up next on american history tv. military historian jeremy black dates the origins of the cold war back to world war one. he challenges some general narratives about the conflict. during his top, mr. black focuses on the role of dwight the eisenhower both as a military man and president.

the new york historical society hosted this event. it is an hour and 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming out on a wet morning. i will try to do my best to warm us all up with solace. what i want to try and do is to use eisenhower to look at the cold war and look at use the cold war to look at eisenhower. there were periods of time that caused conflict. the 1950's of the united states are the eisenhower years. these are the years in which represent a high point, that the only high point, but a high point for the cold war.

these are the years that represent a high point of the cold war. thinking about the cold war i'm thinking about the united states. it is one of bearing in mind that the legacy of the cold war was much. speaking about the cold war and thinking about the united states, it is worth bearing in mind that the legacy, the history of the cold war was one of much of america's 20th century. the only time american forces actually fought soviet forces was not during the time you think of the cold war, 1945 through 1947 or 1948, running up to 1989, because the cold war actually begin in 1917. indeed, much of eisenhower's life over the army which served with him and the american political society was framed by the fact that america was one of the coalition of powers that went to war with the communist and the russians, that the idea that russia represented,

communism, represented in ideological challenge to the united states and the challenge of american interests begins in the late 1910's. in many respects, what we call the cold war is in part the directly. p brown told me about his position that the soviet union in the beginning of the 70's which they would deny the decrying of united states on the basis of the united states'actions in the late 1910's. that is when american soldiers were fighting with communist. let's look back at the cold war. it starts and characterizes the second world war is an

interlude, an interlude that is formative for american history, but an interlude and what happens in the late 1940's is the resumption of usual services, the resumption of conflict and tension between the soviet union and the united states, and the eisenhower generation, that was their way of thinking about it. americans went into the russian civil war as part of the 14 nation coalition. the great powers, the powers in particular that defeated germany in world war i regarded the war with russian bolshevism -- all bolsheviks, that they regarded this as a continuation of world war i.

lenin had been encouraged, they put them on the train that went to st. petersburg. in many senses, western forces allied with a treaty in 1918 and was a background for the german attack on the western front in 1918, the new agreement. some people who were geopolitical thinkers, strategic thinkers, of course, you must bear in mind that eisenhower's background with world war ii is he was in the army planning division of war. the actual danger, the most important strategic danger confronting the west was the idea of the combination of germany in the soviet union. again, not a surprise. a historian writing in 1904 emphasized the threat posed by possible german-russian

coalitions and indeed, this seemed to be the key element. the allies go into russia and it does not work. they are, as we often see, if you intervene on behalf of a weak force and the russians were weak and an unpopular force, it does not bring you any success just because you apply strong military. the actual intervention did contain soviet expansion. as a result of the intervention, finland, latvia, lithuania and estonia escaped the embrace of the soviet union, and as a result of the intervention by the french, poland pushes out and defeats a russian invasion in 1920 and the soviet plan, which had been to use the revolution for a rapid takeover of europe, fails. america, in terms of the isolationist direction in

1920's, the russian civil war is forgotten. president such as harding, coolidge,, indeed, also roosevelt, are not tremendously interested in the outside world which creates a problem in the geopolitics in the world. the efforts to contain the soviet communism and expansion in the 1920's and 1930's is formed by surviving western democracies that have been part of the coalition. the reason americans don't tend to think of the cold war as in the 1930's and 1940's was because th were not anctive part in it. the americans were interested in restraining radicalism in their backyard.

they try to deal with what they see as left wing peasants being stirred up by the soviets. the american army in 1919 had drawn up plans called plan white motivated by strikes in seattle because of a shipment of arms. it is worth bearing in mind that there were some americans who will tell you that vietnam was a uniqu experience, that vietnam so beside it, but that is complete rubbish. vietnam was actually a toytown. into war, you have the western powers, particularly, particularly britain imprint -- france playing the role in restraining russian expansionism. this is one of the factors that encourages hitler. the ultimate revisionist, the

man who wishes to completely tear up the world order. both he and stalin are leaders who are anti democratic and opposed to liberal societies and western capitalism. they find common interest, in combining in 1939 despite their diverging ideologies. at the end of world war one win the old kingdoms had collapsed because poland, lithuania, latvia, estonia, either fall victim to germany or the soviet union. you get the power block that had been intensely feared by western commentators. germany and the soviet union

