in july, the allies invaded sicily.n led to the overthrow of mussolini's government and italy surrendered soon after. the battle of the atlantic, the campaign to end the german submarine menace in the north atlantic ocean, began to turn in the allies' favor as well they needed. the allies needed to eliminate this threat so they could begin the giant buildup of supplies that would be needed for the invasion on northwest europe. from 1942 to 1944 the allies pondered when, where and how a second front in europe could be opened. this thorny issue caused considerable friction between the big three, as roosevelt, churchill, and stalin each had their own ideas concerning the attack. stalin demanded his allies strike quickly at the heart of hitler's empire in northwestern europe to draw off a portion of the german forces that were attacking the ussr. roosevelt also favored an assault on northwestern europe, but realized it would take time for careful planning and preparation. churchill pushed for a more limited peripheral strat

turkey is an important ally.face sanctions, simple question? i realise that it is recognised by all in nato that the turkish decision to invest in the russian system s—400 creates problems within the alliance and i express my concerns over the consequences of this turkish decision. i welcome these ongoing efforts to try to solve it. i spoke to the president recently about it and all the allies about this issue and we continue to try and find the way to address the issue because the s—400 system will never be part of an integrated nato air and missile system and that's one of the challenges we are facing. a final thought, mr secretary general, a quote from elisabeth braw, thinking carefully about their future. she writes this: "covid—19 is the worst national security crisis to hit any of its member states since the alliance was founded. is this going to be the moment for nato to reassert its central relevance? " is it? yes or no? yes. i think the crisis proves the importance of countries working together and havin

the nato allies on - - trade them but i cannot find a better set of american allies and that leaves you with a choice does the united states challenge everybody better than they do or do we step back that others will step forward? and those who step forward will not do it on the terms we will want them to do it on. and to sustain the large the beneficial environment. >> and one reason why they are stepping out more effectively in response to president trump and you guys need to do more. and by the way if you don't do more now everybody says oh yeah. so now there is a new one sense and with that russian invasion of the european allies. and then to codified of the treaty. and i understand the desire to pay more and then with that effort to article five with that responsibilities that is designed to prevent you are encouraging russia to be far more costly to you are incredibly shortsighted. they have all said you need to pay more but to imply on article five to be shortsighted and contrary to be crash on - - congressionally mandated. >> i agree with that i understand why president trum

can i talk about the allies more broadly. it is within the force of iraq people would say you were our coalition partner and i would say we are not a coalition partner, we are a treaty ally. there is a difference between the allies by treaty that are committed to certain requirements and then those that you aggregate on the ground and one of the points i make in the book is that u.s. dominance poses the abductee shinned challenge for the allies so they want to keep up with the united states but they have the capabilities by the wayside and they've tried to cover a band of these things that keep up but they've got less resources for each individual category. so, part of it is how they learned to fight the best way to start thinking of it as a collection of powers that are individually computing. >> you are not talking only about the military allies. you're also talking about when we have the h battlefield of success, as it is very much in the book, we need to have a way avto translate that into a politicalto success afterwards

in july the allies invaded sicily. the invasion led to the overthrow of mussolini and italy surrendered soon after. the campaign to end the german submarine men as in the ocean began to turn in allies favor as well. they needed to eliminate the threat to begin the giant buildup of men and supplies in great britain needed for the invasion of northwest europe. from 1942 to 1944 the allies pondered when, where and how a second front in europe could be opened. this thorny issue caused considerable friction between the big three as roosevelt, churchill and stalin each had their own ideas concerning the plan of attack. stalin demanded that allies strike quickly in northwestern europe to distract and draw off a portion of the german forces attack the ussr. roosevelt favored an assault on northwestern europe but realized the attack would require time for carefully planning and preparation. there was an attack along the edges of the axis november. not until november 1943, where the allied leaders were able to agree to a spring

the allies began to tighten the vice. by 1945, time was running out for the german and japanese forces. the year before they had pushed deep into japan's pacific empire by autumn of 1944 the liberation of the fiphilippines was underw and they began a campaign against japanese cities. marines landed on the island of iwo iwojima. america was in a position to begin the end game in the war against japan and germany. franklin roosevelt lived long enough to know that victory was assured but the morning of april 12th, 1945 as world war ii entered it's 2,000 51st day he woke in his cottage in georgia worn down by heart disease and stresses of wartime leadership. he had gone there for a brief vacation. at 1:00 p.m. he was studying papers and sitting for a portrait painter when he complained of a head ache. seconds later he collapsed. within hours the commander in chief was dead of a massive stroke. less than a month later hitler committed suicide and on may 8th, 1945, germany surrendered to the allies. four months later on septemb

