many criticisms of china as we do about russia. >> well, that's for sure. dick, i'm going to give you the last word. what do you think, looking at the way the relationship between our two countries is, steve saying it's still a cold war, what do you think the ultimate legacy was of gorbachev and reagan, if you look at the world today? this is real hindsight. >> i would say first, tip o'neill is all politics are local. the soviet union, here, wherever. i think that the bottom line of all of this -- and there were moments where it was possible -- is that there was no world war ii. >> and the two men get credit. >> well, we all get part of the credit.

>> you did talk about that. >> harry truman gets part of the credit. >> right. >> john kennedy gets part of the credit. partly because of the acceptance of the berlin wall. berlin is where -- it might have been georgia, but it also might have been berlin where world war iii would have started. so no, it wasn't just reagan and gorbachev. they were the inheritors of people's strengths. but it is admirable what they did with it. >> okay. i'm going to invite the audience now to wait for a microphone, raise your hand. a microphone will come so we can hear the question and everybody else can hear the question. please, out of respect for other people, do not make a long speech. ask your question. we would really appreciate that. and please stand when you ask your question. okay. right here. go ahead. >> a very brief comment and a

question. ambassador matlock, you describe a memorable episode in your book about the two presidents, ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev, walking on the grounds of the kremlin followed by a crowd of photographers. and somebody asks a question, is this still an evil empire, mr. president? and ronald reagan says, no, that was in the past. another question, who won the cold war? and the american president says, both sides won the cold war. so i'm reminded of that episode. a very brief question. >> what is your question, please? >> my question, yes. margaret thatcher who was a political ally of ronald reagan, she very famously said of mikhail gorbachev, we can do business with him. did your european allies play any role in softening the impact

of the cold war? >> the question is, margaret thatcher came out and said, we can do business with gorbachev. was there any other ally that that kind of influence on ronald reagan? >> in different ways, yes. that was very important because reagan's intelligence organizations was telling him that gorbachev was simply a more efficient leader with the same goals of the past. but he did take what thatcher said. the french president also played a role. particularly in convincing dp h gorbachev. he and thatcher both. that reagan was a person he could do business with and not simply an ideologue. i would say in general, we had excellent support from our allies in working out the cold war. so it was not just a bilateral

thing. so that is often the way it is viewed. and those of us dealing with the soviet union, we dealt very closely with our allies along the way because we knew we had to keep that. and of course, any policy of negotiation and working out the problems was popular with the allies. >> okay. over here. >> my history is, i was the first person to manufacture merchandise after world war ii. >> can you put the mike up? there we go. >> can you hear me? >> yep. >> i have the first person to have a company that manufactured in orient to import to the united states after world war ii. and one place we went to look at economics, which hasn't really been talked about much tonight, was moscow. my partner was matsui and company. and they had an office in moscow. and my wife and i went -- my work works in population field,

but she went along on this trip. and we went -- she said, i'd like to see a train station. and we went into the train station. a lot of the people were carrying loaves of bread this big. >> ask your question. >> okay, we need a question, i'm sorry. >> the question is, she asked, why are they taking a loaf of bread to some community, not a suburban community, but hundreds of kilometers away? and they said, well, there's no bread there. and my question is, what about the efficiency of, let's say, the manufacturing or the farming or what about the economics which hasn't been mentioned at all tonight? >> you mean back then. back then. >> that's my question. >> steve, can you answer? how much of a factor was the state of the soviet economy? >> in the end of the soviet union. there is a widespread view that the soviet economy collapsed, and therefore the soviet union collapsed. it isn't so.

you can't find a professional economist of any repute who takes that view. there was an economic crisis in the soviet union in 1990, '91, but it wasn't a crisis of production. . it was a krecrisis of distribut. both gorbachev and yeltsin withheld produce from the market. most people ate their primary meal of the day at their workplace. this was true of students. this was people at work. the black market was nourishing. about 35% of the population lived on the land where they grew their own food. most urban dwellers had a garden of their own where they went on the weekends and we all saw it. so this is just one of those canards that make those of us who are capitalists. it was just a big mess. gorbachev was trying to repair

it. it was a sis thystem in transit. it remains an open question. the chinese did it very successfully. gorbachev tried to do it while he was democratizing the country. and the general view in russia today, that was his mistake. he should have done it the chinese way. and then maybe or maybe not open the hand. >> okay. who has a mike? here we go. >> mr. matlock. excuse me. for about 23 years i've wanted to say thank you to you. when i was 15, i was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. and i made a wish. and the wish was to travel to the soviet union and make an appeal for an end to nuclear weapons in the cold war. and after i went, i never met with gorbachev. i asked to do that. but i was interviewed by a paper. and i came back to the states. i was home for about three months, and you called me. you called me at home.

