Winning formula when we see one. To introduce andrew this year, we have the beautiful catherine katz. [applause] catherine i will keep my remarks brief in order to maximize the amount of time we have to be entertained by our final speaker, Andrew Roberts. For though who recall his presentation at last years conference, you have undoubtedly been looking forward to this as much as i have. Among his numerous endeavors, Andrew Roberts serves as the guest curator at the folder shakespeare library. Folger shakespeare library. He is the author and editor of 19 books, which you have heard about a bit over the last few days. His most recent publication was a biography of napoleon, a short work coming in at just under 1000 pages. We are all eagerly awaiting his next book, what is sure to be the definitive single volume biography of sir Winston Churchill, which is scheduled to be published next year. On the subject of churchills sense of living history, ladies and gentlemen, Andrew Roberts. [applause] andrew ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to be invited to address you and thank you very much indeed, catherine, for those very kind words. This morning, when we started, David Freeman equated this conference to an opera. The only thing i know about an opera is it is not over until the fat woman sings. That is a rude thing to say about me. One of the things that makes me proud to be an historian is that despite the pitfalls of my trade, which can be summed up as penury, pedantry, and punditry. The greatest man in history also chose it as his. Churchill thought of himself as a historian and he also thought his roles of a statesman and a politician through the prism of history. He was far from being a model schoolboy. He was idle, willful, quite stupid about mathematics and latin, but he was well ahead of his class in history and on top of the examination every time he took it. He failed many times, but never in history. Churchill sold more history books than any other 20th century historian, and possibly more than any historian ever. Churchill had to be, he was largely selftaught. He had to be selftaught, he went to harrow. [laughter] andrew i think it extremely difficult for anyone not born into churchills world or time to realize what a dominance the past had overall is thinking and action. Difficult, perhaps, but let us try. In churchills first formal public speech, the one near bath in 1897, he made reference to history, saying there are not wanting those who say that our empire has reached its height of power and we shall now begin to decline as babylon, carthage, and rome have declined. Do not believe these croakers i am not going to do a churchill voice, kevin did that. You can take that however you like. Churchill liked to compare the British Empire to that of rome. It gave context and induced pride in his audiences as the comparison was always made to the advantage of the former. History was a mainstay of his writing and speeches. To give you a i would like to give you a few buckets into the ocean that is churchill studies and find churchill did not just use history like other politicians, in order to instead he employed it in the body of his arguments, he truly believed that his generation had a duty to continue britains work which he saw as being at the forefront of human progress. Much of his pack nasa the pu gnacity which served britain so well in 1940s stemmed from this belief that britain had a historic duty to fulfill and they would be betraying their forefathers if they stepped back from it. When the chinese demanded to a port a port to be returned to them, churchill asked the cabinet why should we melt down our moral capital to please a lot of pacifists. I would send a telegram beginning, nothing from nothing and precious little for tuppance. The school of songs taught him that the essentials did not change and he must strive his predecessors had had a tremendous effect on him. In december, 1906, thanking a mr. Anderson for sending him an account of the campaign in the Iberian Peninsula in 1808, he wrote it is all one story despite any change of weapons, from the sheep under the bellies ulysses under this case of cyclops to the free state. If anyone in the audience can tell me how the general used oxen to break the line, i would be fascinated to know. It would be very helpful. For those who like to mischaracterize churchills attitudes towards indians as totally aggressive and unpleasant, it is instructive to remember the statements he made in 1909 about the indian revolutionary who was hanged for the assassination of a british civil servant. His last words were the only lesson required in india is to learn how to die and the only way to teach it is by dying. Therefore i die in glory. Churchill wrote to the that things that will be remembered in 2000 years times as we remember roman heroes. He quoted his last words as the finest ever made. The problem today is that by not being taught in schools, we ourselves do not remember roman heroes, as illustrated by the recent survey of british schoolchildren in which 30 of them believe the american war of independence had been won by denzel washington. Churchills famous row with king george the fifth was essentially about history. Although the king claimed not to have wanted Oliver Cromwells name