he endowed it. it has been supported by the foundation ever since. it is now a community-based zoo. this year it was rated number five by a national organization. spencer penrose was known as a flamboyant character who liked a good drink and loved to entertain people with great parties. he was actually very shy and reserved, so much so that the "colorado springs evening gazette," the local paper, used to talk about him all the time about the things going on at the broadmoor. he got so fed up that he told them to stop it. they ignored it. in the late 1920's, he bought the newspaper and said keep doing what you are doing but you can no longer report on me. and he wanted to keep his private life private. i guess you can't do that today. the legacy of spencer penrose starts with that $21 million he gave in 1937 and 1939. the 500 and $5 million to be

exact that has been given to the nonprofits in the state of colorado -- $505 million to be exact that has been given to the nonprofits of colorado means that we have a downtown civic center courtesy of him. >> throughout the weekend, american history tv is featuring colorado springs, colorado. our staff recently traveled there to learn about its rich history. our more about colorado springs

/localcontent.org >> coming up next on the presidency, a conversation about the world war ii leadership styles of president franklin roosevelt and british prime minister winston churchill. the public policy institute hosted this event. >> welcome to roosevelt house. i am andrew polsky, the acting dean of hunter college. and professor of political science. our program this evening features two visitors, who are deeply knowledgeable about the decisions that led up to be historic moment 70 years ago when allied forces stormed ashore of normandy to begin the

final struggle of the liberation of europe from nazi germany. nigel hamilton is the author of the just published book "the mantle of command." among many other works, allen packwood is the director of director of churchill archives centre, the leading authority on all things western churchill. in a few moments, i will turn off the microphone to tina, the sponsor of our series on churchill of which at this evening's program is the final installment. following her introduction, each of our guests will speak for about 20 minutes and then they will join me for a conversation. we'll have time for audience questions before we close. history shifts over time and perhaps it is so with the two men who are the subjects of this evening's program. western churchill exercised an influence over the immediate

postwar depreciation of allied leadership. he was admired for his determination after the fall of france in 1940 through the battle of britain and for his warning an iron curtain was dissenting after the war. his reputation was helped in those small measures to build his own magisterial six volume series, the second world war. perhaps the first great fiction that the war generated. fdr's star faded when his political enemies depicted him as the great sellout of the people of eastern europe. more recently though, we have seen a shift in historical perception. historians have found more to admire in roosevelt, while churchill had lost some of his luster. i am very much in the roosevelt camp. how fitting we should be having this conversation here and

roosevelt house. the restored home of franklin and eleanor roosevelt shared with franklin's mother. the president no longer resided here i the time of pearl harbor but he spent important formative time in this space both before and after he was stricken with polio. he interacted here with key political leaders. it is safe to say he developed many of his ideas about the world within a few feet of where i now stand. those ideas would in turn guide and grand strategy for better and worse. and influence the kind of world order he hoped to develop as part of the victory he expected the allies to achieve. this program is part of a series that is the brainchild of tina flaherty. she gives new meaning to the label "multitalented." she starred as a radio

personality in memphis, tennessee. she began a successful career as a corporate executive. she became the first female vice president of colgate and then at two other leading corporations. accomplished author and journalist. her book has been rereleased in 2014 and in an expanded edition and would mark here in a special program a month ago. tina has been active an active philanthropist and generous donor to the writing center which will host its fourth annual conference. >> thank you for that very gracious introduction and all of

you for showing up tonight. we are glad you chose to be with us. dean, or should i call you andrew? i heard so many good things about you. but, i cannot take it and i decided to google you. your credentials are very impressive and even more impressive is what your students say about you. they say you are not only brilliant with your words but with your humor. i think we can all expect not only an enlightening discussion but a lively discussion. speaking of enlightenment, i have to say something right now. the team at hunter, this is ruminating series would not have been possible without the involvement of the whole hunter college which starts with the president and also roosevelt,

the director of public policy here at the roosevelt house and lewis, who i do not think is here tonight, but he was involved as well. briefly, everybody wants to know -- why are you so hung up on roosevelt? i am hung on here, too. why are you so hung up on churchill? the reason i am so hung up on churchill is i believe everybody needs a hero in life. churchill is my hero for all seasons and for all reasons. that is why i sponsored it. [applause] as a lot of you know, this is the culmination of our churchill series, sadly. it was such a blockbuster, what a run and we have had from the very beginning. just to briefly review, i do not know how many of you joined us when churchill's granddaughter

spoke about churchill's leadership and what made him a leader for the ages. that was a beautiful lecture and followed by the roberts lecture. he is a renowned churchill scholar and historian and a best-selling author. his was wonderful, too. and lee olson, who wrote a book that i love, it is so beautifully done. her latest book is "those angry days." she spoke of her book. that was followed by randolph and ginny churchill, the great granddaughter and great grandson of sir winston. they spoke of the influence on western churchill's mother from brooklyn and beyond. and we filled the playhouse for that. after that, we had paul reed.

