we are so thrilled to be back open and be able to have world-class authors and all

around great human beings like craig back on our campus. i think most of us know that he is one of the definitive biographers on ronald reagan. in fact, the london telegraph hailed him as the best of the reagan biographers. but, he has proven through books like -- in 1941 that he is also one of the best historian authors out there. speaking of which, as i am sure you all know he is here tonight to talk about april 1945. his much awaited look to the previously mentioned december 1941. for me, the book could not have come at a better time, the reagan library's next special exposition is called the secrets of world war ii and it opens on april 2nd. it is a collection of hundreds of artifacts from museums and private collections, never before seen together in order to tell compelling stories of technological advancement, creative problem solving, an incredible human persistence under the backdrop of the world's largest and most destructive war in history. i quickly dug into craig's book, refresh my memory on the end of the war, and found insight on what was going on around the

world in those final few months. what i quickly found was a history book that read like a novel. a book that covered the war and what soldiers were encountering just as much as a book that was covering what happened in the home front and abroad. whatever citizens were seeing, doing, and even wearing, it is a fascinating look into that arab our history. while preparing for our world war ii exhibition i have had the distinct honor and privilege to interview a handful of world war ii veterans. heroes, all. we also need to speak with some historians to help find context for our gallery videos of what is veterans videos will be played. thankfully, we set up an interview with craig. which we actually conducted right for this event tonight. so, if you do come back to see our world war ii exhibition, not only will you see in the interviews with our veterans playing in the galleries, you will see our interview with craig. craig is an informative and entertaining walking encyclopedia on world war ii. which makes me even more excited to bring him up here to discuss his book. let's get started, ladies and

gentlemen, craig shirley. >> thank you. >> of course. >> so, i mentioned to craig before this started that reading this book led to like 93,000 questions that i know we are not going to have time for. i want to make sure we have time for your questions as well. we will try to get through some of these and if we do not get to one that you want to hear we will take questions at the end. so, as i mentioned you have a book on newt gingrich, books on ronald reagan, you have books on mary washington. you have a book on 1941. and, now you have a book on 1945. why did you not just write a book about world war ii as a whole? >> that is a good question. i do not know if i know the answer. it was inspiration one day. i had this inspiration one day that there have been many books written about world war ii. there have been many books written about december 7th

1941. -- is the standard by which every other book has measured. it is an absolutely marvelous book. nobody had ever written, to my knowledge, a book about the domestic side of what was going on in the united states during the month of december, and how it radically changed because we changed completely. we changed governmentally, economically politically, culturally. we changed every which way because of that month. and, so, i pitch the idea to my publisher. they liked the idea very much, i wrote it and took three or four years to write it, we came out to good reviews and a new york times bestseller. i did not have a plan to write april 1945 after it. it was not part of my plan to write a companion book because in the intervening time in the next ten years i wrote

several reagan books, citizen newt, mary bell washington. a lot of op-eds and things. but it was just an inspiration that came to me in april of the 1945 is just packed with history, every day is a red letter day and that was what's, after thinking about it i realized nobody had written a book about that monumental month. >> that leads perfectly into my next question, i mentioned this to you upstairs before we came down here, you covered there is a chapter on january, march, april, and beyond. more so in january than the other months you are literally saying in january of 1945 here are all of the things happening in the united states and the world. here's what's happening on january 2nd, january 3rd, how do you determine what you are going to cover? >> i don't know, when i get up

in the morning i drive -- crazy. she says why aren't you writing, why aren't you writing and i say i am running, i am writing in my head. i am thinking about it. i'm thinking about it. when i sit down at my computer than it all, like raymond chandler said you just throw up. that is what i do, i let it all out into my laptop, and write it that way, what was the question? >> how do you choose which of these events each day to write about? >> i have a list, i have a yellow memo pad with a list of about 25 books i want to write. it goes ever longer and the list, i am going to expire long before the list does. writing the book about maribel washington really got me interested in the 18th century so now i want to write something. something about morristown, not about valley forge, it was an encampment by the revolutionary army. it was actually far worse than valley forge, this has not been explored enough so i am

