welcome to the eisenhower presidential library museum. i am joy murphy, the director of learning and engagement. we are pleased. welcome mr. alan packwood from,

the churchill archives. we'll talk to us a little bit about the relationship between general eisenhower and, then later president eisenhower and mr. churchill. and so we are very excited about this presentation. if you have questions, please feel free to type them in the chat. i'll monitoring the chat to ask questions at end. so please join join me in welcoming mr. packwood. hey. well, hello, everybody. it's great pleasure to be virtually at eisenhower library in abilene, kansas. and i'm just going to share my screen with you, and you should all now be seeing a title slide with churchill and and okay. so my name alan. alan packwood. and i'm lucky enough to be the

director of the churchill archive center, which is located in the grounds of churchill college at the university of cambridge in the u.k. and you're you're looking at an image of that now i joined the archive center as a young naive green in september. 1995 brought in as member of a team to catch a log and exhibit the churchill papers after they had been purchased for the nation. and of course stayed ever since. and in 2002 i was i became the director of, the archive center. and what you need to know about the church, like i said, i think is it is the closest thing in the united kingdom to. one of your presidential libraries and in fact was created funded almost entirely by american.

so we owe you and your countrymen a huge debt for own foundation. i think people tend to know a couple things about the churchill archive center firstly of course that it houses the personal papers of sir winston churchill and and it won't surprise you to know that. that is an enormous collection. this is a man who had an incredibly long public life and career and who of lived by his pen. so his personal archive papers are some two and a half thousand boxes, an estimated 1 million items. but you may know, of course, that we also the papers of margaret thatcher and and and not only do we have winston margaret's papers, we also have two and smoke churchill's cigars and a genuine margaret thatcher

handbag. but that also is is really just the start of what is what has become a much larger endeavor. and the churchill archive center actually holds the personal papers of some hundred or so individuals, politicians, military leaders, diplomats and scientific hosts of the churchill era and beyond. and of course, we're still collecting and so we currently have churchill and thatcher and john major's papers and gordon brown said that his archive will come to us. so i suppose i can that in some ways we're the equivalent to for american presidential libraries and our mission of course just like the eisenhower library is to the material in our care so that it's here not for this generation and for today for generations to come. and it's also to make it as

excessive and available as possible. and so today i'm going to be obviously talking about the churchill and eisenhower power relationship and let me preface my remarks with just a couple of opening comments. firstly, think it's only fair that i say at this stage that i am not an eisenhower expert. i've spent 26 years working on the papers of sir winston in which, of course, eisenhower appears both as a wartime general and as a postwar president, but like churchill, have come at him and come at their through a very lens. and i'm conscious that i don't have full story and a large part of the other side of that story is, of course, with you in the eisenhower library as a result i regard my remarks today as

provisional and as a starting point. further research and discussion and i think there are people on this call who are already taking up that baton. and that challenge and mitchell very good to see you. and appearing in the list of participants. but i want to start with this document. it's the letter that president eisenhower wrote to, prime minister winston churchill on the 22nd of march, 1955. and he wrote it upon, learning the news that winston, now aged 80, was finally going to step down as peacetime prime minister and retire from public. and in this letter, as you can see, ike starts to reflect on long relationship right in the last sentence of your letter, with its implication, you are

soon to withdraw from active political life started. in my memories, the parade of critical incidents and great days that you and i experience together beginning at the moment we. first match in washington, december. 1941 since reading it. i have been suffering from an acute case of nostalgia and eisenhower then range is briefly over those events of that relationship. recalling the shock of pearl harbor and the bitter reality of the tobruk disaster before moving on, focus on their planning. the torch operation in french north africa. then the sicilian invasion, the moves into italy and normandy and finally onto their postwar war partnership, struggling against eisenhower calls the evil conspiracy centered in the kremlin. so i think this letter is perhaps very much what you would expect. it's a restatement of a personal, special relation ship.

and, of course, as such, it echoes similar remark made by churchill about eisenhower on. the 9th of may 1945, the end of the war in europe. winston churchill wrote the following message to president truman, and he says, you can see this in the bottom paragraph of this telegram. let me tell you what general eisenhower has meant to us in. we have had a man who set the unit of the allied armies above all nationalistic, foolish in his headquarters, unity and strategy with the only reigning spirits the unity reached such a point. the british and american troops be mixed in the line of battle, and large masses could be transferred one command to the other without slightest

difficulty. at no time has the principle alliance between noble races encourage and maintained at so high a pinch in the name of the british empire and commonwealth i express to our admiration at the firm far sighted and illuminating character and qualities of the general of the army, eisenhower, in his broadcast at the 13th of may, 1945, delivered five years to the day after his first wartime speech as prime minister. churchill paid tribute again to the unifying command and high strategic of general, said both that private telegram truman and that public statement on 13th of may 1945, typical and wonderful examples of churchillian rhetoric deliver of course, in the warm glow of victory and i've no doubt that both eisenhower and churchill were sincere and heartfelt in their remarks about one another.