he wrote the book with the late william manchester. anybody who knows me knows by now i am a hands-on person and i like to get involved in all aspects of the project. starting with the vision of this which was wonderful, i had such -- what i was trying to say and do and her team made it better. also, i got very involved with selecting the speakers. what a lineup of the speakers we have had. tonight is the icing on the cake. this it has -- this is really been a splendid series. i think that you are going to meet everybody but i will briefly say we have three distinguished individuals. allen packwood, nigel hamilton,

and andrew polsky to moderate. first, introduce my friend allen. he is the director of the churchill archives center at the university of cambridge in england and a fellow and the executive director of the churchill center in the u.k. allen has worked on sir winston's personal papers since 1995. it is almost one million now. those papers are alongside the prime minister's margaret thatcher and john major. allen is a very gifted writer. i am lucky to know him because he did something for me for my book. i think everybody can agree that this is a lot of churchill and you have done a lot of things with churchill. you are absolutely the right person for the right time to speak.

the title of his topic is "courage, planning, and preparation." i want to briefly introduce nigel hamilton, our next speaker. nigel hamilton is british-born. there he is right there. he is an american citizen now. he is an award-winning biographer. he divides his time between new orleans and boston. he has written more than 20 works of history and biographies which have been translated into 16 languages. i am sure a lot of you are from the u.s. is best-selling work on the young john f. kennedy "jfk: reckless youth." his previous book was -- a biography on the last 12 president from fdr to george bush.

i have heard nigel speak several times. he speaks with passion and he speaks with insight and he speaks with a great grasp of history. as you know, there are going to be books for sale later in that book is called "the mantle of command." it is a key entry in the ongoing debate as to who made the grand strategy in the early war years. was it roosevelt or churchill? the title of nigel's talk is how fdr overruled his generals and laid down the strategy by which the allies would win world war ii. our moderator is sitting right there, andrew polsky, a distinguished scholar of the

american presidency. his most recent book is "elusive victories." dean polsky, you can direct us from here on. we have changed the order of the speakers. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, tina. when you said nigel speaks with -- but i thought you were going to say with a british accent. [laughter] i have lived here for 20 years. can i not get rid of it? i am delighted to be here. i cannot think of a more appropriate place. i did speak at the fdr presidential library last week on memorial day weekend. this is even better. thank you very much, everybody

for coming out tonight. i am delighted to be on a panel with allen packwood, who i got to know when researching my new book in cambridge and more recently in new orleans. we share a love of jazz. [laughter] anyway -- i am also not any fortunate and you asked me to speak here in the roosevelt house. i am fortunate to have actually met winston churchill. in fact to have stayed with winston churchill at his country home in kent when i was a student many, many years ago. an incredible weekend and i think we should take a moment to remember churchill's wonderful

daughter, mary, who died on saturday evening a couple of nights ago. mary was there that weekend -- and i went to mary and her husband, they had a farmhouse near winston's house. they put on a beautiful birthday party for winston. i have to say that when i think back to that memory, i do remember mary as a wonderful lady. and i met her in subsequent years. in relation to that weekend, i was only 19 years old and i remember the night before at the dinner, which i do not think mary came to. but her sister, sarah, who was an actress came. she came very late. i was with montgomery, who had two watches on his wrist.

sarah came in and said she was sorry but she was rehearsing. so her mother said, darling, you better have a drink. she said, that will be wonderful. she was wearing this very tight, little, black number. i was 19. i was rather knocked out. it was -- it was very low-cut. [laughter] and the lady churchill had a friend, a houseguest friend called mrs. hanley. she was a rather old-fashioned lady. i think i am right in saying she had a -- so she takes the loinette out of her purse.

