Reynolds is coeditor of the kremlin letters, stalins wartime correspondence with churchill and roosevelt. He talks about the messages sent between the leaders and explain how they used the communication to build relationships with one another and advance wartime goals without extensive bureaucratic interference. The National WorldWar Ii Museum hosted this event in january,. 20. January, 2020. Tonight, it is my privilege to introduce the speaker dr. David reynolds. se of the United Kingdom most distinguished scholars, but i think that is probably selling them short. A fellow of christ college, cambridge, he studied at cambridge in harvard aiversitys and has been visitor to these shores since first coming year as a graduate student in 1973. David is the author of 12 books, he doesnt let the grass grow under his feet. Those include in command of history churchill fighting and writing the second world war, a book he wrote in 2004 that is shelf. Umbed on my ive decided to maybe thousands of undergraduates over the years, one of the best books of historywriting ive ever read. His most recent book and the one on which he will be speaking tonight is the kremlin letters stalins wartime correspondence with churchill and roosevelt. She collaborated on this book with professor vladimir and im sure will have some more information on that. The book includes the principal messages between the big three, and its not so much of a commentary that provides an analytical narrative as a triangular relationship throughout the war. A book of correspondence with letters from one to the other is very valuable, but it is the commentary, i think, that really sets it apart. Ofis based on a wide array material from russian, british, and american sources. I might also add a few things, he won a prize for history in 2004, was elected a fellow of the British Academy in 2005. To havebeen fortunate him speak here at our International Conference in 2018. Without further ado, i give you david reynolds. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here. Came to see the museum in the days of stephen ambrose, when it was on lakeshore and my visit in 2018 showed me just how it has changed and developed in , and i ways since then take my hats off to everyone involved in this very impressive, very amazing enterprise. Im very clad to be sorry, am i a little too close to the mic . Im very glad to be speaking here. Im very glad to be speaking here today and not on monday. [laughter] son overtalking to my the weekend, and i said i was coming to new orleans to give a lecture, and i was very gratified when he was really interested to know. He said dad, when exactly are you speaking . And i said, wednesday the 15th of january. And he said, if you were speaking on monday the 13th of january, you wouldnt have had a Single Person in the audience. [laughter] and i said thanks, jim. Anyway, he got me up to speed on the game, that kind of thing. Tonight, im going to talk about another joe. Joe, bt uncle joe, uncle joe stalin. Its interesting that roosevelt and churchill had that kind of cozy name for a mass murderer. I want tot of what talk about this evening. Mentioned that the book is a collaborative piece of work. Vladimir is a professor in at the institute of international relations. Weve known each other for about 20 years. This is a project we worked on closely together, but weve done other things over the years. Who is someonen i greatly respect, a man who is a genuine historian. There are some in russia that are hacks, it has to be said, there are hacks in britain and america as well. But what was interesting in doing this project was that working through this material, we worked through it as historians, we talked about it, we had scholarly disagreements, but there was never anything we were unhappy with about what we put in the book. And at a time when our countries are not on the best of relations politically, we discovered that scholars can talk across the barriers in politics and political life. So, the kremlin letters. Lets see, right. Ill get my clicker out. Lets just think about this relationship between these three men. It was one of the most important alliances in history. Weekshey only had two together as a big three in nearly four years. Stalinll, roosevelt in met as a threesome for the first time in november of 1943. They also met at yalta in february, 1945. You can see the difference, particularly in franklin. Oosevelt to many people had anotherll heple of weeks in moscow, visited in august, 1942. There he is. He went again in october, 1944. Thats the famous, notorious agreement that he signed. Weeks. More churchill travel around a great deal. He was, if you like, the intermediary between a soviet leader that didnt travel much, didnt like to travel, and an american president from traveling was extremely difficult because he was a paraplegic. Churchill traveled about 107,000 miles during the war, and that wasnt business class. That was in converted bombers where you had to put on an oxygen mask if you went over 10,000 feet. Occasion, that picture of the big three of them was there, somebody said that stalin, churchill, and he looked like the holy trinity. When this reached stalin, he said, well, if we are the holy trinity, churchill is holy ghost because he flies around so much. A mass murderer with a good sense of humor. So, these three didnt do