it is now my honor to

reintroduce our panelists. you heard earlier from each of , as this is our last academic session of the symposium, my role here is to put each of our guests in conversation with one another. if you would like to ask your own questions, we have a procedure would like to use for this session that inside of your bags, you have received there is a notepad and a pen inside. if you like to ask your own question of your panel, hold it up and someone will collect you

-- collected and bring it to me so i can then ask your question. if you like to ask something of the panel and something came up in a previous session that you want to ask a question about or you want to have a -- have a broad question please don't hesitate to write it down and ask it. start with what i would consider to be a little bit of a softball question for the whole panel. as our own professor next to got -- the think he history is an argument without end. it is a great methodological short quip that reminds us that historians don't have to necessarily agree, but in their argument in and of itself comes a degree of virtue by the process of actually working your way through the history and through the historiography.

i want to take that sentiment that history is an argument without end and ask our panel what they would consider to be the major questions and major debates that are still out there that surround both d-day and the normandy invasions. that is the question. >> we heard one of them today already. the conversation continued at lunch. that is the timing of a second front. the whole military aspect of the war is wrapped up inevitably in the politics of the war. particularly the relationship between anglo-american allies and the soviet union. , a suspicious and skeptical individual by nature, roosevelt and a weak moment terrify the soviets would be overwhelmed and about our early

foolishly promised there would be a second front in 1942. that obligated him to do something in the european theater. that something turned out to be torched the landings in north africa. the interconnectedness of that is critical. oft argument, that awareness that inextricable link between the politics of the war and the military decision-making, the strategy is critical. there is a tendency in some quarters, they jumped the military incident fix that. the military's job is to take military considerations and solving what is effectively a politically -- political problem. and that informs the 1942% and 43 versus 1944 versus may versus june, all of the decisions about when or if a second front what is a consist of how much does it take off the russians, all of that is an ongoing argument that will

probably never be solved but it helps us to understand the nature of war and war in politics as a single unit. >> another one that seems to be floating is an inevitability argument. the allies were going to win a d-day. i both agree and disagree with that if that makes sense. of course they have the advantages. of course the high probability is they are going to get ashore. i think rommel has the exact wrong concept for how he is going to defend. when his guys are going to be vulnerable to gunfire and to every implement of allied fire and the crux of the troops coming in.

as i felt i was able to convey today, this is no picnic. people who are trained to standard who are willing to fight and willing to shed blood and die, you are not going to accomplish anything. not just the ground soldiers but everyone else who assumes some level of risk in d-day. to me, it is almost like a pointless argument in some ways. i doubt it will end anytime soon. the mystery for me in putting this program together that isn't is the russian influence.

when i started out on this, i had no beans about the importance of the eastern front other than the stupidity of in trying to do what napoleon could not do. when you look at the footage of the eastern front. and 42,inter of 41 44243? both. staggering to look at the piles of bodies. clothing for the soldiers and so on. i was blown away. i am in a visual medium. into our archives and

looking at hours and hours of the footage impressed upon me the importance of the russian sacrifice. shed onblood that was the eastern front. tofeeling -- again i used back in the 90's shortly after i specials, whenst i went out to visit educational institutions, i would take our american textbooks that had the war in it and i would make comments about what was missing in these pages on world war ii. then i would drop the book.

i would drop it on the floor and duerly, the credit that is to the russian military operation was never there. my feeling is that if i am to do something in this short 60 minute film would be to get the russian issue in there. that is my comment. since you mentioned a debate going tond, i am just speak about the eisenhower piece. it is fascinating for me to go into bookstores and see big leadership during world war ii and often see eisenhower's picture not there. i think it is fascinating because what has happened is

many of the unflattering and snarky memoirs written after the war have had their effect. you hear repeatedly how eisenhower wasn't qualified for the job because he did not have combat experience. i would like to point out that omar bradley did not have combat experience and no more -- nobody is blaming him. what it gets down to is an argument without an end related to the nature of leadership itself and what his job description was. there have been plenty of places in his memoirs and in his papers where he describes the hall as supreme allied commander. that is very different than the operational command or the command of land forces or something else. he is the boss over this. ist has helped me a lot considering the source.