she sees the voluminous decollate and sees around the tight, black number was a fox stole as a trim. she said, "shouldn't that be up there?" anyway, a very unforgettable weekend for a 19-year-old student at cambridge university. i was not unfortunate to spend that weekend with winston. i was incredibly fortunate to spend probably about 10 years or at least many hours over the

next 10 years talking about winston churchill with field marshal montgomery, who absolutely loved churchill, almost adulated him. monti was the general of the army's active d-day. he had a pretty close knowledge of winston churchill and would often visit him on the battlefield and in north africa and europe. after monti died, i spent 10 years at the montgomery's of visual biographer and wrote a three volume biography which i am not suggesting any of you undertake to read as each one is 1000 pages. you can imagine i became pretty conversant as a military historian with the story of world war ii and the stories of world war ii.

and by the end of it, i think i had enough of world war ii and i came to the united states. in 20 years, i have been a presidential historian based in the boston. i have written about the young jfk and also to volumes about president clinton and my recent book was "lives of the president from fdr to george w. bush." when i finished that book, finishing five years ago, i was very disappointed -- as tina was alluding to to the fact that, the memory of fdr has somewhat faded. i cannot believe as a military historian or former military historian that there was not an account of fdr as united states

commander in chief. by virtue of our constitution, the president is not the chief executive but the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. and to think he had been the commander-in-chief from pearl harbor through world war ii until just a few weeks, 1945, just a few weeks before hitler's suicide, really stunned me. i looked into it. and it was not that there were no books about fdr, there were plenty of books about fdr. he is the father of the new deal, fdr is a diplomat, fdr is a stamp collector. it was not a book about fdr as a commander of chief during world war ii.

although, i said i would not go back to military history, my trenches -- here i am and once again in the middle of a work. it is the first of 2 volumes and i hope to finish the next volume sometime next year. first of all, why do we think has it not been a really serious account of fdr as commander in chief? one of the reasons is that after the war, every -- every general, every admiral wrote his own

autobiography or had commissioned his biography about how he contributed. winning world war ii. i am thinking of marshall and admiral king and the secretary of war. they all recounted how their achievements in world war ii. and since the president had not survived the war, he actually started writing what he thought would be his biography before the war began. but the press responsibility made it impossible. he was looking forward in retirement to doing it. that moment, it even though he was only 63 when he died, it never came. and so, i think in a sense the story of fdr as commander in

chief has gone by default. the portrait we have in our minds of fdr is largely secondhand. it is a reflection bouncing of the memoirs of other people. and so, i am trying to tell the story of president roosevelt wearing the mantle of command from pearl harbor to the end of his life in world war ii. of course, the other problem with the lack of biography of fdr and world war ii is that winston churchill who was

considerably older did survive the war. not only did he survive it but he wrote a magisterial series of books, six volumes. a gigantic enterprise which won him the nobel prize of literature and wonderfully written and which has survived wonderfully to this very day. you cannot pick up the book without being entranced by its ability not only as a writer, a brilliant writer, his grasp of history. his ability to see events in a larger context of history of century of previous grand strategy, of previous character.

and so, to some extent, the views which we have inherited of fdr is colored to a great deal by the way that sir winston churchill portrayed in the second world war. it is churchill's point of view, churchill expresses his gratitude, his admiration for the president, for the president's generosity and the president's willingness to help out britain. if i find fault with sir winston

in my new book, it is not because i have anything against winston churchill or his memory on the country -- i have nothing but admiration and respect for a man almost single-handedly facing britain in 1940 and that was one of the things that monti used to say to me again and again, montgomery directed the division and felt that it was not anybody left in britain who could just marshall the morale of the country. i have enormous respect for what winston churchill achieved in 1940 in standing up alone against dictators. i do think that my criticism of

winston churchill is more that his view of the war which is his view, it is very much that of the bunker, westminster where he directed military operations. and i have taken on a different project. my task is to tell the story of world war ii for the first time from the point of view of the white house 1600 pennsylvania avenue. that is to say the oval study behind fdr's bed room, the oval office downstairs, the rooms he created their -- there down in the ground floor. he converted on the advice of winston churchill into his map

room. all of his secret signals went out and came in. i have been able to interview the last surviving officers from that map room and many of the diaries relating to fdr's role as commander in chief of world war ii. i can't tell you it is quite different from the one we have come to accept. you see the president of the united states in his role as commander-in-chief. first of all, you see him stunned and shocked on the day of pearl harbor. exactly as winston churchill was when becoming prime minister when the germans sliced through the french and british lines and forced the british expedition,

the same sort of force that had been sent to europe in 1914. and being evacuated. the president and in the mantle of command, you see in a similar situation on the night of pearl harbor. shocked, stunned, and without much idea of what could be done since the entire american fleet had been sunk. then you see him taking the reins of a different kind of power than he had ever had before once congress authorized a declaration of war. first against the japanese, who started the business, and then hitler who declared war on us on the 11th of december, 1941.

