. when nixon ended office, there were 500 -- 545,000 americans in vietnam. and we had just gone through the tet offensive, which was a major attack by the vietnamese and we

had riots in the streets in this country against the war in vietnam. at the same time, we were the country in which the security of almost every region depended, and nixon felt that even though he had not made the original commitment, he would not abandon the people who in him or her reliance premises had staked their future on corporate and with us, so nixon decided to withdraw from vietnam and to do it it in a way by which the people of south vietnam would be given the opportunity to develop, to choose their own fate. ..

their strategy was by opening to china we had benefits. it changed the debate. it showed that nixon would be vilified as being opposed to peace in viet nam have actually

large grandiose conception including the whole world and so, at the same time it isolated the vietnamese because it meant that the closest or the most nearby allied was willing to deal with the united states without informing them and to some extent at their disadvantage because interrupted the psychological reason so that was an important aspect. >> in any national security foreign policy calculus there is always american domestic opinion, which any great leader knows how to change, how to persuade, how to move. now, when you think about the opening to china and the soviet

union which you conduct it as well, was that part of a strategy to signal to the american people that while we were fighting for a hot war in vietnam this administration was also seeking longer-term pieces? >> guest: it was not done as a political maneuver. it was done because they believed it to be that and we believed it to be that. it had the practical effect of telling the american people not to be obsessed with events in one part of the world that we had inherited and are trying to liquidate and to look at the overall design which put china, soviet union come here up into a pattern that could be passed by good popular opinion.

>> host: united states and china had and still have wildly divergent views about taiwan and how to move past that. >> guest: for 20 years the negotiation between china and the united states the chinese negotiator if he spoke first would say we won't do anything else until you turn taiwan over to us. when we turned that down it ended. the american negotiator would say we won't do anything else until the pledge of the peaceful attitudes, so there was an absolute. so even before the first communication to us that chinese invited us to turn over taiwan

to china. we have replied that we were willing to talk about the issue of taiwan but only in relation to all other issues of asia and in the world come and the chinese accepted that, so that was already a huge before we ever got there. but then one has to remember the united states under president roosevelt in the declaration of 1943 had declared that the united states considers taiwan to be a part of china. so the fact that china belong to tie one had never been revoked by any american president.

the only condition made was the takeover for the union to be peaceful. so, what we got around this problem signing a communique in which each side stated its own views that the chinese people on both sides of the taiwan straits assert that there is only one china. the united states would say that's not challenge the so that was the way of accepting one the china but we still did not recognize beijing as the government of china, nixon of the country that has the capitol

of that country. so if you look at the 40 years that it's happened both sides have been away in taiwan beat in the principles that the united states accept the principle, that the united states strongly insists the need for a peaceful solution and that the united states warns each side plus the time of need not to take precipitous action, and to consider that this has been carried out for 40 years it is quite remarkable. now today there are many heroes of the retrospective diplomacy

to say what nixon might have done and what nixon might have extracted. we didn't hear from any of them at that time. >> of course not. now the framework that you put in place in 1972 has been remarkably durable. >> guest: the american administration of both parties. so it's one of the most continued as american foreign policies. >> host: dr. kissinger, please stand by. when we come back i would like to move into more current affairs in the united states relationship with china economically, strategically and human rights. we are going to cover all those issues, the former secretary of state henry kissinger and his new book on china when we come on back. ♪

♪ ♪ of ♪ >> host: we're joined by former secretary of state henry kissinger who has a masterful new book out called quite simply

the "on china." let's talk about more current events, particularly as they relate to the united states relationship with china. it's very complicated now. i remember when i was working for president nixon in the 90's -- clinton in the 90's he said it's interesting because when kissinger and i opened relations with china in the early 70's was all about strategic issues which we talked about before the break. he said now in the early 90's it is almost all about economics. i think now in the 21st century it is a combination of both the strategic and the economic. when you look at china's incredibly rapid economic rise are you stunned, surprised, or not at all? >> guest: i am surprised and so what nixon be in any group that opened to china.

when i had been to china but before nixon left, nixon invited the french who had been in china to see what we can learn from that and monroe china is san important country the only thing you can do is to do kind of marshall plan, get the economic aid. but she didn't want economic aid or china connected with the rest of the world at all. china was so cool at the time that when the nixon went there they didn't have the telephone equipment to connect us with washington in a way appropriate to the president technically sold to the chinese. at any rate, we would have been

amazed that the rapid progress that was taking place and really couldn't take place in to mao at that time. >> host: after now succeeded when in the late 1970's revolutionized the chinese economy because he began reforms through agriculture, she began agricultural reform that then replete the framework for what we see today, right? >> right. for mao, everything was ideology. i don't know whether it is black or gray as long as it catches mice so anything that was acceptable, and he liberated the energy of the chinese people and actually over the last 2,000

years in 1800 of the last 2,000 years, china had the largest gross domestic product in the world in the 19th century that they fell apart because of the impact of colonialism. but the chinese economic growth didn't really take place until just about 30 years ago. >> host: how would you describe the chinese capitalism? would you describe it as managed capitalism? >> guest: i would describe it as but what they call it i think a market economy -- >> host: characteristics. >> guest: but it is market economics, but guided by a

strategic decisions which helped establish priorities and so far it has worked amazingly to have a growth rate of eight to 10% over a 30 year period. it's an extraordinary achievement. >> host: even during times of global recession. >> guest: in times of global recession of course they can do things that we can't even think of within china in 2008 he said they have a 5 million unemployed , so i asked him what he was going to do about that and he said they all go home at chinese new year's, and we will only let about a quarter of them

come back so they use the chinese family tradition of taking care of their people. as their family come as a social security network. but on the purely economic level it is a combination of market principles and a central management. it is not a planned economy in that sense. >> host: there's a major point of contention between the united states and beijing over the chinese efforts of the currency. how is this training relationship and how should the administration be dealing with it? >> guest: the argument that is made is that the chinese are manipulating the currency of the low-level which gives them an advantage in exports, and therefore improve its their payments in turn in the greater

economic and financial aid, but my view is some of the deficit is caused by our own actions, some of it is caused by chinese actions, it is caused by our own actions because as long as we are financially broken and as long as we've run huge deficits, deficits in the current economy are inevitable because we have to borrow from abroad to meet our deficits. so, we need to work on our own problems concurrently where the chinese take unfair advantage we have to raise the issue in the

defender interest. but the way that is usually done is to a range for the balance of penalties and rewards that achieves this. >> host: it is striking to me that just about every time the chinese leadership meet with the american leadership whether it's president to come secretary of state clinton or secretary governor they never miss an opportunity to lecture us on this critical issue and our debt and it's very ironic the chinese communists are electing the american capitalists about spending. >> guest: it's ironic for the greatest part after the opening of the relationship, the chinese way to get this and they felt that some of our political enthusiasm -- some of the more

