[applause] ..

o'shaughnessy history professor at the university of -- examines their tactical decisions and presents his thoughts on why they lost the war. this program from the kansas city public library is an hour. [applause] >> thank you for reading the book so carefully and thank you also for wearing the monticello tie with thomas jefferson signature. i am very grateful to the kansas city public library and their

outstanding book program, for the opportunity to give this which is my first post publication talk about my book "the men who lost america." i particularly want to thank henry who is the head of communications and tom who arranged the logistics so well, a sign of the quality of this program and of course crosby kemper the third who mentioned his director of the library. he mentioned that he was only born in the thomas jefferson foundation oversees monticello. the foundation is also my employer where i spend most of my time not talking about the british side of the american revolution but about thomas jefferson whose retirement papers we edited as part of the riggs series started in 1950 as

jeffersons papers became to be the definitive edition and which would have taken two generations to complete from monticello stepping and so in so they will now be finished in 2026. and this afternoon we put on many programs including international programs, the latest of which was in china and before that in cuba. i am delighted to have with me today some of my colleagues including the president of monticello, leslie green bowman. [applause] as you can imagine it should joy to drive in there each morning and i particularly am lucky to have an office on the estate which was used by franklin roosevelt in the four days

leading up to d-day. this is where i wrote up look. the nice thing is that it commemorates the very different moment in anglo-american relations and that we can all celebrate and one that is important to democracy on both sides. now we know much about the confederacy during the civil war but relatively little about the british during the american revolution. it was a war seemingly the written should have one and its failure to do so is often blamed on poor leadership. the book is essentially a series of biographical cameos which explain why britain lost america. and of course among the list of characters had to be george iii, the last king of america who shared the belief of many of his countrymen that written would

cease to be a great power if it lost america. he was not responsible for the policies that led to the american revolution, that he became the leading war hawk and he refused to negotiate with opposition leaders who were committed to withdraw from america. writing at the time of the second world war butterfield described him as being almost churchillian vowing that he would never surrender whilst any 10 men in the kingdom will stand by me. he called for sacrifice. we must stretch every bit to defend ourselves and must run some risks for if we are to play it cautious game ruin will inevitably ensue. this i think responds to one of the great myths about the american revolution that the

british simply didn't care. they cared deeply. this is one of the third longest wars in american history and one of the longest in british history. they made a very determined effort to recover this country. lord north and this is a painting by george iii at the height of the revolution which is 1779. benjamin west and american artist and it is suspected by some historians that west was -- from george iii back to congress but george iii moved his principle palace to windsor castle and had music play every evening, and is government was collapsing. he simply said if others are not able i must drive. he essentially kept the

government together during this period. his prime minister was lord north, a reluctant prime minister who spent much of the war -- though he was responsible for the policies that led to the american revolution but when he realized that it would lead to war he immediately regretted it and spent much of the war years trying to negotiate a compromise he kept attempting to resign, arguing that he was -- but he fell to the hold into george iii and he felt his resignation but lead to a constitutional crisis. and then the brothers who commanded america after bunker hill. sir william howard and his rather lord richard howard.

they were respected great pioneers in military tactics so william howell was a pioneer in the tactics that would be successful against what today we would think of as guerrilla warfare and his brother was a pioneer in amphibious warfare, the use of the navy in combination with the army. between the two of them they managed to land over 16,000 troops on staten island in a matter of hours one afternoon. they used crafts designed by the brother, lord admiral richard howell, crafts that were very like those used on d-day in which the boat would literally turn into a gangplank as the troops just charged off of it. lord richard now like several of

the characters in this book later became a major british hero. he was listed there in a battle called the glorious -- in the early wars the first revolutionary. and then we have john begoin who is a rising star in the british army after a successful defense in portugal against. >> during the seven-year war period in which we american call the french indian war. i'm glad we have in the audience a great expert on begoin. properly referred to the person he knew the least but indeed i think has faded most from american history and yet was one of the most important people in london, lord george germane who was secretary of state for

