open smithsonian he is saved in men, women, children this really could be considered a pen. but african-american men, women, children who are resilient in holding onto humanity found to love one another, to practice their faith to grow gardens on the side of their cabins to supplement their diet into have new cultural practices. >> watched a full tour online@c-span.org/history. >> good evening everyone. the president and ceo and i am thrilled to welcome you to tonight's virtual presentation

churchill today. there at the new york historical society election. i know lincoln scholars and it's my honor to thank him. to introduce tonight speakers the trustees to joining them this evening. first and foremost the board of trustees, the vice chair trustees and brian king i want to thank the to thank this evening and many thanks to all of you. this distinguished fellow for

the next historical society and north america visiting fellow institution at stanford university to keep college london. the historical societies on 2019. the author and editor and both leadership and for those who made history as a subject of lectures for audiences and our own auditorium. the book is being released next week i believe he said, that misunderstood regent, sorry, the misunderstood reign

of george the third period i'm going to get the title again, right this time. the last king of america, the misunderstood reign of george the third period congratulations andrew. a wonderful new milestone for a pre-joining us as moderator this evening is professor at columbia law school. professor is a leading constitutional scholar who has an extensive history of government service. he served in all three branches of government during seven administrations. both republican and democratic including senior director of strategic planning and the national security council. at the external advisory. most recent professor was honored by queen elizabeth the second in recognition of his service to the uk/u.s. relations and public life.

the program last one hour including 15 minutes for questions and answers it. these questions can be submitted via the q&a function on your zoom screen. there is a chat function tonight so please do remember to use the q and a. our speakers will get to as many questions as time allows. and now i'm very pleased to turn our virtual stage over too tonight's speaker thank you. >> thank you. is a great honor for me personally. and it does the society great honor to have our guest, andrew roberts, with us tonight. the subject, churchill today, recalls the famous remark, mark anthony's evil men do after the good in term of their bonds. so churchill today, we will begin tonight with churchill's

errors. his real errors, his alleged errors is perhaps something of the man if we were to dismiss the first two subjects. let me begin andrew with winston churchill's acknowledged errors. those he acknowledged even to himself. >> there are quite a few errors and he recognized in his lifetime that he had several things wrong. the application crisis and he supported king edward the eighth. rather than king george the sixth his brother. he admitted he felt that badly wrong. and he would argue endlessly about the campaign, but did not like in later life to go over the ins and outs of that. so i think personally and privately he felt he got that wrong. he never thought of himself as

much of an economist. he also saw the generals strike and various neighbor relations is something he never used to talk about and admit too. in say perhaps he acknowledge that. [inaudible] >> the gold standard or the wrong rate at the wrong time. he got women's suffrage of badly wrong. when later on in life a cottage in cambridge was set up in his name he insisted it be open to william will women as well as men appraise with the first colleges to do so. think that is pretty good acknowledgment that he got that wrong as well. he was somebody who said he was perfectly willing and he found them.

[laughter] he was somebody, like some politicians incapable of accepting mistakes. he'd been in the forefront of politics for two thirds of a century and taking sanchez on pretty much every major political issue. of course he had to admit when he got things wrong. >> host: in the recent months your book on churchill but also reactions in some of the stores and reviews of your book. another ledger of accusations has been leveled at churchill being customer at once about women's suffrage and so on. these are accusations i guess principally is that churchill was responsible for a vast number of deaths. i would like to start there

because i heard that charge so many times. there was a horrific famine. it was in the middle of wartime. what are the facts of this, andrew? speak to facts are pretty straightforward in fact. there was a massive site that hit the eastern side of india, in october of 1942. which wiped out all of the roads and rail networks under normal circumstances that brought grain into the area to alleviate the famine. they could not do that. and so what was the alternative to that? of course is to bring it by sea. but unfortunately, the suffering are operating in the bay and in fact they heard that the japanese navy had shelled very eastern cities that year end in the next year

as well. and in places we tried to have the british in the past had tried to buy grain from and food from specifically rice from, which were thailand and malaya, and burma. all three of those places had been under japanese occupation since the events of december 1941. so you could not get any grain from there either. so what churchill did was to ask the prime minister's of australia and canada, and president roosevelt to get food to india and really did his bestie could and brought hundreds of thousands of tons ultimately but not been enough time. and unfortunately as a result there was mass starvation. this would not have been the case if there would not have