but of course it isn't the whole story. and to suggest that everything was always smooth and easy in their relationship does them both a disservice. they wrestling with tumultuous, enormous challenges and, changes, difficult characters. think of patton or montgomery, and perhaps more importantly, they were dealing with their respect of national interests, national interests that did not always align as closely as the public rhetoric would suggest. if we go back and look again, that lecture of the 22nd of march, 1955, from to churchill, you see that it goes on to discuss diplomatic row over the american release of papers relating to the conference and to discuss the need to reconcile different viewpoints between the united kingdom and the united states over events in southeast asia and formosa, modern day

taiwan, and actually its interesting to note that the two men do not even agree on the date of their first meeting, eisenhower in this letter claims it is december 1941, when churchill distinguished to be safe after pearl harbor. churchill, in his memoirs recalls. it is happening at the time of his next six months later in, june 1942, just after the fall of tobruk. what i want to do in few minutes allotted to me this afternoon is to dig into the new parts of this important relation ship and to try and understand its changing dynamic and. to do that, i think it helps to understand something, the differences and similarities. between the two characters now. in some ways churchill could have been more different from eisenhower. his origins were certainly not

humble. he was born at blenheim palace in oxfordshire into the highest echelons of british high society. he was the eldest son of a younger of the seventh duke of marlborough, eldest son of a younger son, which is why he didn't inherit the title. and he was born into a world of servants and privilege. well, that left him easily satisfied with the best and for the churchill, of course, the best meant for roger champagne it meant french wine, scottish whiskey, cubans when the famous austere british general montgomery told churchill that he did not drink, did not, and he was 100% fit. churchill famously replied that, he did drink. he did, and he was 200% french. now. but of course, not strictly speaking.

true, churchill did suffer extensive conflict with his health during the second world war and afterwards, something that we're going to return to. but i think that statement captures something of his character. he was what we might call a frequent with his eccentric costume, incredible range of hats bow ties, canes, the famous v for victory salute he led from the front, and he was always putting himself centerstage stage. after all, this was the man who sat at an edwardian dinner party to his friend violet asquith, daughter of the liberal prime minister. that, my dear, we are all worms. but i do believe that i am no now i, of course, was a career soldier who became a politician. churchill was the opposite he may have served as a soldier, but he was always first and foremost a politician.

between 1895 and 1900 and the ages of 20 to 25, he used military experience as a young lieutenant in the british army as a springboard to his political career. he knew he wasn't going to stay in the army. his tactic was to get himself, transferred to as dangerous places as possible. cuba, the indian north-west, the sudan, south of south africa. to get himself to these dangerous places and then to get himself shot at and then to write up his adventures as newspaper articles and, books, thereby generating income. but perhaps more importantly raising his personal. he intending to to beat his into a dispatch box. it was a strategy, of course, that was upon by his military superiors and by many of his fellow officers. and one suspects a strategy that would have been frowned upon by

eisenhower but it worked it got churchill elected to parliament in 1900. now churchill's personal bravery was under budget, but it was bravery with an aim. as a young soldier, he to his mother from the indian north-west, describing how i rode on my great pony along the skirmish line, where everyone else was lying down and cover foolish perhaps. but i played for high stakes and given an audience, there is no act to daring or to noble without gallery, things are different now churchill entered parliament in 1900. he first entered the british cabinet in 1908 at the age of just 33, and over course of the next 20 years he served in many the major offices of the british state. but it was the real role approach to write. and in the decade up to the outbreak of the second world war

in 1929, he himself excluded from high to some of his political. he was an opportunist who changed political party twice. initially the conservatives to the liberals and 20 years later back from the to the conservatives allowing him remark anyone can react but it takes a certain ingenuity to rewrite to some. he was seen as a figure who told the suffragette he would not be henpecked. the champion of the costly gallipoli campaign in world war one and who had dismissed gandhi as a half naked fakir when opposing indian independence. what course churchill had got right during the 1930 where his early warnings about fascism and particularly the threat posed to european stability by the rise of hitler and militarized germany under the nazi party. all this that by the time he met

eisenhower in the second world war, whether in. december 1941 or june 1942, churchill already enjoyed a long political career and had already established himself as a colorful controversial figure on the stage. but of course, there were a number of factors that would have predisposed him towards a positive relationship with eisenhower of course, you know that that they would have bonded over their army careers and their military service. but also over churchill's pro americanism. churchill's mother was the brooklyn born beauty, jennie jerome, famously once described as more panther than woman. she may have been distant. her eldest son's unhappy days, but she used formidable networking skills to help launch his political and military

career. and winston acknowledged huge influence when he addressed the joint houses of congress in the aftermath of pearl on the 26th of december, 1941. and you're looking at the first draft of his speech for that occasion, so you can see it at it's got written speech to congress. 26 to 1241, and and you can see about halfway down the page, he's at it in the line. i indeed that my mother, whose memory i cherish, could have been here to say and then he goes on to say, by the way, i cannot help reflecting that if my father been american and my mother british instead of the other way round, i might have got here on my own. and of course, it was through a friend of his mother's, the american politician, bert

cochran, and that churchill introduced to america and introduced to new york high society in 1895. and thereafter he a keen interest in the country of her birth visiting again for longer. in 1900s. in 1929 and 1931. he wrote extensively about american history, particularly about the civil war and about american politics and even food and. you may be pleased to know that he he greatly admired us. lobsters and coffee, but he wasn't keen on cocktails or the american habit of setting copious quantities of iced with meals. but he developed a strong core belief in, the importance of the unity of the great english speaking democracies by which.

