strength is to take on the soviet union he is so confident that he does not give them winter uniforms because he figured the war would be so quick. we all know what happened. when that is beginning to already run into trouble. 1941, the battle for moscow is really just under way, but it's already clear it's not going to be so easy. japan bombs pearl harbor and of course, hitlers that alliance where japan, and as you say, he did not have to declare war right away. but he gets in his mind and it comes through the dispatches in the americans in the embassy at the time, if he attacks the united states, who is by now offering supplies to both the soviet union and britain, this will be the knockout punch and somehow this alliance with japan will be unbeatable. so he managed to talk himself

into believing what he wanted to believe. and of course, there was nobody going to talk him out of that within his own high command. yes, dave? >> excuse me, a recent phrase filled review of your book has the headline, the americans who cavorted with hitler. putting on your editor's hat, would you send it back for reediting? >> i'm never going to say anything bad with a publication that has a good review. cavorting is on the edge, they were not cavorting, they were in his presence often and there were many tense interviews between americans and hitler. which i write about in "hitl "hitlerland" which is an interesting dynamic itself. in terms of saying, this is

something different, i understand what they are trying to do. you know, the cavorting is not quite the right word, but think of this scene that i describe in the book. richard helms, a name that is familiar to a number of you because he becomes the director of the cia, in the '30s, a wire service reporter in germany. during the nueremberg rallies, hitler would allow a couple of journalists to ride in the carbcar, behind hitler. and he was one of those journali journalists, he describes the scene where he is in the car and there's an explosion of welcome. he said that i had to almost pinch myself not to be carried away by the emotions.

even though i knew what was going on. imagine if you were a minor official, and given this honor, you would be enraptured and your faith in the great leader would be total. so, again, they were not cavorting but they saw it from the inside. and they -- sometimes and in a couple of cases, for instance, i have also a scene inspect hitlerland where a young american diplomat named jacob beam is allowed to go to a nazi party where hitler comes in and at some point he is thrilled. just had some new victory. and he does this imitation march across the stage first as this slovenly, s.s.officer with his belly out and bent over and then he does it as a real

s.s.officer, he is a performer. so, there was this element of theater about hitler and everything that he did. certainly in the staging of his rallies and in the way he was trying to trap people emotionally and to a large extent did. yes, right there. >> how much publicity did the american journalists bring back to the american news media after all the beatings and atrocities happened? >> in hitlerland, i end the book in early 1942, when the last americans have been rounded up and exchanged for the germans. by the way, a little footnote, what happens after the declaration of war, there are about 120 americans left serving as diplomats or journalists. they are in an abandon spa, so

it's inturnment, but mild conditions, by world war ii standards. but, the german diplomats and journalists are inturned in the green briar, some of you may know what that is. it's the most luxuriois spa in america. there were many americans who tried to find out early on what was going on. of course this is before the full scale holocaust, and the conference, i want to make that clear. but there were americans and journalists allowed into the early camps that were mainly for political prisoners and they were pretty highly orchastrated events and they were aware of that. but the more, you know really

brave ones found out more and more and tried to work their sources in a way which is felt a little bit familiar frankly from my soviet days when you had to go to elaborate lengths to meet with people, to find out their stories. one of the stories that one of the correspondents told, again, this man, mauer from the chicago daily news is how his best source was the fun of a rabbi, who was a doctor. he would make appointments complaining of an ailment, and when he was being examined, the doctor would slip in a sheet of paper into his pocket with the latest information about arrests and what was happening in the jewish community. when that become too dangerous and the doctor said you cannot come here anymore, then made an arrangement to meet in the

urinales and they were never talking, they would come in a different entrance, he would stand there and they would leave and the doctor would drop the sheet of paper. that is how they got the information. so some of them were enterprising and got the information. of course, there were others who overlooked a tremendous amount of and did not understand what was happening. there was a lot of disbelief, in world war i there was atrocity stories, very manufactured. so there was an instinct to disbelieve the stories. yes, right here. >> have you looked at the papers -- yes, the papers of dr.

frederick shoe man, who was a lit cal scientist at williams college, he went to germany in the '30s and he was very perceptive. i heard a lecture years ago when they said that when he was in germany, he said if he had dropped the anti-semitism, we would be behind him. and that was in some of his papers. >> i'm familiar with his work, i write about him some in the book, because he was what -- i write about some the academics that come, shoeman came, and able from columbia, who conducted a survey of young nazis saying why did you join

the party? just as hitler had come to power. and it was a very interesting survey, some people felt it was too sympathetic and there was e reluctance to publish it, but shoeman is one of the, he was clear eyed of what was happening in germany, some came in and got it right away, and others did not. howard k smith, the early reporter who became an anchor put i thought -- put it i thought smartly. he said there's four stages when a visitor comes to nazi injuger, one, it's a great place, things are orderly. everyone seems happy. and the unemployment seems to have disappeared. second stage is, wow, there are a lot of people in uniforms. there's, you know, there's a