immature and so forth. but the refuge respect for the economic capacities and they thought we were on to a management of the financial system from which they could learn a great deal so they sent the soviets over here but practicing capitalists to learn the systems and american investment banks and so forth. then in late 2007 and 2008 they learned or they think they learned that the americans didn't know how to run their economy very well either, and that caused a tremendous amount both for us but also the chinese that had been associated with the reform program and some of the difficulties with which it

is claimed the chinese word too assertive. go back to that period when that shock. >> host: the chinese are the biggest foreign creditors. how much of a threat is that? >> guest: it's a very complicated issue because on the one hand, you can say if they exploit the position they could make life very difficult for us. at the same time, it's been said if you owe $100,000 to a bank it is your problem. if you owe 100 million to the bank it is their problem. so that the creditor suffered enormously also several trillion dollars they certainly became

worthless. that would be a huge blow to them so we have a kind of mutual truce. >> host: there was a high level of the member of the military who said last year to begin talking about the united states in terms of economic warfare, not military warfare of economic warfare. how big a concern should that be for the united states? >> guest: what i think it says is we are the two most powerful countries in the world today. a whole series of issues are new for the environment and the seclusion of energy. these are unique problems. they can only be solved on a global basis. secondly, we ought to urine from the european experience -- we ought to learn from the european experience and they have to deal with each other and it didn't manage to do it and the result was world war i.

and as leaders that went to the war in 1914 had known what the world would look like for four years later when the war ended with the ever have done it or one or the other have made the accommodation. so what i say in the book is we ought to approach the foreign policy with china in mind. we ought to look for opportunities of a cooperative relationship. at the same time our interests and if the chinese approach the problem in the same way, then i'm hopeful that the engine of a on both sides will find a way to but both sides have to have this attitude. the united states cannot do it by itself, and i think this is the greatest challenge to peace and the greatest test.

>> host: let's talk a moment about the strategic challenges facing the final american relationship. there's a lot of concern in the united states about the chinese military buildup. i'd like for you to comment on that. how worried should we be about that but the growing chinese assertiveness in asia, in the region and globally as well as the ability to project power, and should we be doing anything to shore up our allies in the region, south korea, japan and others who were increasingly worried about china? >> el south china grows economically the military capacity is bound to grow. so that is inherent in what is going on. what we have to watch is at what

point does the chinese military capacity go from beyond defending its country to its capacity to intervene all over the world and challenge existing institutions. at that point, we are in a probe of potential confrontation then it could slide into a confrontation. they have not yet reached that point. but they certainly are increasing their we certainly have to be sure that we maintain the edge or the balance that has characterized the situation before that. if they conduct the early policies, we should have a clear

notion of the national interest challenge but assertive we will take measures to protect, and so when the chinese conduct of foreign policy to the cooperation i would have to say then american interest comes first. if they conduct an open mind policy then we should have a discussion of our who positions and see where progress can be made. but it is always necessary that any foreign country dealing with us should understand that we protect now that we strengthen the relations with korea, india and japan.

it is absolutely essentials that america remain an asian power and that america maintains its relationship with the asian world. we cannot do it the same way that was done in europe because in europe there was an existential threat so that the relationship with europe took on a heavily military character in their relationships between japan, korea, united states, india, the economic and the social factors made a huge role. the practical consequences were very similar to show that america is committed to the independence of the key countries but i would object to some of these the chinese participate in so long as they are not ravee hegemony all

power. >> host: talk about the role of the nuclear proliferation. there's a big concern is that china is working with how was like north korea even pakistan to some degree to share the technology with the iranians perhaps the syrians and the venezuelans. all opponents, enemies of the united states. what can we do to try to rein in china and the proliferation area? >> guest: on all issues except north korea i think the chinese national interest is entitled to hours and not simply interested in the weapons because the nuclear weapons could spread to the countries that cannot have the same technological take and they do not understand the nature of the modern technology. the danger of the catastrophic conflict or even of an outburst

of terrorism overwhelming. so i am quite helpful with respect to even iran we can get gradual chinese support. the major hesitation they have is to agree the outside forces can tell their country what to do internally. but i think that with increasing globalization in china will come to that point on the complicated issue is north korea because of the one hand, it is not in the chinese interest for north korea to have nuclear weapons. on the other hand, the chinese believe that it is also not in their national interest to have north korea collapse and then face the prospect of a large country on its border which may

inherit the north korean nuclear capability. so i think that china has been going back and forth on the issue and hasn't really made a decisive move. i think they would be delighted if the weapons would go away. but they don't want to do what is required to make them go. so, they bear the responsibility for the consequences. now they come themselves, have not been active in the nuclear proliferators because it worked them more than that, but north korea has because north korea is broke and talks about the most repressive country in the world, and sooner or later the other countries have to face the issues of what happens when the

road nuclear country continues to upgrade and that is an issue before with iran and is an issue also in a more complex by with north korea, and it can't really be soft as an isolated problem. there needs to be a security developed for all of north east asia that other nations to control, and may be under that system north korea should be denuclearized. >> host: human rights, the dictate that we should not be all that concerned with what goes on internally within a country that we should only be concerned with their external behavior, and that guided american foreign policy for quite awhile. but over the last two decades i would say the united states has concerned itself with what goes

on inside china. there's a lot of talk now in a lot of worry that the chinese are now retrenching and that there's been an escalation of the detention of dissidents, of those out there are giving free public plea for the democratization, liberalization, journalists being detained, religious minorities, catholics and so on. what do you say to the chinese when you talk to them about their human rights record? >> guest: let me say a bit about the politics is a term of my critics use if they want to say he's really a german, this is not an american concept even though i lived in germany as a child as part of the persecuted minority so that the school to which i had to go the what not

accept the studying politics but putting that issue aside, the fundamental necessity of the people is the two elements, i've been preaching that all my life. on the one hand, you need the equilibrium, the balance of power. why? so that the strong cannot simply dominate the week. at the same time you need the legitimacy, whenever you want to call it so that the existing and arrangements would be adjusted to most of the members and most of the people so that when they don't want to challenge it. it deals with capability and the second one deals with attitude, so it's that balance.

now there again are the two aspects to the issue. one is our convictions to the human rights. second, what do we do about it? america has been founded on the principles of human dignity, human liberty and human equality. we can never not only announced principles, we need to and other countries should know that it makes a difference to us how they conducted themselves on the human rights issue. the more -- the next question is what do you do beyond this, how many sanctions do you put on and to what degree do you assert that you can tell other countries what domestic institutions they should have?