and so i just got a message and saying that i needed to a new job. i hope you caught that last bit said and churchill traveled extensively in the united states in 1900 1929 1931. he about american history and he wrote particularly the american war about american politics and american food and his love of men and american lobsters and. american coffee was not keen on iced water or on cocktails, but he did develop a strong core belief in the importance of the unity the english speaking democracies by which he meant, particularly the united states and the united kingdom. his of a network within america served well during his wartime premiership. it meant that he was marking more pro-american and much

better informed about the united states. the many of his british political counterparts. and he was willing to embrace and to champion combined with roosevelt's marshall and eisenhower and i. it's fair to say that churchill's atlantic system was really enforced by the events of the first world war. that conflict nearly ended churchill's political career when he was sacked as first lord of the admiralty after. the failure of the dardanelles operation and that impacted his world view. the devastate and conflict in the european theater was described by him as the world crisis because it fundamentally weakened the old order the nation states europe and failed to maintain the balance power and have been left in ruins. the dynamics of empire have been altered. britain was left struggling meet the cost of direct rule in have colonies while the dominions had gained in independence because rather than relying britain for

their imperial defense, britain been forced to rely on her empire dominions for troops and resources. the naval race with germany. the years leading up to 1914, tried to have played a key role, especially with the admiralty, had undermined britain's supremacy. the arrival of the dreadnought, the submarine, the airplane and the move from coal oil would a new playing field on which british dominance can no be guaranteed revolut should have brought the bolshevik communists to power in russia, while russian and british weakness in the pacific had strengthened the hand of japan. all of this was the new legacy with churchill now found himself wrestling and most importantly, the new world in the form of the united states had been seen very clearly to come to the rescue of britain and western europe, thereby reinforcing churchill's in the importance of an ongoing strategic relationship with

america and that that of that relationship quickly became a necessity as war started. churchill may have said that the only thing worse than fighting with allies was fighting without the but in 1940, when became prime minister he knew he needed america. if the was going to be won. indeed, his chiefs of staff had told him this very bluntly at the beginning of his premiership. they told him that britain would only be able to fight on if the states of america is willing to give us full economic and financial, without which we do not think we could continue war with any chance of success. so after pearl harbor it was in churchill's interest to make the military relationship with the united states work, not least

because were, as we will see, disagree on strategy. so when eisenhower, a senior military and senior american military figure, was given command of operation torch and sent to london to prepare for allied invasion of french north africa, it was natural for churchill to call him to offer a weekly, and the two men would meet the tuesday lunches. they bonded. bonded over irish. i think the personal chemistry worked because. they were two such different characters. churchill was direct, dramatic and often emotional. eisenhower was more and deferential. i think there was a will both sides to make the relationship work, and there wasn't a of egos. and i think that was probably helped by the fact that eisenhower was not reporting directly to churchill, but rather to marshall and to the

combined chiefs of staff in washington, d.c.. this meant that churchill could not simply to steamroller him and he sometimes tried to deal with his own chiefs of staff and military commanders. but it was clearly in the interests of both men to work together. but again, that does not mean that there weren't tensions, disagreements. there were in the aftermath of operation torch in late 42, generalized and how sought to bolster the north african invasion with deals aimed at winning over the local french vichy leaders and their forces. and this, of course, was a policy that proved very controversial with audiences home in both britain and america, where there was much opposition to collaborate with former fascist sympathizers and fellow travelers and ran particularly high in the case of admiral dolan, the former commander of the french navy, who become one of the most senior ministers in patton's

after his defection to the alliance. dolan had been recognized by eisenhower as high commissioner for france, the north and west africa. now this understandable infuriated the go and his supporters putting churchill in an incredibly difficult position. and it was perhaps fortunate for churchill and eisenhower that dolan was then assassinated. whereas churchill observed in a letter to his wife clementine, many of these frenchmen hate each other far more than they do. the germans and allegations, serious differences of opinion. the united states chiefs of staff and with marshall in particular over the scale and timing of the cross-channel invasion and the liberation of northwest europe surfaced immediately after the second world war and continue to this day. and eisenhower, the senior american theater commander in europe, was inevitably caught in the middle of these debates.