immortalized on a battleship because of his brutal repression of catholic ireland, in fact it was probably cromwells republicanism to which he took exception. Where churchill admired him as the founder of parliament, even churchills promotion of the name of william pitt in august 1913 prompted the king to complain that william pitt was not dignified. There is always the danger of the men giving the ship nicknames of ill conditioned words that rhyme with it. His majesty had been a sailor, he was not above a scatological reference. He had a hanoverian sense of humor. He thought it might get called noahs ark. Churchill argued that pitt had fine precedence. Churchill again proposed pitt. He said the ark royal was the flagship of the defeat of the armada, refined as the glories of the elizabethan period and ultimately the ark royal was built. On the day the great war broke out on the fourth of august, 1914, churchill exclaimed, my god, this is living history. Everything we are doing and saying is thrilling and will be read by a thousand generations. The First World War gave churchill many opportunities. He said in a speech in support compulsory conscription, if the germans are to be beaten decisively, they will be beaten like napoleon was defeated. Superior numbers along a front so extensive they cannot maintain them. There he was right. In the Previous Year he probably leaned on history too much. In 1807, and admiral had successfully forged the straight spy ships alone, losing only 10 men. It was not a precedent, underwater mines did not exist in 1807. This is one of the times that instead of sustaining churchill, his knowledge of history led him astray. In the debates on the dardanelles commission, churchill spoke on the tribunal of history which is also a phrase one hears at neville chamberlains funeral speech. During the hardfought discussions over intervention in the russian civil war, churchill had frequent recourse to historical parallels, as in 1919 when in the face of David Lloyd Georges demands that all forces in russia be evacuated, and he said the whole episode in russia was a painful one and it reminded him of our desertion of the catalans. He was referring to in effort in 1813 to open a second front in spain during the napoleonic wars. His knowledge of history was so deep that she could assume they would not only pick up the reference but find it a painful one. One mentioned the siege of toulon, there were literally only two members who would know what youre talking about today. Today, we know that the British Empire in india was evil and wrong because we are constantly taught that in our schools and universities and by the bbc. Poor Winston Churchill, in his ignorance, could not have known that britain was viciously exploiting india and giving nothing back. Except for internal peace for the first time in indian history, as well as railways and the massive irrigation projects and political unity of the subcontinent. [laughter] andrew mass education, newspapers, international trade, standardized units of exchange, bridges, universities, roads, aqueducts and docs. Other than that, absolutely nothing else did we give india. The abolition of burning widows on their funeral pyres, we got rid of that and the ritualized murders of travelers. I suppose we gave them the only uncorrupt legal system in the history of the subcontinent and unprecedented disease prevention projects, but other than that, all one can mention is the english language, the First National lingua franca and communications and protections from the russians and the french and other outside threats, including that from Imperial Japan that killed 17 of the philippines population. Apart from that, we did nothing for india. In january of 1925, churchill noted that he was convinced that germany would never acquiesce permanently in her condition of the eastern frontier. The walls of frederick the great and peter the great had arisen from deep ambitions which were now associated with great to start memories. Such memories were at the four when in may of 1930 churchill complained to the anglogerman naval treaty that never since the reign of charles the second has this country been so defenseless as this treaty will make it. He was open to criticism considering he himself in his chancellorship that it only ended the Previous Year. The Wilderness Years were spent writing history. He had a passion for old traditions. His 10 years out of office when he was writing about his ancestor laid the basis for his greatness, mcmillan said. Once he finished marlborough, he started on the history of the englishspeaking peoples. He was not writing merely for academic research. It was always with the motive that history would be helpful as a guide in present difficulties. In 1936, churchill told his friend that our communications cannot be left at the mercy of so unreliable italian friendship. We must retain that command of the mediterranean which marlborough first established. Later he told the united associations of Great Britain and france that those who embody the tradition and revive the force of nelsons leads and fleets and napoleon armies will not in combination be found a helpless prey. If to these values they add the conceptions of justice and freedom, they will be unconquerable. The idea of reuniting nelsons navy