and at that point it is different. some people to whom which i belong and i would be sure nixon and for that matter i would say almost every other american president through the policy of engagement one can move the chinese and through the apology of the confrontation of all the memories of the history and which they have always resisted. when clinton was president and the first years, he adopted a policy of confrontation, and after the three years, she gave it up. whenever i am in that china and whenever nixon was in china, every president i've known, we are aware of individual cases of which human rights have been

violated. we are able to speak to the chinese on a private basis of so , there is no disagreement of the importance of human rights. there is no disagreement about the role of america. there is a disagreement on whether this should be done with public demonstrations or by diplomacy. >> host: we just have a few minutes left, dr. kissinger, and i want to ask when you look at the geopolitical landscape today and when you survey the world, what worries you the most? what are the threats that are looming out there that consume you the most? >> what worries me is that you have a people's in every part of the world. without any clear guiding principles it's one thing to say

that they are very enthusiastic but one notes the context of the revolutions is not the day of which they occur, but the the period of which they have been sorted out. on the technical level what worries me is the spread of nuclear weapons and in the way of the nuclear technology because the weapons spread and if any of them to the casualties would be so unbelievable that it will lead affect the human sense of security and a political system so those are the key issues. >> host: dr. kissinger it has been a joy to talk to you in on a personal note you are one of my personal heroes and i've known you for him, my goodness,

18 years now? i think i'm dating myself, and it's been such an honor to get to know you and such a pleasure to talk to you today. and it is a privilege to call you a friend as well as a mentor. >> guest: i've watched you over the years and am impressed and amazed at the tremendous achievements. >> host: thank you. again, former secretary of state dr. henry kissinger this masterful new book is called "on china." aye monica crowley. thank you so much for joining us today. next, adam hochschild talks

with a history of world war i. his book is "the end all wars a story of loyalty and rebellion 1914-1918." ki spoke at the forum in new york. this is an hour and 14 minutes >> it is a pleasure to be here back at the brecht forum and also talking to an audience on c-span through these cameras here. i'm going to tell you a little bit about this new book of mine and do so by showing you some pictures. this is not music on the music stand but just some notes for me. i think that writing a book is very often a matter falling an obsession and figuring out just why you are obsessed by something. and for me, i have all my life had an obsession with the period of the first world war as long as i can remember it something

that has fascinated me. as i grew older and started to read history, i realized that there are good reasons for being fascinated with the first world war. it left some 20 million people dead, military and civilian, six times, more than six times the casualty toll of in the previous war that europe had ever known, the napoleonic war 100 years earlier, or the next largest. if left and even larger number of the wounded soldiers behind and it left large parts of europe in smoldering ruins in a way that continent had not known before, whereas armies retreated on both sides, the left scorched or behind them. now, when one is drawn to a subject, however much the overarching political reasons and so on there's something as

personal as well. and in my case it is an uncle of mine by marriage fought in the first world war and the center of the picture with his fighter squadron of the imperial russian air service if any of you have read my first book halfway home you'll have met him in the pages that cross around his neck as the cross of the order of st. george. it entitles the bearer to a private audience with the czar of a day or night a privilege which was not much use after 1917. [laughter] now there's another reason why this pogo in the first world war i think has drawn me in so many other people to study it and to learn about it which was that

1914 marked an era that came to an end, an error of embers and empresses, there were no errors in europe after the war that ended. this is the second of germany on the left and his six sons marching in a parade and somehow to me with the era is symbolized by the hafts that the war. just look at those hats. here is the kaiser's wife, the & the daughter. i can't claim -- i can't claim that after 1914 nobody wore hats like that, but certainly the world that created such died with the war of 1914, 1918. another thing about this for war

like many of the wars that is haunting is that was a war of multiple illusions. first would be over quickly and easily. these are berlin students marching off to enlist in 1914. here are german soldiers climbing into the railway car and if you look closely what is a la carte it is to paris to read here are the french troops marching off with equal enthusiasm also getting into trains and written on the side of the train is to berlin. and here are russian troops celebrating in anticipation of an easy and an early victory. and of course those early and easy victories did not come. there is a second illusion about the war, which i think the best way that i can express it is the illusion that you can go to the

war end of the enemy, the other side would not be shooting at you. how, otherwise, can you explain the fact that literally millions of the trench troops, the entire french infantry went into the battle dressed like this. think of what targets that made for the sharpshooter whose red pants and jackets and they died by the hundreds of thousands partly as a result of that illusion and they were not the only soldiers dressed that way. the hungarian calvary also was very fond of bright red and bright blue and in fact didn't abandon those uniforms until two years into the war. yet another illusion i think was that something like the calgary itself could play a role in the

war. these are french calvary here, all the armies have them. in the in calgary that the british brought all the way from india to the western front. the famous lancers from germany when -- maybe i could get a glass of water or bottle of water or something if there is one. when the germans invaded france in 1914, they did so with eight calvary divisions, 40,000 horses, and you can just imagine how little a chance a massive calvary charge had with, you know, an age of modern weaponry. nonetheless, everybody practiced for the great calvary charges like this british soldier who is naturally here. if they anticipated a war that

will almost be like mike some are more like a jousting competition. the idea of the war -- the idea of the war was very closely aligned to images of sports like this. in fact, the first correspondent that flood london daily mail sent to the front in 1914 was its sports editor, and of course when they tried to do these mess of calvary charges taken against barbed wire, not to mention the machine gun. and of course, these ended the days of the massive called recharges forever. and as a result of those weapons, the borut fighters, the defensive weapon and the machine gun, the western front where most of the bloodshed took place was a essentially frozen in

place along that line for more than three years. barely ever more than a few miles in each traction. the entire year year of 1915 for a sample of the year which saw the allies launched several massive assaults there were probably altogether more than a million casualties on the western front from both sides killed, wounded, missing. the allies gained exactly eight square miles. and instead of these glorious calvary charges the imagined, they found themselves fighting in an absolutely devastated landscape more than 700 million artillery shells and mortar rounds landed on the western front, france and belgium during the four and a half years of the war and the filly and looking like this. they found themselves living below ground in the trenches sharing space with corpses and

rafts. they found themselves very often fighting need deep in mud and facing all kinds of horrifying new weapons that nobody had anticipated like a flame thrower, for example. the other side very quickly copied it. sam fingers plays in gas. experienced for the first time as the germans used against the russians in 1914 and against the western allies the following year. and there were differences that were hastily constructed and strangely looking -- stranger looking gas masks.

but nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of people were injured by gas, some of them who blinded like these british soldiers in this particular photo. enormous numbers of soldiers were wounded and other ways as well. all you have to do is sort of imagine just one of the soldiers multiplied that by 21 million which is the number of soldiers who were wounded in the war. the tremendous hold of the war in the dead and wounded gave us of the profoundly darker and more cynical view of the world that in many ways stuck with us ever since. this cartoon appeared during the war itself, and this attitude of some of the greater cynicism of our human nature in general i

think continued ever since then. now there's another thing about the war there was very different from the war flake sample that we are engaged in today. these are officer cadets at britain's the five most exclusive private school drilling in 1915. now, one of the things about the war that we have gotten accustomed to in this country in the recent years, and vietnam, iraq, afghanistan is that they are caught mostly by the poor. very, very few among the dead and wounded in those three wars have been sons or daughters of ceos, senators, members of congress, anything like that. it was the exact opposite in the first world war. the death toll actually fell proportionately high year on the upper class is, and the main reason for that is that it was

customary for the sons of the upper classes and sons of the aristocracy to have military careers and i think a major reason for this is that the armies are not only there to fight the war against other countries, they are there to maintain order at home. the 19th century was a very tumultuous time in europe thomas with the early 20th century many of the european armies were used to break strikes or the british army put down the former rebellions in ireland and so therefore office during the army is something there was generally reserved for people in the upper class. this meant when the country's went to war in 1914, these underclasses' suffered an enormous toll. for example, more than 40 graduates of eaton were killed

in a single day, the first day of the battle of 1916. of men who graduated from oxford in 1913. 31% were killed by the end of the war. a few sort of specific examples. hatfield's house, another one of the great british country estates, queen elizabeth i spent part of her childhood on this estate it was along the seat of the aristocratic family. the patriarch of the family souls very was minister of england for some years of the turn-of-the-century. he had ten grandsons, five of them were killed in the war. and one of them is a character in this book to read a tremendous toll among the children of the political and military leaders from mr. herbert of england lost the

sun. so did his counterpart chancellor of germany. the man in the middle in this picture, general herbert lawrence who was the chief of staff of the british army in the western front lost his two sons. his counterpart in the french army, the general accustomed now lost three sons. so, part of what i want to explore in this book was the mentality of such men. how could these generals and prime ministers and cabinet ministers year after year send their own sons into battle, their own sons charging a trenches into the face of machine-gun fire and into a hail of fire that lasted a week after week, month after month, year

after year for four and a half years? so, that is something that i really wanted to explore in the book. now, the very insanity of this war need me equally interested in another type of person. those exist on both sides and all of the countries who recognized from the beginning that this was madness and it wasn't worth fighting. people like to debs for example the great american socialist leaders spoke out loudly repeatedly against the war in the administration and while still in prison long after the war ended in 1920 he received nearly a million votes for president on the socialist ticket. another american defender was the social work pioneer jane addams. emma goldman also went to prison

for her opposition to the war. more than the 500 american objectors were jailed during the war like these to mnf for riley arkansas. in germany, the great radicals of luxembourg went to prison for her opinions. in france and a staunch opponent of the war which we saw coming and spoke out repeatedly as he saw closer was the socialist leader who was assassinated three days before the war began. in england, the country's philosopher bertrand russell was in my mind the most eloquent of all of the war opponents, and i think what i like about russell so much is that he was so honest about the conflict in his own feelings. let me read you something where

he describes his state of mind as who the war began. he describes himself very poignantly as being, quote, tortured by patriotism. the defeated germany as ardently as any retired criminal. england is very nearly the strongest emotion i possess in the side it's such a moment i was making a very difficult annunciation about his truth of the national propaganda of all of the below brent nation's second me. as a lover of civilization, the return to barbarism appalled me. as a man of the parental feeling the massacre of the young. russell spent six months in prison for his opinions. someone else who also went to jail for six months was britain's the five greatest investigative journalist edwin morrill if any of you read my other book you remember him as the man who exposed the

brutalities of king leopold's kondo and he died not long afterwards really as a result, very brave man. in all of these countries, all the different countries the opponent's like this were up against and in seizing ghosh of propaganda. the u.s. army recruiting poster from the period typical of the kind of things that one salles on both sides, a german poster with god for king and vaterland and a german invasion of australia to read some of the pro war propaganda had an edge to it. you know, you would be letting

down the when and if you didn't fight, or perhaps it dating your responsibility, and worse yet if you refuse to fight your may be a feminist. so, there was a real nasty edge to the patriotic fervor that was in the air. now, as i mentioned, there were war resistors in all of the countries that were fighting. but for various reasons, the sharpest conflict between those who fought the war was a necessary cause and those who fought it was absolute madness and not worth all these millions of lives took place in a new land more than the 20,000 men of military age refuse to go in to the british army. now, some of them accepted service, alternative service as conscientious objectors which

meant you could drive an ambulance at the front or work in a war related industry like these men who are working out of the cory in scotland. but as a matter of principle refused alternative services and were sent to prison. more than 6,000 young englishman went to prison during the war matt. the largest number of people after that point in time ever in prison for political reasons in the western democracies serve their sentences in places like the photograph here in southwest london and you can see it stretched across the opening there to prevent people from committing suicide. prison conditions were extremely harsh. prisoners lived under what was called a rule of silence where you were not allowed to talk to your fellow prisoners.

several years under those conditions was tough. the body it was terrible, there was a shortage of coal, the prisons were very cold and then people died in prison. so, i was fascinated by the war resistors. for the longest time, i could not figure out how from a story telling point of view i was going to get the resisters and the generals into the same book. i didn't want to do this in just a series of portraits of one or the other. and then that a clue came to me one day when i was reading it very boring leverage in scholarly article about a well-known pacifist named charlotte this. she wrote of the single

best-selling piece of the entire war literature, traveled up and down the country visiting conscientious objectors in prison's visiting their families and speaking out again and again against the war. some rallies where she spoke were shut down by the police. she was also involved in many, many of their radical causes of the day. a strong supporter of independence for ireland, india. before the war she had been very active in the women's suffrage movement and had gone to prison four times. in this article about her the writer just made one passing comment, one sentence where he said naturally these activities were deeply upsetting to her brother and gave his name, sir john french which i immediately recognized as the commander of the chief of the western front. so, i thought that's going to be a relationship interesting to

write about. and indeed it was. and the brother and sister of diametrically opposite views were nonetheless personally quite close. she was eight years older than he was, he was her beloved little brother and taught the alphabet when he was small. they remained in touch throughout the war, salles each other frequently. they stopped speaking to each other only when in 1918 the british government sent him to ireland to be in charge of suppressing the nationalist revolt against english rule. ..