been a world war going on. it's completely untrue and unfair is the idea that winston churchill, it did not care about it at all and made the situation worse. he did not do that. and it is disgraceful allegation to suggest that he did. any number of reasons the idea that he was a deliberately genocidal essentially war criminal is certainly not one of them. >> host: is trying to guess how this it builds up. it's a pretty straightforward that happens. there are historians who hate churchill anyway, see this as a great opportunity to make him out to be as bad as hitler as some people have claimed in a conference. but what you've got to do in these places is to state calm

and go back to the original sources, read the telegrams that he sent to india and these other prime ministers and the president and so on. and to recognize that under impossible circumstances of the world war. >> something is changed on this historiography of churchill and india, but in the attitudes of people like churchill. what we are prepared to believe is simply as monstrous as an engineer to famine. because churchill had racist attitudes towards indians. >> he said the hindus were a beastie people with a beastly religion. the fact that it was a single religion shows that he was specifically talking about the

hindus who were at the time trying to make britain quit india. even under the circumstances of world war. hugely from his remarks allegedly, there's only one source for these remarks. and making racist jokes we would consider absolutely repulsive. but there's a huge leap between that and the people. common sense should tell us that that making of a few horrible jokes is not the same as a genocidal act. and the fact is there is absolutely nothing that suggests anything that churchill said or did, that he was in favor of being as bad

as possible. >> host: perhaps you've heard this joke they say churchill was a racist, you should've seen the other guy. [laughter] has to do with the gassing of the iraqi villages. you know the facts tells about that charge. >> guest: just keep calm and go back to the actual evidence. the evidence shows up at churchill college in cambridge, and i have found this that the rebellious tribesmen. when you actually look about he talks about. gout. which is the same kind of thing that is used in riots and it is not lethal gas at all. but the way it is presented makes it sounds like it's gas

or a poison gas such was used in the trenches in the first world war. that is completely wrong. and yet it is said again and again which has been done many times, schools of times probably and yet this is wrong i can still be found on the internet and elsewhere. >> host: it strikes me as a problem in assessing people is much as it is the problem that occurred in politics. with constitutional law we sometimes characterize the constitutional order that prevailed in america from the late 18th century up until civil war. really until the end of the first world war. there focused on the germans

the titans there devoted to white supremacy to imperialism, to patriarchy, to all things we hold in the great gaps of feet you may remember, it's beginning history he said my father chilled me not to be too critical of other people. but not all have had the advantage is you had he said. the thing about churchill and his generation, i think we had advantages they don't have. and that their efforts are the reason that we have these advantages. it seems to be an issue of self-awareness and maybe even gratitude.

speech i think that is true and it is a profound thought philosophically. but i also think it is worthwhile to remember that in churchill's case, although he did very much believe in the superiority of the white races, within the white race would argue whether the germans and french, and dutch, and so on. this was a man who of course was born any kind charles darwin was still alive. and at the time where however obscene and absurd we find it today, the scientific view was that there was a hierarchy of the races. i am not sure that he can be terribly much criticized for taking the view of that science. however, one of the things he very much did feel was a duty of profound responsibility on

the british and the british empire to take the native people. he was incredibly proud and their numbers increased so dramatically, especially in india, under the rule of the british. it doubled in fact in the course of the rule of the british empire. it gave them tremendous pride. he was also willing to put on the line for nonwhite people. he did it again and again. we see this and sue dom or he fought for the abolition of slavery. and in black lives it mattered to winston churchill. he sought in the northwest territory was protecting the tribesmen you see in the culinary's as well.

i think there's a huge difference between the actions and including some unpleasant jokes. he never use the n word which many races did in those days. he was somebody who recognized that it was dry inc. came from imperialism. the best kind of which he wants to give back. and to sort of pay for this immense privilege. i wish more people would accept that aspect of winston churchill and not just go on

about the white supremacy and so on. which i don't think is his driving force. he was incredibly rude of course. and you look at the remarks he made about germans and things. period and we must remember it was essential in 1914 that churchill should be thinking they were superior to germans for example. but he did. it actually turned out extremely well for britain that he did that.