it is fascinating for me and i hope it will be fascinating for you to see how the president actually takes over the running of the military. and how much we owe to him for the way he did it. the first thing he does, he decides to ignore largely public opinion. there is panic in washington. across the whole united states, there is a call for the war to be prosecuted against the japanese. after all, is the japanese that

has attacked the u.s. hitler has declared war and that it's a piece of paper in berlin. it is the president of the united states who said, no, germany first. we could defeated japan and hitler would still be in complete control of the whole of europe pretty much. where as if we defeat hitler, japan will follow within a few months. he was absolutely right. the second thing is, the united states generals in the war department -- i will be very brief because it is in the book and it is a dramatic story. a story i feel very strongly about. my father was evacuated and went back to d-day as the youngest battalion commander in the british army. and my father -- he never went to college, but he rose to great heights. and he like many young officers felt that the british army had been let down by the people in

the war office. and i think there were a lot of american servicemen in world war ii who felt the same about the war department. the secretary of war at that time was henry stilson who served in world war i and with general george marshall was determined that the united states should -- if the president had decided to pursue a policy of germany first, well then, let's go to berlin. let's cross the english channel, the russians need our help, there must be a second front. we will cross the english channel in 1942 or the latest, the spring of 1943. it is the president of the united states as

commander-in-chief, this is a lesson, a moral that goes through this very day, the president of the united states that has to say to the secretary of war and all the senior generals of the war department, no. we are not going to attempt to cross the english channel in 1942 or even in 1943. we have not shot a bloody bullet and germany yet, not one. they have been fighting since 1939. what in the hell do you think you mean by this plan? and if the crux of the book is, roosevelt's fight with united states' generals and admirals who at one point, in the summer of 1942 comes very close to

mutiny. this is something that has been really covered up in the years since because of the president wants to do something else. they called it the president great pet scheme. and that was not to land across the english channel but to land in northwest africa and controlled morocco and algeria where united states forces could be landed and could engage the germans in battle in a safe area where they could learn the skills of modern warfare. not just fighting, command and coalition warfare. and it is roosevelt's greatness as a civilian president, who by our constitution is given the role of commander-in-chief, i think it is his greatest that he

opposed his generals and overrode his generals. and the person who helped him at that time was winston churchill. because winston churchill had seen the british empire collapsed in the far and knew that british simply could not go through a cross english landing with partners who were never fired a single shot at germans when there were 25 divisions waiting in france. i do not know about you, but i have read 15 volumes and hitler was waiting for us to cross the channel in 1942. in fact, you may remember, when

winston churchill was put under great pressure to do something especially by the russians and he authorized a landing a cross channel, a mini version of d-day in 1942 of the 19th of august in a little french seaport. and a canadian brigade was chosen for that task and almost 1000 canadians died in the first two hours on the beaches without ever getting off, without ever getting off of the beaches. and that, to the president, what the proof of his policy that it was crazy to attempt -- it would've been a mass suicide for american forces to do a cross channel invasion. and so, the story of "the mantle

of command" is how the president overrode his generals and with the full cooperation and support of winston churchill and how wonderfully successful it was. can you imagine the secretary of -- the secretary of war of the united states betting the president of the united states -- torch would fail? i wonder how many secretaries of war have ever betted the presidents. it did not fail. that became the basis of the prosecution of the war and the ultimate defeat of the german army.

i thought this might be a nice segue into allen packwood's talk tonight about d-day itself, the anniversary, the 70th anniversary which will be celebrating next week. thank you very much. thank you very much. [applause] >> how do you follow that? the first thing that occurred to me if it puts me in mind of a churchill quote from the house of commons in 1947 where churchill said, he thought it would be best for all parties to leave the past to history, especially as he was going to write that history himself.

here in roosevelt house, there's only one way to begin this talk and that is by sharing some of the key personal correspondence which survives in winston churchill's personal papers between these two great leaders. after the war, churchill told his private secretary that no lover ever studied every whim of his mistress as i did president roosevelt. it was a rather one-sided love affair. roosevelt looked on with alarm as france collapsed but he could only move public opinion so far and so fast. for churchill, things were moving too fast. by 1940, with the fall of france imminent, he writes to president roosevelt and refers to the possibility of his own fall of office. he writes, although the present government and i would never