it would be like some of these accounts would be like reading a ceo about some successful as written by the disgruntled employees who didn't get enough resources for their own division. that is going to be one of the aboutual arguments whether combat experience is necessary. when in fact, his responsibilities were for an that were farrs more comprehensive than the war itself. the political considerations, keeping the allies together, and also to nationalism about to burst out the whole time. let me just say in closing on that thought is that to get a really good idea of what he was a against, in trying to keep

nonpartisan alliance together is to read the headlines in these respective countries. america was always on his case for being true britt -- two british and the british were on his case for being not british enough. he was in one of the tough positions of having to reconcile all ends. it is a fascinating set of topics. i always tell my students, make sure that we understand what your job is before you start holding people responsible for the performance of someone farther down the food chain. i want to second everything she just said but also responded to george. maybe add on a bit. thehere is a tendency in united states to overestimate our own contribution as opposed to the russians for example in terms of total losses,

bloodshed, number of forces committed. and 43, theyin 42 were fighting 212 german and allied divisions. the united states only mobilized 97 divisions in the whole war in both theaters. the russians were carrying a disproportionate load and they remember that. that affects their global outlook. here compared to that, we need to remember in the pacific as well that the united states fought against japan. handed fromn single guadalcanal here we come. the japanese only ever committed about half a million troops to the pacific war and 2.4 million troops to the war in china. china was playing a role in the asian wars similar to what the similar -- soviet union did. it tied down the bulk of our foes ground resources so that

the anglo-americans could attack from the periphery and the air and do what they did best taking advantage of american productivity. to follow that up, the chinese rubber that also. great russians, it is a patriotic war. to the united states -- they were a bit player as far as they were concerned. >> i will say one other thing. my brother was in world war ii. he was in the british navy. , i was a high school student and he was eight years older than me. bias, ihat american just presumed we had won the war.

it was such a great lesson for may to have my older brother getting the facts on the table about how the brits had capped the war going with us reluctantly going into the draft then finally at pearl harbor and so on. i had never seen that or obviously heard that perspective or in in my school life the social life of a teenager. that really stayed with me and when i visited england and europe for an extensive. in the mid-60's, that interaction that some of the gettysburg institute students interacting with people

who see that non-american perspective, how important that of so your understanding much about the war back then, the scene today. in 1990, the soviet union was amazingly eye-opening. i tried to bring that perspective to the work i do. that narrowminded nationalistic view of we are the ones who won the war is not unique to the united states. i talked british midshipman and i'm mentioned the war of 1812.

someone asked me what was that? he said were you in that also? >> we have a question from the audience. [laughter] memory ando with remembering the war. we are now the same distance of time from d-day as were civil war veterans when they returned to gettysburg for their final reunion in 1938. that's a compelling thing to think about. from earlierearn commemorations of wars when we plan out the 75th anniversary of world war ii? >> as a frequent traveler to normandy, i can say that things have changed a lot over the last

30 years. i started going 40 years ago when people were still alive. were living ino houses along the coastline and got up in the morning and looked out of their windows and i met people in the french resistance. you could rely on the guidance of the people who have been there at the time. over the years, it is changed or medically. what i would call sideloading of the beaches. the british go and figure two british beaches. the americans go and figure two american beaches. i want you to know that susan eisenhower has initiated an offensive to make everybody come together. at least once during these events. i have a managed to succeed in this but i have been working on

this for four years now because nobody has been willing to agree that it was a joint effort. we all give lip service to it effect isilo in important. two other things are happening. they are building monuments all over normandy. i have cautioned them about that. i think it would be wonderful if gettysburg and normandy would have a conference to talk about how to manage memory because we of ahead of them in terms this experience. finally, the thing that causes every timethe coast the national anthems are played of these countries is the playing of the german national anthem. now there are german troops everywhere. as a matter of fact, when we had our government sequester, we were not allowed to send reverent -- references -- representatives to normandy but the germans turned up. increasingly as you are seeing from the high-level attention

major anniversaries get, normandy is becoming a scene of reconciliation rather like gettysburg became a scene of reconciliation 50 years ago. for some people it will get harder to get used to. to see the germans everywhere singing their national anthem. also trying to talk about this heroic struggle. normandy ando give importance globally because it becomes that place of reconciliation otherwise it would just be another battle. i do think that there are tremendous connection points there. >> i would add to that a little bit and say that like it or not, memory brings up politics. current politics, future politics whatever have been and

tend to always be shaped by whatever the political agendas of the time are. get back to the gettysburg commemorations in 1938. the reconciliation there is done atop the carcass of jim crow. veteransthese way to together to get along that well. that is one of the things that has brought them together. .he germans being part of this were the part of commemorations in 1964? not to my knowledge. such, and also the french memory. french memory which is very different than the americans. paid a heavyrench price for liberation even if it didn't always mean soldiers

fighting at the front. it meant the destruction of homes and civilians and their infrastructure. they will tend to remember this differently. reconciliation seems to represent everyone coming to terms with what we can agree on and perhaps not lately discuss them. we're not going to discuss the 12th ss and the hitler's youth not the fanatics. we will discuss the german sacrifice for people fighting for their country. just as others were. i think that is one thing when we talk about the memory of warfare which is a little uncomfortable at times but it always seems to include politics. could ask a follow-up, what do you think the role of historians are during commemorations? these are great times for