one was a family which i'm sure you know. the famous pankhurst family. emily pankhurst, the mother shown under arrest here prior to the war. and her two daughters were leaders of the most militant wing of the british women's suffrage movement. on the eve of the war, emily pankhurst was arrested for literally growing a rock through the window of 10 downing street, the prime minister's residence. at the time the shots of the were fired, she was a fugitive from justice living overseas.

the moment the war began, she ceased all her political activity, came back to england, put herself at the service government, which this put her on speaking tours throughout england and the united states and in fact in early 1917 center to russia to rally russian women to the war effort. meanwhile, her daughter sylvia pankhurst who worked before the word became an ardent opponent of the war, published the leading antiwar periodical in britain throughout the conflict, several of her issues suppressed by the government. and with a very, very strong voice for peace for ending the conflict. sylvia was also having a secret love affair with keir hardie, the founder of the independent labour party come a predecessor of today's labour party and also

an extremely strong opponent of the war, who was absolutely crushed when it began and died i think as much of grief over that if anything else in 1915. another divided family that i followed was the hobhouse family. one member of it, emily hobhouse was an outspoken pacifist who did something quite remarkable. in 1916, she traveled without government permission, without proper passport and visa, traveled from britain through france and switzerland teacher many, went to see the german foreign minister whom she had known before the war, talk about possible peace terms, asked him what might he turns in which germany would agree to peace.

talked to other people in the german government, went to england, saw people the british government, tried to suggest peace terms to them. it was an impossible loan-loss motion of diplomacy. that sealed. but over the course of four and half years, the worse conflict have left 20 million dead. she was the only person in europe who literally traveled from one site to the other in search of peace. she had great influence on a young cousin of hers, stephen hobhouse. in this picture can use much older. he was of military age. he refused. the draft was sent to prison and imprison thrown into solitary confinement because he was leading a protest against this rule of silence he said. i'm going to speak to my fellow human beings, whether their

fellow prisoner cards whenever i feel like it. no one can stop. he had three brothers in uniform. two of them are at the front. one of those at the front was later killed, but before he was killed, he sent a message back to his parents, telling them to tell stephen not to lose heart. a very interesting relationship. just make things more complicated, a very close friend of the family, who it actually did his godfather at steven's baptism, man named alfred nimmer was a minister of war. now, there are various other characters in this book as well. some of them are people you know, such as the writer, robert kipling, who was of course a tremendous drum beater for this war as he was for everywhere that britain was ever engaged

in. he cultivated a love of everything military and his son john kipling, about four years old in this picture with the right sleeve. john kipling with his fathers encouragement set his sights early on a military career, had great trouble getting into first the needy and then the army. kept getting rejected because he inherited his father's bad eyesight. he's always got these very thick glasses on. finally, his father pulled strings, went to a field marshal the new, got john a commission as an army officer. and in 1915, john kipling went into action at the battle of loos said was never seen again. his father of course was completely devastated. some of the other carried us in this book i are people who will be less familiar.

one of them was a man named fenner brockway, editor of a socialist newspaper before the war, went to prison as a resistor and in prison he continued to be amazed if her editor, putting on a clandestine newspaper for his fellow prisoners on toilet paper. it was published regularly twice a week for a year until the authorities discovered it and punish them by putting them on restrict the diet into solitary confinement. incidentally, copies into some of these pie-in-the-sky newspapers, a number survived. another character in the book, what are my favorites, a man named john s. clark who was born into a circus family grew up in the circus. when he was 17 years old, he went into the ring of the youngest lion tamer in great britain. subsequently, he got involved in

radical politics. when the war broke out, he was tipped off by his friend and policemen who is about to be arrested. he went underground and throughout the war with the editor and a writer for a socialist antiwar newspaper that the authorities of trying to suppress, but could never find where it was being published. after the war, he became above ground again, was a labor member party of parliament and then spent many years on the klesko city council. when a circus came to town, he went back into the ring and was the oldest lion tamer in great britain. the word that people like this resisted and protested against caused absolutely unprecedented suffering. it left huge cities destroyed in a way that europe had never known before. these are the ruins of the 15th century cathedral in

belgium. there were so many soldiers killed that by the end of the war, england was drafted in 17 years old -- 17-year-olds and share many ways taking soldiers into the army who was still younger. and still, the carnage when non- and on and on for four and a half years. by the time it was finally over, there were more than 9 million military said in an estimated 12 to 13 million civilians dead. now of course, the war not only let scars from the, but because of the way it ended in because of the terms of the peace treaty that followed it, and set the course of future events and which of course the man on the far right in this picture with

his world war i german army unit played a crucial role. in 20 years later, he would leave the world into an even more disturbed before and the holocaust to boot. so, my hope in writing this book is when we think back on the first world war, will remember not just the politicians and not just the generals, but some of those who tried to stop the bloodshed even though they were in vain. including some of the people in this book. now, i am going to end by playing use the music. and let me explain where it comes from. it's a sign that some of you may know. the green fields of france

compose by the scottish songwriter, eric eric. he was inspired to write it when he visited one of the vast. he was inspired to write it when he visited one of the vast, vast military graveyards in their hundreds upon hundreds that spread across the area of the old western front in northern france and belgium he noticed the name of the irish shoulder, neck right on one of these gemstones and the song is addressed to him, sung here by john mick turn it. while the song is playing, i am going to show you some old vintage newsreel footage from the worst country in the first world war. i want you to listen to the words of the song. can you start the music? ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> so, that he. if you've got comments or questions, i'd be glad to hear it. [applause]

>> about he is articulate and and well-connected individuals who oppose the war, there were large parties that claimed that they would they would reject this in the name of international holiday or d. with other working people. were they just quickly swepeopl. were they just quickly swept away in the patriotic them or did they have a lot of suppression and the kind you survive? >> well, all of the left-wing parties were divided. really in britain, germany, other countries, they were real divisions in the socialist parties there. you know, in britain, the bulk of the independent labour party, which was most important of

these parties stuck with its leader, keir hardie, in a stand against the war. many members of the coalition in parliament went to the government by. in germany, the social democratic party social democratic party dare, which was by far the largest and most powerful socialist party in europe as something like 30, 35% of the vote in germany. powerful newspapers, other institutions divided and there were small number, i think about it doesn't have the 120 or 130 socialist deputies who voted against extending where credit, which the kaiser had asked for on the eve of the war. the tragedy that one feels looking at this. if they think all these people, you know, initially before the war they have the right ideals. they felt that he was much more

important to feel solidarity with your fellow human beings, with your fellow human beings on the left who are struggling for great social changes then it was to feel the chance to the nationstate. but once the war began, that allure of tribalism, the powerful, powerful drive that the people seem to have within them and that we all have somewhere with ms proved to be more powerful. amazingly, there was a demonstration against the coming war of 100,000 people in berlin, just four days before the first shots were actually fired. but after the first shots were fired, even the german peace society issued a statement in favor the war, as did huge numbers of intellectuals. even those on the left. russia signed a pro worst

