could afford and what he had to do to make communism work. in his terms. didn't work, but he did try to change. >> very interesting having seen khrushchev and talked to him through interpreters. that instance at the foreign ministry made me feel that they really wanted to push ahead with better relations. eisenhower invited khrushchev, khrushchev invited eisenhower, they both accepted. if it had not been for the shooting down of gary powers in the spy plane which pushed khrushchev back against the wall, he had to rescind the invitation. eisenhower knew the general, they were friendly. my feeling is we could have come along a lot faster getting out of the cold war if eisenhower had gone there. that picture that you saw in the

beginning was actually my last meeting with him and he told me one of his dreams had been to go to the soviet union, that was dashed with that. and i think things would have been better, i don't know what your opinion is. >> what do you think, george? >> eisenhower maintained a close correspondence with prime minister mcmillen of great britain. he, the single ally general, invited to moscow in 1945, he wrote to mcmillan the greatest disappointment of my political life, my entire political life was the collapse of the -- eisenhower was one of those generals who had seen war and hated it. eisenhower hated war. khrushchev, i lived in russia,

among russians for years, so i have this. in my bones i feel about khrushchev for all his bluster about communism was some butter on the bread. khrushchev essentially, he always was shown here as a guy pounding at the u.n. and he certainly wasn't a very diplomatic guy. and he certainly did some nasty things and we did some nasty things. but essentially khrushchev wanted peace. essentially ooiz eisenhower desperately wanted peace. could we have cooled it? yes, we could have cooled it. do you realize during the cold war we produced 72,000 atomic weapons? am i ex-ager rating? does this have relevance to

today? i leave that to you to judgment. we produced 72,000 atomic weapons. how do we, as a country, respond to challenge? are we paranoic? did a single politician say cool it, wouldn't he be accused of being soft on communism and lose elections? you can -- nobody knows more than i the faults of the soviet union and the responsibility for starting the cold war. but i want to say we often leapt down there in the pit with them and behaved just as badly as they did. >> i'm not sure i believe that. >> they were scared and we scared them. >> you finish up, george. i just can't quite buy it totally. sure we were scared, but there were reasons we were scared. khrushchev wasn't exactly a typical politician, he had blood on his hands. he did a lot of horrible things in his own country.

so he was pretty tough. >> what was he doing in '59? yes we know. >> i think he was trying to do things. >> he had his right wing on his side. our job was to try to help him -- >> i think we tried. >> isn't it true it's hard to get in the mind of a foreign leader. and when there are uncertainties, it is much easier for our society to resolve those uncertainties in a way of fear. when we couldn't know for sure how many missiles they had, we exaggerated because there was always somebody here would say are you certain? and nobody in our society wanted to be wrong. nobody wanted a second pearl harbor, nobody wanted to under estimate the threat and we couldn't be sure of what the threat was and sadly, khrushchev, for all the intentions we now know very well because of the materials that the russians finally opened, he

often spoke as if his society was producing more missiles than they were. he was feeding some of of our paranoia and doing it deliberately because he was afraid of us. it was a vicious circle. >> one thing you can know and feel good about in the new treaty where we are today and in 2011, 1500, down to 1500 missiles each. so we're making a lot of progress and i think the american exhibition was a part of that. you and tanya you look at the picture there of the guides, it was a fantastic thing. 52 years later i still remember things as vividly as if it was yesterday. >> that is only the girls. we had guys, too. we had a lot of fellas. >> how do you create trust? what did you learn in your experience? there is an issue of trust

between leaders and that is harder, isn't it because of their background and training. >> the way i think all of us will agree on this, the way that you have trust is by getting to know the other side. even if it's the enemy, so the exchanges, i was talking to the head of the visitors exchange. we had that at usia, what happened is i remember a list of 50 leaders that the american ia carefully looked at who would be up and coming and so they would send them to the united states those 50 leaders were like margaret thatcher, you name it, all the leaders, a list of 50 of them. when i was at usia. i asked today, a list of 350. people who became prime ministers or presidents were

selected early in their career and sent and paid for to come to the united states and live in american homes. the question -- my answer to your question is absolutely that we have to have an exchange of people from libya, and asia and china and russia and get to know them. eisenhower started the people-to-people program. because as you said, he didn't like war. he knew what it was. he told me we've got to have hundreds of thousands of people coming back and forth and i think that is the answer. by the way, the internet and facebook and twitter, i don't use that, but i think all of those things will make it a smaller world as we are seeing with the arab spring. it's happening.