they also made it clear as a nato ally that this is conditions based.low afg ha nista n will be bad for all of us if we allow afghanistan once again for a national terrorist safe haven stop i do think the american policy right now, which seems to change from day todayis now, which seems to change from day today is responsible? we have consulted closely with nato allies and trying to reach out to the tele— band and the presence in afghanistan is to get an afghan led, afghan on political process and the agreement between the united states and the tele— band would be supported by nato is it actually facilitates in her negotiations. it is a hard way to peace in afghanistan but the only way to pieces by making sure that afghanistan is taking responsibility for the peace process themselves and thatis for the peace process themselves and that is actually the main purpose of the agreement between the us and alabama. one question on turkey. we are about to make operational, they're very sophisticated russian air defence system, the as 400 and against the wishes

maybe one day it would be useful to have left his allies in the dark. so the line had been bought and it was general consternation because nobody could imagine that just a month after the joint victory the soviets would lying to their allies about such a subject why if so what was the aim it seemed upset no said hitler hadn't been found it was true. in mid july stalin truman and churchill met in pakistan for their 1st post-war summit the talks were to determine the future of germany and large parts of the. eastern europe. miracle or so is going to use them in the tensions between the soviets and the western allies were aggravated by the soviet claims of eastern europe and the soviet policies in the areas occupied by the red army due to his own if it will be a computer on the coast. with so much at stake the question of hitler's fate was rather secondary the truman advisor record later that during dinner with the us president stand in reaffirm that hitler is alive and is either in spain or argentina. in pakistan the leaders also had to decide which nazi

partners and allies and doing so through u.s. companies, even if we are sending dollars to that part of the world, they will need to recycle those dollars using companies and banks that tend to be american or allies. recycling those petrol dollars and ameliorating the strain on u.s. payments. most importantly, we want to prevent the domination of the gulf by external powers. this means, we wanted to have a monroe doctrine for the gulf. the carter doctrine of 1980, which was designed to stop a potential soviet a bid to dominated the region and expended by president reagan the following year to include domination by any internal regime -- specifically iran. i will leave question in your mind. bearing all i have said, doesn't make sense for the united states to wind up its commitments in the gulf when the overall context that surrounds u.s. engagement is not so different as it was at the end of the second world war? u.s. and allies continue to rely on the gulf and control access to that by mediating supplies that travel overseas and

allies. and that's a factor that probably still continues because as we can see in the asia pacific to this very day, basically all u.s. partners and allies rely on middle east oil anywhere from 50% to 80% of their consumption of their oil imports to this very day. secure supplies fueled reconstruction in both europe and japan after the second world war. and discouraged them from relapsing economic nationalism by developing synthetic fuel sources domestically or tending to grab resources from neighboring countries as we find out. we didn't want to have a replay of operation barbarosea or pearl harbor. the development of the gulf after the second world war for the most part can promote price and supply stability. for the most part, promoted american prosperity even after the united states became an importer of oil after 1948. why is the middle east so significant? for two reasons. it's not the amount of oil it produces. specifically, the united states and russia and the soviet union beforehand

by contrast, the d-day invasion is a triumphant allied success. the president broadcasts a prayer on behalf of all americans for its success and the landings not only prove one of the great combat achievements in military history, but they disprove churchill's forecast of an english channel running in blood which churchill had predicted to american senators and congressmen in 1943. the president even insists on an american invasion of southern france. this is part of the normandy invasion, but the president also insists on an american invasion against british unwillingness of southern france near marseille to give eisenhower more heft when he advances into germany. and that invasion is similarly successful. in the public image then the president is the master strategist of the war. he sails that summer to pearl harbor. here he is being entering pearl harbor itself. to force general macarthur to sit down at last with admiral nimitz, his opposite number in the pacific, and see how the united states navy actually operates and then with nimitz, to pre