thinking about writing a book about that. but, i am also thinking of writing a book about beau jangles. i had that idea from bill robinson, my father when he was a little boy used to go to new york city for the st. patrick's day parade. bill robinson would tap dance down fifth avenue in the parade, that always gave me goose bumps, and he was like that. and then, this song, it got me to the nitty-gritty dirt band, i've had it in the back of my mind for a long time. nobody has ever done a book about bill robinson. that is in the back of my mind. so, i am going to write more reagan books, i am working on it two right now, one i'm editing and one i'm writing. then i am going to write a book about donald trump, my dance card is pretty full. >> i can't remember to brush my

teeth, i do not know how you do all of that. going into the january chapter just because it struck me interestingly. you are going through each day and talking about christmas of 44 leading into january 45, christmas of 44 was christmas sales shopping. spiked by 17%. and you are talking about the different months you're talking about which make up women are wearing, were americans not as concerned about what was going on in the world and the war? >> now, they were very concerned, this nation has always been divided, historians will tell you that during the american revolution as many as 30% of the american people were actually opposed to the revolution, we were not unified at all. as a matter of fact, after the revolution, something like 100,000 people left after the revolution because they did not want to live in the

articles of confederation. they went to british canada, they went back to great britain, that right there is a book, right there. about 100,000 people leaving, the civil war certainly was an emancipation of our divisions. the only time in united states history where we have been totally united is the afternoon of december 7th 1941, for several months after september 11th. but, even then that did not last. we are defined by our divisions, we have always have been divided. we are defined by the vietnam war we are divided by women's rights, civil rights, the environment, we are divided about everything and then we form consensus. that is the brilliance of the american system of government. >> so this is a two part question. yoou know, reading this book, of course i think we all are aware of what was going on in germany. the holocaust, hitler, the nazis. i think, and maybe am i just naive but i forgot about the totality of

japan. in your book you are talking about how they would throw a babies on bayonet's for fun. two part questions, what made it about that era and these leaders that made it acceptable behavior that the countries could get behind? what was it about the japanese cruelty? i was shocked by it. >> i don't know how you explain evilness, i do not know how rational people explain evil-ness, it existed and exists today and the world. the japanese, first of all, there was a shogunate culture, a very national culture that had grown up over japan in the 20s and 30s. that led them to want to create a militaristic government. you know, hirohito, taking over parts of china and what led to the december 7th,

they wanted to take complete control over the central and western, without any interference from the united states. they were absolutely horrible, there was a story in the book about a pacific island, about polynesians. they were peaceful, peace-loving natives, and they were thought to be sympathetic to america, so the japanese knew this and they went in one day and machine gunned everybody on the island. just blew them away, just blew them away. they had a grlup of american navy pows. in the shogunate culture you have to understand that in the worst form of humiliation is that one man can imprison another man. if one man can imprison another man then he is not worthy, he is worthless. they had this attitude with the american pows. for instance, they had a group of american navy pows. they marched out, made them dig

a trench in the sand, marched out and then covered, poured gasoline on them and then burned burned them to death. the reason it was verified is that some escapes and go back to mccarthur's forces untold detail about them being burned to death. but, that was not unusual for that japanese culture, the japanese government at the time. they did not have the regard for life that americans did, for instance, i say for instance a lot, i am sorry. if a japanese pilot was downed in the pacific, the japanese navy would not pick them u, p they would just let him drown. if an american pilot was down in the pacific he was picked up as soon as humanly possible. they had a much different regard for human life than we did in 1945. >> speaking about cruelty and nazis, i was glad your book did not just talk about the cruelty

of the nazis but also talked about the insanity of hitler, if i can use the word insanity. when it was march and april of 1945 and it was clear that the allies were going to win the war, did hitler really still think he was going to win? was that propaganda? >> yes, he was crazy anyway, let's say it, he was crazy. we had actually done with the predecessor to the cia, the oss had done the psychological approach. they hired a harvard psychologist to do a psychological profile of a lawful or. i talk about in the book, all of the problems, all of the problems of this man. what led him to be the monster that he was, is that right till the better and he believes his own propaganda. all the other nazi bosses, the leaders, all