facetime. They were penpals. Hey corresponded we reckon probably 682 messages between the 22nd of june, 1941, and the 12 of april, 1945 when Franklin Roosevelt died. And what i want to talk about tonight is a little bit about what we learn about these three men and their relationships. If i do talk like this to an audience of High School Students or College Students, at this point, i have to stop and i have to explain what a letter is. [applause] [laughter] audience, ihis think you probably know what a letter is. Ive met some College Students who quite happily said, ive never written a letter in my life. They just do social media and so on. Tweeting and whatever. Believe some politicians do a lot of that as well. But we wont get into that. This isstriking about that it is a relationship that they build up through writing letters. And if you think about the way you write letters to people or have done in the past and how you get to know people, its not an easy way to get to know somebody. Times, this was particularly difficult because it was a complex process. A draft, theith draft to be discussed at length with in washington, within the british capital, between stalin and his aides. Up, it thenis drawn has to be encrypted because you dont want the germans to read it. That is send it, and not simple. A lot of american messages, they used a code that was easily broken. In the end, he used the Navy Department because that was less easy to break. Some of the messages were sent as a letter, delivered by the ip. Vip. Then at the other end, they got to be decrypted, they got to be translated into the other languages, and then they are delivered. So, its quite possible that in that process, as churchill once said, the tone of the original was often lost in the process of translation, lost in translation. Leaders of these three had a distinctive voice, and asked what i want to mention for a moment and explain. And its a voice rooted in the character of these three men, so let me just described them briefly, and if you like, somewhat irreverently with apologies to am a emma. Churchill, ifn you describe him in modern american terminology, you would probably say he was a high school dropout. As somebody who didnt make it who learned to live, learn to think, learned to be a man in the army, and developed a profound sense of history from that army service, a profound sense of writing which is then how he got through journalism into politics. Leader,is as a world but always a man of words. More about that in a moment. Roosevelt, Vice President ial candidate before the age of 40. Unsuccessfully in the 1920 election, but clearly a coming man. Polio, andk down by one of the rare pictures of him in a wheelchair showing his infirmity, something that the press, as you know, covered up in most of his life. That was put, there was nothing really below the waist. In man who had his own struggles to overcome. Who was still able, despite that, to offer inspiring wartime leadership. And then stalin. There is a fairly typical propaganda poster of the 1930s. The farsighted leader of his mugshotshere are some from his diaries reminding us that this was a man who, for nearly 20 years, was on the run authorities, a terrorist, a petty criminal, a bank robber, who, nevertheless, ofe himself into the leader one of the most powerful countries in the world, a man who made a career out of being underestimated. So, three very different men. Themselves thrown together in the leadership of one of the most important alliances in history. So, how did they get on . How did they use these messages . Churchill was, as i said, a man of words. A man who wrote naturally, who talked naturally. He was the most verbose of the three. Stalin longote andisitions about policy, interesting stories about the war. He understood that stalin was a man, so the messages are often full of what happened in north africa, the latest bombing raids on germany, whatever, and very detailed stalin of dday, getting a sense of color and military detail. Stalin is also a man of words, but more terse, doesnt write at such length. Very businesslike. That was part of his character. Him, he would be , helly sitting at a table would give a presentation and he would just be doodling away. And then he would ask a question, he would make a response. He didnt make eye contact, he looked slightly to one side of you, but the answer was quite direct, sometimes very rude, but at least there was a very real sense that you connected. You said something, he responded. This was a man you can do business with, and that was quite striking. Understood, iso think in a way that neither roosevelt nor churchill understood, the power of silence. One of the things when writing the book was the way that simply stalin was stopped communicating for several weeks. Even if there were urgent churchill,osevelt or his usual excuse was that i am at the front. Actually, he wasnt, he was a coward, he didnt go near the front. But that meant i am immersed in the war strategy and i am not going to answer you, im not going to deal with you. And that create anxiety in london and washington. Stalin understood when to talk and when not to. Is, the he editorinchief, as i put it. The men who drafted many of the messages, and then stalin edited them. That what is particularly crayon, he blue rewrote whole section of the message about africa. And