our allies and because of this britain's plan to beat them using a block it would not work because the russians are providing germany with food oil and supplies. germany is also allied to japan. so there is a lead, a basis, a coalition that is truly a frightening proportions. nobody knows what that is going to lead to. what it appears to lead to in 1940 is the core laps of the world order. in 1940, remember eisenhower to give you the background, is born in -- eisenhower's born in 1890 in texas and goes up in kansas. goes into the army and reaches the top of his class at west point. eisenhower saw less military

service than a man like truman. he goes into training, which is very important, but it's different to what most people had done in world war one. in the 19 twenties and thirties he spends a lot of time on the staff in one of the most active of american military commands. for a while he is number two under mcarthur. then his -- he is a very talented man and this very well in general staff college and is put in the division of american army more planning. for the army, like for the navy, there's no air force at this point, what goes completely wrong is not pearl harbor. the situation has already collapsed prior to that. what goes totally wrong is 1940. 1940 in many senses is the cataclysm for american foreign policy and strategy and geopolitics. they had all been dreading this. in a sense, they had done very

little because of their political passed to prepare for this. that of course is the collapse of france in the near collapse of britain. this is very frightening for the americans. because what it means, and into peers obvious that britain is either going to collapse or negotiate a peace settlement with the germans because they're offering good terms. what this means is essentially the united states is going to be on its own. at that point, the situation is quite troubling. the german naval staff, there's an amazing book about this from a scholar in florida, the german naval staff which is being built up to be ready for a major war with united states in 1944. the german naval staff is planning the projection of german military power into the

pacific sphere. it is planning bases in the exhorts, the canaries, cape rudy islands and the americans get very worried. if you go to this day, there's a museum near norfolk virginia which has the fire plans for the enormous guns the americans installed in 1914 and 41 on the eastern shore of the chesapeake. railway guns. the recoil would take them on the railroad lines and they are designed to stop this mark if they tried to attack the american atlantic fleet at norfolk. as a result of the military planning, one of the most important pieces of legislation to come through congress and the 20th century, the two nations act --

oceans act. obviously the french navy is now out of the equation, italy on top of that has entered with the axis, britain's navy is already taking a pummeling and it is assumed that the british aren't finished. the assumption is that the british are out of the equation. -- . ,. this is a formidable program, a program that incidentally comes on tap really in 1943 in 1944, the enormous naval conglomerates which enables the americas to do a tacitly well, because to build a big ship

takes a long time. the american military is preparing for a really difficult scenario. counterfactual's play a role, hitler, as it were, how should one describe it? hitler, who is essentially a man, i might use the term "mad" but that would be unfair on the insane. [laughter] mr. black: the problem is his brutal ideas of the racial recasting of the world. he also attacks the soviet union. people sometimes say to it is terrible mistake to attack the soviet union. the poles did it in napoleon did it. the attack on the soviet union

destroys the cohesion of the block he formed, and by that very act wea kens the opposition to the united states. eisenhower comes into the picture, because having drawn up the army plans, they had initially included prospects of the means to invade western europe because it had been dominated by the germans. his navy calls for american forces in europe and he is responsible for the torch innovation of africa in 1942 and he is in charge of the american operations and he has been transferred to prepare for the invasion of western europe. this is where we are in 1944. d-day has succeeded. eisenhower by 1944 is actually america's leading general as it were in the field. he is not actually personally the patton or bradley role.

as you can see, all ready by then, you are getting the configuration of the cold war building up because at the very same time that the allies are having invaded france and moving toward germany, soviet forces are making rapid progress in eastern europe. what is interesting, and this is an aspect of a very notable aspect of the allied case of world war ii is the military, the american military, the british military and indeed the soviet military play a very little role in the actual policy making at this stage, and in a way what is interesting is the military respect folllow the constitutional norms. the contrast is noticeable with japan were there is a military government. tojo is the military government comes in. in germany, some of the the

generals tried to overthrow hitler in 1944, but unfortunately they make a bad job of it. nonetheless, what you are actually have in the case of germany and japan is the interaction of the military leadership and politics playing a big role. eisenhower has no real views in the sense that he does what he is told on the strategic quest, as you know if you look at the maps, the enormous route between the american and british policy makers on whether they should invade the balkans, whether they should land on the coast of yugoslavia and move into hungary and austria in order to preempt the soviet advance. they were convinced what we