and napoleons army which were so enticing mystic in real life was typically churchillian. He wrote a history book that envisioned a confederate victory at gettysburg. Attacking the munich settlements, he said do not suppose this is the end, this is only the beginning of the reckoning, this is the first taste of a bitter cup. He said this cup will be proffered to us yearbyyear unless by a supreme recovery of martial vigor we take our stand for freedom as in the olden time. That knowledge suffused in him that britain was not as morally healthy as she had been in the olden times, tormented him. By articulating it, he was able to talk the british people into becoming as brave and morally vigorous as he and as their ancestors. It is not too much to say that without his historical imagination, this living sense of history, he could not have warned britain and the world of what he was to call a new dark age. Today that analogy would also fall completely flat, or any Prime Minister unwise enough to employ it because the dark ages are not taught at all in britain schools today. After the war had started, he told a victorious crew at a celebratory lunch at the guildhall in 1940 that the warrior heroes of the past may look on as nelsons monument looks down on us now without any feeling the island race has lost its daring or the examples they have set in bygone errors have centuries have faded as the generations have succeeded one another. The act of going to war has showed the martial vigor. On the 27th of april, 1914, while the Norwegian Campaign was being fought, he was able, at 11 00 at night to discuss with his research assistant, the strategic position facing britain in 1066. Deacon recalls how despite naval signals being brought in as the battle progressed, talk ranged around of the norman invasion and the figure of edward the confessor, who has, churchill wrote, comes down faded, misty, mistry frail. And frail. Deacon says i can still see the map on the wall and the voice of the first lord as he grasped the strategic position in 1066. This was no lack of attention to current business, it was the measure of the man with a supreme historical eye that distant events were as near as the mighty events on hand. Montgomery recalled how in july 1940 he asked a general whether england had ever been in such dire straits before since the armada. He showed no outward signs of anxiety in public. In a discussion, churchill said, it showed that the men of calle with a bit of grit that saved us by stopping them as sidney smith stopped napoleon at acre. These references to napoleonic wars undoubtedly profoundly influenced the grand strategy that britain adopted. In them britain played to her greatest strength and avoided major continental commitments of troops until her antagonist had blunted and then broken his army in russia. William pitt had played a waiting game trusting napoleon to overextend himself. Only crossing the netherlands to deliver the crushing blow. Only when napoleon was ready to meet his waterloo. Hitlers 12 years in power were even shorter than napoleons 15. In 1929, he wrote, we have entered the domain of history. When americas entry into the war loomed a decade later, churchill crossed the mysterious boundary some say that americans were soft, but i have studied the civil war, fought to the last desperate inch. Hitler thought the americans too decadent to make a difference on any european battlefield until 1970. Churchills speech in 1940 said, we must regard the next week as an important period in our history. It ranks with the days when the second spanish armada was approaching or napoleon faced grande arme. It is of more consequence to the world and civilization than these brave days of the past. As a canadian diplomat said that the effect of that speech on britons, he said, he makes them feel that they are living their history. The effect of telling people they have the eye of history on them has the tangible effect of encouraging them to behave in a better way, to carry themselves in such a way that for the rest of their lives they knew they would deserve their finest hour. When the chief of superior staff the imperial staff, john dill, wrote to churchill explaining why the maverick general hubbard should not be employed in a senior capacity, churchill reached for the history books to refute his arguments. Cromwell, wolf, clive, gordon, and lawrence of arabia have close result was to the close resemblance to the characteristics assembled in paragraph two. This is a time for tried men of force and vision, not exclusively confined to those judged safe by conventional standards. Dday was to prove churchill right. And dill wrong. Before hitler invaded the soviet union, churchill gave his family a short lecture on the various invaders of russia, especially charles xii. In his speech, the day after a heavy bombardment, he commended their mark of fortitude and phlegm, of a courage and detachment of Material Affairs where he worthy of all we have learned in ancient rome or modern greece. He told britains arp wardens, this is the grand heroic period of our history and the lifeless the light of glory shines on us all. He allowed them to see themselves as part of the great continuum of history. May 7, 1941, churchill was careful not to equate napoleon with hitler, saying, it