america. he was the main architect of the war in britain and he was a veteran, a military veteran, and also an administrator who achieved a remarkable feat, sending more troops to america than the generals requested in 1776. he blamed the generals for losing him the best opportunity of winning the war. he felt there had been more interest in negotiating a truce then and really waging a war vigorously and most historians retrospectively would argue that this war could have been one in 1776. and then sir henry clinton, the commander-in-chief of the second half of the war in 1778, 1782 who is expected to win with

fewer troops and less naval support at a time when britain was fighting both against france and. the most cerebral of all of the british generals he would obsess more than anyone else over the causes of the british failure. he even wrote out the dialogue of that dream in which he imagined lord cornwallis apologizing to him for the british defeat in yorktown. his memoirs are the most comprehensive and the most detailed of any general on either side of the war. charles cornwallis, the general who had the most successful worker rear was an imperial troubleshooter in india and in ireland. in ireland he was -- there was

an assassination attempt on him in phoenix park. he was a man with utterly no pretension even though he was was the most aristocratic of all the generals. he refuses to live in the governor's palace and he always refused to draw more than one salary and he was a restless man who says that the army was his love. and he was buried as he might have wished and service on the river ganges where there is a huge memorial to him in india. sir george rawdon, the only person really to emerge as a hero from the american revolutionary war in britain. and finally the most experienced of all government ministers of his generation. he had been a minister when many of the others were just children. he had warned the cabinet of the need to build up the navy before

the war even started. and he inevitably came into conflict with his colleagues because he had to think about the global war. he had to consider the defense of britain as a priority over winning in america. in words which held true, so many of the men who lost america one contemporary said of his problems that they originated quote more from the nature of the war than the full of lords sandage. the punishment however fell upon him. it's popular to portray these individuals as incompetent blunders than to explain british defeat in terms of poor leadership. this is equally true i would stress in britain as in america. it's most apparent of course in

the movies. films like mel gibson's the patriots, sounds like al pacino's revolution. it's pronounced in popular history. the first third of barbara tat and's is dedicated to what is almost a period of the british leadership during the british reform and even permeates the academic scholars who use words like incompetent and mediocre to describe leadership. this view that the british lost the war through incompetence has always seemed to me somewhat strange and it rather diminishes the achievements of commanders like washington and nathaniel green. it's also a caricature of 18th century british leadership which only three decades later defeated napoleon.

the leadership admittedly was aristocratic but it was competitive. britain had unlike much of continental europe what was known as -- in which only the oldest son inherited the title and majority of the wealth. the youngest sons had to fend for themselves and to be competitive and essentially to pursue careers. in the army in the house of commons were some of the most attractive of all of those careers. military and naval commanders had much in common with modern day military professionals. they joined in their teams. it was a life of service. they often came from families that had military backgrounds. george iii and his cabinet went to great lengths to select the

ablest rather than the most senior commanders. when they chose the howe brothers to command they skipped 105 more senior generals because the howe brothers sir william howard especially from the light infantry which i mentioned earlier most appropriate in dealing with the situation in america. his brother had been a great hero in america. the people of massachusetts in fact even gave a memorial to the brother who died fighting in the french and indian war of which is now in westminster abbey with the name the legislature of massachusetts. the men they chose went to great length to acquire the military background to improve their skills and knowledge. they visited the location of battlefields. they went abroad to study and

they read the latest theories. begoin suggested that army officer should read french because the best military works were in french. in a profession where experience counted, they served as veterans in other wars and they had served under some of the most distinguished commanders of the 18th century. they improved their military skills by leaving maneuvers every summer which the british army conducted annually. they demonstrated great personal courage in battle. all of these commanders had -- from under them something that they shared with george washington and when a horse a shot from under you just like in the civil war it means the bullets are flying around you. with long absences from their families and with the possibility that they may be killed in war their military

careers required great sacrifice and of course that remains true today. in the film the patriot, cornwallis is portrayed in a uniform looking at immaculate sitting back in a huge house at headquarters more worried about his dogs than about winning the war. the real lord cornwallis builds all of his provisions and tends willing 10 in north carolina. he was determined to pursue nathaniel green before he reached virginia and crossed the james river. he slept just like his men without tents, without cover and his men had a huge admiration for him because he lives as they did even though his most aristocratic of all of the commanders. if political leaders were no less impressive.