cavemen. the only way i can ask lehman is that allure of tribalism is a very, very powerful pain. and it is still very much with ice. i mean, roll the clock back, you know, a week or two. we were all probably glad to see the end of osama bin laden. but i must say it made me feel very creepy to see all those people in front of the white house shouting u.s.a., u.s.a., u.s.a. will wait for the microphone. we'll bring the mic around here. >> i'd like to talk -- yeah, in

the sense that, as i was listening to you, i mean, i like your presentation. i mean, i like your emphasis on the nation to write about. at the same time, i was again -- several things come to mind. one was the book in the case of arnold mayor, who writes about the persistence that kind of resonates for you and kind of resonate with the aristocratic -- aristocratic agreed to roost on the way until 1914. fair enough. and all that is fine. but against that, i would say that one has to have the mass participation of people in the first world war, the triumph of

nationalist and -- i mean, the very triumph may be positioned against the failure for the frustration of international socialism in the late 19th century, early 20th century. i mean, there is one reason why also i would argue, that the production of the 1970 russian revolution did not really succeed in its internationalists war. the revolution was always internationalists. that triumph was then large reason because there is no support from the rest of us in europe for the democratic parties and others for the war. the strength of nationalist

son -- nationalism within tribalism. >> well, certainly the story of the first world war ended so many wars before and since it's one of the triumphs of nationalism over reese then, over human solidarity and overmatch shows. your right to mention the russian revolution, which in many ways was a direct result of the first world war by the time of the revolution, russia has suffered since x million casualties, dead wounded prisoners missing. during the year 1917, it's estimated a million russian soldiers simply left the front and walked home, which is what we wish people to do in all wars at all times. the russian revolution, even though i think fairly quickly it went awry and some horrible ways. nonetheless, what happened in 1917, it was greeted with tremendous enthusiasm by the

antiwar leftists in the other countries and it's very moving to read the accounts, for example, the british war resisters who were imprisoned. as they got the news from russia, they were all convinced and hopeful that this was the beginning and it would be a revolution that was bred to other countries. but it did not end the war went on. i want to bring the microphone -- okay, i'll go whatever he's got the microphone. >> i regret that i didn't hear everything you said. considering the libraries full of books about the first world war that now exists, plus access to so many documents that we did not have access to at this time of the war or right after, with the length of historical heinz type, do you ain't that the war was inevitable? or could it have somehow been

prevented? the inevitability thesis obviously and afterwards, do you think glenn trotsky and rosenberg were right that the war was the logical culmination of rivalries and so on? but considering how calamitous it was in the images you've shown us rms beyond comprehension and the whole generation the way and the cemeteries in belgium in the london of one comments out one nourishes the hope some minor is such a thing could have been prevented. i just wanted to know your thinking. >> is a good question. i actually think the war was not inevitable. you know, this is one of those things that historians argue over endlessly of course. i think it wasn't inevitable because true, there were some questions in europe. there is a naval arms race

between written in germany for example, but we had 40 or 50 years of an armed race between the u.s. and soviet union without the two countries going to war. there were, as of mid-june 1914, no outs ending boundary disputes in europe. no country claimed a part of another's territory. there was some imperial rivalry, but we have the lightest imperial rivalry in the world right now between the united states in china and all sorts of other ways it appears as though. it was imperial rivalry in africa, but the european countries have fairly effectively divided up africa among themselves some years previously. once the war began, then of course only imperial rivalries came to the surface and in africa, britain and france on one side and germany on the other with a deadly fighting to

seize control of each other's colony, knowing that picture it took the spoils. despite the tensions in the air, i do not think the war was inevitable. >> you didn't talk very much -- he didn't talk more than a little bit about an antiwar feeling. i know that the american left was split with something less radical. russia dropped out of the words as soon as the russian revolution succeeded. i know that some people like carl sandburg with the u.s. socialist party would support the war. i know some people at the left so patriotically that we should see and some people thought we had been under attack. at least the fact that germany

sank the boat. some people didn't believe there was a war against the monarchy. at least the european monarchy. which he speaks so much about -- about the americans -- left-wing americans and the war? >> i don't know much about the antiwar movement in america satiated. in this book, you focus entirely on england. i want to tell the story within one country because of his theory that there was the most active antiwar movement. there were certainly many americans once they mentioned about the same way, people like debs goldman and many others. and there are many on the left. i think you mentioned carl sandburg leaving the socialist party who thought they guess, it was a war against democracy and who believe woodrow wilson when he said we were fighting for democracy. he antiwar folks away sympathize

with much, much more said it is a mockery to say this is a war against evil in britain, france and the united state were allies with russia. reship until the february revolution was the last absolute monarchy in europe. i think, you know, that just brings out how countries, when they go to war, always claim to be fighting for the most noble of fate deals. they never say they are fighting for their economic self-interest . they only claim noble a ds and it behooves all of us who live in a time of four as we do right now, to question the rhetoric very, very closely. >> you mentioned to phenomenon that seem to be closely related. i don't know how. one is tribalism and i'd like

you to explain what you mean. and the other is in the shed. you didn't mention it, but this is the war to end all wars. so are all the others. and part of the power and the shock of these images is that they are part of our history, even though they are, they are not in the children's history book or the history books in high school. how does, you know, what is tribalism and how does a combined with repression of four to create an appetite for more? >> good question and i'm not sure any idea or two it. i just know that it is a very, very powerful force in his jury. the tendency to want to identify with a group that you can feel apart as an one sees it again

and again. i think there is something of tribalism in the canonical way that people sometimes true for sports teams. we are looking for something to identify with, that says that tests. i'm part of this group. why do we not feel it as much when the larger numbers of people feel it when we are 10 to sign with the peace movement or socialist movement or something like this. i don't know the answer to that. it is something i've puzzled over for a long time. i think until we can figure out the answer to god, were not going to get very far. you know, i do think that there are -- i am interested by developments that seem to be kin

to supersede tribalism in some areas. now, i think for many people on the left, and the european union has a bad name because it represents the rich countries of the world in rich countries of europe are acting in their own interest comment posted by trade terms on the poorer countries and so forth. nonetheless, i think one can't help but feel some pain. when you go to europe, are able to cross borders with no customs officials come to see have passport that are the same, except the name of the country appears only in smaller letters. that is a start towards something, but i'm still waiting for the world past board and we are not there yet. >> adam, thanks for your presentation. the signing if he could touch on the presentation. world war one is the public