loft military stuff going on, a lot of marching, but it's still exciting. all the armies of young men, very handsome going through. third stage is oh, my god. why are they marching, why are they being taught the commands. to kill and to conquer and the fourth stage is terror, my god the world doesn't get it. what we are facing here and democracy may be great, but it's not going to cope with what -- you know emerging in germany. it's interesting that some people went from stage one to four real fast and some people stayed in sage one or go, and some people actually went up that ladder and then went down a bit. it's not all clear always. people -- it's rarely black and white with many of these people. what was the discussion in the

u.s. with regard to the olympic games in 1936 in berlin and has there been any consideration of boycotting the olympic games? >> yes, there was a big debate about the olympic games in the united states. there were various groups that wanted to boycott it. and the council general in berlin, the man i mentioned, who by that time had moved to austria and was serving there, was in the diplomatic core, the strongest supporter of boycotting the olympics. he was a lonely voice, most people did not want to hear that. the olympic committee largely went along with the pharmaceutical farce of saying, oh, yes, the germans need to admit one or two jews on the team and it will be okay. and in fact, one of the olympic

committee representatives came over and said, if you can get a tokenjew like we have token negros. they were making a point of saying, yes there are a few jews here and they are in the presence of ss officers, and he said well yes, in my chicago's men's club, we do not admit jews either. and of course, so, i mean, the anti- -- again the anti-semitism was not just there, but the extreme, it never went to the extremes that it did in germany. but there was an effort, but it failed and fell short. it came closer than you would have thought. it was a close battle, but then

it was blown away, what was also interesting about the olympics is for all the stories about jessie owens and how hitler was furious about the black athletes winning gold medals, the black athletes largely came away with good experiences in the sense that they came away, they were -- personally jessie owens was by far the most popular athlete in the -- in that olympics. and many, many germans, privately invited black athletes to their homes for coffee or meals, things that a number of them commented in that time in the united states would not have happened and w.edubois, was on scholarship, and he commented, saying it would have been impossible for me to spend six

months in the united states without a racial afront, i never had one in germany. but what my country men do not realize, is that the anti-semitism here, the intensity is much worse than any racism that we faced in the united states and much more dangerous. yes, here in front. if you could just wait for the microphone one second. thank you. >> the mouthings from hitler about jews fell on receptive ears, it happened to other people who cared. therefore, was it true that the economic situation and the love of pomp and ceremony that americans have, they do not have royalty, so they love pomp and

ceremony and the success, so suddenly there was a big beautiful country with a marching with the big statues, that convinced -- is it pocket book that convinced these americans and the rest of the world to disregard the jewish issue and say who cared? he is successful. >> to the first part of the question, of course, hitler used the jewish issue to blame everything on the jews. the whole economic collapse, the defeat in the war, everything, it was a classic scapegoat strategy. and to a large extent, it worked. but -- and in terms of germany's -- you remember germy comes, is hit by that hyper inflation, the economic collapse in the beginning of the '20s, in the middle '20s, things

stabilize, and partly because of american's loans and it appears that germany is coming out of crisis and at that time, the nazis were getting nowhere politically. before the depression hit, i think they had 12 members, that was nothing. tiny, tiny party. only when the second economic shock comes, the depression, he they start shooting up. so, there's a cause and effect here. but, it's also hitler's personality that is driving this. and i think you are right too that many people in the beginning were impressed, you know everyone was hit by the depression, the united states was certainly. and at first, there was a habit to say, any formula that begins to work some where is great. but you know, the people -- the germans -- the americans in germany at the time realized it much earlier than people

elsewhere that you know, the price that was being paid for this. yes? right in front here. >> in your book, who of the americans in germany and your opinion, were the people who had the most finsight and were the harshest critics? >> one of the most interesting and insightful people, of the journalists, edward ansel. and at the time, there were -- there were huge number of american correspondents in europe and injure any, and by the middle '30s. there were about 50 american correspondents stationed in berlin, i thought the period like where bill and i were in

the -- in the '80s and '90s was a nice time for foreign correspondence, by comparison it was nothing. you had major publications that no longer exist. in chicago, and philadelphia, and boston. competing wire services. those, among the correspondents, those really stand out. there were people who came over, hamilton, fish, armstrong, the editor of foreign affairs, came over and met hitler and wrote a book about the early days of the reicht, that was perceptionive, he was the head of the foreign policy association here in new york. later on, soon became the commissioner for reguges for the