you spoke with my mother. and she passed me the phone and said, i think the u.s. ambassador to the soviet union is on the phone from moscow. you told me that several thousand letters had been written. and you said you're not the u.s. postal service, but you'd send me some. and i received them. >> i have to pause for one sec because jack is having trouble hearing. >> sure. >> this gentleman went to the soviet union. what was it? >> it was in 1988. >> in 1988, he had had a brain tumor. and you came to the soviet union. you came to the embassy? >> i went to the soviet union on a sort of youth ambassadors trip. >> but how did you get to the ambassador? >> i was interviewed by a newspaper. >> oh, he was interviewed. you read it. anyway. you called him, right? >> yeah. you called me. and you said, congratulations.

i hope you feel better. i hope you survive. i hope you make it. thank you for coming to the soviet union. and thank you. i wanted to thank you now for leaving me with the impression that i was the one who brought an end to the cold war. >> did you hear that? he said that you called him, and he was left with the impression that he's the reason the cold war ended. and he wanted to thank you for letting him know that. >> this is for mr. ambassador. >> where are you? >> right here. right here. >> right up here. >> mr. ambassador, right here. >> talk up. >> i have a question for you. 25 years have passed since star wars began, roughly. you knew mr. reagan very, very well. do you really believe that he thought that you could hit a bullet with a bullet? and in spite of the negative things about his adviser could

have told him about the difficulty of star wars working, do you really believe that ronald reagan thought that star wars would work? >> did reagan really think star wars would work? or let me add to that, or did you think he should have used it as a bargaining chip? i'm adding that on. >> he hoped that one could develop a defense against ballistic missiles. he would say -- and i think sincerely, and he told gorbachev -- all i'm asking for is the right to find out whether it is feasible, and if feasible, economically viable. i think it will be -- i hope it will be. now, and the thing was that as i would say, the reason i don't use star wars, because this was ballistic missile defense. now, a lot of people put up ideas that you're going to put

interceptors in space and so on. certainly by the time they went to iceland, it was clear to us in the white house, you would not have a space-based defense. if there were going to be effective defenses against ballistic missiles, you had to use a different method. i would have to give you a long lecture to tell you why that. so i'd prefer to use sdi or ballistic missile defense. now, the thing is, he felt that without a defense, you will not be able to eliminate nuclear weapons. that was his aim. and he recognized that if you have both offensive ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons and a defense, that that is dangerous. this is what gorbachev kept saying. and he said no, this is not what i want. and he kept trying to find ways to assure gorbachev including a

proposal which he made before iceland. he didn't spring it on gorbachev. he sent it in a letter in july. the meeting in iceland was in october. proposing that if you really worry about it, i will commit the united states never to -- not to deploy any defenses if they are found feasible until both countries have eliminated all ballistic missiles. these are defense against ballistic missiles. the point being that others can have these, and so we need a defense. now, this was something that gorbachev never really engaged him on. and of course, we still have people who are pushing defenses that are not going to work. but i'll tell you one type that we need that can work technically, and that is a defense against missiles in

their boost phase. we can do that by enhancing the missiles on aegis cruisers, for example, sea-based. and we can do it if we have land-based missiles close enough to the launch sites. russia happens to have prime real estate for that reason. so the way to solve this venture is to do a joint program with russia. we're negotiating on it, and i hope we succeed. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> hi, this question is for professor cohen. i wanted him to speak a little bit about the oligarchs. >> i can't see you. >> i'm right here. how they may not have influenced the yeltsin and putin administrations. >> we have to hear the question again because we couldn't really understand it. but steve is going to --