believed their own propaganda. even patton's army was advancing, the third army, the soviet army was advancing to the east. they were doing things, cutting off food supplies for civilians, they were cutting off communications for civilians, they were taking it out on civilians. they were taking from civilians and given to the military to stave off the inevitable. but hitler, right to the end, believed his own lies. >> one of the things i read in your book that i did not know, speaking of hitler, is somewhere in here it said that he was considering surrendering because he thought surrendering would help lead to world war iii. can you talk about that? >> there was a great debate among churchill and stalin and fdr, whether or not we would accept surrender from nazi germany or whether we wanted unconditional surrender. we

wanted them to -- we wanted war trials. we wanted punishment meted out to these thugs who were creating this war in the first place. so, churchill was for unconditional war, unconditional surrender, whereas stalin was for unconditional surrender. but, there were people around, franklin roosevelt who were just for surrender. not unconditional, let's just get it over with. let's end it, the war is won. let them stay in power, there were others -- eisenhower, for instance, wanted hitler deposed and put on trial with all of the other nazi thugs. >> which leads perfectly into my next question. fdr was our first and only four time president, i am actually going to read this. he was a president that ronald reagan once called a american giant, a leader who shaped, inspired, and let our people through

perilous times. how critical was fdr's four terms in america's stance involved in the victory of the war? >> all encompassing, all encompassing. john patrick dickens was an historian who has passed away a couple of years ago, a friend of mine. he was actually part of the free speech movement at berkeley and actually did battle with then governor reagan over campus protests. but later, this liberal became an admirer of ronald reagan. he wrote a book called ronald reagan -- faith, freedom and the making of history. in this book this liberal professor says that our four greatest presidents are george washington, abraham lincoln, franklin roosevelt, and ronald reagan. because, and he makes the academic case because they freed or saved many, many people. that was the criteria for greatness. does a president actually affect the outcome of for the betterment

of many, many people? and i think his criteria is pretty good. and so, fdr although he failed with the great depression, unemployment in 1939 was the same as it was in 1933, but at least he gave the american people help. he gave the american people hope and that was very, very important. he was a capitalist, he wasn't a committed socialist or something like that. but, he was willing to try whatever worked. the wpa, the conservative, the conservation corps, or other new deal programs. but where he was really, really masterful was as a war leader. because he didn't interfere. reagan, i think reagan, i have not researched enough but reagan believed the way to a simpler government is surrounding yourself with good people and let them do their jobs. fdr had that same approach towards the war, and if you think about it, all of the brilliant man who we had

serving in wartimemhe had eisenhower, he had nimitz, he had king, he had patton, marshall, mcarthur. he had so many others, omar bradley. superb military leaders. he did not interfere. he would meet with them, he would ask questions for them. but, he did not interfere. he let them conduct the war in the way they saw fit. that was his real brilliance in conducting the war of world war ii. you know, he was, for all intents and purposes, he was not just president of the states during world war ii. he was president of the world. we were not only supplying u.s. servicemen, we were supplying the british servicemen and we were supplying the soviet servicemen. we were sending them foodstuffs, material, uniforms, whatever they needed, we were supplying them. so, he was running a global war. he

was coming as the varsity operator, churchill and stalin were junior varsity. i know that stolen conducted a brilliant, not brilliant but a massive campaign from the east. many, many russians died as a result, but still, in terms of supply and command he was still a junior varsity operator compared to roosevelt. excuse me. >> it is funny, you just said roosevelt was president of the world, which was literally my next question. i said in my question, you called him in your book the president of the world, so when he passed away, when he died, it was earth shattering to the world. >> my mother, god bless her, she is still alive, she is 89. she grew up in the 30s, she like many other american children thought we only had three presidents. she thought washington, lincoln, and franklin roosevelt. that is