and arguments in 1943, after the italians surrender. churchill felt frustrated by american demands to prioritize a cross-channel invasion of france above continuing british efforts in italy. he argued strongly for the symbolic importance of capturing rome and a tactical of being able to bomb southern germany from the north italian airfields. he still felt that there was potential to build italian success, but by bringing in turkey reinforce seeing greece and taking the fight to, the enemy in albania, yugoslavia romania and bulgaria before from italy towards, austria. he was especially by general eisenhower's, to countenance an idea of troops to garrison some of the dodecanese islands, and churchill's frustration over diverging anglo-american strategy. and in 1943 4445 figures prominently in the diaries of some of those best placed to

observe him in view are better placed than britain senior servicemen. the chief of the imperial general staff and general major field marshal lord alan brook. allen brooks diaries, which survived little heart center at king's college in london, provide some wonderful insight into the inner workings, the anglo-american relationship. and one of my favorite entries is brooks account of his meeting churchill on the 30th of june 1944. and this is just d-day. and it was very clear that the americans no longer prepared to support further large scale actions in italy and the mediterranean strategy so long by churchill and brook was coming to an end. and brook writes just back from meeting with winston, i thought at first we might have trouble with him. he looked like he wanted to fight the. however, in the end we got him to agree to our outlook, which. all right. if you insist on being -- fools.

so sooner falling out with you, which would be fatal, we shall be -- fools with and we shall see that we perform the role of -- fools, -- well. now, of course, these tensions and frustrations were not just one sided on the americans side, the 1946 memoirs of harry butcher. my three years with eisenhower contained some incredibly unflattering anecdotes about churchill, including complaints about his irregular and also his rather eccentric behavior. now, these were doubt compounded by issues relating to churchill health in december 43, he was taken seriously ill with pneumonia while visiting churchill while visiting eisenhower in tunisia. and he almost died in the run up to d-day. he was left severely weakened in periods of convalesce and

inactivity, did not suit him. and a consequence eisenhower had bear the brunt of churchill's and anxieties during preparatory phase for overlord when all hung in the balance. but yet there yet action. churchill this time the silly vacillate hugely over the bombing of french towns and cities in the build up to the invasion. and each meeting of the war cabinet. he led some his political colleagues in expressing reservations and in trying to limit or halt the policy. and each week it was agreed that the bombings could be continued a limited basis, but would be reviewed. and all the while his military colleagues based, the british and american side would more and more frustrated with the lack of clarity. and in the end. eisenhower was forced to intervene. he later recalled churchill being genuinely shaken by the fearful picture and arguing the postwar must be our friend.

it is not alone. a question of humanitaire and it is also a question of high state policy. in other, churchill was worried that the bombing of these french towns and cities might actually drive the the french civilian population and towards the extremes of communism. yet the supreme commander eisenhower stood firm on the bombing as a critical feature of the battle plan. and in the end churchill had to give way. you also gave way reluctantly on plans to personally accompany the troops across the channel on d-day, though it fell to king george, the six, not to eisenhower, to extend churchill down. what clear is that both churchill eisenhower worked hard at the relationship setting, the tone for the anglo american military partnership from the top through regular luncheons and meetings they built up in this group esprit.

cool. they certainly shared key belief in the importance of morale. churchill told war cabinet that battles were not won by arithmetical calculus portions of the strength of the opposing forces, and eisenhower felt morale to be the greatest single factor in successful war. it breeds most readily upon success. but under good leaders, it will be maintained among troops, even during extended and at best as a result, churchill allies in power visited his troops together, and they fostered this spirit amongst anglo-american leadership. is comrade. it is this idea of the band brothers, reinforced from shared irish broth, weekend retreat, the prime minister's country residence and through the short notice club. now, contrary to how it sounds, the short snort as club did not involve alcohol or or narcotics. qualification for membership of

this club was a transatlantic crossing for which you acquired a signed dollar dollar bill if challenged by another member of the club. you had to produce said signed banknote or pay a fine. and john martin, the prime minister's private secretary, explained it as follows the rule is that you must always carry about with you a dollar bill signed by the short supporters admitted you and any others who may be if you meet another short and challenge him to produce his bill and he can't. he has to pay a dollar to each short note to present to pm. prime minister is a short supporter and has been in this way, all of which must sound as it is a little mad. a little mad. may, but a great way of sort of relieving tension and building comradeship. in short, snorting aside. my view is that the wartime relationship between churchill and eisenhower worked well, in part because eyes in power was

in the subordinate, because this allowed churchill to play the role of host and mentor and eisenhower in turn could to some extent deflect issues by sending them back to washington to marshal or to roosevelt's eisenhower. so had a certain independence in the military sphere which churchill even, if he did not like, had to accept. however you see that this sets up a problem for the later postwar, especially once has become president. by the time churchill returned to downing street as, prime minister in 1951 and eisenhower entered the white house as president in 1915, bring the dynamic in terms both their national and personal had altered britain's postwar vis a vis the united states meant that churchill was now the

subordinate position. and this was never going to be an easier adjustment for someone like him make. but he had seen it coming and he had taken. he published his multi-volume history of the second world war between 1948 and 1952. and while wrote the later volumes, he was aware that eisenhower was now bidding for the presidency. david reynolds in, his superb book in command of history has shown how churchill, a man did he drafts of his text removing passages that were critical of the incoming president. he was desperate to make sure that past disagreements did not resurface and derail the future relationship. so a result, as you can see here, criticism of eisenhower's refusal to push on a narrower front and key cities, including berlin prague and vienna in 1945, was down to the mutual