what interesting, and it comes out in the book, was the way in which stalin, from pretty much zero, learned. He was a man who spent pretty much all of his career dealing with russian politics and then suddenly it matters that he is dealing with the leaders from the outside world. They are now paying attention to him and he has to get used to have to deal with that. In its very striking that the autumn of 1941, when the red army is being pushed back, surrendering in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and the germans move through moscow, stalin panicked, he sends messages saying you must launch a second front, we ,eed something in france something that will distract the germans, 30 or 40 german divisions. Churchill hasnt got 30 or 40 combatready divisions in the whole british army. The idea that hes going to throw them into some Suicide Mission to help a cause that doesnt look particularly hopeful in 1941, is unlikely, to say the least. Messages get more angry, more intemperate, to the point where churchill is furious and one of them, and tell the ambassador in london this very directly. The ambassador makes it clear to stalin that some kind of apology is needed, he has gone too far. Stalin is not a man who does apologies. , probablyes , is he sendss churchill a birthday card. [laughter] message, warmly congratulate you on your birthday. From the bottom of my heart, wish you strength and health which are so necessary for the victory over the enemy of mankind, hitlerism. Accept my best wishes. Stalin. That complete change of mood is one stalin got better at overtime. He was a man that could change the weather. Here is ariking is correspondedshevik with a famous antiwolfsburg bolshevik and they exchanged greetings throughout the war. Stalins birthday is in december. Churchill reciprocates, and they keep doing it. Franklin roosevelt doesnt get in on the act until very near the end. It is striking but it is an example of stalin learning to play diplomacy. Roosevelt . What is striking is the messages areeen churchill and stalin nearly double the messages that are sent between stalin and Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt mostly tweaks the drafts of others area he is not as involved in the writing arrest or kill or stalin as churchill or stalin is. He is trying to use significant maximum quality time with stalin. Roosevelt, who cant travel, uses others. He used eleanor through the 1930s to get a sense of the pulse of america. He uses people like harry and harriman. Hopkins a picture of 1941,es to moscow in july soon after the german invasion, to figure out if the russians are going to survive. Hopkins doesnt go near the front. His judgment about soviet survival is based on meeting stalin, talking to stalin. There is a detailed letter back from hopkins about the willpower of stalin, the command of this man. Uses in the war, Roosevelt Joseph davis who had been the American Ambassador in the 1930s, to go to stalin and propose a meeting between the two of them behind churchills back. Churchill is hurt when he found out roosevelt has done this. He has been to moscow to meet stalin, but the idea of roosevelt doing this is without without discussing it with churchill to churchill it is a sign that the mood and relationship was changing. Their relationship was changing. Roosevelt wants to meet. And he has an enormous confidence in his powers of persuasion. This is what he writes in march 1942. I know you will not mind my being brutally frank when i think i can handle stalin better than your Foreign Office or my state department. Stalin hates the guts of your top people. He thinks he likes me better and i hope you will continue to do so. It is remarkable letter for a man who has exchanged perhaps half a dozen messages with stalin and never met the guy. I can handle stalin. But it is also in its own way churchills philosophy as well. Churchill has a more divided minds about dealing with the russians. Hisever has abandoned detestation of communism and that is the defining compass of his political life from the 1920s onward. Examples in favor of churchill, churchills fears about what might happen in europe at the end of the war. So he says it would be a measureless disaster if russian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence of the ancient states of europe. Also says if only stalin and i could meet once a week, there would be no trouble at all we get on like a house on fire. He said that to an old friend a few weeks after the to err on the theran conference. It is a remarkable comment to make. And it reflects churchills sense that like it or not, you have to deal with the russians in this war. Because the common enemy is nazi germany. And when his private secretary chides ortiz is churchill about the way in which or teases churchill about the way in which she speaking out in support of the russians, churchill looks at him and says, if hitlers invaded hell, i would at least make a favorable reference to the devil in the house of commons. Those are the priorities. Likelike for it Franklin Roosevelt, does feel the magnetism of this little man, stalin, who has a good sense of humor as well, quite. Ry i mentioned the one about the holy ghost. At tehran, they talk about the way europe is going to the left during the war politically. Churchill says well, it is not necessarily going red. It is