relations industry. a lot is made of the shift between world war ii to the vietnam war here at home in terms of the way american soldiers would have to be hammered into their head, the killing was not necessarily run, especially if unarmed enemy soldiers. but of course, looking up world war i, this really is the birth of all of that. i'm wondering if you could touch a bit on what has become a multibillion dollars and is three. >> i'm glad you asked that next because this is a big subject in my book. one of the things that interested me very deeply within it ashamed to be the first war to have to start to miss at the psychological level, the first world war was really the first propaganda war. why? because that to that point in time, in europe in the preceding several decades, on the words up

in small-scale colonial conflicts, were small volunteer army is coming you know, german, french man, englishman went out and put down colonial obligations and conquered new colonies in africa or whatever. it didn't require propaganda effort. you know, certain writers like roger kipling could be counted on to supply the proper kind of poetry and storytelling and so us. there wasn't anything organized on -- by the government. the array from the beginning, they seemed to realize that this war was going to require a massive propaganda effort. this was especially true in england and another reason that led me to concentrate on anything in this boat because the major powers in europe, they did not have conscription. they had called volunteer army. so whipping up the necessary ecs

and, they had to whip up enthusiasm in order to give million of men to enlist. and in fact, they did get 2.5 million men to enlist before they impose conscription. how did they do it? they began very early, were a cabinet minister, only about six weeks into the war assembled, to begin with, assembled more than 50 of the country's leading writers. very familiar names. james perry, h.g. wells, all the prominent writers with the exception. in a meeting, an insurance company office in london said we want you to write for the war effort. whatever you write, we will see that it is published. and for the next four plus years, there was a huge rush of

fiction, nonfiction, pamphlets, books, magazines. almost all of it extensively coming from commercial publishers. but in fact, the british government had agreed in advance to buy 50,000 copies of this in a hundred thousand copies at that. they produced posters, some of which i showed you. they produced postcards. they produced a german atrocities colander, with a different atrocity for every method the year. it was a huge operation. they sent people on lecture tours and they set up fund organizations of all kinds. part of this propaganda operation in england was scared the united states because they had the united states come in on the allied side, which eventually the u.s. did in the 1917. up until that point in time, there is a lot of propaganda direct did towards the united states. every catholic priest in

america, for example, received a regular letter from unpatriotic association of catholic priests in britain. it had all been set up an orchestrated by the government. all kinds of things of that sort. in fact, they even pioneered what today we would call astroturf, you know, where there is a fake citizens organization that is, to further somebody else's purpose. for example, although most of the labor move meant did end up supporting the government war effort, people in the government were still distressed, but there is a significant percentage of union members. hard to say how many. 15%, 20% may be he really did not think well of the war. didn't rush to enlist.

suddenly, mysteriously in 1916, there appeared an organization called the british national workers sleep, which began organizing rallies all over the country. the organized 100 rallies in the course of the year. they published a handsome looking weekly newsmagazine. they were hailed by the london times as the authentic voice of the working class. they declared themselves a bakery in favor of better wages and benefits. the most important, we have to win the war first. and it was all engineered behind the scenes by the guy whose picture i showed your one point, alfred mentor who became a very interesting and sinister figure who lined up financing for this organization, set up a secret inc. account, called waldorf astor of the astor family to

sponsor it and added the newspaper. it was a magnificent job of astroturf team. so they kind of pioneer doggies things that we are very familiar with today. i should have won the game that they pioneered, although of course versions of it were earlier. one of my best sources for material about the antiwar dissonance i was writing about was that government surveillance surveillance reports because the turkish government watched these people like hawks. they infiltrated people into their organizations. they sometimes send in usher provocateurs, to get them to do things they could be arrested for. anytime there is a small antiwar union, there is a shorthand writer writing down everything that was said and transcribing it. and all this material is in the national archives. some of it has only become

available in the last decade or so. and as somebody who finally under the u.s. route information act got these fbi files. i found it fascinating to look at how scotland watched these dissidents is at time. [inaudible] got to be for the mike. >> i've two questions. the first was wide with barbed wire -- in the footage at the end when they turn out the bodies, those contemporaneously. that was much later, right? >> the answer about hardwired his barbed wire had been invented pan-american cattle farmer in the late et the hundreds. it was a tremendously important innovation because it is really the greatest defensive weapon of all time. cstring at the tangle of barbed wire and it takes people, you

know, hours to cut their way through. it was virtually impregnable to any kind of explosive device because the explosion just passed through it when the wire was still there, make calvary church is impossible and finally led to the development of the tank but which was the only thing that could go over the wire. the footage of the bodies being buried i would be virtually positive it was not shown at the time. i think you're right. i don't know that for certain because the place where i got this film footage friend has very sketchy sourcing and one doesn't know exactly where the footage is from. you have to be very careful anytime you look at documentaries, using old footage, some of it is staged because the british government and the german government went to great lengths to make

propaganda films that allegedly show combat and they are a mixture of real footage and i think all of what i showed you was real. and sometimes in these scenes can you see things which are obviously staged, where men are charging over the top of a trench of music that paper strolling back and forth, would've been shut down if it was a real pain. >> in terms of the current situation, one of the lessons of the vietnam political leadership in this country was that the draft was a great obstacle to the independence of the political leadership to wage war when it chose to do so. as a result of this, we tonight have the draft. the draft really occurred -- once the draft was extended during vietnam and others of america rise up and say no, no

we won't go. it brought a war to a quicker conclusion. in the current situation, post- 1974 when we eliminated the draft in this country, we now have given greater independence of the political leadership, democrat or republican to pursue, not in the mass war sense, but in a more limited than pursue wars without a tract, which really has made the limited warbler possible as a tool of american policy, freed from political pressures. in a certain way, we move beyond your notion of war is great voluntary enthusiasm of 1914 and we arrived anymore than they did in more refined method, where we can read one or two's long wars and most of us don't know, don't care because their own children

don't go and will not be affected, whereas your argument is funneled their children were fact did in 1914, they still let it go on. however, we don't face that problem. >> well, i think you're right. he said it very eloquently. certainly the existence of the draft did help bring the anti-vietnam war movement into being here. and you know, i think it was a major thing that led to the u.s. withdraw. obviously the biggest thing of all was the resistance of the vietnamese. certainly the antiwar movement here was a bit part of it, but george bundy at one point in 1968 when i think you left the government at that point, he said we have to find a way out because the price at home is too high. the numbers because of the antiwar movement. now we no longer have the draft. i fear we also have something else, which is that the