>> i wanted to ask about the oligarchs and how they may have influenced the yeltsin and putin administration and therefore the relations between russia and the united states. >> did you hear that, steve? >> i did. i did. i don't know the answer, but i heard the question. it's an enormous question. and it's a good question. >> why don't you repeat the question. >> the question is, how have or did the russian oligarchs by which you mean, i presume, the small group of people who gained control of the great wealth of the former soviet state. how did they influence the yeltsin regime, and how, in turn, did that influence russian-american relations. is that the gist of the question? obviously, it was tremendously important. we don't have enough information to write a detailed history or analysis of the role of the oligarchs. but generally speaking, it's going to go like this when we have the details.

by giving these people this property, yeltsin became dependent on them. and there's plenty of evidence of that. when it was clear he was going to lose the 1996 election to the communist party leader, they essentially fixed the election for him. by the way, with the support of the clinton administration. when yeltsin left office, and this tells you about his relationship with the oligarch, putin was picked by yeltsin. and in yeltsin's memoirs, he said why. because putin had previously saved his own mentor from arrest from indictment by smuggling him out of the country. therefore, yeltsin said this was a man i knew i could trust. and the first act that putin committed when he became prime minister and yeltsin left office which meant putin was going to be the president was to sign a decree giving yet sltsin and hi

family immunity from prosecution. so the whole entanglement of the kremlin with this property which i regard as stolen pillaged property, which is also the view of the majority of russian people, affected politics at the very top. how did it affect american releases? well, we endorsed and embraced the oligarchs until 1998 when the russian financial system melted down, and they reneged on their sovereign debt. and we got all agitated. but we have supported these people. and there's something that hasn't been noticed. they supported the expansion of nato eastward which was the most grievous mistake the united states has made since the soviet union ended. why did the oligarcsh expand it eastward? because they thought it would save them from the wrath of the russian people which they believe is coming one day. you'll notice that a great number of of the russian

oligarchs have moved their assets offshore including the nets or the chelsea soccer team in england. they are very worried about their future. putin has protected them till now, but they have no idea whether they'll be safe when putin goes. so this whole issue of the role of oligarchy in russian politics continues to play itself out. and i think the united states is now separated itself somewhat, though not completely, from the political representatives of the oligachy. they should not be embraced secretly in the white house though they're still coming here and lobbying for their interests in russia. >> with that said, we want to thank you so much for joining us. and before -- before the final

thanks and the close, i want to re you of louise's membership announcement. if you upgrade today at the patron level, we'll reserve a seat for you at our next harold and ruth newman world beyond tomorrow program with president mikhail gorbachev. so for more information on that membership, just stop in the lobby and talk to our membership manager. i also want to remind you that the speakers will be signing their books. the books are on sale to my right. and we thank you all for joining us again. let's give them another hand. lesley stahl, richard reeves, jack matlock and steven cohen, thank you so much. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> sundays night at 9:00 eastern

and pacific on american history tv, mark the 25th anniversary of president ronald reagan's 1987 speech from the brandenburg gate in west germany. also this weekend on c-span3, our series "the contenders," 14 key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. this sunday at 7:30 p.m., 1884 republican candidate james blaine. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. up next, we speak with national parks service chief historian robert sutton who tells us about the park's efforts toward accurate historical interpretation. we interviewed mr. sutton at the annual meeting of the organization of american historians in milwaukee, wisconsin. this is about 15 minutes. >> american history tv is at the annual meeting of the organization of american historians in milwaukee. and joining us is the national

parks service historian, the chief historian, robert sutton. thanks for being here. >> thank you for inviting me. >> what brings you to this meeting other than it's a gathering of historians? historians? >> well, it's a gathering of historia historians, but we do a lot of work with the association of historians. a number do studies for us, help us with our interpretation of parks, so we've had a long and beneficial partnership with the organization. . >> and you're participating on a couple of decisions here on native americans and also the civil war. what was the focus on the first one on native americans? it's very interesting. we have a number of parks. that deal with native american history. and we have the number of parks that the main focus is not native american history, but there are amazing stories.

for example, key ridge battlefield in the civil war. it was established as a civil war battlefield. for years and years and years, we've told the story of the battle that took place there. >> that is in what state? that is in the corner of oklahoma, arkansas and missouri and for years and years, we told the story of the battle that took place there. it was a union victory. it was critical for trying to keep missouri in the union and a typical parks service fashion, we did a lot of telling who shot who, when, where, how so forth, but there are a lot of oth interesting stories as well. about 16,000 on the confederate side. about 10,000 on the union side and the union won the battle, which is usual at that time. usually, when they were outnumbered, they didn't win. but that's the military story.