what she thought. and there was no explanation for succession when he died. there was no explanation for the vice president, truman becomes president now. there was no explanation to her that she could understand. she was a young teenager. but -- is that fdr, when fdr died flags in moscow were hung at half staff. it was a world shaking event. people just couldn't believe it. of course, you know it is tragic, as well. i mean, obviously death is always tragic. he was only 63 years old. he was carrying the burdens of the world. he was obviously stricken with polio so that had to affect him healthwise, including his circulation. he was a good eater but he did not eat healthy foods. he ate a lot of

butter and bread and fatty foods, things like that. he had his fivesies. every day at 5:00 he would make himself a manhattan or an old-fashioned those were his favorite drinks. he was, not drinking heavily, but enough to cause damage. he smoked two or three packs a day, his filterless luckies. that's death on a wheel. and all the burdens of the government, and the war, he had four sons in the military. all in combat. all in danger zones. he's got a wife who, wasn't henpecking him but, i have great admiration for eleanor roosevelt. i think she obviously modernized the office of the first lady, but she was also a very good person, i think. but she had her agenda. and so he had to deal

with that. he's dealing with his family, he's dealing with his staff, congress, a recalcitrant congress. they didn't low -- go into lockstep. they often opposed him. it's understandable in a way, with diet and everything else, and the stress, why he passed away at age 63. but it was unbelievable. it was one of those things, and i'll shut up, but it was one of those things where people know where they were when they heard it. i know where i was. november 22nd, 1963. i know where i was on september 11th. i wasn't alive on december 7th, but my parents were, and they knew where they were when they heard about december 7th. and fdr's passing, everyone knew where they were and what they were doing when

he died. >> so you just messenger and your respect for eleanor roosevelt. what was her impact on the war and the american home front as a whole? >> well, she was the head of several different government agencies. but she was more than that. she was a one woman industrial complex. i mean, she was writing her daily column called my day, she was doing radio broadcasts every week. she was doing morale and promotional tours, u.s. camps, overseas and in the united states. she was also tending to her family affairs. she was -- there wasn't anything that she wasn't doing. she truly modernized the office of first lady. but, she did so with a lot of grace and charm. let's face it, she had a rough marriage, he always trusted her. she always said he -- he always said she was her best adviser. but his affair with lucy rutherford mercer, obviously caused great damage

to the marriage. and i can't -- there is no written history on her binding out about franklin's, fdr's, passing away. he almost literally passed away in the arms of his lover. and no one knew if he consummated it, in any shape or form. but he was in the little white house in georgia. and his daughter -- anyway, i'll think of, it it'll come to me. [laughs] i'm having a senior moment -- but his daughter, anna, had surreptitiously arranged for lucie rutherford mercer to visit franklin roosevelt in the little white house behind her own mother's back. you know, there's no

written -- when fdr died, everyone knew that he was with his lover, including, obviously, eleanor. but there is no history on eleanor's reaction to that. she obviously had neen very, very distraught but, like the classy woman she was, she flew down to the little white house, she rode the train back, which president reagan used to use, and she went to the funeral on high park. and she never, ever, betrayed her loyalty to her husband. and that's just one reason why i do admire her. >> you touched on this a couple answers ago, but can you talk about the big three? churchill, roosevelt, and stalin, and how critical they were to ending world war ii? >> sure. churchill was one of the greatest inspirational speakers of the 20th century. and the british people needed his inspirational leadership. maybe there is a time and place for men, and maybe he wasn't

right for the position in the earlier era, but he was perfect for the position in 1941, and 1939, actually, when germany attacked poland. no man -- i know i'm trying to think, the phrases of history, about the right man at the right time doing the right job. but he was the quintessential right man for the right job. and he and roosevelt were very good friends. he said that -- he said, meeting fdr was like opening a bottle of champagne. he said fdr was one of his best friends. they were very, they were getting along, he came and visited fdr several times during the war, in the white house. they got along very well. stalin was an outlier.