the british prime minister today is admired in the united states for facing hostile questions for one hour each week most known as prime minister's question time and you can see examples of this in parliament. lord north had to face such questions or three days a week. he would usually arrive in parliament when the house of commons would begin serious debate it in him. he would often be there until the early hours of the day. he regularly gave speeches and waited until the end of the debate for two hours without a single note. people cheered at jeered at the people who would use notes. one of the great historians of

all time is in the house of commons at this time. he was too terrified to speak. he never spoke to be said it gave him his education as a historian to see some of the great orators of all-time debate each other. the political system in britain was never so corrupt that government could simply assumed the support of the house of commons. there was no equivalent as today of the disciplined party system. prime minister of this period had to win the confidence of the house of commons. the prime minister had to persuade and lord north was particularly skilled in his public speaking abilities, successfully defending the government and sustaining government majorities in the house of commons. he was also a brilliant chancellor of the exchequer. he did two jobs. he was head of finance as well.

he essentially made it possible for britain to continue to wage the war by raising the money necessary. in fact this whole government was exceptionally well-qualified to wage war. the members of the cabinet, many of them were veterans. many of them had been administrators previously during wars. they were amazingly good in tackling the huge logistical problems fighting a war or 3000 miles away. no government had attempted such a feat previously. these were not novices. furthermore this was not a war that was easily won. it was closely fought to the very end. as late as 1780 it seems that the british might win. they pretty well destroyed the

continental army in the south with their victories in charleston and then at camden. rodney came close to defeating the french fleet which would have been a real game-changer in 1780. most important of all thanks to clinton who had always planned to get a general on the american side to defect, benedict arnold, one of the most highly respected of all of the continental generals, a person who is made success at saratoga possible, defected to the british side. this was never a linear series of defeats which is why the british continued to the very end. the difference between success and failure was often very thin. horatio gates who defeated the british saratoga was himself

defeated by cornwallis in the battle of camden and cornwallis of course was later defeated by washington and yorktown. the admiral to grace who defeated the rear admiral thomas gray's in the battle of chesapeake which was essential to the american victory in york town, he was himself defeated only a few months later by rodney at the battle of the saints in april 1782. in fact he was captured and he was one of the most major british naval sectors of the entire 18th century. rodney was britain's greatest hero before nelson. indeed this book is somewhat counterintuitive. it would suggest that many opportunities were lost to defeat the british much earlier and entirely due to the quality of the troops and to the leadership and they managed to

last so long. these leaders faced major problems which almost precluded success in america. if i had to give a postage stamp version of my argument which is often required at cocktail parties and in social settings, it would be that britain had the army of conquest, the northern army of occupation. in some state of the war they took every american city but they could never occupied the territory. every time they started to span out there with the insurgencies led by people who today are american folk heroes, men like thomas sumpter and marion foxx. british authority collapsed in new jersey in 1776 and 1777. a collapsed in pennsylvania in

1777. a collapsed in the carolinas in 17821781. their main problem was the revolution was popular. this may not come as a startling insight to this audience or to the average lehman but it's a very important antidote to a new scholarship that emphasize the cynicism among ordinary americans, the neutrality, the loyalists and and the disaffection among the citizens. in modern day news. >> the patriot face was motivated. but for even one shot had been fired lexington and concord britain effectively lost political authority in america. the patriots successfully wrestled control of the local

governments, of the assemblies and of the courts. they crucially gained control of the militia who policed the local populations and who suppressed tories. as john shy has argued service in the militia in view of many ordinary americans with the revolutionary spirit. with the withdrawal of the british from boston in march of 1776, the british army had been driven out of all of the 13 mainland states in america. in other words they had almost lost before they had even begun. they thereafter became the process of re-conquest and reconstruction. when begoin marched south from canada, he outnumbered horatio gates in the continental army. after taking ticonderoga he