.istoric and -- historians you are going to find a publisher during an anniversary. with anniversaries there is a bit of tension with historians as well because a lot of the stuff that gets propagated is in the right story. it doesn't match with the standards of accuracy. it can be a continuation of old myths. at this time, how would you address our role? thatwill just say quickly the historians i admire the most are democrats who read about dwight eisenhower or other republican presidents and conclude something different than what their party line is. i think we have to hold the war historians to the same standard. it is very easy to argue the same set of arguments.

testing those assumptions against all the politics that overlay everything after the war including the memoirs of the various generals and others lower down. >> i want to go back to the history textbooks. in the realm of the historians world, we believe that the peopleks are written by who go in and write the textbook material all but the dissertation. upse who have given [laughter] a dissertation pathway because they need a job. i am appalled. i am so appalled by the textbooks where i gave you that

example. i did this in dozens of places. with the textbooks. i was at the harry truman library. there were 50 or 60 teachers out there. programown part of my and madeent eisenhower my drop in on the wooden floor of these that textbooks and told thise why this this and was all wrong. it was 20 years behind what historians were writing. i got a guy in the back of the room and said it does that mean you want me to change my lesson plan? i did not know if he was the jokester of the crowd or if he was serious. i played it seriously. teachers, the textbook producers and so on have to get

with the program because our students are not learning the essence why is world war ii important? it is more important that we won. all of these lessons to be learned are not being taught. i went into a school less than five years ago. a social studies teacher said these are 30 of the top students from all four grades. thought they knew who eisenhower was. it was mind-boggling. we create in this era electronic learning modules. streaming modules into the

classroom. we have to do something about the teaching of history. you get the good teaching college.burg >> this is a brief answer to the question. i believe that historians as -- the role ise in times of commemoration like that to be the sober voice in a room that is otherwise perhaps on nationalism, political agendas, honest well-meaning commemoration and excitement to perhaps get beyond here are thed say facts as we see them. here is an honest interpretation as we see them while still respecting why you are here and understanding the political component and context of the time.

>> the sober voice in the room. i am going to use that in my memory class. or, the designated driver. [laughter] i was just going to say that the role of the historian and eight conference like this is obviously to be decorative. [laughter] questionsa bunch of that are specific military history questions. marines were barred from the 1944 landing. some say eisenhower didn't want them to get credit. fornes were known amphibious insult -- assaults. where are they not consulted in this plan? >> the marines were in on the landing a little bit. you had shipboard marines who

would've been a board of the american ships and a few of them did not go ashore although not in a major assault role. the question contains the answer. the marine corps is stretched to its full limit by the middle of 1944 writing in the pacific. it was honestly to six divisions. they have a lot of amphibious doctrines of the army can learn from. i think the question is right that the army could have learned a lot more from the marines. also from army commanders who had been part of amphibious landings in the pacific. why? amonge there was a sense some in the command that europe was the big leagues. these little invasions in the pacific did not necessarily coincide with continental operations and the logistics are going to be necessary for that and the seapower was different in the air changed the equation. this is unfortunate.

the commander of the seventh infantry division for instance was on the way to being transferred to 19th corps and offered to sit down with omar bradley because he had invaded. he said ok this is how we operate here. bradley was not that interested. it is not an upbeat answer. >> there are significant just a goal differences between the atlantic and pacific. one of them is that for the landings in the pacific, the entire invasion force and its support had to go in a single unit often in excess of 1500 miles anytime rather than shuttle back and forth quickly across the channel. the logistical problems are of a different character. secondly, there was an effort for the naval commanders of the invasion force were sent out to

the pacific to sit down with nimitz and his staff to talk about the difficulties they had encountered during amphibious operations and how lessons from those could be applied in normandy. it is not that they operated separately but it is true that they operated mostly differently. was that the circumstances were different. that's the short answer. another one. it has to do with gliders. what happened to the gliders after d-day? what happened to the physical gliders? >> physically. >> they recovered as many as they can. they do a recycle. in 1944. the ones that were not completely destroyed and broken , there were quite a few that can be recovered. when many of the