>> let's open the floor to questions from the audience. there are mics, let's turn the lights up. there are mics on either side here, thank you. >> after the vice president left office, don kendall gave him a great deal of law business representing pepsi cola. is it clear the vice president was a friend of his at the time? >> i can answer that clearly, kendell now says and i think he said it so long he believes it, that nixon got khrushchev to drink pepsi. we did. it was just the way we structured it, and it was accidental, we hoped it would happen but nixon played no part with -- kendall was only a vice president then. we had over there the heads of ibm and at&t, it was amazing the amount of chief executives who felt now freedom and power that

they could go to the land of enemy, george, and actually see it. i tell you -- may i? anecdote. i told you we had u.s. offices and soviet offices. i walked in the one guy and he asked me to come in and i hadn't had time i came in a couple hours later and i noticed on his desk very neatly piled was the whole pile of papers, all neatly stacked. and i kind of looked at him with my rudimentary knowledge of russian, press releases, ge the kitchen, a press release went out. hundreds of press releases. so he said i need your judgment, i have to figure out how many soviet people from the trade department will be here to service and help the americans

who are coming over to buy. americans coming over to buy no, way. they were coming over to look. he had seen the lists in the press releases and they had no real good knowledge of it so i wanted to be as kind as i could, so i think he was think tg of 60 or 100, so i said well, you know it's new, brand, maybe 10 or 15. oh, really he said? >> if can say one quick thought that comes to mind. i think khrushchev had a difficult time understanding how we really lived until he came to america that fall. i remember when i came over in '59, 20 years old, a new cultural experience, lots of people still lived in communal

apartments. >> majority. >> it was only under khrushchev they started to build the four or five story apartment buildings. >> instant slums. >> they were badly built. life was so hard for them at that time, the way they dressed the kind of shoes. you would walk down the street in moscow everybody would look at your shoes and they would know you were a foreigner because you couldn't buy things like that there. their life style was very, very difficult at that time. >> very top of the soviet system the presidium would have discussion about the fact balconies were falling down, collapsing in moscow, the top, this is the soviet system building nuclear weapons, they are worried because the balconies are collapsing. >> remember the nets? that held up the building? >> this is 14 years after the kind of war that we kind even -- can't even imagine. >> but the thing about it -- >> world war ii was so destructive. >> george, this is your point. we were afraid of society that couldn't build balconies.

that is something to keep in mind. we thought they had 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles when they had two. >> tim, we had every right to be afraid. there were aspects and not all of us knew i say see change after stalin you refer to things that happened under stalin, it was a still full of abhorrent aspects to an american the way the soviet union ran in that '59 and after when i was a student there. but it wasn't stalinist, it had changed remarkably and we kept on thinking it as tanya talks about stalin. and i just want to say one thing we have every right to be afraid, but not 72,000 atomic weapons afraid worth.thing. we have every right to be afraid, but not 72,000 atomic weapons afraid worth. we can't change much in our

enemies, let's begin by looking at ourselves for a moment. and stop talking about if we're going apportion blame, put more blame on the soviet union if that is what you want but we can't change much there. i'm asking that we look a little bit at ourselves and stop producing 72,000 atomic weapons which is certainly an indication of a kind of people we are and the way we respond to challenge. >> or maybe what the multiple industrial complex. but we have a question from the floor here. did you have? >> i don't understand where you all think that in 1958 that kitchenette that was shown with the wonderful appliances is what the average family in america had. i wasn't poor, and we didn't have anything like that in my kitchen. and i was a 20-year-old mother with -- and i bought my first

house in 1960. we did not have -- >> you're right. and the soviet exhibition -- >> compare it to leavittown? they didn't have basements or attics. they might have had wonderful kitchen, but they had no space. >> there was that aspect to any exhibition, the soviet exhibition in new york in the coliseum was even worse that way. >> to me i never understood why nixon thought that was so great because i didn't have it. i don't know who he knew. >> it depends on the age of the house you had. a lot of us had a dishwasher at that point. >> i didn't have a dishwasher until 1990. >> well -- >> what are the women lined up supposed to be? >> those were the american guides that worked there. >> why would, in this day and age would you show a picture of women with shot up from the bottom. give me a break. >> no, no, it wasn't shot up

from the bottom. i have to explain. we were doing a circular shot, the photographer was on his stomach in the mud, a man i later married, trying to get all the group together in a picture with the dome in the background. it's not -- there is no attempt to be anything else. >> it's my fault. purple is my favorite color. >> by the way i want to say something about the guides. tanya, george, i don't know george, how much you had this, but i know tanya there was another woman charlotte who also was fluent in russian, later became the bureau chief out of her experience there. >> of the christian science monitor. >> i introduced her to a man and he was the editor of the monitor and also when he came over not in that position but he was a chairman of the u.s. chamber of commerce but what i wanted to say people like charlotte and tanya had incredible access to