expected that the population would be relatively supported of the british. but by the time he reached saratoga he was outnumbered by virtually 4-1. he likened his opponents to the many headed hydra. this is the figure in practical mythology which grew new heads every time one was cut off. he argued that it had been the smallest loyalists of rising somewhere in new hampshire were somewhere in new york or connecticut he could have one. in virtually a mirror of begoin's march south cornwallis marched north and successfully defeated the remnants of the continental army at the battle battle of camden in august 1780 but like begoin he found it more

and more difficult to gain even the most basic intelligence about the geography. he was completely outnumbered by the time he reached yorktown. the fact is the british had never anticipated having to occupy america. they predicated the war in the belief that the majority of americans supported written. they believe that the revolutiorevolutio nary leadership was in the minority. they described him as a little thin duty. this seemed to be raised and this is true from my point of view, seemed to be based on seemingly good information available to them. they are view was supported by american loyalist textiles living in london. people like joseph galloway of philadelphia who said right up to the time of yorktown four out of five americans support the

british. their beliefs seemingly was confirmed by the efforts to suppress dissension by the patriot committees of safety. it should also always be emphasized when like most revolutions this was also a civil war. after 1776 it was indeed difficult for the continental army to recruit in the same numbers as they had done earlier. thomas paine complained in what he called the summer soldier in the sunshine patriot. there was deception and disaffection in the continental army with mutinies and some of the ranks in pennsylvania and new jersey. in 1778 nevertheless lord jeffrey amherst, the most trusted military advisers told

the government that they were going to double the number of router soldiers in america at a time when they were also fighting france and. the very presence of the british army alienated american support. the two sides increasingly regarded one another as -- one of my favorite quotes of a british officer said he every day cursed the londoners and all of their discoveries, all of the discoveries of the diabolical country. [laughter] there was also an ideological quote. the british regarded their opponents as criminals who were committing acts of rebellion and treason. they question whether they should even be treated as regular prisoners of war and granted the usual conventions of war. the british commanders understood that they needed to win popular support.

but this objective was often in conflict with the difficulties of fighting the war and the imperatives of winning it. sir clinton used the phrase that we need to gain the hawks and subdue the minds of america. the various declarations of independence complained to the british using foreign mercenaries mainly germans against their fellow subjects. the british attempted to compensate their army by using native americans and slaves in this alienated the majority. the stories of plunder and rapes committed by the army similarly caused a backlash against the british. furthermore, britain's more diplomatically isolated during this period than at any other

time other than 1940. it had no allies. most of britain's wars previously had in one with allies. what you call the french and indian war was known in europe as the seven years war. the british won largely thanks to their alliance with frederick the great of prussia. frederick the great of prussia tighten down french troops in europe while the british succeeded in sweeping canada and defeating the french in canada. as william pitt later posted, america had been conquered in germany. after 1763 britain had no allies in europe and this had huge implications even before the french joined the war in 1778. written did not fully mobilize

its army and navy for fear that it might ring the french into the war. after the french entered the war in 1778 the british army and navy was overstretched fighting in the mediterranean africa the caribbean and central africa india and the british isles. the last battle of the revolutionary war was fought in india. in fact the defense of britain became a major priority with threats throughout the summer said 1778 in 1780 the combined french and spanish invasion. it was the most serious threats since the spanish -- mom britain did not have the desired naval parity. the aim was always to have what they called a two power navy that could defeat both france

and. >> in a single war. sir henry clinton had grown up in new york. he was the son of a former governor of new york and the son of an admiral and his uncle had been an admiral. he warns that if there was a superior foreign navy at sea the army could easily be cut off which is exactly what happened at yorktown. the battle of the chesapeake bay was virtually the only time in the 18th century that the british navy was defeated. the navy had to reinforce garrisons and provide convoys throughout the world in order to conquer -- in 1778 the british had to give up their occupation of philadelphia. after 1778 the british were trying to win the war with fewer troops and viewership's in america than previously.