gliders were in much better shape than the ones in normandy. there was a major recycling effort. -- focuso think about on the paratroopers. the glamorous guys. paratrooper at the time would likely tell you they would rather go in by parachute then on one of those gliders. casualty rates were higher because of the terrain. the murkiness of the night withng and you are writing ammo or jeeps or things that could cause casualties and did. particularpilots in have their own egos which i find fascinating because many had been rejected for propulsion piloting. to be a fighter pilot or bomber pilot and they had a chip on their shoulder. and wantedaredevils to prove themselves. they were a handful after they abandoned. they would roam around grabbing

souvenirs and getting involved in battles when they had not been trained for small unit action. is proposing a fall on training program to give these guys infantry training as the british had done because they needed to maximize the manpower. in doing that, he gets into a bureaucratic rattle. this never quite happens for the americans. the pilots are not recycled the way gavin would have wanted the glider planes are. >> that is the most military decision i have ever heard. you can't fly a powered aircraft so were going to give you one without an engine. [laughter] that's the most military thing i ever heard.

a glider is a one use item. they built tens of thousands of higgins boats and in excess of theof them were lost during operation. nobody worried about that because they are cheap, we can build more. the american throwaway society that we became and that world -- after world war ii got a start in world war ii because we were so -- so much so fast that the idea of losing a couple of pagans boats -- not a problem. questions have to deal with media and the sources we have. the one question has to do with real-time reporting being the first draft of history and how did radio and newspaper coverage

do on their d-day reporting. the second question has to do with how much film footage there is out there. how is the invasion covered? was it covered accurately in hindsight? >> i will tell a quick story. about fiveooks is decisive native battles. there was no existing first draft of history other than what was reported at the time. i found those to be remarkably

of the bestn one sources was navy times newspaper. it was one guy and those became the raw material of history. the short answer is very good. those people were there risking their lives in many cases as well to get information to the front and a few became favorites. that i think it was maybe a different kind of culture where so much more skeptical and bitter about being skeptical. the news was the news.

>> the next question has to do with -- i want to make a few comments on that. available inhat is our public archives is pretty incredible. watch film on a small of a cameraman who is right next , it isfle man jaw-dropping. pacific, when the i set i have a show that there is a war outside of europe going on and i have a pristine marine corps footage, it was like i was there. , you see them

every once in a while because they will hold up the cue card. someone will turn the camera on them. they knew pr like nobody else did. what i saw of the european in the interviews i did you saw ralph martin who went on to become a best-selling author in the united states. are fighting over there? and going to go out there that theydispatches were at a press conference

behind the lines. they were other watching. walter cronkite was one of the great world war ii journalists. on to fame who went and some of them to frame and fortune. my feeling, i certainly have not done a scholarly paper on the media coverage of normandy. it came back from these correspondences unfiltered and the impression i got is it went out unfiltered. once big decisions were made. it was quite a dramatic moment for americans.

those americans had already lost children. i will stick with that. >> for those of you in the audience who have been brought here by others and may not know about world war ii and might know more about literature, there is a wonderful gilmore and martha who was a great journalists. it she was married to ernest hemingway. they were highly competitive. he never forgive her for scooping him on normandy. that is an amazing story. she pretended she was a nurse.

she was in all the correspondence were on the other side, she was on the beach talking to wounded soldiers. >> we have time for one more question. the rising generation is not paying as close of an attention to history as they possibly should be. i will say that that sentiment is refuted by the students who are in the room currently. some might be her under persuasion. [laughter] undoubtedlye because of their enthusiasm for the subject. it does attract students that are very interested in history and military history. that being said, there is a want toon and i don't engage with that question

necessarily from a negative perspective. i want to put a more positive spin on it. and ask you what you think the most important parts of likes legacy or our d-day conversation. what do you think of the most important part of that that should be conveyed to the next generation and how do you think we should convey it? it's an easy question. >> i will start because i take students there. i think one of the most stunning things about taking young people to normandy is the sheer number -- realization of the factor of luck. everybody is trained equally. down in ae get cut minute and others survived to tell the tale. ofis a stunning example something that everyone is uncomfortable with. being lucky or unlucky. i say that because i think the real problem with the teaching of history is still despite everything, we have too many