fail to send a fleet across the atlantic, a point may be reached in the struggle where the present ministers no longer have control of affairs and when easy terms can be to the british islands by becoming a vessel state. and public and it is great speeches and broadcast, churchill remained defiant and resolute. in private, he knows how much depends on america. the psychological effect of the delivery of this letter to churchill. it is hand written by a triumphant franklin roosevelt on inauguration day. his first day of the third term of his presidency. the fate hangs in the balance. pearl harbor lies months in the future. here at least, we have a clear

unambiguous statement of moral support. dear churchill, wilke will give you this. i think this applies to your people asked to us. sail on. humanity with all of his fears and on the hopes of future years is hanging breathless. now clearly, on a personal level, he would like the intimacy being shown. the president not only wrote the letter by hand but even the accompanied envelope. it would've appealed to his romantic nature and sense of history. it must've been the political message being sent that would please churchill the most. it was no accident this letter

was entrusted to wilke. he actually shared roosevelt views. this letter of introduction was a clear statement of bipartisan support at an indication for its deliberate linking of the british cause the roosevelt might do more than offer moral support. it is clear that churchill recognized the importance. he telegraphed back to roosevelt to say i received wilke yesterday and was moved. i shall have it framed as a souvenir of these tremendous days and a mark of our friendly relations which have been built up telegraphic link but telepathically. he was as good as his word. this document to a sort of brown color is a testament that churchill framed it a hunger for a long time.

churchill was also a statesman of great experience and there is no doubt he recognized not only the long term importance but also the short term importance. it was ammunition he could turn to his advantage in his oral assault on the people of the united states. in 1941, he broadcasted the letter across the atlantic and he quotes by longfellow before going on to ask, what is the answer that i shall give him your name to this great man? here is the answer. put your confidence in us. give us your faith and blessing and all will be well. we should not fail or falter or weaken or tire. neither a shock of battle or vigilance of exertion will wear us down. give us the tool ands we will finish the job.

it was set out in the characteristic blank verse format he used to give him the pauses and evidence. it marks the beginning of what we call the special relationship, unprecedented military and political union of our 2 countries. how did they finish the job? they finish is 70 years ago today with a return to europe in 1944 in the opening up of the long-awaited second front. let me continue with an ending or to paraphrase churchill. the following quote is taken from the penultimate paragraph as his closing volume five of the second world war. he wrote to the immense cross channel enterprise of the liberation of france has begun. all of the ships were at sea and a mastery of the oceans and air and hitler to --

it seems to me it sums up the problem we had of operation overlord. the luxury of knowing it worked. the american casualties on omaha beach, there's no doubt it was a great success. it was conducted with hardly a casualty. complete mastery of this guys. within a week, it was secured in the mission had been fulfilled. when the breakout came, it was faster and more sweeping that most had dared to predict. paris was liberated in 1944. by the end of the year, allied armies were preparing for the crossing and final assault on nazi germany. it is easy for us to sit here today and say it was the right strategy and brought the war to an end and secured the freedom

of western europe from both fascism and communism. in spite all what he wrote in 1952, i do not think it was so easy, simple, and predictable for churchill or roosevelt or eisenhower. i want to look at the factors they came together to make d-day successful. i want to pick up on a point that nigel ended on and address the criticism that has been leveled against the allied leadership and perhaps churchill both in his lifetime and cents. the criticism that he obstructed the cross channel invasion and as a result, by crossing the channel in 1944 rather than 1942, he joined anglo american for duration of the war caused unnecessary death and extending the misery of countless millions.

it is certainly clear from his own writings that churchill was a guilty of the strategy. as you just heard, he was far from alone in this. you can easily make the case in doing so, he was saving more lives than sacrificing. what made it successful? in my mind, a number of key objectives that have to be in place if success were to be guaranteed. i put them up here. he viewed a sophisticated network of cooperation, buildup of materials, development of offices and troops with real experience, mastery of the air, control of the city, superb intelligence and intentions among a greatly weakened enemy, and the right to whether an title conditions. and right weather and tidal conditions.

how many were present? first of all, a sophisticated level. what i would say is that rome was not built in a day, from the top down, the prime minister and president, it took time to forge a close tie and develop the trust and teamwork that underpinned the special relationship. president roosevelt sent hopkins to london to discuss planning of the second front in april of 1942. the anglo-american cooperation planning was needed to make an assault against europe was not going to be produced but was tested in operation torch. and from title beaches of north africa.