in fact the chances of british success were almost undermined by the political system. it was with the army today called a fragmented system of command. the cabinet was not necessarily expected to unite behind government policy. that idea was still in evolution. furthermore this is a weak administrative system of the 18th century which was overwhelmed by the logistics of provisioning and army 3000 miles away. even though when the army was at its smallest they consumed 33 tons of food per day which was carried and required at least two or three horses. it was because the british failed to conquer large

territory that they had to essentially provide a lot of the provisions directly from britain. there was also concern about the cost of war. britain's most highly taxed nation in europe at the time apart from prussia and austria. it was spending as much as 43% of every tax, pound, on funding the debt. it's debt problems were much worse than anything we see in the united states today. and this indeed was one of the major reasons why the government had initially sought a tax in america. it was also a problem. they did not want to increase taxes. finally, the growing domestic opposition in britain prevented the possibility of continuing

the war in america. in essence the british never worked totally defeated. cornwallis' army was simply a detachment of the main british army. the british still held new york and savannah and augusta and canada and much of the fortresses in the northwest. they could have continued to fight. george iii regarded yorktown as a minor set back like saratoga and arguably should go on. the public opinion changed. in the summer of 1774 the public had been almost unanimous behind the government when it passed the tea act later the coercive acts. but with the help wake of war in 1775 you have the first major antiwar petitioning movement in britain.

the cause against the war was brilliantly espoused by some of the great parliamentarians of all time. charles james foxx, william pitt both younger and edmund burke. the government was also subject to greater public scrutiny than any government of 18th century thanks to the growth of new spenders and newspapers to report that debates in the house of commons. after the defeat in yorktown the government majorities collapsed and lord north had to decide. historians recoil from ever suggesting that anything is inevitable, even the british defeat in america. they are very aware of the role of chance in contingencies.

and the talk has argued the conditions did not favor the british that they might yet have prevailed against less capable opponents. i want to end up before i conclude by just reading from the book in which british officers paid testimony to the end of the war or even the middle of the war to their american opponents. the british reluctantly came to respect the officers and men that they had fought. general james brandon was to regret his much quoted speech of 1775 when he said that the americans were too cowardly to fight. less than four years later he admitted to the house of commons that he had been wrong and that he never saw better troops than some of the rebel regiments. in his memoirs the most hated of all british officers paid some

of the highest compliments to his former -- he particularly praised general nathaniel green and his troops for quote judiciously and vigorously executed march 2 virginia. he admired poe the wisdom and figure of american operations which had foiled the designs of cornwallis. lieutenant general john simcoe similarly respected the skills of his opponents in frontier warfare when he fought them boat excellent burks man who knew the country and were veterans of indian warfare. the captain john and you'll was praising the continental army whose discipline intro were not only performed in the same manner as to english but for quote as good as the english themselves. he marveled at the achievements

of the soldiers who have been quote nearly in the great -- against cote who could have thought 100 years ago that out of the multitude of rubble would arise the people who could defy kings and enter into close distance was crowned heads. he paid tribute to quote enthusiasm which these poor fellows call liberty can do. his testimony was all the more powerful given that he later became a leading author on military tactics and commanding general of the dutch. the man who lost america preserved the rest of the british empire in india gibraltar and in the caribbean. it was not just a story of defeat. in fact north of the border, we should retitle this book the man who won canada.