>> one of the very few people. >> yes, yes, he was most recognize the threat of militarism. as to the balance of power in europe. he was pretty much british statesman having a balance of power in europe which meant the united kingdom and britain or whatever it was at the time, was not going to be under the threat of invasion. and so when we look back at the narrative arc you can see the same kind of threats posed by elizabeth the first. i'm sorry, and then louis the 1h and then churchill changes.

and then the threat of napoleon, the kaiser, and hitler. all of those five threats were to the balance of power in europe. and churchill wanted to prevent that from happening. until he worried about the kaiser. then, of course, 25 years later he was the first person, and deed for a long time the only person mounted power tomorrow afternoon. and missouri makes the same statements about soviet economists or the way in which stalin with integrity and

independence of those countries there. it's an early warning it's incredibly brave we take them all three together represents an extraordinary something that is completely outweighs. >> is a great deal about this and decided the combination is an insight but also a certain self regard and sense of destiny? [laughter]

yes i mean, of course, subtitled my book walking with destiny. it was a reference to his remark about the day he became prime minister in may of 1940 when he said i felt as if i was walking with destiny. in all my past life was in preparation for this hour and this trial. so, i think the sense is self belief. that did not just come from the sense of destiny. it also came from his background. we mentioned earlier he was a natural descendent. and of course the very fact that he had been born at the absolute pinnacle of the victorian society. the grandson of the duke, that and his education, and his time in the army where it taught him leadership of course. all of those things came together with an extreme sense

of what people would call entitlement today. and again, there's the bad side to entitlement of course there is. and winston churchill said there is an example of a positive aspect of entitlement. >> host: i'm fastened by the fact the sense of self confident, entitlement, the duties of paternalism come from a man who was -- he was mistreated by his father. i believe the reason you quote carter is saying churchill worshiped at the altar of. [inaudible] >> guest: that is right. his father died when winston churchill was 21 years old. and then his father had been emotionally abusive to him essentially. he despised him. he let his contempt be seen by

this poor young lad who was ignored by his mother as well. at least for the early years of his life. and so it took self lead, frankly, he wasn't getting that much support from either of his parents. he had a very strange father fixation all of his life. even in 1947 when he bombed at least the british side of the second world war. he was able to have a rather weird conversation with this long dead father and he writes about a book called the dream. he talks to his father edit no stage as he let on to his father that he had been instrumental in helping to win the second world war. when he asked by his daughter, when there's an empty place at

supper one evening, who he would like to be able to meet and you have said there, she was expected to say julia cecelia or alexander the great, and he immediately said my father of course. >> host: it is amazing that in the face of such treatment i did have such a sense of himself. you quote missing at the age 16 there shall be great upheavals in our lives. there shall be terrible struggles. but i shall be called upon to save london and save the country. [inaudible] how extraordinary, should a been called upon to do exactly that. i sort of waited those 50 years for the collet. in his whole life had been preparation for that hour and that trial.

he thanks about his time about a soldier, then he goes into politics, he holds important cabinet ranks including admiral during the first world war and the second world war. the things that happened to him in the first world war, the disaster of italy which he learns from it doesn't make that mistake ever again in the second world war where he ignores the advice from his generals. you can see those being one of i put perpetual learning example it is the mistake in london he mentions early there's plenty more. there's another one he recognized he got wrong. these were steppingstones in may of 1940 which is at the absolute worst moment in the second world war.

we had been invaded, france and belgium had been invaded. virtually on the back foot for this is real trial by fire. >> some of the people when you think about this defensive churchill. it's always difficult for us to imagine that things would turn out any other way than they did because we know how the game ended. we find causal forces that brought us to where we are. when in fact, some things are damn near run thing. >> guest: i think these latest attacks of being most damaging to churchill's reputation because if anyone is really interested they can read about churchill and learn about churchill and they realize

these attacks are fundamentally unfair and untrue. but not the really important ones it strikes me. however, what really does perhaps damage to the future of churchill's reputation is shared ignorance. it's young people not being taught about him in schools. i know the historical society the rafters would constantly be telling them some 20% of british teenagers believe winston churchill to have been a fig patient character. more of them believed in sherlock holmes and eleanor rigby were real people. they believe that versus winston churchill. it's a worrying situation. i think it's an indictment on our school system. the conservatives have been in power for ten years now. they still don't seem to be able to get winston churchill,

you know, front and center on the national curriculum. and so, i fear that it's sheer ignorance rather than these various sort of attacks. the latest attacks are much more dangerous threat to churchill's reputation looking forward. >> host: i can't say things are great deal better here but as one of my law students but he knew about jon marshall. and he said wasn't he the author of martial law? >> guest: having said that the ignorance of the battle of winston churchill asked who wrote or who commanded the american forces in the american war of independence? in many of them said denzel washington. [laughter] >> host: one thing that stands out in your biography, is that your new sources of material.