going pink. When that is translated to stalin, he says pink is a sign of good health. So there is fascination with this person. Handling theay of variety of correspondence he gets from the kremlin, sometimes very cordial, sometimes abusive. Are you a coward . What is going on . The notion of two stalins. There we are. This is a message that he writes andhe foreign secretary after he has had two contrasting messages on the same day, and he two telegrams to emphasize the feeling which has been growing in my mind for some time there are two forces to be reckoned with in russia. Stalin himself, personally cordial to me. , a grim thingcil which he and we have to reckon with. Stalin himself is cordial to me and stalin in council with the grim behind him. On a human level, the end i get on. The nasty messages are because stalin has to deal with dark forces in the kremlin. The party bosses, the army, whatever it is. Now historians emphasize that stalin ran a team. He knew how to run a group of people. Doubt whoam had no was the boss. The idea that somehow stalin is beholden to other people is one that we would now find and notly bizarre corresponding to the evidence at all. But it was the way that churchill in particular but also other americans tried to make sense of the mixed noises coming from the kremlin. You have to think back. I mentioned letters and social media. The amount of information in those days one had about russia and how it worked was totally different from what american observers in london would know eu, orthe political mili British Service would write back to the Foreign Office. You had to capture the straws in the wind. This was the best way you could make sense of it. Here is the ally, a country you have to get on with. It is difficult to understand the politics and the policies. Roosevelt,rchill and this strange little man is your if you like, he is the moderate against the dark forces. I think that can only be understood in the context of the basic ignorance of what is going on in russia and the necessity of working with stalin. So im making a sound like a very functional kind of relationship. But what was striking is the humanwhen flashes of real wounds come through. An example of this is after dday. Stalin has been demanding dday for three years by time and has happened. He has been rude about why the british in particular and the americans are mounting this. He never understands the global the western allies are engaged in. The question is why are you not crossing the channel . Comes, ite invasion is an important moment in the alliance. Churchill sends messages to stalin, about the landings, the beachhead developing. It is several days before stalin replies and churchill began to get anxious. Stalin was checking reports he got. Hen he gets this message i have also your message of the 10th of june. I thank you for the information. As is evident, the landings conceived on a grandiose scale have succeeded completely. My colleagues and i cannot but admit that the history of welfare where fair history of theare knows no like undertaking from its scale and conception and its masterly execution. Napoleon innown, his plan toled in force the channel. Who has hitler, boasted he would affect a landing crossing of the channel was unable to make up his mind even to hint at attempting to carry out his threat. Succeededllies have in realizing with honor this grandiose plan of the forcing of the channel. Deed aswill recall this an achievement of the highest order. [applause] i think you are clapping for what he said, not the fact i have managed to read small print. He has a remarkable message. Clearly stalin needs to say something. You have finally done it, or whatever. But that is a very spiting set of phrases. Stalin thinks about these issues. He finally got the message crossing the channel is not the same as crossing the volga, that it is a vast enterprise. He says similar things in an interview later. To back ups it were his allies. Moment, june 1944 is the high point of the allies. The soviets have been informed area that ishran where the plans for the basic decision about dday is taken. They have been involved in the deception plans to divert german attention from normandy. There is a considerable amount of information exchanged and june are two ddays in 1944. There is the 6th of june, but also the big soviet offensive on the Eastern Front which begins a couple of weeks later and is intended to be timed to hit the germans just at the point when the beachhead in normandy is developing. So there is a real sense now of the allies working together and converging on the third reich from east and west. Fullugh you cant get a flavor of this if you are sitting at the back, the general impression is the brown and light brown pressing in on the third reich from different directions. So it is not an easy relationship. It is not a smooth one. But it worked. It worked in terms of defeating the third reich and what it stood for. Questionn raises the why the cold war . Inevitable . War writes dolefully in january 1945 his fear and concerns that the only bond of the victors is their common hate. And that was printed in martin ofberts official history the life of churchill. We have to think of Something Better than this. In other words the only thing that holds us together is a negative we are fighting, nazi germany. Be in a couple