[laughter] by the end of george iii's rain britain governs the largest empire in world history with a fifth of the global population. he was known even then as the empire on which the sun never sets. thank you. [applause] we have got time for some questions. if you will come up to the microphone please. we are on the four corners of the globe on c-span. see how many germans were here during the revolutionary war? >> i can give you the number exactly but they were for much

of the war effort of the british army and by the end nearly 37%. and of course you will probably be aware quite a high proportion of them stayed on to live in america. i've always wondered i have always wondered about all those german names in charlottesville where it's rather fun to be able to write this book in the place where some of the scenes of the war occurred. the british army that was captured at saratoga was kept imprisoned in charlottesville forever including many germans. i can tell you many of their descendents are still there. >> i had read where the revolutionary war was england's

vietnam. would you comment about the problem of the populists getting behind the war in england? america was never behind the war in vietnam like they were in world war ii and the factor of keeping the enemy from each other in north carolina and the north vietnamese and the south vietnamese looked at the same two american soldiers. >> there are real parallels. in fact john chalets who was one of the authors that i hired the most was very influenced by the

american experience in vietnam. it was very difficult to tell friend from foe which is one of the reasons why the british never restored civil government in places like new york and charleston because they were never certain who was actually on their side. so there are a lot of similarities. essentially this does show how united or could write strong citizenry can defeat a major power. there are other examples in british history where they did succeed in warfare like my layer in the 1950s. the key it seems to me is where the heart of the people really lies. yes. >> how did the low opinion that many british officers had of american soldiers, american loyalist soldiers and loyalist

officers and initial reluctance to recruit american loyalists into the british army, how did that affect the war effort? >> the british initially really underestimated their opponents but it was based again on first-hand knowledge. people who have served in america during the french and indian war who are most dismissivdismissiv e of the american militia and the fighting abilities of americans. i think one of the major effects was the failure really to mobilize fully from the very start of the war and to realize how many troops were involved. one person's biography i don't have in this book but i certainly talk about a lot is general gauge who is commander in chief in the beginning. he was married to an american. he had been in america for 20 years. he knew the place. he initially underestimated

them. he said britain is going to need at least 20,000 troops in just a show of force will send them running to their cabins. gage who was essentially removed was rather young and wobbly and weak and 20,000 proved in underestimate. a lot of that condescension was not entirely social. a lot of it was a professional hubris, that believe that ordinary laymen just cannot pick up the skills needed in the short time to do something effectively. yes. >> crosby promised at least one story about the caribbean at what was going on in the caribbean during the american

revolution. could you deliver on that promise, please? >> absolutely. i wrote my first book about the british caribbean and why other british colonies in the americas did not rebel. the most important story in this book is the island which is the first to salute the american flag. there is a commemoration by franklin roosevelt, eight edge flawed saying this is the first place the flag of the united states was recognized. the british looked through their scopes from brimstone hill as dutch ships in the dutch fortress fired to salute the andrew doria. that tiny little island was responsible for much of the

necessary component of gunpowder in many supplies of the continental army. most of those today think of it as the -- american figaro. beaumarchais had created this fictitious company that was springing from france weapons, ammunition, money and uniforms to washington's army. it was very much like a modern-day drug trade. it opened up in another. just like faceted uploads to outrun the american coast guard today, they had fast boats to out run the british naval ships. yes? >> i read that bunker hill there was such a trauma for much of the british journal staff. that this had a real impact on their behavior in the years

after. i just wonder to what degree that was true. >> that is repeated directly. i never found any reference in the documents were a general actually says they were dramatically influenced by bunker hill. i did leave -- believes that it believed that it had a real effect and may well explain the house caution in new york in 1776. whenever he started to engage washington he realized it was a much tougher challenge than he expected. it should also be remembered that he didn't necessarily believe it was necessary to win the war or indeed even desirable. what is the point of just defeating americans have battled in having their unwilling support in britain? he felt it was very necessary. he felt the opposition would

just implode. i do think unhcr hill came as an enormous shock to them. he had one of the highest proportions of british officers being killed than any battle in any war. and a very high proportion of all of the officers killed. they were leading from the front. see i was just wondering, before the revolutionary war a lot of americans consider themselves british. how could the leaders of britain not take that and give the americans some voting rights or whatever. totally misread that and maybe the revolutionary could've been avoided that point? >> certainly the decision to go to war was clearly a political error. but the british believed that they had made every effort to compromise.