we were allies with an evil.ree quarters of the dying and fighting in europe, the germans were basically beaten by the red army, soviets, humanists, barbarism. if you want to germany in 1945, they acted by berkeley, if you're a woman, you had a good chance of being raped wherever you are. the ages of eight to 80 raped. one every 12 minutes. there were barbarians but we tend to forget that. youd could vote in france, in western because of ally sacrifice and in particular, towards the end of the war, american sacrifice in europe, d-day around 5050, 1944, majority of americans are fighting on the western front in europe, eastern front but the dwest. over 70% of the killing and dying with gunfight americans in europe e and the break question here. you entered the war after pearl harbor, way too late if your efforts, ended up finishing the job in western europe. if you hadn't been there, we wouldn't have had the protecti protection, the democracy and the civilization we've enjoyed as europeans and without that great s

even if they are not our allies and friends, you are saving human lives. we're making a lot of ventilators right now. they take a while to make and are very expensive and complex helpke, but i'd love to other countries once we are taken care of. i just sent 100 ventilators to and that was great. the senator there who is a terrific senator, cory gardner , and he called me last night

and our european allies. certainly that creates an opening for china i think many chinese see the trumpet ministration as the gift that keeps on giving it has really created the the potential in the opportunity for china to step up so what happens next a lot depends on whether donald trump wins reelection in november a defeat by joe biden would likely mean a return to stronger ties with traditional allies. speak and all of you for growth the power suit towards alliances i think would be more cooperative we would be looking to work with our allies to push back against china in some areas meanwhile more and more voices from both left and right in america calling for the us to decouple its economy from china to reduce the enormous amount of ties that have built up over the last couple of decades. that's already happening to an extent with american moves to cut the chinese telecoms giant while away out of its future mobile data networks but it could now go further. the united states now it was recognized that we'

it will not be too hard to beat the western allies, hitler ads. after all, he doesn't quote, have the feelings that the british have their shall we say hole heart in this attack. after the presidents trip to cairo and tehran, though, the d-day project is energized. it will go forward in the spring of 1944, and it is energized for one extra historic reason, as i tried to define definitively at last in this oak, "war and -- the president's decision not to appoint general martial to command the d-day invasion, but the man he had interviewed as we saw at length on his way out to cairo, young general dwight the eisenhower. this was one of the most inspired appointments of world war ii, a coalition war involving the forces of many nations, but led by the united states. and typically, fdr is not content just to send ike a telegram. returning from tehran and cairo, he stays with eisenhower in two tunis and together, the two men fly in the president's plane, nicknamed the "sacred cow, " to malta and sicily, where the president decorates general mark clark

he reflected on the death of his ally and adversary in his second world war memoirs.ere, he strikes a more conciliatory note and displays, as he so often did, his belief in the power of personal diplomacy. he must have been thinking of the big three conferences in tehran and yalta when he wrote "hopes of more friendly contacts with russia remain clear in my mind, and the death of stalin seemed to bring a chance. i regarded the death of stalin as a milestone in russian history. his tyranny brought fearful suffering to his own country and much of the world. after stalin's death it seemed like a milder climate might prevail. i so myself in the house of commons. an entirely informal conference between the heads of the leading powers might succeed where repeated acrimonious exchanges at lower levels had failed. i made it plain that this could not be accompanied by any relaxation of the comradeship and preparations of the free nations. for any slackening of our defense efforts would paralyze every beneficial tendency towards peace. this is true today. what i thought was nev

¿quÉ pasa allÍ? >> lo llevamos a new jersey.no podÍa estar en ese clima esperando y lo llevÉ a mi casa. marÍa antonieta: mientras pasaban estas ocho horas dÓnde estaba su papÁ en este segundo hospital? >> en emergencia, afuera lo tenÍan. habÍa una parte de adentro que era una pared de mentira, y nos tenÍan afuera. decidimos entrar porque hacÍa mucho frÍo de noche. jorge: tu tÍo me dijo que Él creÍa que tu padre se pudiera haber salvado si lo hubiesen atendido a tiempo. ¿crees lo mismo? >> sÍ. no entiendo la negligencia del por quÉ no lo atendieron ese primer hospital. pensÉ que lo iban a cuidar, pero saber que le dijeron que se fuera a casa en bus, fue lo peor para mÍ. jorge: ¿cÓmo te despides de tu padre? >> yo querÍa decirle que lo querÍa mucho. por lo menos ahora estÁ en paz. no podÍa respirar casi. una semana con neumonÍa. era decirle que lo quiero mucho y que siempre estarÁ en mi corazÓn, y por lo menos estÁ descansando ahora. marÍa antonieta: pero no pudo hacerlo. ¿quÉ recuerda que fue lo Último que le dejÓ su padre? --le