league of nations. he was a remarkable figure. he just came back and said, he is aiming too exterminate the jewish race, and nobody wanted to listen to him. he worked on the reguge board, and then after the war was the first u.s. ambassador to israel. yes? >> where hitler get the funds to outfit that elaborate army. the flags and so forth? >> the question is where did hitler get the funds in the beginning, i'm assuming, to outfit the brown shirts and all of that. it's interesting, if you read the accounts of his early rallies, he took the nazi party,

which was nothing, a tiny, tiny group in munich and started these beer hall rallies and uniformly, whether it's his financial supporters often were older women at these rallies. he seemed to have a particular

way of reaching older women. some of them, there were accounts of them taking the jewelry off their necks or arms to support this lovely young man who is going to resurrect germany. of course there were then later on industrialists and various other groups. but he did have this ability and also he had -- he knew something about psychology that i think one of the things i found interesting about hitler was that his remark once that the reason i hold my rallies at night is because that's the best time to get people in your grasp emotionally. he said, think about going to the theater. when you go to a matinee, it rarely has a huge impact on you emotion emotionally. you're thinking about things you have to still do afterwards. work, chores you have to go back to. at night you're letting go. if you think that's the acting,

think about a movie. same thing. a movie, you're likely to feel more into a movie at night than during the day. he knew these things. he had basic instincts and psychology and staging when you look at the neuronberg rallies and everything else which demonstrated that. he managed to start -- i visited the apartment -- the two apartments where hitler lived in munich. the first one was this tiny room in a small apartment where there were about four different tenants. incidentally, i went up there, knocked and said sheepishly to a young man with his daughter. i opened the door. i'm an american journalist, a writer. he said, oh, you want to see hitler's room. so i went and saw hitler's room. soon he moved to a huge

apartment. i think it was about completely funded by supporters. that was long before he took power. one more final question. i think right in the middle there. >> in the best seller, the garden of the beast -- >> i have never heard of that one. they describe about how ambassador dodd tried to warn the state department about what was happening in germany and how his bosses in the state department would not go along with him, would not believe him. >> yes.

that's accurate. it focuses on william dodd and martha dodd. makes the point strongly. and the evidence i saw and i also write about both of the dodds in my book. of course they are two of the many characters in my book. dodd, i think, i basically agree with larson. he's a decent man but he was a historian with a diplomatic post. he said you have to talk real sense into people that he'd been a student in germany. he said there must be a way to have rational conversations. soon he realized with people in power. that was almost impossible. the meetings at hitler were

incredibly stilted. he was discussed about what was going on especially after hitler murdered so many of his own followers that he really wanted to have as little to do with the government and the party as possible. it's commentable in many ways. it means he was limited in what he could do. his reports to the state department expressing displeasure were often treated skeptically. why isn't he talking to the nazis more. again the sentiment in the department with the exception of george messersmith and others. we can't let things get too far out of hand. we don't want another conflict.

dodd didn't immediately have contact. somebody like messersmith predicted a conflict like william shira was earlier. they were seen as people who were just trying to bring bad news that no one wanted to hear. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> that was absolutely wonderful. i invite you to please stay and join us for a small reception outside. the books are available. the american council on germany, i thank you for sharing the program with us and having this wonderful speaker. thank you so much. >> this weekend on american

history tv harvard professor john stauffer on the civil war and the movement to end slavery. >> one of the aspects of abolitionists is when lincoln gives the inaugural the self-described abolitionists are a tiny minority. they are still despised. what transforms abolitionists into respected prescient critics. lectures in history tonight at 8:00 eastern. also more from the series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. the contenders and a look at eugene debbs, five-time socialist candidate for president. american history tv this weekend on c-span3.

>> how do you approach book interviews differently from other interviews? >> i think of book interviews as history. uh think of the news side as gathering contemporary information. >> how difficult is it to remain impartial and not get caught up in the hype of one campaign or another? >> i will try to give people as full an understanding of what is happening in this campaign. it's not that difficult to put your bias to the side. >> how has social media changed your line of work in terms of reporting and getting your news information? >> twitter in particular is now a primary news source for anybody who covers politics, pays attention to politics. >> sunday night, purdue university students interview dan balz on covering presidential elections, what's

newsworthy. sunday at 8:00 on c-span. >> if all of us decide at the same time we're going to tighten our belts and spend less, what happens is we all end up poor because all of our spending falls at the same time. this is the kind of stuff that we're supposed to know. this is stuff that we have known since the 1930s. the attempt of everybody to slash spending at the same time because they have too much debt. this is self-defeating. >> who's going to tell them the truth? we have to tell them the truth. if we don't then our country fails. we must succeed in this. we will succeed in this. we'll reach them through the media and through politics and through pop culture. pop culture where we shouldn't be afraid to get out there and quit preaching to the choir.