and they moved him. also, the people on the desk had expected the story. they knew a rumor had come out. there was great anticipation. the delay and the fact that the allied command couldn't even hold the orders of churchill and truman i think puts this in a different perspective. what we're talking about is a story that is true and by getting the word out, they were telling people to stop the killing. so the stakes were rather profound. >> did ap take any action against anybody else involved in this, in london or in new york? >> no. however, i can tell you from the stories inside ap that some people became very paralyzed by

it and were upset by it and reacted differently throughout their careers. >> this is london calling. >> i'm afraid it's my desk but that's the end of that. >> there have been stories from people who were assigned great reports have come in, especially in the past week, that so-and-so would not move certain stories of a certain magnitude, that they had to be passed to somebody else to edit and move and somebody was hired in a bureau job and i won't mention the bureau and just recounted this incident to the journalists

who started on his first day on the job in the ap. so there were stories passed on through decades and that happens in all journalist institutions and in all professions. a lot of the medical profession is an oral culture and we do, too. the roles are established in the hallways and you learn the ropes and these stories were passed on and what happened. and that's why there's been a great outpouring. i've heard from dozens of people since this story first hit the wires. >> why did the russians want to delay the announcement for a day? >> because they wanted to get equal credit for winning the war. >> they wanted to announce it simultaneously. they didn't want it announced only by the french and british and americans. they wanted to have time to be part of the announcement and they were not there in the room when this happened. >> there was a russian general there. so that's why i don't understand, because the surrender --

>> right. actually, i didn't remember that. but in any event, they weren't ready to make their announcement yet and so they wanted a coordinated announcement and they agreed there would be a political agreement that they would be allowed to do that. >> yes? >> i discussed that issue with ed kennedy when i was a young man and he was about the most profound individual i knew. he felt aside from feeling very bitter, he felt it was entirely a political agreement to allow the soviet union to occupy berlin and that was what was supposed to happen during that delay period. >> the delay was only a day.

>> well, everything was moving very fast and you probably recall that patton was on the other side of the elbow, just dying to get going, as he was likely to be. >> yes? >> i'm curious about the german radio broadcast. i'd love to know more about that, especially the public nature of it. you know, whether it was public and whether it was heard by a large number of people. and the reason i'm asking, it seems to me the embargo here was really broken by a party that was never party to the embargo by the group and certainly by today's standards in journalism that there was such an embargo like this in place but it was -- the story already entered into the public realm and was already out there authoritatively. that would be considered by these organizations today to in fact break the embargo because this story is out there. i'm curious to know, was that never -- i realize that there wasn't the instantaneous travel

of news then that there is today, but i'm just curious to know about this german radio broadcast because it seems to me that perhaps the documents that you've handed out seems like that's what was one of the motivations of kennedy to feel that he could in fact -- >> right. but i would just say one thing. the radio station was party to the embargo because it was controlled by the allies. >> well, then they were the first to break the embargo. and, again, that would be -- >> the argument that was made yesterday by john dartin, which is an interesting argument, is that kennedy should have gotten all of the reporters together to say, this has been broken and we should report it all at the same time and we'll go and tell the

censors -- that's one argument. i don't mean to laugh it off. but there's another way to look at it, which is that you're with the ap and you're supposed to report news and you got it first and so you report it. >> let me give some perspective on a related argument. wes has the by-line, you can look that up, the original report came from the ap reporting german radio that the invasion had begun before the allies authorized the release of the d-day invasion story. this happens all the time. and knowing something like that, as ed kennedy did to the cultural aspect that he did what he knew the wire service always does and you know it's true, you go.

you get the news out of town. they are good reporters, too, with all due respect to ed, why haven't they said, we need to get this news out as well? >> he kept doing additional reporting and that's really one of the reasons to love him even more. he was somebody who didn't stop. he kept on reporting. >> meaning he found out about the broadcast and wasn't sitting in his hotel room saying that he can report it? >> right. anyone else? yes. >> there were three broadcasts that kennedy and others heard and kennedy heard that in the ap

office, he was listening to the bbc and these were english translations of the german broadcast that he heard. each broadcast had slightly different content. it was, i believe, the 2:40 p.m. broadcast that put him over and probably decided him to move at that point. the first one came at 2:01. but it was a good 40 minutes listening to those english translations before you made a call. and that phone that he picked up was paris military and shafe had not fought about closing off that but kennedy and others had used that line before. it was not out of the ordinary to pick up that line if you had

to call in. >> may i ask, how long was it before others matched the story and did the other people, once ap had the story, then break the embargo or did the military then lift the embargo and let others report the story? >> they did not lift the embargo and others did not report. >> so it was the next day? >> it was exclusive for a day. >> most of the reporters spent their time writing a petition. and the biggest party actually can occur on the 7th, not the 8th as has generally been believed. >> there was reference made within the journalism community and i'm curious if you can talk about, i guess, the politics, if you will, of those like the new york times and others who may

have put some pressure on the ap. what can you share about that? what do you know? how did that come down? >> well, without rare exception, everyone was very, very angry at ap for what happened but the debate was quickly influenced by the beard president that went public and attacked kennedy. so he charted the course. there were a few people that sided with him and one of whom who ultimately gave him a job. but the reality was that this process was aided and abetted by what i believe was a knee jerk reaction and clearly an unfair decision that was counter to any journalism principles. the fact that he was also fired

was beyond outrageous since everybody had anticipated it, the word was coming out. it had been leaked. you never, never fire somebody for a truthful story either i mean, i've never seen that happen. so there were a lot of things here that are upsetting but the tide was cast and it was pretty ugly. >> anybody that spoke to that and urged action by ap from outside these organizations? >> yes. yes. i mean, it's not a big secret. the times wrote a letter. what is more interesting is kent cooper, who was then the general manager, which would be john's

job today, which was president ceo, was to look at it objectively but it was impossible to look at it objectively when the president had already made the statement and then you find him writing letters that really frankly indicated that he was already selling the guy out and made statements in the introduction, where he was making points that, i hope when you look at all of the bad things kennedy did when he was in the military, i hope you won't -- i hope you will be objective. and so that -- they clearly -- they clearly got caught in really a bad management spiral. and tom knows this better than i do, but in the end, cooper never really said, you're fired. ed kennedy never really was told, you are absolutely fired. and so they hope you would go away, which is not a good approach. >> which kind of happened for 67 years. >> yes? >> was there also pressure from the white house and the government for the ap to fire

him? >> no, none that we saw. and actually in the after action report that the army did, the army showed that -- it went inside and ultimately granted him -- re-established his accreditation to cover them at any time in any theater. >> and it was acknowledged that in fact the broadcast of flemsberg had been authorized by the u.s. military, that he was right. >> any final words or thoughts? this is a book, if you don't have t. i would recommend having it. a very interesting subject. an interesting discussion here. thank you all. [ applause ]

>> georgetown history professor michael kuzin and khalil muhammad.