of weeks talking about the delta conference and we will in britain and so on. It is a common place in some circles in the United States that yalta was a conference that divided europe. Europelly the divided was not the result of the yalta conference. It is in many ways decided by the strategy the allies adopted before. The fact there was no second that if 42 or 43 meant the red army defeated the very wased the wehrmacht, it inevitable the soviets would be a force in eastern europe. There are good reasons why there was no second runt until 1944. They are well documented in this museum. The challenges of building up a base in britain, of supplying it , the importance of winning the battle at the olympic to ensure the atlantic to ensure the supply line and the flow of , andies and reinforcements also the possibility for Democratic Leaders like churchill and roosevelt to engage in the kind of Oversight Missions that stalin was happy to authorize on the Eastern Front. Because churchill in particular and roosevelt knew that he could not go to parliament or the congress and justify throwing away 100,000 lives just to do a diversionary attack on the french coast. There are good reasons why there was no second front until 1944 but nevertheless it did mean that the red army was going to be in a strong position in eastern europe. Yalta for churchill and roosevelt confirmed the feeling they could do business with stalin. It was a working conference. Poland. Ot just about involved in other options like ing for Franklin Roosevelt of course, ensuring the soviet union joined in the war against japan and was involved in the United Nations, important for roosevelt to begin a new architecture for the post war world. When that relationship broke and 1946, it was blamed on the dark forces behind stalin. What is interesting, and i am coming to the end of my talk, but what is interesting as the sequel is Winston Churchills in 1946 which is remembered for the term iron curtain, the iron curtain coming down across eastern europe. Churchills speech is more complicated than that and he throws out experiences of the war and the wartime correspondence doing business with stalin. There are a number of soundbites in it. There he is with president truman beside him. The iron curtain, yes, if you like the sound bite, we must remember and churchill says there must be no policy of a piece. Talks about the wartime special relationship into peacetime. The british and americans must stay together. Havehis is not in order to a war with the soviet union. What he wants is from a position britain and america will discuss the problems with stalin across the conference table and reach what he calls a good understanding at all points with russia. And churchills title for this speech is not the iron curtain. Ut the sinews of peace strength is the sinews of peace. This idea of open dialogue with the soviets is a theme of the rest of churchills life. He is out of office in 1945, rudely evicted from number 10 downing street, kicked out as he puts it rather bitterly. On as comes back, stays leader of the tory party and comes back in 1951. And he is talking in the late 1940s and early 1950s about maintaining dialogue, about talking with stalin. Here is a speech he gives in edinburgh in 1950 where he called for another talk with the soviet russia on the highest level. Bridge theffort to gap between the two patrons of the cold war. , in theserds, he says matters because i have not always been proved wrong. See howt easy to matters could be worsened by another parlay at the summit. Parlay at the summit. That is where i think the word summit actually is introduced to the lexicon of diplomacy. It is not bad if you think of churchills various achievements , war leader, but in terms of our language, iron curtain, special relationship. Summit. Three words part of our vocabulary today. Suggesti am trying to here is here is an interesting picture of churchill that grows out of this correspondence and the way he wishes to maintain dialogue. We think of churchill as a great war leader. As he said after the 1945 elections sadly and ruefully to one of his secretaries, i wanted peace as piece well. Churchill was a man of war, but it was a means to an end, a better end he hoped. And whether or not he was right about stalin, i think what we see from the correspondence what i have tried to talk about this thatng is that sense talking is better than fighting, dialogue, keeping open channels of communication matter. And that in these and other ways the kremlin letters cast a long shadow. Thank you very much. [applause] greg thank you very much, professor reynolds. Thank you. I will step away from the speaker. Please raise your hand for any questions. I have the first question. Can you please speculate how these three would have gotten along in todays communications with electronic mail, with telephones . We have a 24 seconds new cycle instead of 24 hours. How with the three have managed . David sometimes as i have done this for school audiences, i have imagined churchill phoning up stalin and saying joe, what the hell did you mean by that message . What is going on . Most leaders nowadays communicate very naturally. So the story i am telling about the difficulties of reading between the lines of the messages would not have applied in the same way. On the other hand, what is striking in all