call the cold war, the confrontation with the soviet union, he was convinced it would start all over again, and indeed by late 1944, british troops had sent troops with communist try to take over the government. roosevelt thinks this is totally appalling. churchill, secretary of state during the russian civil war was actually taking a key role, but not very successfully. he sees himself as taking part in the same role. ultimately, the americans taking thee a benign view of stolen. -- stalin. he tricks and repeatedly over the fate of poland, which was the major issue. this map is rapidly transformed into a map in which soviet forces are in control in eastern europe, and again, that

background is not really surprising, he communist governments are in power. -- the communist governments are in power. eisenhower has become the army chief of staff. as army chief of staff he has to respond to the situation. he is in a very difficult position. the american public want to have the troops back home. the troops have signed up for the duration, volunteered for the duration, and there is an enormous demobilization of the american military immediately after the war. the number of divisions falls rapidly, the number of warships

falls rapidly and this is encourage by new military technology because the new technology, the atom bomb was dropped in japan in 1945, improved america could actually ensure its interest in a very inexpensive way, and i suppose one of the keys to american policymaking in the entire period of 1945 on word is the americans -- onward wish to have a great power inexpensively. they used to refer to american policy is cheap, but the point is the american public did not want to fundamentally change the living standards and fund the alteration of their

constitution to match the situation of being repaired for world war iii. no one asked the soviet population what they wanted, so it is just as well not to. stalin goes on to hand his executions right up to the end in 1953. eisenhower is in charge of the army, of an army that is demobilizing, in are bemy there is no equivalent to the revolt of the admirals in the navy, the navy's real fury in the late 1940's to make way for the strategic air command. eisenhower thinks this is a similar scenario and he himself leaves the military and he comes to new york, actually becomes president of columbia university. he comes to new york and he leads both the political world and the military late 1940's.

1948, the soviet takeover check is a nokia. -- czechoslovakia. combined with the fact that the british and the french have been pressing the americans to take over security roles and combined with the berlin blockade, the attempt by the soviets to drive western forces out of berlin, it leads to the americans to determine to take a more active role in international relations and specifically to the formation of nato in 1949. that is significant because it brings with it an american guarantee of security of western europe and the guarantee which is substantiated by the deployment of troops. t bf that, eisenhower gets a new role, becomes the first

military commander of nato forces and his buyable viable job is to make these forces corporal and draw up plans for war, for how to conduct war in the conflict of the soviet union. not easy at all because you are dealing with so many variables that have been increased because the soviets have exploded nuclear devices. they in practical terms have not weaponized easily.

you can relatively easy make an atom bomb and turn it into a weapon you can use. what is clear is the american monopoly of nuclear weapons has ended and is ending, that the american monopoly of delivery systems is going to end very rapidly. the soviet is building long rage bombers -- range bombers. the question is, what to do about this? eisenhower, in his last years spends a lot of time on military planning. he has opportunities to see the deficiencies, problems and opportunities posed by politics. eisenhower is a brilliant political general. the korean war is a coalition war because it is the united nations only, there are americans there, but there are also a lot of other people, the british, people from a whole host of other countries. macarthur really tees these people off. what every country does,

explains its own history in its own terms, what americans do not realize, one of the reasons macarthur had to go was because truman was told it was impossible for british troops to serve under his control. because there cannot run coalition all warfare or eisenhower was brilliant. he understood the opportunities provided by a large number of troops in western europe, who even as they are fighting quality could be relied upon to do something to oppose the soviets, but also the problems posed that these other countries have different political roles, particularly the tension he will see in the suez crisis of 1956, eisenhower's anger of british and french going to war with egypt is already there.

he is already, like most policymakers, angry with the british and french because they are devoting so much of their sources -- resources to maintain their authority in their colonies. as far as eisenhower and american policymakers are concerned, this is not the way to confront communism, etc. there is already that tension. it is not my job to talk to you about geopolitics. one has to be careful when coming to this country. your president is going to come to my country and tell us we have to stay in the european union. [laughter] mr. black: you think about it if the british prime minister was to come to america until you you all needed to give up guns. you would be very offended. eisenhower he comes the republican candidate in a very interesting fashion.

he is the only former general to become president in the 20th century. it had been a common practice prior to that in american history. many american presidents both well-known presidents, people like ulysses s. grant and andrew jackson and georgeas there have been many presidents who have been generals, no fewer than four union generals before the civil war to become president. this practice was gone. result had a military background that his military background has and not that of being a general -- is that of a

civil servant politician in the navy and not in admirable. it is rather interesting to imagine what he would've been like as this. the idea of having a general as president did not seem that implausible to people at the end of the 1940's and beginning of the 1950's. america had fought the war with a civilian mail population, many of them