because of politics and because of his personal behavior. and it was obviously off putting to both fdr and truman. fdr did allow stalin to gobble up parts of eastern europe in the warsaw pact countries, and yalta. he also was interesting, i always wondered why they went along with it -- yalta was a falling down vacation home for the russian czars. and when the communists came to power, they chose it as the site of this important meeting, to decide what to do with the world after the war. how do we divide the world? how do we handle the world? how do we manage the world? they had this area to

really run, this country, that country, whatever. but yalta had bad food, it was cold, it was bad, it was falling down, the bedding was bad, all of this. fdr has to travel 12,000 miles there, and churchill has to -- travel a few thousand miles. but it was just a few thousand -- it was just a hike down the street for stalin. and he was the junior member. when you have the big three, why don't you have this in miami beach, you know? why they had it in yalta, no one has ever explained that to me. and it took a toll. that traveling took a toll on fdr, as well. >> how do you think president truman handled the end of the war? >> he always said in his diaries he had no regrets. he never looked back on dropping the bomb on hiroshima and

nagasaki. he believed that in order to save millions, thousands had to die. i wish, my personal perspective is i wish he had demonstrated the power of the bomb first, tojo and hirohito, like, in an open water test, tokyo bay or something, so you witness it, and see what damage it would cause. i wish he had done that first. but he had never looked back. and his appointment of eisenhower as supreme commander, eisenhower developed these spheres of influence, so the soviets have this sphere, americans have this sphere, it made a mess. in fact, the

province of today, i memorized it. but on the other hand, douglas mcarthur's trip of japan was brilliant. he should've won the nobel peace prize. he literally rebuilt society, the culture, the government, without any violent overthrow or backlash or anything like that. he took over a country that was bombed out. we had bombed it. the country was just destroyed. he took it over and rebuilt the whole saying made it into a peaceful and democratic country, a constitutional democracy. that appointment by churchill by truman was a very good one for what mcarthur did. >> in 1945 as concentration camps were being liberated, what was the overall feeling for america another ally countries when they saw the horror and devastation of what was in these camps? >> what is interesting is that some of the major newspapers started in april of 45, started

with these discovered death camps. and by the way, it is that when you think of it we thinkof treblinka, of auschwitz or something there were dozens of nazi death camps all over europe, poland, hungary, germany, there were dozens of them. it was not just the big ones the ones to get the notoriety there were little ones as well. americans were so world weary after it. it was a crime so big and monstrous a lot of people didn't believe it they just did not have enough information. they just couldn't comprehend it. a major newspaper from before such as the new york times reported on the discovery of auschwitz but never reported that it was jews that were being killed at auschwitz. that all came much later. why the new york times

did that, and also the washington post it as well. these camps were being discovered and they never reported that it was -- the reported that people were being murdered, carnage was happening, but they never reported it was jews, homosexuals or gypsies, or poles or russians that were being monstrously murdered in this camps. >> when news breaks pretty close to one another that mussolini is being executed and hitler has committed suicide, do people believe this? >> yes, well in the united states for a period we believed, during the 30s and during the war hitler had a dog that looked just like him. >> like elvis pressley? >> so we bought that. but, when it was confirmed that it was,

we knew we were invading berlin and wiping out berlin, we knew the bunker we knew his days were numbered we took it obfiously it was a great and wonderful thing that he had committed suicide, we took it in stride, we took a lot of things in stride because the war had worn down, in a way, the american people, although i did create the united nations and we became forever an internationalist country after world war ii. you think about it today if russia was invading ukraine in the 1930s we would not have given it a second thought. it is only the legacy of world war ii that we care about it. even though we do not have it we there's not a demonstrable american stake in