i would have thought that history of winston churchill had been so thoroughly in mind there'd be nothing more to be found. for the life you had access to some of george the sixth diaries including his notes and meetings with churchill. >> yes. >> host: how did you manage to get them? >> guest: well, her majesty, the queen, allowed me too be the first churchill historian to use them. it was a tremendous honor. i think that after 75 years they recommend that the time had come for somebody to be able to use them. it wasn't because i had any special pole at the royal archives at all. i just happen to be that i was the first at the time. i was just immensely fortunate. but fate has been kind to me when it comes to historical

breakthroughs. i have had a few of them. and it has been very useful as well to be writing a proper british history. to be a journalist who wanted to, you know, mocha rate or scandal monger. it's easy enough to do that if you want too. but i don't think the royal archives are interested in them. the got the big book. i was very fortunate to also be able to use some 43 sets of papers that have been deposited at churchill college archives since the last major biography of him. it is an incredible thing people are still finding stuff other addicts. they are producing papers with their grandparents which have

been handed down. it is truly wonderful and exciting first dorians when that happens of course. >> host: es, while those are very modest remarks. it reminds me of something an american politician once said about colleagues he said it's the damnedest thing, the harder he works the luckier he gets. [laughter] [laughter] you just had one of your workmen come in behind you. i hope it's the one whose life you said earlier today. oh, the light has gone out now. but were in the presence of a genuine hero. >> host: their cellmate real heroes to talk about. among them, churchill, some of the people he inspired in his generation. i have had great weakness for his close friend smith.

played a large role in the first part of your book. i don't know how many americans know much about him. i always tell stories about him in my classes. you are closest to him. >> guest: yes he was, he was a brilliant politician who had great wit. he was a queen's counsel so is one of the top of barristers. he finally became a lord chancellor. he was known for his rep rt at various law cases. everybody has their favorite fe smith story. but my favorite one is when he, a judge said, there were summing up by fe smith, the judge said i seem to be none the wiser.

no, my lord, replied fe smith the but you aren't much better informed. [laughter] >> host: that's wonderful that's a wonderful line. >> guest: unfortunately, was also a terrible alcoholic. by the time of his death and very early in 1930, it meant that in those great appeasement struggles of the 1930s, pork churchill was on his own. my sense, very much, is that he decided they would have been able to move more of the dial on public opinion, especially conservatives. >> host: but i read your essay, i was struck by the sort of negative quality of churchill's trial. it wasn't simply that he rallied opinion, held hitler at bay. something we all give him credit for.

but that he prevented britain from folding its cards before the real struggle began. would you speak about that for just a moment? >> guest: yes, i think the threat posed by adolf hitler came from three things. we've already mentioned one the fact that he was a historian who saw the latest upset to balance of power in europe in the context of the previous four attempts. he was also -- he liked jews, he had grown up with jews. he'd gone on holiday with them. he was completely different from the other upper-class people of his age and class and background. and so he had an early warning system when it came to hitler.

many other people on his benches. he'd also come up with in his life. in this sense it was a religious event a schism, but he recognized the way in which it couldn't be a a peas and had to be bought. and so he tended to, unlike the other prime ministers of the 1930s, unlike chamberlain and never change them for it he actually sort of come up close and personal. and then recognized it. he had this sort of -- again they come from a different life. they helped him enormously at the time, you know, doubt and

struggle. >> host: i had a professor i greatly admired when i was in law school who was given the homes of papers to finish the biography of a great american journalist. he never completed the project because he developed such a distaste for homes and study did not enjoy his company anymore and abandon his research. what do you like living with one soon churchill what was that the six years? >> guest: well, in the sense this is a for the book i've written about some aspect of him. but the actual book that i wrote, "churchill: walking with destin, there are three in the writing. i spent six years writing about nelson -- about napoleon. so six years writing about salisbury. now it's much par for the course.

it was the exact opposite of your friend oliver wendell holmes, actually. because i wound up liking churchill more than when i started. and so that's a rather pleasing thing. i have written books about people i wound up despising. but, i've never called off the book. what you do is you write the book about the person, what you are scared of of course as far that you think is going to bet some people and you wind up actually despising them. that doesn't mean you're going to write any less a good book, it strikes me. soon when there are some questions from the audience and going to go too. the first one says, many people on the united states are advocating for the removal of confederate statues because they represent the tragic legacy of slavery, despite any of any contributions they may have made to shape military leadership. do you see criticisms of

churchill and his potential toppling -- i think one of the statues essentially deface the square, as a similar situation? >> guest: no, it strikes me that some of the confederate statues at least were put up in a deliberative tivoli provocative way back in the 1920s and sort of establishment or undermine at least jim crow. roy was there was never the case with winston churchill. the staff to put out was not intending to offend anybody. they were a natural result as a result of his heroism. another issue i suppose is the confederate leaders for the country.