this was the battle of the bulge, the battle that came so dangerously close to crushing allied hopesor early victory. this was the 11th hour of the counterattack on which germany gambled everything. equipment littered the road. the year 1944 was dying. the year 1945 was beginning in an atmosphere of doubt, cruel anxiety, and cold, and hunger and death. he then coming back from the punch in the west, the yanks and british moved forward to the fighting. they had landed in norm did. they have slashed their way to germany's quarters. they absorbed the roughest punishment the germans could dish out. they moved against a common enemy. now with air power in the lead, they were started on the last long drive to victory. american forses on the west and south of the bulge carved up elite units. montgomery's british on the north were immovable. together they crushed the final german bid for victory and moved steadily to a meeting with their demrant russian ally in the east. berlin, city of naziism, fell. early in january, franklin roosevelt was inaugurated as president of the united states, his

it.then we hear about and then with the allies. so i don't see this as a historic a shift as you are describing there has been a vast gulf be one - - by the elites of the members of a congress. that the elites were far more willing and their constituents and then to remember how that shifted and what the constituency was that was a pure sign again between the leaders and the people. and then the mentality that we were elected to lead not be here in front of a mob. so what it is that people really want that's what this is about people are so confused that donald trump got elected that is washington for you it's not that there is a narrowing. so the second point that is really important that you never talk about i'm sorry i'm not a spy as i once was so it was created in the wake of world wariz ii that you don't require reform for the united nations or the wto and then to be hugely sporadic and to meet the challenges of a digital economy to claim the intellectual-property climate change or competition they have not involved but yet no

again, an axis ally or ally of the german. even the belt buckle, of course, is german, but the point is the directive was that we were supposed to be self-sufficient. so getting arms, one of the way to do it, of course, was to capture them from the germans and that's exactly -- we used the german supply chain to supply the partisans. even including, as i said, the belt buckle. we adopted it to the soviet union partisan group by covering the swastika with the soviet star. so you're somewhat directive -- that doesn't mean that we weren't provided supplies by the soviet union. we were. but we supplemented them, if you will, to try to be as self-sufficient as possible. when it came to food, though, then had you to go to the collective farms. and you went to the collective farms and the theory would be you would bring along your commissar or political officer and he would talk to the people. he would say, you must give food to the partisans because they are fighting to support the motherland, just like your motherland. oh, and by t

one of them is italian, an axis ally, or an ally of the germans. even the belt buckle is german. the point is that the directive was that we were supposed to be self-sufficient. one way to do it was to capture arms from the germans. we use the germans'supply chain to supply the partisans, even including the belt buckle, but we adopted it to the soviet union partisan group by covering the swastika with the soviet star. so, you're -- now, that doesn't mean we weren't provided supplies by the soviet union. we were. but we supplemented them, if you will, to try to be as self-sufficient as possible. when it came to food, though, then you had to go to the collective farms. you went to the collective farms and the theory would be, you would bring along your political officer, and he would talk to the people. he would say, you must give food to the partisans, because they are fighting to support the motherland, just like your motherland. and, by the way, a speech of giving support, i fyou -- if you will, and motivation and confidence to the people about the fact that the war will be won

getting tough with allies, a lot of things resonate. a president couldn't take a very different, ending the so-called forever wars, this is not vietnam or even 2003, and the president can't do that. and and they have more room to maneuver. and they are not drivers. it concludes with the interesting reflection that would be and should be the future of reform policy. i anticipated some of these groups where republicans, they get together and talk about the future and white russians meeting in helsinki in 1920. we have a plan, the bolsheviks won't be there forever, they will fall any day now. so who knows what is coming next? a lot of this will turn on the election going forward. this is the contribution to that debates. >> books with a simple theme that make things clear in ways that when you read them you think i knew that all along and didn't have the conception of that information. as you read it you end up thinking i knew that but i want to come back to some of the mechanics you impact in the book because we come back to trump in some