the ukraine, but, we are moving towards possible conflict there, that is a legacy of world war ii. >> my final question will be one that i asked you when we were doing this pre interview upstairs, i really liked your answer. i realize the absurdity of this question, why should we care about world war ii? why should we still study world war ii? >> there are tremendous a member of reasons, there are lots of quotes, about reasons to study history, we either study history or we will repeat it. i cannot member his name, a harvard professor. anyway, we should study history for many, many reasons. first of all, it is fun, second of all we learn not to make the same mistakes over. for instance, i will give an example of a mistake we have made over again and why biden

didn't study, unfortunately didn't study history. but in 1979 jimmy carter was doing an interview. he was asked if afghanistan was part of our defensive premised her and he said no. within months the soviets invaded afghanistan. joe biden a couple of months ago was asked about our interest, was asked about ukraine. he said a little invasion is okay, so i'm paraphrasing here, something like that. anyway, he telegraphed to putin that he could make the move without cause for concern. and so, now he said he backtracked on the previous thing. imagine if he had been more careful with his words how this might not have happened. that is a good example, as good an example as anything i can think of about when we study history to to learn from it. you know, it gives us a sense of dignity, a

sense of purpose, it gives us a sense of where we belong. we need to know why for instance, in the second continental congress when they were working on the constitution is that the first man. everybody knows about freedom of speech, freedom a religion. but jammed in there is freedom of the press. it does not really fit but it is in there. not because the founders liked the tabloids of the time. they hated them, they despised them. but they saw the newspapers as a valuable ally of the american people against the government. and so, it is important that we know why we have freedom of press in this country today. >> that is great i have 93,000

more questions but if there are questions from the audience i will continue to ask. but if you have any questions we're just ask that you raise your hand. we are recording this so it is important that we bring the microphone to you before you ask your question. if you have a question, feel free to raise your hand. otherwise i will keep asking questions. hold on one second. go ahead. >> what would be, what if the world would have invited russia into nato in the last 25 years? would it be a different world? >> it might be, i am not an expert on world affairs. it might have been. if i had been in the position to invite them and i would have invited them and it is always better to have to deal with the adversary that you know rather than with the adversary you know whether than the one you do not know. i wish you could ask that question but i am not an expert on that type of thing. i think you agree with me, you are nodding your head. so, is the maybe other

things would be better. certainly after the fall of the berlin wall and the advent of the breakaway republics and the warsaw pact. is that i can't mention why, obviously it is politics, obviously people were against it but bringing people into top is always better to negotiate peacefully rather thanbeing sent into wartime. rather than being sent in wartime. i am sorry i cannot answer that better for you. it is a good question. >> any other questions from anyone? >> so i heard the good news there that you are going to write two more books about ronald reagan. >> yes, yes. >> that is pretty exciting, so can you give us a sneak peek. >> they know that keeping you

off the streets and the pool halls. i am editing a book about reagan and grenada and grenada is significant is significant. it is the beginning of the end of the soviet union, it leads a history from grenada until the fall and the fall of the soviet union. the liberation of the warsaw pact countries, undoing a book on the people on the other side. right like, for instance, picking george bush. he didn't want to pick george bush but he made the most sense at the time, at the detroit convention, to produce a unified ticket. the republican party had been more or less divided since the 1940s. with liberals or moderates and conservatives. we had

eisenhower the moderate and nixon the conservative. or lodge the moderate and nixon the conservative. it continued that program, where they had to reach across, to pick up the unified convention which tends to win with a fall, and conventions tend to lose the vile. they tried to pick richard schweiker, then a senator from pennsylvania, as his running mate in 1976 for the nomination over jones. there is a chapter on this. it tells you about the suppleness and sophistication of reagan's thinking. in 1979, as he's getting ready to run for president one more time, there is an amendment called

proposition six, which is the briggs amendment. and proposition, for him, goes from teaching a public school, to advocating for a gay lifestyle. raegan is a supporter of pro family groups, and he's running for president on this. but this alsoi offends his deeply felt principle about privacy and dignity. raegan was the only major conservative in california to come out against proposition six. in the summer of 1979, it was winning 2 to 1. it lost november by 2 to 1. and john briggs, who was state senator at the time, was going to use this for a vehicle in national office. you saw what anita bryant was doing in dade county, and writing this issue. briggs was asked the day after, my proposition failed. this was