diplomacy i think is it is not just about the information you exchange but the presupposition you have about the other side, the other culture and so on. Your question somehow assumes that we would come of these leaders would have understood more about the other countries given the date of information today. But it is not clear to me that leaders today are able to overcome cultural inevitableions and because in the end and this is part of the challenge of diplomacy. The reason why they are in power is because of the people at home, the electorate. Foreign policy doesnt carry any a few votes. Ies on the other hand it can matter as an issue of life and death areas most leaders are not prepared for diplomacy. Int of what i think, i hope a way books like this can do is say here is an interesting story about how three leaders at a different time and different culture tried to understand each other. Maybe it applies to the present day. Here in the front row, please. Yes. I cant argue with your idea to. Arlay back in the early days of the cold war, it makes perfect sense. But what makes you optimistic that if that had occurred, and maybe it did to some extent, with stalin being a mass , a complete totalitarian dictator who would lie at a moments notice if it benefited him, that there would be some difference in the way the cold war laid out, because it seems to me stalin was determined to take control of those Eastern European countries and there was nothing talking we could have done short of something militarily. David let me give you a direct and specific answer. Churchill went to moscow in october 1944 because the red southeasternss europe into the balkans. Say toas an attempt to stalin, there are certain parts of this area that matter to us in britain. Kind ofot reach some understanding about that . The area that mattered to the british was greece because it was a mediterranean country. It was important for britains canalute through the suez once the war was over. That is why greece got a 90 on churchills list. He said romania, which is historically of interest, you have had territorial issues, 90 so be it. And stalin got the message in a sense that he did not intervene in the greek civil war. The communists were supported by yugoslavia and the albanians. Kept his hands off. Churchill said later in life stalin did not break his word to me where he gave a direct promise. He cited greece as an example. So that would be an example of where it looked you could do business with stalin. Question of course are what are the alternatives . ,ne of roosevelt advisers said the soviet union is here to stay in europe. We have to try to get on with them. , and so be to war it. But lets try. Diplomacy is about choices between, not between good and evil but bigger and lesser evils. One of the things if you like that muddies the clarity of the war for democracy is that we fought it with the help of a country that was not a democracy and actually as a result of ,heir victory over hitler created a different kind of oppression in eastern europe. Churchill felt it particularly over the issue of poland because britain had gone to war because of germanys invasion of poland. Polish soldiers had fought with great courage in battles all africa,ope, north perhaps some of you have been to cassino. Onte if you look at the rebuild abbeys, i can still see it very clearly, rows of white crosses for polish soldiers who died in italy to keep their country free or make their country free again. Forgivens have never roosevelt and churchill. They blame them for surrendering their country. Churchill felt this deeply. It was not clear there was anything more you could do. These are the hard choices i. Hink about diplomatic life i think if i were in a similar position, i would have tried to make a go of this relationship, but this is a judgment call. Greg in the front towards the center. You verysor, thank much. I found it a fascinating discussion of churchills believe there was a council behind stalin and he could work with stalin but he had to run to the council. It is curious to me over time how often we have seen in International Affairs leaders have said they could work with other leaders but there were hardline groups in the country. I am interested your thought about Ronald Reagans understanding that gorbachev had andim counsel behind him the things that happened at the end of the cold war. David i think it is a common pattern that leaders look for potential moderates. This is what happened in the 1930s over appeasement. There were some forces in nazi germany we could have dialogue with. The 1980s, what is striking is that ronald all of them, they decide they are going to take a punt on the kyle gorbachev. Gorbachev. Part of the effort to end the war quickly, particularly over german unification is because of the feeling thatgorbachevs room for maneuver is closing down. Rapid german unification, even though the cost are massive for germany. Germany is still paying the Economic Cost and social cost of that shotgun marriage between east and west. This is a kind of pattern for most leaders when they are trying to deal with something that is for in. Today, younk of iran think of Barack Obamas policy, it is to try to create a deal which will strengthen the ran. Tion of moderates in teh not clear what is the intelligence behind that. How do you understand this