the children. we had a non-fraternizization policy. we were not allowed to date russians and our guides were not supposed to date, but you got invited to their homes. >> absolutely. >> they saw what it was. why don't you say something about that, at the time when things were so poor in the soviet union, some of your friends told me that they were in and they had special shops. >> it's a -- it was a society on various levels. the average person had to fend for themselves in the stores, find what they could find and do the best they could do. for the political people, my god yes, they had special stores, they could buy thing the average soviet citizen could not buy. but the life style was very primitive. you can't imagine what it was like to live in a communal apartment.

>> when we first arrived, we were shocked. [ inaudible ] >> what do you think we were? we were all middle class americans. >> if it make you feel any better when my father purchased a house -- >> ma'am, let the ambassador finish. this has turned in a kitchen debate. >> big signs, $4500 for a home.n homes that were $4,000, $5000, and we had everything but a dishwasher. >> i don't know what your personal situation was like but my parents just worked regular jobs, two people in the family worked. they needed to work so we could have -- we had a modest and a long time a modest house in the

northeast part of washington. it happened to be a newer house that had the appliances because that is -- >> we can agree there is no exhibit the exhibit put america's best forward and lots of aspects that are not depicted in the exhibition. we can also say there is no doubt the united states produced far more consumer goods than the soviet union. at that period. >> the standard of living was a tenth not -- >> that is why this was an important moment in cultural and political history because the soviets began to see the gap and even their leadership realized that this was a gap that could not be filled unless they made changes and that what is leads to some of the things that we discussed. are there any other questions? yes. >> i had a question about how the average american responded to the exhibit. when i read about in the 1950's,

there is a dual image, yes, let's show them american prosperity, that will encourage them to move toward capitalism, others if we show them that, they will get our technology. just curious, articles in "life" magazine about the exhibit, what was the average reaction to it? >> tanya, you know about those articles in "life" magazine. >> hard to say what the average american reaction was. it was publicized, "life" ran several stories on this. it was a very big story we came through in the soviet union, kind of crossed the barrier and got in. it's hard to say how the average american responded, i don't know, it's a very individual matter. >> when i read articles say around 1955, people were frightened. they didn't want to make that contact. to make that contact. i was just curious if this was that same sort of thing.

>> i don't know. i think we all discussed why it was good to make contact and why it opened up avenues for both countries. i don't know who would be that afraid. of course, they copied. they didn't copy as much as. the chinese copy, the japanese copy. i don't think the russians copied as much. >> they tried. >> they had clunky things. >> people were concerned they would copy -- >> their models were all sort of older. not that kitchens have to be the basis of the whole discussion here. but if you just took appliances that you would sell, you know, we buy these things. let's face it. and their models were awfully clunky. we were much more advanced with our consumer economy than they were. of course, they loved our cars. they just went ape over our cars. >> i think the keyword of how the american public -- that's what your question is. was curiosity. i mean, when i came back, there

was stories in "new york times." i got some publicity and all. and people, my friends would take to me, and curiosity about the soviet union. it was such a closed society. you know, that is the main thing. the only thing that's going to open it up, you know, is going back and forth. i've continued to go back and forth. i've got my own business. i've got clients, american clients in russia. and it's amazing. from '93 -- have you all been back a lot? from '93 when it was like the wild west to today, i mean, you got a growing middle class there with cars and the traffic like you've never seen. apartments. you know, moscow's got a couple of hiltons, a couple of marriotts. i stayed -- remember the in tourist hotel where they give you a towel like a wash cloth?

that has been replaced by the ritz carlton. i mean, the whole thing -- it's one of the most expensive cities in the world now. the interchange, and if you see the amount of travel at the airports. if you go, you see the russian citizens coming to the u.s. and vice versa back and forth, it's a healthy -- very good, healthy thing. i don't want to leave that 72,000 -- you're in the old days, my friend. you're back 50 years. you're talking about now. we've got -- >> no. i said that's what we produced during the cold war. >> i know. but it's -- that's -- you keep harping on that. it's not fair to the united states. we're trying, and the russians are trying. and we're trying to go down. >> see how the cold war leads to wonderful debates. even among panelists. >> you mean we didn't produce 72,000? am i being unfair?