and therefore they are not like the founding fathers. but trying to take out their statue as well. here in britain we have a sense alert readily the churchill statute was attacked during a black lives matter demonstration. they also attacked our memorial to the first world war and second world war. there's all sorts of people of abraham lincoln. the matter was liberated today. there is an outrage against white people in that particular demonstration.

which i think was not just about winston churchill. i think it's a different thing. i think it's a more complicated thing. and it's something that is been tied in with the statue of the slave owner, slave trade oh and turning into the bristol channel. so we have something that's really it much more complicated thing than just you know, hatred of winston churchill. >> host: one of the questions asks, do you think that contemporary depictions of churchill and popular culture have shown him to be faultless or are they to positive? or are they overly critical? what you think? >> guest: i think definitely in the 1950s and 60s the depictions of churchill tended

to be extremely positive, almost heroic that he had few, if any fault. but i think recently that is not the case at all. i mean, the darkest hour of course they brought his chuckle and brought his sort of twinkle in his eyes superbly. there's also been endless, endless negative shows about churchill where he's presented as a drunk and constantly idiotic, racist and so on. so i think it would be rather nice to have a synthesis with the best and the worst of churchill. but overall, i think popular culture can't be trusted with this anyway.

>> host: another questioner asks, are there any contemporary leaders that have similar leadership styles to winston churchill? >> guest: well, of course the style is something that other leaders do try to adopt because the churchill leadership has become an adjective for leadership. for successful leadership. and so, if you catch some of that phraseology of winston churchill's in various things that george w. bush said after 911, george w book said after 911 that boris johnson has a biographer winston churchill says today at margaret thatcher, i think though is a prime example of somebody who is obviously profoundly affected by churchill. she was what, 14 years old when she sat around the radio

and linkage chart listening to churchill's speech, speeches were on the radio. there was an immense profound effect on her. especially during the campaign that she was dwelling on the wellspring of churchill's leadership to get her through that. in regards to the current crop of leaders, i am not seeing any great, great. but perhaps that is my ignorance rather than anything to churchill. >> host: another questioner says, is our culture shifts towards the future that uplifts and recognizes historically marginalized groups, such as people of color, queer folks, and women, is there room for the great leader archetype? is our culture movingly from

idolizing features like a churchill? >> guest: well, i hope so. nobody wants to idolize churchill but they do and to admire a leader. if you think about it, the white, privilege, middle-class to upper class mail was not going to be getting the worst of existence. that would have been the people of color and women who were degraded, essentially, by nazi society. especially the people from the lgbt community who were sent to concentration camps. so in a sense think churchill for not having a role in which they would have been treated 100 times worse.

worked in the ever would have been in history. so overall, i think that churchill would be a hero to them even more than white males like me. >> host: that almost sounds like a defense of paternalism, that we should be thankful for the good things done for us even if they are done by people whose positions in our society we abhor or are hostage too. >> guest: oh, no, i don't think so. i think that's very reductive, actually. i think it's perfectly reasonable to say that somebody who was pushed to defeat the nazis should become as i say, not idolize but admired by everybody. regardless of color, creed, or sex. >> host: we have another question that asks, because he was elected by parliament

would not directly by the people, how concerned with churchill about the public's opinion? do you think of modern leaders are more or less concerned about public opinion then winston churchill? >> guest: well, of course, everyone is selected by parliament, all prime ministers are selected by parliament in a sense. he did get elected by the people in 1951 when he stood again. he considered part of leadership not going along with the crowd. he had seen too often in his life, especially during the munich crisis, moments where the huge overwhelming body of the population believed in appeasement, which turned out to be a disaster. so he did not mind saying the opposite of what the majority of people thought.