we know there is only one ally that the syrian government has with air power and that is russia there is another case where it says it believes it's plausible the government of syria and its allies carried out an attack and another case where it says it's highly probable just that the government of syria doesn't mention allies carried out the attack there's one case they say was not within their mandate and one that they say they believe was the result of opposition armed groups but pretty clear although they said it can't be conclusive in this that in quite a number of incidents the government of syria and or its allies are either russia were responsible for bombing medical facilities the reason this board can't be conclusive they say is also i think pretty damning for the syrian government they reveal that they weren't given visas they weren't given any help at all from the syrian government it didn't respond to their inquiries the board may joining its months of work ok and there's conclusions there from that report yes they thank you very much. coming up after a check of weather a

that americans and allied forces had to push their way up again. during this period, when the chinese entered, macarthur said this is a different war. i have to do things differently. he was talk about nuclear weapons and the chinese mainland and chinese nationalist to bring in which was an outrage to the chinese germans and were not doing this so it was a concept of civilian on the civilian control over the military so the president was supposed to be our commander in chief so they met macarthur on wake island in the pacific to get a sense what the general was up to. the meeting went okay they didn't get along very well but then macarthur started to make these aggressive comments and truman fired him. it was a huge firestorm. historians basically feel it was the right thing to do to just with the civilian control of the military was popular at the time and cost truman a lot of support but he always defended it. and now in revisionist history they feel it was the right thing to do but at the time it was a tremendous gamble so this is an example of

there were tears that went up from the allied intelligent officials when they read this.betty was not done yet. he also was able to gather the exact locations of trains they were heading to italy to the frontlines and to detail the munitions and a member of the supplies and that led to a bombing mission that destroyed a caravan of 80 railcars heading afor the frontline in italy and probably shortened the war by any number of weeks, weeks or months. it was one remarkable mission after another, almost single-handedly with the help of mostly of hans who was radioing the cables back to italy. in the view of many of superior officers with remarkable's might missions they had ever seen during the war. but freddy never wanted to be a spy even after the war he felt like he had had his 15 minutes ofof fame and had the chance to continue espionage even after t the war and he turned it down. he felt like he had paid back his obligation to the united states and this was a photo that he took at the very end of the war with hans on the ground, freddy of the rights and the not the defec

the blue is the advance of the allied troops. it was important for us to put the timeline of the holocaust and the war together. when news becomes public in november 1942 about what the nazis call the final solution, that's the moment that our troops are just landing in north africa in the operation. we don't have the military means to reach the death camps, to reach the killing centers. as you just saw, by june of 1944, when u.s. and other allied troops are landing on the coast of normandy, that's very late in the holocaust. when we ask in this exhibition, what more could have been done, we are trying to be careful about what -- about showing what was militarily possible. we frequently debate the question about whether the rail lines leading to auschwitz should have been bombed or the camp itself should have been bombed. we take up that question later, but what this map is supposed to do is provide a foundation of thinking about what was militarily possible. by 1944 it is absolutely possible. but the u.s. government decides not

, allies it might not have the same interests as united states, vis-a-vis iran, but nonetheless allies that the united states deals with? how do they figure into the u.s./iran relationship historically or today? >> that's a big question. >> yeah. >> i'll take a quick crack at that. i don't think that u.s. allies have really been important players toward iran in these kinds of big diplomatic issues for 60 years or so, since the british bowed out in the early '50s. europeans, both individual countries and collectively as the eu have engaged in negotiation with iran, pursuing a different path with iran today. but it's not really amounting to an awful lot. i don't see them being able to make some kind of an agreement with iran that will be very fruitful without the united states. i don't think they have the desire to, and i'm not sure that they have the power capabilities to do so. i think this is really an american show. >> i would just say it depends on which allies you're talking about. it's a big and complex question. since the uk was brought up, i will say this. for at least 15 years