when the americans had persisted they resisted. they withdrew every stamp tax except tea. they could never understand and lord north complained. americans paid one 50th of the tax. they are getting free administration and free defense. essentially they came to believe that if you keep the peace they will make demands. we should remember in the modern age that we feel like a unit. if you appease people they will make demands. what is remarkable is the extent

to which the british had tried to appease the americans in the early stages. one of the victims of the so-called boston massacre where british troops fired on boston in 1770, one of the victims was irish. how they would have behaved in ireland. [laughter] .. ppp

advantage will disappear and never appear again. >> astrophysicist mario livio exams the work of five scientists and mistakes they made on their way to historic achievement that:00 eastern, part of booktv on c-span2. >> how did i write a biography of oppenheimer? why would it occurred to me to do that. again 12 years ago when i lost the observer newspaper to review a collection of his correspondence and until that

point i knew about oppenheimer whether everyone knows about oppenheimer, he directed the las alamos laboratory in a security clearance taken away, he was head of the institution of princeton, that is how i didn't know that he wrote poetry, i didn't know that he wrote short stories, that he was an expert in french literature. that he taught himself sanskrit, that he was deeply interested in hinduism and that he taught himself sanskrit in order to read into classics in the original way wedge. needed to i know about his political activities in any detail in the 1930s or his relations with friends and students and family members, all of which i found fascinating and i said in the review there is a really interesting biography to be written of oppenheimer and after this was published publishers got in touch with me saying why don't you do it and so i did and took me 11 years.

it is an incredibly rich and and sorting and fascinating life. there wasn't a single day in those 11 years when i lost interest in my subject. he continues, i continue to find out new things about him. the most complicated complex people, never feel you exhausted the subject. which brings me to buy subtitle a life inside the center. why inside the center? the phrase conjures up a number of things that come together in the life and personality of their robert oppenheimer and the most obvious of which i guess is that his work as a physicist, much of it was to do with understanding the forces that happen inside the center of an

atomic nucleus and his great importance historically and politically is in directing the laboratory that made use of those forces to construct an explosive of previously unimagined power. that is one reason. the other thing, another thing the freeze inside the center that has to do with oppenheimer is to do with his background, he grew up -- i will get more of this in a moment but he grew up in manhattan a member of in some sense an elite but also with a conscious awareness from a jewish family he wasn't quite accepted by the establishment, much of what he did, and he was determined by his fight to get inside the center. and intellectual and political life. in science he wanted to be at

the center if not inside the center of what was happening at all stages in his career and that a a great influence on those decisions that he made, he chose to do one thing rather than another because it placed inside the center so to speak. and my efforts in writing the biography, i wanted to get inside oppenheimer's mind, all these things i found in the correspondence the interesting literature, short story writing, political involvement, and described as a worker, was motivating oppenheimer, was motivated him. >> you and watch this and other programs online at booktv.org.

>> you are watching booktv on c-span2. here's our primetime lineup for tonight. starting at 7:00 eastern, geoffrey sax recount president john f. kennedy's pursuit of a reduction of nuclear arms. and the greater relationship with the soviet union following the cuban missile crisis. at 8:45 p.m. william bennett, secretary of education presents his thoughts on the current state of higher education and whether going to college is worth the expense. and astrophysicists mariel livio talks about his book brilliant blunders from darwin to einstein, colossal mistakes by great scientists which changed understanding of light and the universe, following that 11:00 eastern teacher and educational consultant john hunter reports on what he has learned about international diplomacy from his students. we wrap up tonight's prime-time programming at 11:45 eastern

with william perry, former deputy assistant secretary for energy and minerals that the department of the interior during the reagan administration who recounts president reagan's efforts to balance environmental protection and economic growth. visit booktv.org for more of this weekend's television schedule. >> author and journalist mary roach with the popular explorer of science topics talk about living in space, and zero reddick, trying to prove the existence of an afterlife and the strange world of the human digestive system. the former salon.com, mrs. robert five books including a the best sellers "stiff: the curious lives of human cadavers," at 11 after 2013 release "gulp: adventures on the alimentary canal". thune mary roach, how did elvis died? >> area here is the models based on resea