respect by judging. eisenhower is not in question. but their relationship between 1952 and 1955 was strong and strain by differences of opinion. churchill knew that his political career was nearly and he was keen to be remembered as a man of peace as well as war. he was keen for what he called a parley at the summit with the soviets. in other words, a resumption of the big free diplomacy of the second world war in particularly after death of stalin eyes disagreed. he didn't think the time was right with the soviets cracking down workers demonstrations in czechoslovakia and berlin, and with senator mccarthy at his most active in pursuing communists at home in america. it did not seem to him to be the right time for a softer approach to the kremlin. so you have this fundamental division between churchill and eisenhower on how to engage the

soviet union. jock koval churchill's secretary, recalled in his diary, which we have in the archive center, that churchill was very disappointed in eisenhower, whom he thinks both weak and stupid, bitterly regrets that the democrat were not returned at the last presidential election. now that was probably a gut reaction and a very passing moment. but of course, things did not get better for churchill that quickly. at the bermuda summit in 1953, after the death of stalin, churchill pushed hard again for a summit meeting with the new russian leadership. and again, jocko gould's diary reveals just how dismissive eisenhower was of the proposal using language that was deliberately undiplomatic and unambiguous. eisenhower rejected the proposal on the grounds that russia was like a woman of the streets. it did not matter whether her

clothes were old or new. it was still the same old uncanny. roger hermiston has. reminded us that 1953 was the year which the doomsday clock was set to 2 minutes to midnight. churchill, of course, was wrestling with his own ticking clock, which was probably also 2 minutes to midnight in june 53. he'd suffered an stroke with. the collusion of the press. the seriousness. his condition was kept from the british public and from most of the british political establishment. but it's a testament to the importance that churchill attached to the anglo-american relationship and his personal relationship, eisenhower, that the president was told churchill and eisenhower were clearly now wrestling enormous problems problems that were transforming the international scene and the whole nature of warfare. in this letter to churchill,

dated the 25th of january, 1955, eisenhower talks a little bit about this. and refers to the new in warfare by which he the extraordinary increase in the value of tactical strategic surprise brought by the enormous destructive of the new weapons and the probability that they could be delivered targets with little or warning. of course, the backdrop here is that the race was now on to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles and it's against this backdrop that the president speculates in this letter that the theory of the deterrent should at the very least logically be backed up by the most careful studies on our part to decide upon the conditions under which we would find it necessary to react explosively, in the late 1940s, before the russians had the bomb, churchill had been in favor of the americans using

atomic weapons, or at least threatening to use atomic weapons and using the leverage they had. and from being the sole possessors of the bomb. but now, of course, in the 1950s, things rather different. and the view from london was different. that from washington, d.c., britain was in the nuclear front line. churchill was horrified by the huge destructive potential of the hydrogen bomb. his focus was firmly on the west. and on europe, while eisenhower was looking increasing to the east and was concerned by the spread of communism in asia and by now success in china. because there was still common ground between the two countries and the us and the uk worked together to foment a coup in iran. in 1953. but the relationship was no longer as simple as it had been in 1942 or even 1942. even the famed anglo-american

intelligence cooperation had been undermined by revelations about burgess and maclaine british agents who'd been working the russians in these difficult times. it must have helped to have that bond of familiarity at the top, because for all their differences and in spite of the occasional outbursts, there was a strong personal relationship. in 1955, eisenhower produced a painting of winston churchill, churchill and establishment, who, of course, claimed that, unfortunately for us, did not exercise full rights of retaliation. but by 1955, it's really late for churchill to further influence events. aged 80 with his health failing with blocking the summit, he with the soviets, he finally succumbed to the inevitable and, retains his final to his cabinet is not to abandon americans,

which is ironic because of course eden immediately it resulting in a serious crisis and desperate to shore up both his personal and the national special relationship with eisenhower. churchill undertakes one last transit landmark trip staying with the president at the white house and at gettysburg in may 1959. he presents eisenhower with one of his paintings and he writes back to clementine, a white house paper that the president is real friends. the tensions of recent years have clearly been swept replaced by memories of the second world war. and the two men are able, as you can in this photograph, to relax, relax, united by a shared bond of experience of high command, which is no longer complicated by national rivalries. so when churchill dies in in january 1965, it's fitting that it's eisenhower who represents

the american government and the american people. at his state funeral. and it therefore seems to be fitting. give eisenhower the last. and i want to show to quote from the eulogy and then eisenhower made in which your library has digitized and made available online and of churchill eisenhower said he was embodiment of british defeat to french courage to adversity and calmness in danger and moderation in success among the allies. his was spoken with respect, admiration and affection. although they loved his foibles, they knew he was a staunch friend. although they loved his foibles. they knew he was a staunch friend. a hint, perhaps even these in his final statement from eisenhower, that the real complex issue of the relationship to which i have lived and i'm sure, i've only

scratched the surface. thank you very much. thank you so much. that was excellent. we have a question in the chat. and if anyone else has questions, go ahead and type them in the chat. i do see a few hands up. we'll get to you after we do the chat. so the first question says. after the war and churchill lost the election he was out of office a while, but was elected again to became prime minister. what changed that put churchill back in office again. did the people of great britain come to realize more conservative government was necessary? whether no good candidates? it's a lot. question and it's a really good question actually. and of course the question that i normally get asked is why churchill loses the the the 1945

election and why he ceases to be prime minister. and in 1945. so if i may, i'll answer that one at the same time. and and so i mean, the best answer to that question course is in the u.k., we do not have a presidential system, have a prime ministerial system where you are prime minister by virtue of being the leader of the largest in the house of. and so in 1945, the real question, why do so many people vote for the party rather than the conservative party? and i think there are lots of reasons that. and one of them is, of course that many people hadn't forgiven the conservatives, neville chamberlain, for bringing in the i mean, of causing war in the first place. and and and churchill course had led a coalition cabinet and, a government that did include labor and liberal members. and during the war.