but the one thing that his allies see is that they are not doing him much good. a real tipping point was, you know, this -- floating the idea of testing, whether or not somehow injecting disinfectants into the body could fight coronavirus. this -- you could tell this was something that set them back, because of how quickly they tried to put out different stories. the president in that same briefing, brian, denied he had said it. of course he had said it. then his press secretary said he was taken out of context. then he said he was asking a sarcastic question of the reporters in the room. none of those explanations were true. clearly not true. we tried to spin their way out of it. this was a moment where they realized these things are not going the way they planned. >> right. he ends up insulting reporters, calling them names, including you and many others. a lot of viewers ask me why don't you just walk out when he insults you like that. >> i get that question all the time. we don't walk out, our job is to cover these things, whether it's me, whether it's kaitla

ally came to an end. the monarchy was replaced with the republic of iran which just commemorated the 40th anniversary of its revolution this past february. so we have the deep past, the kind of cold war period and then the more contemporary post-'79 era. regardless of the period one studies it's an exciting time to be studying the history of u.s./iran relations not because of daily headlines but because of developments within the profession. today we have a range of methodologies that can help us better understand the past. despite meth methological diffes between transnational trends in this rich inpterpretive declassification of documents or through the reinterpretation of old documents through the lenses of race, culture, gender, and emotion to name just a few. in addition to these historical subfield, other disciplines helped drive the conversation. if one comes from the iranian studies or middle east studies background, these are inherently inner disciplinary areas of inquiry. one could borrow from p

americans and allied forces back again. during this period, mccarthy started to say this is a different war, i need to do things differently. talking about bringing the nationalist chinese from taiwan into help, to the chinese and harry truman kept telling him publicly, might bring the soviets into this. we don't want a wider war. a concept of civilian control of the military. running the war the way he wanted or the president is supposed to be the commander in chief, met macarthur on wake island to get a sense of what the general is up to. the meeting went okay. this aggressive bellicose comment again and historians feel it was the right thing to do, defending the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military, very popular at the time, cost truman a lot of support but he always defended and in revisionist history, people who write the history books feel it was the right thing to do but at the time it was a tremendous gamble for truman but this is an example of political military related defining moment this

trade disputes with ally on the merits strategically or economically we should be grappling with our allies to coordinate so as often is the case there is always a kernel the wto could use reform and that needs to be addressed. i don't see the well coordinated effort to do that. what i see is picking fights with allies and then resolving the fights and saying we've got to deal. the germans are very worried, so i agree that there is a trend toward trade sovereignty and protectionism is with that shift there seems to be support in the countries that was the problem they don't put their foot down but that is the problem because they hear about it if you are a farm state you will have been complaining that it'thencomplaio hurt you so ideally you would have them coordinate work allies against china. >> two things one i actually don't see this as a historical shift as you are describing because i think that it's always been a lost gold betwee betweene elites and by that i also mean members of congress voting on these matters and in the public. having sat through god knows how many debates

is not as high a priority and then pressure campaigns against us allies that is very trump. that is new i don't think anyone would disagree with me to pressure canada, japan, south korea, eu, mexico looking for renegotiated trade agreements. a so he goes up and down the ladder of escalation that could be sudden and unexpected he will raise the temperature than lower it and make threats and then settle or talk to it almost anybody. so what we do find striking if you turn down the volume it's not obvious that he knows the endpoint he cleat on - - keeps his options open and that is different from saying through rules -based international order i am not convinced he has it as a reference .1 way or another. in fact i doubt it he is interested in renegotiating with the campaign promises as a portfolio assessment of commitments overseas commercial and diplomatic and military reserving the right to walk away from something or maybe even bolster some even those under obama so the outcome is not predetermined a significant amount of presences there and that seems to be the foreign pol

he said over and over uses the us allies as free riders rather than assets. that's not my view it is his view he has been quite consistent about that. he said they were taking advantage of the united states economically and militarily and somehow he aim to fix this through his own negotiating skills that wasn't planned it wasn't the policy alternative but with some popular residents as we saw the 2016 primary particular tying in the frustration over military invention of iraq and afghanistan and frustrations economic globalization how does that benefit the well off china middle-class and frustrations over national sovereignty to organizations he put together a sense of frustration and turned into a living platform. it's an older version of american nationalism that i think we have seen resurgent as part of a historical context once he transitioned unexpectedly to government because his election came as a surprise to people in this roo room, then what now? and now there is uncertainty from the beginning with severe personal challenges and in reality the trump