general eisenhower's winning team of admirable ramsey and bradley and patton was put together and tested in the mediterranean. secondly, a huge buildup of men and materials. the logistics was simply staggering. initial naval operation was supported by 23 cruisers and 100 destroyers and 1000 other fighting ships. the sweeping of the minds has to be carefully coordinated. the official assault may have been by five divisions but that was the start of a much longer campaign to liberate france and push into germany. by 1940 four, there are 20 americans and three canadians and one polish. they are being protected by 4035 heavy bombers and light to medium torpedoes and transport planes. the allied armies are consuming 600-700 tons of supplies a day

with the delivery from the porch to the front lines of 20,000 times per day. it was larger and had to be more sustained that anything that had been contemplated by the alliance. such materials and a man had to be achieved before the operation could be contemplated. could it be achieved on that scale? figures vary from book to book, the germans was probably 10 times greater than the american army in 1941. it is true by 1941, huge production plans were in place in the united states for all three armed services. it took time to produce commission, delivery. then the development of troops with more morale to restore it after successive defeats in

france and greece. as you just heard, look what happens when the reconnaissance forces [indiscernible] the americans [indiscernible] mastery of the air. this dependent on the erosion of forces. it may have cleared the skies above britain that the fight had to be taken back into the skies above mainland europe and it took time to build up. the american air force did not become fully engaged until the second half of 1942.

they gradually found himself fighting on several fronts and the mediterranean and russian and their losses were not sustainable. it took time to grind them down and build us up. control of the seas. the royal navy had patrolled around the united kingdom but as churchill made clear, it was only final victory over the u boats that truly opened the direct routes. intelligence, crucial to the winning of the battle was the breaking of the german naval foes to it was the subsequent cracking between berlin and the commanders in france they gave the huge intelligence advantage of d-day. it was exploited by their elaborate plans, allowing churchill that in wartime proved to be so precious that should

always be attended. perhaps the real turning of the tide was the one in which churchill chose overland, that was the smashing of the german military machine in russia. their german losses are staggering. they lost a whole army group cobbled with the collapse of their italian allies. finally, we come to the weather. no one attempts to cross the british channel in winter. after the summer of 1943, the role of the weather mitigated against an invasion inevitably delay in operation from that point until the spring of 1944. take all of these factors together and i will argue that an assault in 1944 and not before makes perfect sense.

that does not mean the allied commanders could be complacent on the night before d-day, churchill dined along with his wife and told her do you realize by the time you wake up in the morning 20,000 men may have been killed. it would be wrong it was a lonely manifestation of churchill, it was not. you see it was shared by almost all of the senior allied commanders. admiral ramsay, the architecture, wrote in his diary, i am under no delusion of the risks involved in this difficult of all operations. alan burke, went even further in his private journal the same day, writing, it is very hard to believe that in a few hours the cross channel invasion starts. i am very uneasy about the whole

operation. at best, it will fall so short of expectations of the people, name and of those who know nothing of it. at the worst, it may be the most ghastly disaster of the whole war. i wish to god it was safely over. even general eisenhower after giving the order to go, wrote a letter in the event of failure accepting personal responsibility of withdrawing the troops. later in his book, he concluded that, the two countries, britain and the united states, replacing all their hopes, expectations, assess and one great effort in western europe. failure would carry consequences that would be almost fatal. such a catastrophe would mean the redeployment of all of the

united states forces in the setback to allied morale and determination would be so profound it would be beyond calculation. in other words, the failure would've marked the failure of everything churchill and roosevelt had worked at. it was a make or break moment. it is not surprising that churchill was worried. in my mind, the fact that we know churchill and eisenhower does not diminish their leadership but enhances it. they did all they could to prepare for victory and stack the odds. in the end, they have to roll the dice. courage, it is the quality which guarantees all others. winston churchill wrote those

words about a king, a roller who survived a violent assassination attempt. it seems to me it applies equally to all of those who took part in the d-day landings and subsequent military operations. with a few exceptions, my generation has never really seen a war. we owe a huge debt to our prosperity to generations who came before us and those who sacrifice so much in the first and second wars. it may have taken credible courage. to fight your way through the hedges and lanes of normandy. there are different forms of courage and it took incredible courage to lead and choose the right moment. courage without planning is not enough. that is the debt we owe churchill and roosevelt. i want to end with the worst churchill spoke of 1944, spoken without hindsight, he said, it

is a most serious time we enter upon, then god we enter upon which our great allies, all in great friendship. thank you very much. [applause] >> ok. thank you. well, before i begin with a few questions. would either of you like to respond to the other that you

heard in the opening? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> i found allen's remarks very moving. my father landed at age 25, commanding 1000 men. by the end of august, he lost 600. that says it all.