shifting grouping, but leaders have to do this. Otherwise you end up teaching you end up treating other countries as anomalies and there is no room for change. This is illustrative of a larger problem in doing diplomacy. Greg i think we have time for one more question. David there is a lady here. Greg two of them. You talked about the personalities of churchill and stalin. Can you talk about stalin and hitler . It is always interesting that when you look at their personal lives, the intellectual breadth, stalin seems to be more human and likable. Should we feel guilty about thinking of Joseph Stalin as being likable . David i think this comes out when churchill visits stalin the first time. At the end in august 1942 at the end of their meetings is a long and uzi dinner and boozy dinner in the kremlin. It has not been an easy dinner visit and stalin news to have some personal time with churchill rather than arguing about this and that. Stalin gets on to talking about the liquidation of the gulags in the 1930s. He is at this point, some big sucking pic is brought in. Pig. , unfortunateulags but necessary. Churchill says in his memoirs, you think, yeah. This guy is a mass murderer. But he is good company. You can have a night in the pub with him. It is that disjunction which is hard to deal with. Frank roberts, a senior british diplomat who i had chance to talk to before, he had been in rome, berlin and moscow and met the three leaders. He said if you met stalin if you met hitler for had to go for a meeting with hitler, it would be a two hour rant. He would march up and down, you would have to sit there, take it and when he finally stopped for breath, you repeated the message you have been asked to deliver. With mussolini it was like a comic opera. Fancy dress, gesturing. Stalin was a total contrast. It was a little man sitting there, doodling and an answering a question. This was not your average dictator. Matter inmpressions doing diplomacy. Leaders are always attracted by going to the summit. Home, ike i played at won the game, i became president , prime minister, what is the next challenge . Doing it on the world stage with a limited understanding sometimes about the other side. The personal characteristics seem to matter a lot. Greg for the final question. There is a bit of overlap but i wonder to what degree do you think churchill and roosevelt understood or realized the extent of stalins mass murdering . And did it matter . David if your question. Reasonablyre was good knowledge about the extent of the purges in the 1930s. Case of the shooting of 11,000 polish 1940 as a deliberate attempt to liquidate the potential leadership of the postwar poland, that is exposed by the germans in april 1943. Write aboutand we it in the book. It is one of those moments of tzpah. Ible chu the guy is almost caught redhanded and he just says no, fake news. Nothing to do with me. The germans, the nazis did it. Going free. Just gambling that churchill and roosevelt will not upset the boat of the alliance by saying what they know. In private it is clear, in the archives in london and washington they understood. When churchill is writing his memoirs, one of the fascinating ,arts was where he did not didnt feel himself in a position to be candid about what happened. On that he just sat on his hands because you could not upset that alliance. And that is part of the moral problems of leadership. It is not good versus evil. It is saying this is really evil but there is even greater people we are fighting. Historian, i am a monday morning quarterback. I can always say this is what they should have done better. If i am asked how would i do it, how would i face these problems, it is not so easy. That is what i would say. Ok. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] this is American History tv featuring events, interviews, archival films and visit to college classrooms, museums and historic places, exploring our nations past weekend on cspan three. Announcer 2 tonight on reel america, as travel for most americans is limited, we invite you to take a journey with the 1967 United Airlines film discover america which highlights natural and manmade attractions from coast to coast. Liberty, hostess to the world. For church her torch has been a light for people who seek discovery in this land. New york city. For many of the millions, Washington Square continues contains a private park. Here United Nations meet to talk the problems of the world. People. N is a world of others, visitors are awed to find sky Tall Buildings in this world within a world. Beyond the towers, dreams in central park. A castle, a zoo, a palace for on an isle ofd rock. Long,and 16 miles numberless streets, vehicles, broadway, women, the shops and shows, city of spiders and masks spires and masks, my city. The ancient indians left behind nothing more than empty shells. But you may discover a nonvote for hopi navajo or hopi village, prehistoric gods and lonely building. Beauty. In this jet age, a few short hours can take you down those trails that lead you to mighty texas. The Glen Canyon Dam is 100 miles of enchanted lake. Announcer 2 travel across the u. S. Tonight at 10 00 eastern, 7 00 pacific on American History tv. Memorial day on American History tv, we feature 24 hours of military history from the civil war to vietnam with roundtable discussions, tours and interviews