he had a line about the opinion polls in which he said that he'd been told that it's important for politicians to keep their ears to the ground. but he didn't believe the british people would admire a partition courting so ungainly a posture. [laughter] and he's right the way in which politician turns everyone is to chase after and thereby say whatever they think will make them popular. it works for a short period of time. but ultimately, when you have to take the difficult and unpopular decision was every great statesman and states woman has to in some in their career, it let's you down. >> host: you have mentioned churchill's great sense of self and his sense of drama, the destiny of his political life. i remember a letter that martha belford wrote his

sister. one part which goes oh, winston's written his autobiography. he calls it the world crisis. one of our questioners here says, how do you explain churches great self-confidence given his past attitude? >> guest: yes that is a very good question you know. he didn't go to university. that might have helped in fact, the fact that he never went to university because instead he sort of set up his own university when he was in the remote in india. there he was teaching himself endlessly, reading all of the great books of philosophy and biography and history. it's quite an extraordinary list of books that he got through all on his own. whereas had he gone to oxford or cambridge at the time, he might well of spent that time getting drunk and playing

polo. so you have this autodidact, essentially, who as i say had this position in society where he did not care terribly much what other people thought of him. and so as a result, you have somebody who had the necessary self-confidence. especially after he'd become an imperial hero after he escaped from a prisoner of war camp in the bold war in 1899. by the time he enters parliament's, he is a celebrated figure. and that gives him a certain degree of the self-confidence. and then of course, he recognized it himself is capacity for oratory. and for great which which was something that was to see him through even in the darkest

times. and he wrote an article in 1897 in which he said the power was a greater even though they disagree with you. and that was essentially a few years later what happened he was warning against them. >> host: is at the scaffolding of rhetoric? >> guest: yes that's right. it's a fastening and brilliant he wrote it when he was white, 24 years old? and he had never given a public speech in his life. it's very rare. usually people give speeches and then the theorize about rhetoric. what he did was theorize first think of the speeches after words. see when we have an interesting question here. it asked if you would also talk about churchill's relationship with other brilliant contemporaries like

roosevelt, king? >> guest: yes, he was overall very good with other great, great men and women of the age. teddy roosevelt for some reason, he just never, never clicked with. but there were various reasons for this it. but i'm going to be speaking at my next speech about churchill and american presidents. want to tell you my theories about why he never got with teddy roosevelt then. but of course he of course got one wonderfully well with franklin roosevelt but he did not like the cocktails that fdr used to mix for him at the white house. but otherwise there doesn't seem to have been a personal disagreement. there were strategic agreements. he wrote a wonderful book.

i think your question is should immediately after they finish my book get a hole of the great contemporaries which is a wonderful book about all of the sort of top people who churchill knew by the time it was published in 1937. and that is a superb series of beautifully written portraits about all of the great people that churchill had met. >> host: including fe smith. >> guest: there is one on fe smith. i think there may be like 25 or so. they are not all people who he likes. the kaiser, for example, he writes about in a very penetrating way. but i do recommend that book hugely. >> host: well, we are drawing to a close, we have time for just a couple more questions. one member of the audience asks how did churchill adapt the evolving technology of his time? and how those technologies had

an impact on ways in which leaders could communicate with their constituents? this is the case with many modern leaders. would churchill have taken advantage of a press conference is to reach the general public had those resources been available to him? >> guest: well, of course radio did become available to him during the course of his career. and he absolutely leapt on he was a true believer in working the microphone to his advantage. and when he started off in politics, there was no radio. and you just had to bellow to a crowd. sometimes he would speak to crowds of thousands, and he would use in megaphones which he would held up to your mouth. but he never really good on television. he only did one tv tryout actually. sort of an audition for how he would be if he did a political

broadcast. any hated it so much. : lovely person and we talk about which one was most admired, steve said, he said all his

life, someone would have come edition. he said, we speak the language that he told us to speak. churchill having changed the rubric and purpose of democratic dialogue. >> i think so. that that churchill could quote shakespeare plays. he took a lot of the language. but i think that he has given the world a

certain language, lexicon that as long as civilization succeeds in the world and where it has to come from, and there are 8,000 speeches. and there's something interesting, some wonderful trades and can be picked out of literally those 8,000. you don't have to -- pretty much wherever you bring up will be worthwhile. there were few people in history like that. if we get over this person sort of obsession it strikes me with -- of

course, if you look also at the -- at the actual, you know, from the statute, i think that's much more worthwhile. >> andrew, you were thinking of churchill's remark about the prime minister -- [laughter] >> this has been a real treasure. i give thanks from all of us. welcome and thanks. >> thank you very much. >> the origins of the speech, the iron curtain address really go back to a decision by westminster college president who was casting around for whom to invite that deliver the lecture and he hits