must be rather than napoleons armies carried with them the egalitarian whims of the revolution where hitlers it buthas nothing behind pillage and the crushing boot. Napoleons empire, with all of its faults and glories, fell and flashed away like snow in easter with nothing left behind. Two months later, he told his old friend and comrade Archie Sinclair that he should like to see the bogus mimic of ancient rome. Strangled in old roman fashion. On his way to meet president roosevelt in newfoundland in august 1941, churchill read c. S. Forresters splendid novel captain hornblower, set during the napoleonic wars. One of the only nonfiction books he read during the war. Time and again he would quote from nelsons trafalgar memorandum. No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship beside the enemy. In september 1941, the king offered churchill the lord warden ship and he accepted, despite being daunted by the cost of upkeep, largely because of its tremendous historical connections to wellington. When he heard about her father, he said we should not be wiped out. Our history will not come to an end. The king stood by a big map of north africa and stated it once all belonged to egypt. Churchill was not going to let him get away from that and it once replied, he could not remember when, but to the best of his believe it belong to turkey before the italians took it. This rather sunk the king. Stumped the king. Needless to say, churchill was right. Those tribes made incursions into egypt rather than the other way around it. I cannot imagine what the king might have been thinking of trying to make the historical point to Winston Churchill. I have a particular interest his lastoq in that mistress made a pass at me. [laughter] churchill compares this to napoleon before ouster lives. He contrasted cairo in 1942 to napoleons defense of paris in 1814. Told the king in april 1943 that if india were finally separated from your majestys dominions, it would dim our phase in this age to future generations. He told the dust he told the Royal College of physicians the longer you look back, the further you can look forward. And he noted when he reached one of the great rivers and italy, here the defeat that sealed the fate of carthage, so i suggested we should go across, to what. We should go across, too. I will stop at the end of the war. There were many occasions when he cited historical parallels. To amplify his messages. On the evening of his stroke in 1953, that same night he had dilated on the influence he believed it exercised on rome and had the roman legions crossing the outs, all with boreossing the alps with them something greater than they knew. This might have involved plumbing. He said, do you realize by the time the romans left britain until the arrival of the americans, this country was completely without central heating . He went on to speculate on what the romans did about lavatories, as he did not believe anyone had found a roman lavatory in this country. One stands aghast at the breadth of knowledge that churchill was able to send it into battle. In this lecture alone, i could have included hundreds of other examples. Churchill, just in this speech alone has mentioned, nelson, genghis khan, napoleon, babylon, the norman conquest, charles i, cromwell, charles xii, general gordon, and ancient roman lavatories. How strange that the past is so little understood and quickly forgotten, churchill said. How modern those views seem today, yet how often they have been expressed in the past. The council said much the same thing in his lesson to albans, and he died in 169 a. D. In 115 a. D. If our own past is better understood and hopefully not so quickly forgotten, much of the credit for that, ladies and gentlemen, should go to Winston Churchill. Thank you very much. [applause] right, we have a few minutes of easy questions. [laughter] someone give this gentleman the microphone. So, andrew. I have loved your past work. Napoleon. Storm of war. Please stop there. Dont stop there. [laughter] my question is this. Given the body of work out there on churchill, and in the wake of roy jenkins fabulous onevolume biography, why are you tackling churchill now . In fact, is there a different slant you might have . Yes, very good question. There are 1009 biographies of churchill, and say, why on earth impose 1010 . I hope im not going to be the first person in over 100 years to write a biography of Winston Churchill that does not do well. Its a terrible thing to have to admit. Roys book was very good, as you say. It was published in 2001. Since 2001, there have been no fewer than 52 sets of papers lodged at the churchill archives in cambridge, including really important ones by well, randolph churchills papers, Winston Churchills son randolph, and also sarah churchills papers are there now. There have been all sorts of fascinating series of documents and diaries and letters that were not available either to martin or to roy. I am also the first person to be able to, through the generosity of her majesty the queen, to read the kings diary for the second world war. That was not open in its entirety. That was not open to martin in its entirety. Martin had to use the published biography by bennett. And that is completely fascinating, the relationship with those he met. The leadership