but i think there was also a feeling that, you know, while churchill had been a really good wartime and prime minister, particularly in 1940, that he was not necessarily the best prime minister for the peace and that he was not going to rush to bring the troops back from from from overseas. and that his focus was going to be foreign policy and international affairs, and that after years of war and hardship, what was really wanted at home and was a focus on on education, on health and a feeling that the labor party were far more likely than the conservative party to deliver that more wholeheartedly. so and i think you can see in this natural pendulum in british politics, well, that have been swinging away the conservatives during the war back the towards the labor party and i think then to answer the question in the chat of course and you then see

that pendulum swinging again back towards conservatives after six years of labor party administration and the labor administration, clement attlee is incredible reforming government. it sets the british national health service and, it does focus very much on the home front. and of course there's a retreat from. but also it doesn't austerity. you have a continuation of austerity. austerity you have a continuation of rationing times remain very hard and. i think as a result, the pendulum then swings again back to and the conservatives and a feeling of course churchill is a safe pair of hands and but also a figure who can perhaps punch above weight for great britain on the internal national stage

because of his sort of personal name and and reputation. thank you. we have a lot of comment, but no questions in the chat. so will ask the two people who had their hands. it was sanjay, paul and ethan anderson. so we'll start with mr.. you still have a question you can unmute yourself. no, i was just saying it was such an incredible presentation that mr. packwood had know i but i did i was as you're going through the presentation, i kind of reviewing some notes, too, that he did have some controversial views around the colonization, that he felt that and it goes to your point about the international affairs. i think he would have done very well like he did from 51 to 55 and continued to have done well. but it looks like you get branded in that kind of world war two mindset. it's similar to if you if you

look rosa, right. i went to the world war two museum in louisiana and i visited a couple of times he kind of got locked in into that three term presidential kind of thing. he was needed in the war and he has a huge, indelible legacy, just like afterwards. but it is kind how they get defined by their time. they define times, and then they kind of get defined the times. but i think he was amazing. that plus i was reading that he was a painter writer like you said, somebody who was a renaissance person. very inspirational public speaker, still look an incredible i just wanted share. okay. well, no, thank you very much. i mean, i love your line there about, you know, you define the times, but you're also defined by your times. and i think that's absolutely true. and in churchill's case and, you know, there is no getting away from the fact that actually a lot his his views and his

mindset is formed in the late victorian period and and, you know, and a result of that he remains a, a lifelong believer in the british empire and imperialism. he believes in the british empire and as and really a vehicle for for british power and prestige and on on the world stage. but he you know he also believe in it as a you know, an important force for for developing and the world and and he never really you know things change around him and he doesn't change so that by the time you get to the 1930s and his views on india and in particular have really moved and and so he finds himself actually sort of marginalized and sidelined this

point. and the concern of government and actually all mainstream british political opinion is in favor of giving rights and and independ ence to india giving india dominion starting moves towards indian independence and churchill really becomes a die hard opponent. this and it's that really which causes him to be on the backbenches and marginal and in the 1930s and you could of also argue that it's his his victorian belief in in in britain and the sort greatness of britain and this this belief that history is is a succession of great men, great doing great deeds that actually allows him to the premiership in 1940 and allows him to sort of lead in the way that he does and and during the second world war after the war well during the war, was he famously says that he hasn't become the kings first

minister to preside over the liquidation of the british empire. but in effect he has but because by choosing to fight. in 1940 really that is that going to sort of sound the death knell and of the british empire and vision for the postwar world. i was very different from roosevelt's, while roosevelt, i think, was thinking in terms of the new united nations. churchill, i think, was it was looking for a return towards the the order of of his youth and an end to the world of the 1930s. and, of course, that wasn't going to happen. so in some ways, you could argue that it was probably a good thing that he was not in power and between 1945 and 1951, because i think he would have found that retreat empire and something that would have been very difficult for him to

manage. mr. packwood and eisenhower library thank you so much. and i think he helped set up the nhs to bring he brought the british people together. that's a huge, huge milestone. and i know you have other questions. thank you so much but it's true that the beveridge report, which is the report that sets up the nhs, was sort of commissioned by churchill government during the second world war. it's of course it's at least government implements it. so immediately afterwards. thank you mr., paul. okay, so we have a follow up question from mr. mansfield that says, do you think that regardless of those people in great britain who did not or do not like even today, have the great things he did for the country and perhaps realize he was one of the greatest one of the world's greatest leaders of his time. i mean, again, it is an excellent question and one that could be a subject of a talking in its own right. you know, the whole issue of