instructors who are intent on making sure you know about dry treaties and dry alliances. we miss the facts and embedded in the word history is story. teaching offor the dwight eisenhower, there has been a tendency to dismiss him because he had a boy scout image. almost too good to be true type thing. i really do know many of his struggles. one of his struggles was that he feels that it was to do his duty as he perceived it which was the highest sense of duty which revolves around self sacrifice. he had to be alone in that. that he was agine very solitary person. a very alone person. i don't think he was hard to know, but hard to guess at what he was thinking. tot is a very powerful thing

tell students and other young ofple about the struggle responsibility and the struggle of aloneness. knowing that you are the person who is going to be forever remembered for something you do. i would encourage anybody who teaches history to always be thinking about the stories. not to make them commercialized or cheesy as one of my kids would say. to really talk about those basic human things that others had to face in very stark ways. idea that young people aren't learning history or what ever to the satisfaction of us old people. when have they ever? it was the same weight 100 years ago when i was young and before that. youth is always looking forward.

that is the nature of the beast. at the same time, if we believe today that young people are not learning history and there is a real problem, i think that is on us as historians. to spark their knowledge and understand that this is really important. that's exactly what susan stead -- said. story brings this to life and makes it much more relatable for somebody who thinks how could i learn from that because it happened before i was born? there, iat, going think nothing replaces that. maybe i am biased because i don't see this problem that i hear bandied around out there. my students tend to be excited about history and i think that is great. it's not because of me. it's because of the human story. to regardlessate

of age. as for legacies, i tend to think eisenhower's legacy is one of moderation. of disinterested patriotism. one of the reasons he becomes president is because he did not want to be. is that going to happen again anytime soon? [laughter] he was the last general president we had. is that a good or bad thing? i don't know. eisenhower, to sum up in a couple of words, those are the things that come to mind. accountability. the famous note he writes for himself on the eve of d-day. all of those kinds of things are major lesson learners. ought to someone who be studied in perpetuity, i would agree. also someone who is fascinating, absolutely. >> it is difficult to speak to

this. in my case, i have had a lot of myng people work for me on eisenhower legacy project. everyone of them at the end of whether we have the program done or it is the end of the quarter verynterns, they go out as dedicated eisenhower fans. they are basically listening and or outg in the studio looking at archive footage and so on. because in the. of 1941 to 1961, eisenhower was at a pivotal point, the eisenhower era. in anis presented

interesting way, and they have a teacher like me hanging around to answer specific questions, that it is very teachable. and a newt broken assistant editor maybe 30 years old. it in frontgetting of them and getting them to focus on it, they can easily identify the qualities in eisenhower. it is not difficult. know my older daughter called me about a year ago and she said joshua wants to study history integer fault. [laughter] both she and her husband are number crunchers.

the whole idea of joshua going off somewhere to major in history is appalling to her. i use that as an example because success is my view. on the other hand, the granddaughter who lives in andon goes to normandy doesn't go to the beaches. she is there to study culture and cooking. which i thought was appalling. [laughter] i still go back to those textbooks and the messengers, the teachers in the classroom and so on. that takes you back to teacher education. i don't think we do a very good of making history exciting

and essential. i have a facebook page. every time i can repost something, this is why history is important is my comment. thank you. >> as much as it bothered me to disagree a little bit with john, i will say this. it is true the younger generation is always looking ahead and they don't need older people telling them what's what. i do think there is a problem in history education generally. one culprit is that perception that i found nvidia's that the purpose of the education is to make money.

you see this stated expressly in college promotional materials. our students get better jobs and make more money. thetem -- and perception is that studying history will not help you get a job. it will not make you a rich man. we are all evidence of that. [laughter] is one. the other one to a certain extent is the internet. not for all of the usual reasons that you assume when you have just groaned. think ina tendency to teaching history, it is not necessary to teach things because you can just look those up. need to know that. what i need is a broad

understanding of the way human beings have tended to interact butthat is all to the good you also have to have a context in which those things took place. that is what i think is absent from the collective memory. not just of young people but of everyone. there is my little sermon to end of the day. >> thank you to our panelists. [applause] >> american history tv is on c-span3 every weekend featuring museum tours, films, and programs on the presidency. civil war and more. here is a clip from a recent program. in 1952, 2 nations joined the alliance. turkey and greece. recent storm centers of

communist russian threats. in 1955, the federal republic of germany joined nato. eisenhower said farewell and ridgeway succeeded him. grantor. and another. each manned by his presence and by his uniform reasserting america's commitment for the defense of europe. to learn to act and plan together, colonels and captains went back to school. to learn to work together, men and women of the alliance learned a common language. >> you can