government has, you know, believed that it can wage forward in these very high-tech ways with drones and so on, where there is no american soldiers at risk and not also is something i think even if we still have the draft might slow and antiwar movement from coming into being. but how to bring the antiwar movement into the ring in a maze strange circumstances is the big question facing us, which we have not solved in any way. >> add-on, at the beginning of your talk, you mention the illusions that helped create the war, but she did mention the title of your book, which i think it's probably the greatest solution. could you say a little bit why you call of the book that, what the thinking was behind the notion? >> well, the war to end all wars is attributed to withdraw wilson. although actually couple wilson

or prefers say he never actually had a good spirits. nonetheless, does the fact he put before the american people because he abimelech did to office in 1916 on the platform of keeping the united states out of work. but the following year, the u.s. did go to war. and because the war was so large and so terrible, people had to be told, this is going to be the last one. this would be the war to end all wars. and of course it wasn't. particularly the way the war came to an end and the peace settlement was made, alfred milner, a bad guy in my book that i was just talking about, nonetheless aspire to see, as are many and the european elite at this time, that the peace settlement and the onerous terms imposed on germany, whereas he called it the peace to end all peace and indeed that's what it turned out to be. >> yeah, i was wondering --

august planning for the war and all that, but if you were to make an estimate of how many people actually -- how many people actually made the decision to go to war for? how many deciders? >> boy, that's a complicated question because of course there were different deciders in different countries. historians have spent a lot of time studying those six weeks between the assassinations of sarajevo and the outbreak of war. i think there were some key people. i think it's kaiser wilhelm and the emperor of hungary were not quite bellicose, the warm nights with an inverted. but part of the problem that the weight and spare set up in europe that have time, there were two things that made this downward slide into immense

conflict inevitable once it began. when was the system rival alliance is, where their countries committed to come to each other's aid if one country was drawn into the comp lit. you know, france and russia were alive. the other thing was that in 1914, all of these countries had fairly small standing armies, but enormous armies of the surveys. you know, people have been trained that had to be mobilized. and it took several weeks to fully mobilize the army, get out of the service off their farms and factories and into uniforms and reunited with rifles off into the front. if you could start mobilizing your army before the other guy, you had any deities. similarly, if you could attack first, that meant the war with the on the other nations territory and that is what germany, austria and hungary

did. these are things that sort of accelerated that fred. if we're able to rewrite history at will so things could unfold in the way you said a moment ago, that i i think the war was not inevitable. i would have, you know, change the actions of kaiser wilhelm and joseph of austria hungary. and i think that the war might not have been. not that there wouldn't have been other wars in europe later on, but i don't think it would have been in quite the same way. you know, a few more people of questions, but i am wondering whether we ought to -- how about a nice question and then i'll be glad to keep on talking with people who want to stay for a little while afterwards. speenine. very nice guy. i like you.

>> but -- >> but i think you are wrong in two senses. one is the sense in which nationalism is a very strong sport in the 19th century. without it, the socialist internationalism cannot be understood properly. that's one thing. the others in the context of propaganda. propaganda and conscription. conscription propaganda weren't at all. i mean, the libyan mosques were conscription and conscription into what? and mean, conscription in exchange for citizenship. nationalism, conscription, citizenship and propaganda. i mean, what better propaganda could napoleon produce to overdraw continental europe?

lovely propaganda. their propaganda nor new conscription are new phenomenon. thirdly, war that began in the late 1880s is very crucial to understand and not detract in any case the nature of your presentation. i am very grateful and thankful. >> no, certainly didn't mean to comply with that conscription was something new. it had existed before. there was for example here. the british navy, though never the british army had constricted people, which just went around rounding up young men at the ports, right up through the end of the napoleonic war. so that was not new. nor is propaganda new. i do feel that the propaganda reached a level of sophistication, a multiplicity of media that it not been known

before. some of these of course were not known before. film, radio and so on. but you know, the determination, the widespread myth, the orchestration by the government, to bring him in, for example, of all the countries leading writers on this demand, nothing quite like that have been done before, although of course they had been before. one small question and then that is a. >> yeah, it just hit me like a lightning bolt. i really appreciate your books by the way. my question is about the heroic work. something he said about the calvary and the charging. it seems to me the war went initiated the end of the heroic and before. you know, from that point on, were detained at which point the

same. obama is, vietnam war, up to the fact that we are now talking about the iraqi invasions and the video games. i was wondering in terms of a literary, and in particular the literary writer as well, would you consider world war i to be the end of the personalization of four in terms of the way in which people fight? >> i think in many ways it was. i mean, there was sort of a gradual progression towards that. obviously if you go back to the days of knights in armor and what people fight on their stories if you are a better source than any other guy, you prevailed. and i think this is one of the romantic images always associated with combat. as soon as the rifle and especially, you know, long-range rifle came into being, that

reduced the guarantee that if you are a better source vendor marksmen for something from the other guy you would prevail because somebody could kill you from a great distance. in the first world war, that inability of one's own ability as a soldier to have anything to do with whether he survived or not was so extreme, in a way never known before because most people actually who were killed and injured were not killed by machine-gun fire, but artillery shells, which burst into shop, which gathered hundreds of pieces of hot steel in all directions. these were fired from several miles away. it didn't matter how heroic work on her accuser or were charging across the battlefield, you were killed by something that was fired by somebody you could need the. and in that sense, this square was very known to them that was

with us even more today. [applause] >> said thank you very much. [applause]

>> next, paul allen who cofounded microsoft with bill gates in 1975 talks about his memoir. mr. allen is interviewed by washington pours reporter, jose antonio vargas. this one-hour event was hosted by spring by a good history museum in mountain view, california. >> hi, how's it going?

good. i should just begin by saying that sometimes you just can't really trust the media. [laughter] >> i have no idea what you mean. >> i'm saying this from somebody who comes from media. we tend to oversimplify, sensationalize. i think we care more about -- we care more about kind of the tension and conflict analyst about death and context. and i'm saying this because judging by the excerpt on 60 minutes, the segment on 60 minutes, some reviews, some blogs, you would think they are focused like something out of the social network of the 1980s or something. like it is like a bill gates versus paul allen flatbeds. i think somebody said you were the better billionaire. and so i breathe this stuff and then i actually finally read the book. i am like, wait a second, didn't

they read the exact same book i just read? i think the point i am trying to get at is this idea that i think in the book you write this critically about yourself and what you've done that kind of the failures you've had, successes and failures just as critically as you write about the future of microsoft and your relationship with bill gates. and that's actually where i want to start off his you've been ubiquitous through the past two months now. you're on this emotional book tour. what a surprise to the most about how people have reacted to the book? what has been the biggest surprise? >> guest: well, there's a number of things. i think in my life i have been fortunate to be involved with so many different things obviously. been involved with microsoft will always be the signature achievement.