between those two men, a mainstay of my book. I have basically concentrated on primary sources. Roy never went to the churchill archives, never used any primary sources at all. He also wasnt terribly interested in the military strategy. And as you can imagine, having written books on the subject, i think it is both fascinating, but also central to understanding Winston Churchill. The other point of roy is he always laid out Winston Churchill to be a liberal all his life which i will not be doing. There are different aspects. There is more information. Also, Winston Churchill is such an enormous figure. So many appalling lies have been told about him in recent years, since 2001, by the religionists, by the revisionists, that i think every generation deserves a great big book about Winston Churchill that puts the truth out there. I think there is 1010. Over here. Rudy. [inaudible] the question was, churchills use of american history. Churchill was very well up on american history, as you can imagine. About two thirds of the third volume of the history of englishspeaking peoples is the the american civil war. He loved visiting the battlefields of the war. He had this dream that the american war of independence never took place, and as a result, the englishspeaking peoples were able to be together and be so strong that kaiser was never going to take the risk of attacking them in 1914, and the world would be a much happier place. Imagine it. No second world war, no russian revolution, no cold war. No holocaust. So he read alfred sayer. He read Teddy Roosevelts books on the 1812 campaign. He was very well read in american history. It was part of his you know, the drive, his love of america. The next question is over here. What is to be done about the lamentable restriction in teaching history in schools i guess in america, as well as britain . My grandson who studied for his alevels was restricted to the french revolution, the American Civil Rights movement, and the wars of the roses. Anything in between was completely neglected. What is to be done about it . Can i first of all say next time youre talking to your son, congratulate him on the wars of the roses. We have something it is nicknamed in britain about our history teaching in schools is just called henry to hitler. You jump from henry viii to adolph hitler. Virtually nothing before and after. I think this is a political question. I chaired an Advisory Group in 2005, a small group of historians we were pointed we were pointed by the tory appointed by the tory party, by the secretary for education on precisely this, the huge gaps , the way in which history of really important things in the nation just have not been and wont be and are not taught. And we gave this report i would love to give you a copy. Im very proud of the report in fact. It was deposited in, i believe, in a fairly square container [laughter] and thats it. You have to bring pressure to bear politically on people. You can persuade the secretary of state fairly easily, but then after that, he has got a educational establishment, and education and teachers trade unions. You would not believe the civil service, and theyre almost anger at the idea that british history can be taught properly and chronologically, including bits that have nothing to do with hitler and henry. It is a political battle that is still being fought, but not being won. Next question. Can you comment on churchills reading habits, given his enormous workload, and his point of view on fdrs domestic policies . His workload his reading he did all his philosophical reading in the 1890s. Thats when he read darwin and all of the greats of the ancient world. That is when he read his socrates and plato and so on. I think when you say he was very busy, you might be referring to the second world war. Then, he only read two novels, but of course, he was bowed down with the amount of work he had in his red boxes, which he did master. So, he did not have that much opportunity to read beyond the subject then. He had a voracious love of books. As you are going to come in next year to washington discover, also a lover of shakespeare and poetry. A had what i think of songsraphic memory for and soliloquies and so on. Really was truly inventive. It would make a remarkable reading list for anyone heading off to university today. The second question about the new deal is interesting. He criticized the new deal when he was writing from afar. He put it into great contemporaries. Out,when the war broke just before that when he realized he needed the good will of president roosevelt, he cut it out of editions of great contemporaries. Then he stuck it back in again. The opportunism. , but with that particular essay, it was superb timing. Anymore . Im very pleased that was a completely comprehensive speech. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed. I[applause] visit our website, www. Cspan. Org. You can view our tv schedule and watch College Lectures come museum tours, archival films and more. American history tv at www. Cspan. Org. Up next, we speak with local historian vince feeney about his role. We are standing in what is referred to as Burlington Bay on like champlain. The fact that it is on Lake Champlain is one of the reasons we have a city here today. The early europeans, the newly