churchill's reputation and and churchill's contested legacy. and i think that, you know, we will reach that that that position because i think, you know, it has to be obviously correct position that, you know churchill is not a hero or demon he's not saying to cynics in a is human like like all of us he has a very long career and within that career there are undoubtedly and missteps and no one is i think, going to agree with everything that that he did equally and it's is very hard take him out of the equation in in in 1940 and to see how you then end up with the same situation and the liberation of western europe so i think you know the issue churchill at the moment is that his profile is so

high and the the he it in the interests of all parties to sort of co-opted in these sort of current and culture wars and you know you want to if you want to sell newspapers if you want to get your view across and then it helps you to to be able to put churchill on the front cover either by invoking churchill, quoting churchill over obama or by attacking him. and he would probably be quite pleased. i suspect, still to be at the at the center of and the center of things. but, you know, often you suspect that what's being discussed now is not really about churchill it is about contemporary events. it's using churchill as as a way of raising your and getting your your arguments across and churchill churchill is historical figure and i would

hope that, you know, through forums like this, you know, we can start to get some some new events and, you know, into the debates and to look at churchill historically and to look at churchill and critically and properly and i think, you know, we are you know, we will gradually reach that stage, but have been it's very interesting to look at how his his profile changes over time and of course part of the blame for all of this rests with churchill himself because this is the man who stood up in the house of commons in i think 1949 and said and i think it will be best for all parties to lead past to history, especially as i proposed to write that history myself. and of course, did you know he, puts his version out there through his multi-volume of the second world war, through his other books, newspaper articles, through his speeches, and, of

course, through his creation of the churchill archive. and so you know in a way, it's it's almost inevitable that there's then going to a backlash and that other people are going to challenge that churchillian narrative. and and to challenge his viewpoint and and think that that that's really what you've seen. and you it happened during lifetime and it's happening since his death and it's very interest to watch how his reputation rises or falls on what is happening on the world in the world at any given moment. but i think it's also quite understandable that you're going to have very different perspectives on churchill, depending on where you come from. and, you know, if you come from the united states or if you've come from, you know, london, you're to have a very pro of

churchill, you're likely to see him as is the man who, you know, stood up to hitler against my in 1940. and in the us, of course and and churchill is often feted for his warnings about communism in 1946 his famous iron curtains beat your vote in missouri if you come from bengal and if you come from kenya you may very well have a different view on churchill coloreds by the actions of his government in those countries. and as part of the british empire. i think that's a very valid point and i think that happens here. well, with with our presidents different viewpoints your experiences but also as the world changes how they are seeing their their leadership skills to change. and we have a question from mr. craig that says, did churchill

give eisenhower leadership advice when it came into office? do you know that again? a great question. and i wish i the answer to it. i mean, of course a lot of back took place quite i mentioned the sort of luncheons they would share in over irish broil. so unfortunately for us those weren't minuted recorded in any of course both churchill and ise and hour and talk a little bit their memoirs and about the relationship but i can't for the moment remember seeing anything specific from from eisenhower and and in terms of advice from from churchill and but i think you know suspect you know where they were in sort of clear agreement and was you the issue that i referred to over and over

morale and the importance of morale i think that's something that they they both saw that they both shared. and and of course, it's something that they both acted on making point of and going out and visiting the troops together, touring the south coast of the united kingdom and visiting the detachments that were about to go over and on operation overlord. and i'm sure then eisenhower would have been interested in the way that churchill presented himself to the troops because he loved nothing than engaging and with ordinary soldiers. and i'm sure eisenhower would have been following that sort of interest. it would be interesting to know and to speculate about whether eisenhower and actually took away sort of any and any political lessons from his conversations with with churchill and maybe that's

something that's an a mixture and others who are starting to study this relationship can pick up. it. we do have a few more questions in the chat. but before i ask them, i've just got to say it is 1:00 so officially this is our in time for our program mr. packwood has agreed to with us a few minutes longer. if we have questions if we do so, we invite you to stay. but if you can't, we understand and we thank you for us. but we are only going to ask the remaining questions that are already exist. so the next question is, did i start paving because churchill encouraged him? oh, am well i think in his letter eisenhower sort of implies that that's the case. so maybe, maybe is a piece of advice that churchill did give to eisenhower and i mean, churchill churchill took up painting at a real low point in

his life and career and quite late. i mean, he was he was aged 40. and this was after the dardanelles crisis. so churchill had been sacked by asquith as first lord of the admiralty. he'd been demoted to the position of chancellor of the duchy of lancaster, which was really a cynical position. and he was unable to influence events. he had to sort of watch as the sort of gallipoli campaign sort of unfolded and. and this this was a real low point. it was really the first major setback in in what up until that point had been a a meteoric rise. and it clearly hit him very hard. his clementine and felt that he would die of grief and, that churchill's response was to take up painting and to take up oil, in particular.