around ronald reagan. briggs never suffered political consequences, fortunately, for him. family groups still supported him running for president. so -- but, every chapter is on briggs, on bush, on schweiker, on the screen actors guild. things like this. >> getting back to the book, in 1945, back in september 1939, stalin and the russians invaded portions of the east as hitler came in from the west. by the time 45 world around, it seemed like stalin was much more powerful in the big three then he had any right to be, not only being the junior member

but being a turncoat. in the beginning of the war he was part of the axis of powers. what do you think by the time 1945 rolled around gave him that got beat with roosevelt and churchill? >> the soviets got a very favorable press in the u.s.. look magazine and life magazine, which went out to millions every week, you can't underestimate their influence. they depicted the soviet union as a workers paradise you know, the moniker uncle joe, was used often by them. so he had very -- even though he was killing millions, with his resettlement programs, and things like that, he got very favorable press in the united states. he had a lot of sympathetic supporters, there were a lot of, you know, it was not -- if you called somebody a communist in the 1930s, it didn't carry the same heavy burden as if you called someone a communist today. i would say we were more open, but we were more an educated

about the collectivism, or the socialist philosophy. and also, it's just that you have the contrast, it's that we have stolen versus hitler. stalin versus mercifully knee. roosevelt versus hitler, roosevelt versus mussolini, tojo. he wins, basically, by default. by comparison. because this guy is way worse than this guy. so i hope that explains it. >> i know there's more questions, we will go back to you, but i had a question that popped into my head. i have to speak with a disparate historian last week, he said something i found interesting. this author, you know,

cobblestoned together, this author said something i thought was interesting. he said, yes, we won the war because of normandy, because of iwo jima, because of the atomic bomb. but we really won the war because of detroit. >> all absolutely. >> and the american factories. can we talk about that? >> yes whoever you talked to is right. maybe he discovered the truth, i don't know. [laughs] but it's that, three weeks, immediately after december 7th, roosevelt tells detroit, you're not going to make any more cars. and we didn't make any new cars for the duration of the war. people had to drive -- i remember my grandfather saying, i bought the lasalle before the war, but i sold it after the war. is that -- the roosevelt administration, nationalized a lot of industries including detroit. he told detroit, he says, you're not making cars anymore. you're going to become the

arsenal of democracy. and interestingly enough, or more accurately, is that three weeks of december 7th, 1941, we were taking fabricated parts from ford auto body, from fisher price, fisher autobody. they were manufacturing be 20 fours and b 20 fives airplanes. that happened all over the country. kelvinator was a company in detroit, women's appliances, you know, for traders. they made mixing bowls, what do you -- you know, cake mixers. things like that. and in a short period of time, now they're making helmets, and propellers for fighter planes.

but it''s like that all over the country, this, this country, this company, whatever, you stop making this thing and start making that thing. >> and the women in the workforce as well. >> oh, yes, yes, yes. yes i told you before. both my grandmothers were rosie the riveters. one was a machine gun inspector. she would stand there, and machine guns would come down the conveyor belt, and she'd pick it up and sheet fire it like this. and she put it down. and the next one would come, she'd pick it up, and fire it. that was her war work. my other grandmother was a bomb inspector. back then, i don't know what a bomb inspector does but she was a bomb inspector. i never got a chance to ask her about that, but i certainly would not want that job. >> that's crazy. >> there were women, it was not unusual at all. in fact, it was very usual for women, during world war ii, to leave the

kitchen and go to the factory floor. they were doing it, and they were also participating too. it's that there's a run down airfield, back through massachusetts. i remember virginia, no longer used, but it used to be a refueling stop for women flying b-24 planes to europe. they'd stop, and fly 3000 miles across the atlantic to deliver b-17s bombers to the servicemen. yeah, it was amazing. it is a time, i doubt we will ever see it again in the industry of this country or of the world. >> we'll go back to the audience. i know there's another handful of hands, who is there any other questions? let's bring the mic from there for a second. >> thank you. to touch on your

point about [noise] >> goodness. >> participating during the war, i know a lot about women playing professional baseball during the time. >> yes that's right. i deal with that in this book too. >> i have not read the book at, but the four months they were off, they came back, like santa monica airport, building planes, doing all this, they all did that. they came from the east to the west coast. vacation time. they had that dedicated military female soldiers, when they were discharged, they became escorts to these teams. they taught women order, discipline, playing volleyball, the women did have a big part in this -- >> yes. again, back to my