the other story is that there were about 1,000 cherokee indians fighting for the confederacy and many of the cherokee leaders were save holders. they had a lot more in common with the confederacy than they did with the union and so ths a story that we hasn't told before, but now, we're telling and we've consulted with the cherokee nation in developing that story. the other story was that about half of the union soldiers were german. >> german immigrants. but there's another story that has nothing to do with the battle, the trail of tears on which the cherokees were escorted from their home land in the east to indian territory in oklahoma. the trail of tears literally goes through the middle of the park and so now the park tells the story of the trail of tears

as well and i think what's very beneficial with the interpretation, they tell these stories, but they also say want to learn more about the cherokees, the capital of the cherokee nation is tellico, which is not far away. >> how many parks do you oversee in terms of looking at the history? >> well, i don't really oversee all the parks. what i do is provide guidance and try to parks that have similar themes. about two-thirds of parks, of all national parks are cultural and so, i have more interest in those parks, but many of the parks are not culture. had a lot of important stories as well. >> and the national parks

service began when? >> founded in 1916. but the first national park was yellowstone, established in 1872, so there were a number of national parks before there was a national park service. >> when did we start to establish a position of a historian for the parks? >> there was a chief historian in the 1930s. that's one of the oldest positions, you know, upper level management positions in the parks service. >> what sort of issues do you have, you talked about the changing story at key ridge. what sorts of issues do you have in doing research in an area, in a park or whatever, that's actually being used by visitors, tourists and yet you're involved there perhaps on a historical nature. whether that's a dig or doing further research? >> well, one of the things we've done before this position, i was

a chief historian at manassas battlefield. one of the things we started doing when i was there and have continued is try to expand the story of the civil war again. the story of the cherokees, the germans, the trail of tears. that wasn't really part of the, wasn't the reason congress established that park, but it's an important story we tell. we have been expanding our interpretation to talk about what caused the war. which sometimes isn't a very popular issue. slavery, very clearly was the cause of the civil r war. we have been saying that to our interpretation, through our films and exhibits, most of them

have included that story. and the impact on families. the number that we've used and that was established shortly after was that there was 620,000 that were killed in the civil war. there's some recent research that suggests the number was higher. some say as high as 850,000. so imagine what it was like for the families of these 620,000 or 850,000 who didn't return home. then there were many more than that who returned home missing limbs. post-traumatic shock, they didn't understand at the time. so the impact on the country was tremendous beyond the impact of the civil war itself. it was a tremendous impact on families. >> well, starting last year and over the next couple of years on american history tv, we are looking at the 150th anniversary

of this civil war. you talked about some of the things you're doing in your parks. what else specifically for the 150th should be on the lockout for? >> one of our parks, homestead park in homestead national memorial in nebraska, that commemorates the the very first homestead that was accomplished under the homestead act. the gentleman files his claim one minute after midnight. 160 acre. that commemorates the homestead act, one of the really important pieces of legislation in the civil war and there was a conference in nebraska on the homestead act, which established the land grad colleges and railroad act. there were a lot of domestic, terribly important domestic pieces of legislation that

hadn't been passed. just this past week, april 16th was the 150th anniversary of the emancipation of slaves in the district of columbia, so there are a number of things that we're commemorating in addition to kem rating significant battles of the civil war. >> how long have you been a historian with the parks service? >> i have been a historian, i've been in the parks service for about 29 years. part of that time, i was in administration and superintendent, which meant sometimes i was a historian and sometimes, i was not. but i have been a historian in the parks service mostly doing history. >> you talked about the changing nature of stories. revisiting stories. how have, how has the way that v visitors interact, what's different about the way visitors interact?

what are they more interested in now? does it mean you have to have video displays and all of those things? >> well, part of the problem with our exhibits, especially in civil war battlefields, are many, many years old. a lot were erected in the 1950s and '60s. national parks exhibits are a little bit different than museum exhibits in that the purpose should be and hopefully are to orient people to the his tor sites. so what we want them to do instead of spending a lot of time looking at the exhibits, we want them to understand the significance of the sight and then go out and look at the sight. so unlike a museum, most of our, not all, but most of our exhibits are for the purpose of orienting people to the sights so they understand. >> what's the -- what's the traffic like?