and he wrote a wonderful essay called painting as a pastime, which in which he sort of describes what he gets out of painting, which really, you know, a complete removal from, the sort of cares of the political world and an intense focus, something else. it's not really that churchill paints to relax because he takes it incredibly seriously and he gets advice on painting from major artists like sir john lavery and walter sickert and henry munnings, you know, he throws himself into learning technique and he produces an incredible of canvases given how much else is going on within his life. and but was something that i think was completely different. and for him and it may be either that he told eisenhower or eisenhower saw what was getting

painting right next question says when churchill ordered the bombing, the french fleet in tunis, i'll say that correctly. i think that's was. did anyone criticize him for? it seems like it would have been a hugely difficult decision. well, i mean, clearly was an enormously difficult position and decision and so, i mean, the background here is is july 1940 and churchill becomes prime. in may 1940 and he becomes prime minister on the 10th of may, which is the very day that hitler launches his blitzkrieg invasion of france and allied countries. and i don't think anyone including churchill and anticipated how quickly things would go wrong in france and how quickly the british and french armies in, france would collapse, leading to the dunkirk evacuations and then to the french armistice. and of course the whole british

war plan up until that had been predicated on alliance with france. and the idea that the french and british armies would the germans in, france and belgium and. it would be largely a fight on by the much larger french army, supported by the british expeditionary force, supported by the british air force, and with the british navy carrying out a sort of blockade of, germany, that was the war plan. and that war plan unravels within sort of weeks of churchill becoming prime minister. and then after the french, we're in sort completely new territory where germany can now launch a direct attack on the british mainland. and so this a key moment. and churchill's response and one of his responses is to order the sinking of the french fleet. and now it is an incredibly move because, of course, the french

are saying that they will not allow the fleet to fall into german hands and that it will not be used against the british. but, you know, seen from churchill's, is that a risk he can take? and if you have the french fleet combined with the germans fleet, combined with the italian fleet, and then you risk losing control of the mediterranean and and you also risk ultimately losing control british waters and the possibility of facing a german invasion across the channel. so i don't think it was a risk that that he that he could could take. and so i mean, he when the french fleet refuses to surrender to the british, he does order its sinking and. of course, that leads to the death of i think about, 1200 french sailors, people who up until a few weeks before, had been allies of the british. so hugely difficult decision to take. and when churchill announces the

decision in the house of commons he actually tears as as he's doing it. although interestingly he's cheered to the rafters by all parties and within the house of commons. and actually it was really the time that he'd received such a reception in the house of commons and. so it was a moment that unified the british parliament this moment now we're in it's on our own. i'm we're serious. and it also, of course was a decision which sends a clear back across the atlantic the united states that was serious about continuing to fight because course the fear in britain at this point was that roosevelt would see the surrender of france and would conclude, well, actually, it's only a matter of time before britain goes the same way. so no point. therefore in us investing in britain, in supplying weaponry

and, materiel, because know all of this may be in german hands and in a few weeks time and so you know, it is a key moment and i mean, obviously criticized by the french and the vichy french and and and there are one or two voices, i think, that are raised against the move in the british parliament and in britain. but then actually it's it's much more of a moment of unity, a moment that unifies and british parliament sort of press public. we have to quick questions and then we'll be finished. one says if one wanted copies of photos you use in your program, how they get copies and. i think the easiest way is to email the churchill archive center and, sandy, and said, i mean, if you if you type churchill archive center into your web browser, that will take you to our web pages and you can

see how to contact us. there. it's archives that you can i can go and we've got a wonderful team and they will be ready help. but if you mention that you've watched this presentation, they'll almost certainly refer to me and that link is in the chat for anyone who's looking for. and then finally, what biography of churchill would you most recommend? i always find this a really difficult question to answer because course there are so many different biographies of churchill and the official biographies started randolph churchill and finished by gilbert, of course, runs to eight volume with 23 companion volumes. so not to recommend that as a source of light reading for anyone but martin gilbert did do an abridged one volume. churchill a life and which does give you very sort of straightforward narrative

account of churchill's life, sort of year by year. he also wrote a really good book called in search of churchill which describes his process in tracking down the people and the archive and finding the stories and. and behind the papers and behind life, there's you know, if you're looking for very short introduction to churchill's life, my predecessor is keeper of the churchill archive center, dr. piers. and write a book, which, again, i think is called churchill a brief life and that is is a very good one volume introduction and and but there are there are an enormous range books out there. and, you know, you might find it fun to actually read some churchill yourself and perhaps the most easily volume of

churchill's own writing is probably his autobiography of his his early life, which is called my early life. and there are biographies of churchill, major biographies by william manchester produced a very readable, colorful biography. you've got biographies by the british politician jenkins, which goes into quite a lot of detail on the various and on the on the british political system, which, of course, roy jenkins knew very well. andrew roberts is brought down to a recently biography, said that there is a massive out there and if you want to read something that is more critical of churchill and of the sort of anti churchill biographies and people than and perhaps what i would recommend is john charnley and churchill in of glory and john charnley writes extremely and of course, you know, in this

book. and he he challenges the notion that that britain had to fight the second world war in the in way that it did and churchill amongst other things of becoming too much in full to the united states. so you might find this interesting. okay well that was our last question. so i want to say