>> how do i know? >> how am i being not fair to the united states? am i citing an incorrect figure? this is a government figure. if i know anything about our government, it was a lot more than 72,000. >> you're talking -- >> the government acknowledges 72,000. 50 years from now we'll probably learn it was 100,000. all i'm saying is we have a tendency -- there was more than a challenge. it was a very serious challenge in the soviet union. as there are now very serious challenging to us, our reaction has always been massively an overreaction militarily. that's all i'm saying. >> and you may be wrong. >> of course i may be wrong. >> now, we don't have any more time for questions. but i would like to ask the panelists if they have a comment that they'd like to finish with about why anyone over a certain age should care about the 1959 exhibition and the kitchen

debate. why does this matter today? >> well, i think if history matters, you know, to anybody, you need to look back. you had a very vicious system. i think when you think in terms of stalin and the days that reagan grew up in, when he said it was the evil empire, you know, a lot of people were shocked. then when you really think about what happened in those days where he eliminated a lot of his own population, and then you see a man like khrushchev standing up and he gave that famous speech. you read it. >> 1956. >> denouncing stalin. that took a lot of guts. and then i think that khrushchev -- i tried to say that earlier -- was the forerunner. and i think gorbachev picked it up. and i think that gorbachev gave a lot of impetus to the people who come now. look, you got 1,000 years of

serfs. you had 70 years of communism which rattled a lot of people's brain. now there's a fledgling democracy. from what i see, it's beginning to work. it's going to be very interesting to see how this thing goes on. even though we're critical of some of the leaders. >> tanya? >> just to wrap it up quickly, we were really one of the first to come in. we were huge. we were in comparison so what they had seen before. and we did show them an awful lot about america. and they were very, very interested. you know, they couldn't get information about america over there. you had -- they were just horrible. the kind of news that the soviet public was exposed to, they couldn't get the -- you had to have special permission to go and get "the new york times" and the special library or "the washington post." you just didn't have that kind of access if you were russian at that time. and, you know, it wasn't like we were keeping it from them. they couldn't get it. and you have to remember that. that's why we became so

important. because we brought so many things. our whole library disappeared. we brought a library. all the books went. we brought more books. they all disappeared, too. people were starving for information about what we had. i mean, the whole west. not just america. but particularly america. they were so delighted to get this kind of access. so i think we did serve a very important purpose. other than just the diplomacy, just exposing an awful lot of russians to something that they had never seen or heard about before. >> george? significance? >> the significance is exchange is terribly important when we're faced with challenge and with conflict. there's no other way other than violence exchange is important. i'm going to leave with a puzzle called -- what tanya says about the lack of news information is true. not cultural news. they read a great deal about america. but i leave you with a puzzle

because i can't figure it out. why was it that in the depths of the cold war, we were not in the depths, we were coming out of it by '59, did russians generally speaking loved and admired americans far more than any other people on earth. and now in this so-called democracy, the average russian about whom i know a little bit because i'm there a lot, the average russian has a far less sanguine or hospitable or loving feeling toward america. during the depths of the cold war, russians really liked americans. a lot of them were afraid to meet us. they were scared and they had to take cautions. you know, they had to take precautions. and now, as i say, we're not at all liked. we're more and more re --

>> it's not that familiarity breeds contempt. >> maybe. >> we were talking tonight about an event almost 52 years ago. you have been privileged to listen to people who are animated, listen to the passion they bring to remembering not just those events, but why they mattered. that's the passion that informed and shaped our role and participation in the cold war, that continues to be a source of debate, discussion, interpretation, and it continues to matter. you are all very fortunate, you on tv, you with us tonight, to have witnessed three people who understood it, who care about it, and who wanted to convey that significance to you. thank you, all three of you, for tonight. [ applause ] you're watching american history tv. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span 3. for more information, follow us on twitter at c-spanhistory.

>> interested in what the first lady wears other than if you're just a fan of fashion. why do we care what the first lady wears? but we look to her clothing for clues about what she's like as a person. about what the administration may be like, both in its style. is it formal? is it informal? is it extravagant? is it simple? and what their -- possibly something about her politics or the administration's politics. is it american made? do you proudly say that you only wear american designers and american-made clothing. caroline harrison, the beautiful burgundy gown, made a point of only wearing american fabrics and american-made clothes. a lot of first ladies have worn american clothing. if you look to the bath you'll see a beautiful dress of eleanor roosevelt that's actually her first inaugural gown. eleanor roosevelt had a busy life. and she made a point of saying busy women also like to buy their clothes off the rack. but she also