[noise] mother, she grew up in the midwest, and she as a child went to see baseball in illinois. so yeah. >> writing this book and researching this book, is there something that surprised even you as you are finding out the different resources? >> a lot, three things right now. first of all, bill buckley is the founder of the national review, he was in the army at the end of world war ii. he was part of the honor guard for franklin roosevelt's funeral. he used his magazine to bash the new deal and fdr for the rest of his life and he was part of the honor guard. the second one, this one should be a movie, is that in -- we had a neighbor of ours back in virginia by the name of dick

snyder. now, dick snyder had a great story enough himself, he was part of the only three class of west point that was rushed out to get into the war. he flew close air support for the d-day invasion. he was shot down, he survived, but he was hidden in a belgian farmer's barn. he was there for about three weeks before german patrols picked him up and he went into a pow camp and he spent the duration of the war in a pow camp. before he left he gave his wife his silk parachute, which silk was highly prized. flash forward 50 years later his wife mary was a surfer of the internet. she is elderly but very proficient with the computer, and she comes across this story about a woman in belgium who was

getting married and is getting married in a silk dress made by her great, great grandmother of the parachute of an american pilot. and every woman in that family going down from the 40s right up to the present had worn that parachute. had worn that parachute made out of that wedding dress. >> that is incredible. >> they said one was how deeply fdr's death affected her, bob dole was in italy and he wrote in his book about american g. i. s in their foxholes, hearing them weeping over fdr's passing. so, his death affected americans very grievously. >> we are almost out of time, i am going to ask one last question and then we will go to the book signing. as i

mentioned in the intro we had the fortune of interviewing a handful of veterans, 99 years young. they are spectacular, a lot of them share of the stories that they were 15, 16, 17, joining the war. one said he joined the navy at the age of 17 to learn how to fly. at the age of 17 he proved to be so proficient he became a trainer andhe was training others how to fly. can we talk about the heroism of these kids? >> the one that comes to mind, obviously, is my uncle. everyone in my family, my family is not unusual, it just gave me a lot of ideas and

inspiration, is that my uncle, oldsworth abbott shirley, his nickname was barney, was shot down and killed on his 20th birthday in january 1955. he enlisted when he was 17, got his parents permission. it was really messed up. about the enlistments, the draft, the ages kept changing and you needed your parents permission and then you didn't. but, at the current when you are 17 you could enlist if you have your parents permission. but, there were obviously a lot younger boys who were saying with a wink to the draft guy were going in to duty as young as 15 years of age. so it was not unusual for the boys to be fighting this war. >> when we are upstairs you shared, i thought it was very great, why they were joining. do you remember what they said? >> sure, i will tell you why they weren't joining. they

weren't joining for the food. it was uniformly mediocre. they weren't joining for the pay because it was lousy. they were weren't joining for the benefits because they were nonexistent. they were joining for the camaraderie, everybody came back and talked about their friends and buddies and things like that that they made in the war. they were definitely enlisting for the patriotism, they wanted to fight and win for their country. >> on that note, we are going to thank craig for coming out tonight. [applause] this is not the book, i am holding a presale. this is the book. if you have not purchased a book yet, please go and buy one in the museum story behind us, we are going to walk out and get situated in the bookstore and then he will be happy to sign a book for each of you. we will hope to see you over there, thank you all for coming.

help others, even if they're annoying to us? [crowds cheering] >> the chances are you have never seen this boy before but