William Tyler
Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill

William Tyler - Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill

- [William] Hi.

• I dunno why I can’t see you.

• I don’t know. I’m here. I can see you.

• Oh, good. Lovely to, well, lovely to have you back.

• Well, it’s nice to be here.

• [Wendy] Great.

• I’ve had such nice emails from lots of Lockdown students, which is lovely.

• Oh good.

• I just had one from a lovely gentleman in America who sent me a beautiful photograph of himself in a tank in Normandy two years ago, and it’s the same tank, same sort of tank that his father landed on the Normandy beaches all those years ago. It’s very moving. It’s very moving to get stories like that. And a beautiful picture.

• Yeah. I think John Burt, I’m not sure if he’s there, I know that he’s on Lockdown University. I think he’s on today, you know.

• Oh, he sent a lovely note to William. And William, yeah, William messaged him earlier today.

• Oh, okay. Good. Hi John. All right. Well, William, let me just hand over to you and say we’re looking forward to the lecture today. And always welcome back. Thank you.

• Thank you very much, Wendy. And welcome to all of you. And it’s nice to be back and talking. Just a little word before I begin. To talk about the three allied leaders in World War II in an hour or so is an extremely challenging task. Clearly I can’t deal with every issue. What I do hope to do is to give a talk that first of all, you will enjoy. Secondly, I hope you will learn something new from it. And then thirdly, if you are interested, to follow it up by watching a programme on the television. Now that we all have things like Netflix, there’s lots of documentaries available. Or to pick up a book and read a book about it. So without more ado, let me jump in. The three great allied leaders of World War II, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill. Perhaps I should begin with a word about differing styles of leadership and obviously Roosevelt and Churchill, but, well, perhaps not so obviously, but in reality the leadership of Churchill and Roosevelt was very similar. They are similar in many ways. Obviously the leadership of Stalin was very different. Stalin ruled by fear and always, always with the possibility of death stalking you.

And I’d like to begin with a little quotation here. It is in fact from Khrushchev of all people. You remember that Khrushchev became the leader of the Soviet Union from 1956 to 64. That’s three years after Stalin’s death in 1953. And whilst he was alive, Stalin was alive. Khrushchev was in charge of Stalin’s purges in both Moscow and the Ukraine. And Khrushchev said this at the time, that is before he became leader, “Great Stalin had ordered enemies of the people destroyed. And great Stalin is always right”, said Khrushchev. “Stalin is our hope”, he continued. “Stalin is our expectation. Stalin is the beacon which guide progressive mankind. Stalin is our banner. Stalin is our will. Stalin is our victory.” Now, I don’t think he believed that at the time. And he certainly did not after he came to power. So all that you can take from that is A, he was desirous of power and the only way he could remain a contender of power while Stalin was in charge was to, I mean bluntly suck up to Stalin. But why suck up to him?

Well, because of fear. Because if he had stepped out of line, he would been yet another high ranking member of the party to lose their life. Stalin ruled by fear and the threat of death. We don’t know statistically how many people were killed during Stalin’s regime, but figures range from about 7 million to 10 million. And that’s probably a very conservative estimate. And then you have to take in the large numbers of people, large numbers of Russians who died in World War II in addition to that. People often ask me, “Were Stalin and Hitler the same?” And I don’t think they were. Both are evil, don’t get me wrong. Both are evil, but it’s like a coin. And Stalin’s on one side of this evil coin and Hitler on the other. Hitler was, in his own twisted perverted logic, following a course of action. Stalin was bluntly egotistical, a bully, and decidedly unbalanced, decidedly unbalanced. One might go further, but we don’t have medical evidence to go further. But I selected one thing I wanted to share with you. Stalin’s official post was General Secretary of the Communist Party, but he gave himself a whole range of titles.

Now I think that says something about someone. The titles he gave himself were Great leader of the Soviet People, Wise and Intelligent Chief of the Soviet People, Leader of the World Proletariat, Best Friend of All Children, Great Master of Daring Revolutionary Decisions, Faithful Comrade in Arms of Lenin, Transformer of Nature, Great Strategist of the Revolution, Supreme Military Leader, Father of the Peoples, Father, Leader, Friend and Teacher, Greatest Scientist of Our Age, Granite Bolshevik, Genius of Mankind, and finally, the Greatest Genius of All Times and All People. Well, at that point, you call for the men surely in white coats. And yet Roosevelt and Churchill had to deal with this extraordinary example of humankind. I’ve got one story to illustrate Stalin’s leadership style. It comes from one of my favourite authors. It comes from Laurence Rees, who wrote the book “World War Two: Behind Closed Doors, Stalin, the Nazis and the West”. Behind Closed Doors. Laurence Rees’ most recent publication earlier this year is a book comparing Stalin and Hitler. Simply called “Hitler and Stalin”. If you enjoy reading history, these books by Laurence Rees are really worth reading.

And I’m very grateful to John, who is one of the people listening tonight, who emailed me earlier today to say how much he was enjoying Laurence Rees’ “Hitler and Stalin”. And I was able to reply, “Well, so am I.” And I think it’s an excellent book, but I’m reading from his other book, “Behind Closed Doors”. And Rees tells this story. While the Germans were advancing through the steppes of southern Russia in the summer of 1942, Nikolai Baibakov, Deputy Minister for Soviet Oil Production, hurried to see Stalin at his office in the Kremlin. Stalin said, “Comrade Baibakov, Hitler is rushing to the Caucasus. He’s announcing he doesn’t seize, if he doesn’t seize the Caucasus oil, then he’ll lose the war.” “Everything must be done”, said Stalin, “so that not a single drop of oil should fall to the Germans.” Baibakov was told that his job was to travel to the Caucasus and ensure the Germans didn’t get hold of any oil. But then Stalin added, and at this point, Baibakov recall his voice became quote, “a touch crueller.”

Stalin said, “Bear in mind that if you leave the Germans even one tonne of oil, we will shoot you. But if you destroy the supplies prematurely and the Germans wouldn’t have managed to capture them anyway and were left without oil, then we will also shoot you.” And Laurence Rees comments. “This story demonstrates the extent to which straightforward brutality was at the core of Stalin’s leadership technique. He believed that if you really wanted someone to do something, if their task is monumentally important, you must make sure they note that if they mess it up, they will die.” Now clearly that is not Roosevelt and Churchill’s style. And as I said before, Churchill and Roosevelt somehow have to work with this man. Let me take Churchill first of all. Churchill’s leadership was diametrically opposed and opposite to that of Stalin. Churchill’s leadership was based on consensus. Consensus of his cabinet, consensus of parliament, and perhaps most importantly of all, consensus of the people.

During the course of the war, Churchill’s rating never fell below something like 74%. Churchill was, unlike Stalin, who was a virtual prisoner within the Kremlin, Churchill was a public in the sense he moved around the country in public and was approachable. And there’s one story that I wanted to share. There’s lots of stories about Churchill, some of which you’ll have to take with a dose of salt or a pinch of salt. This one I do believe is true because it was told later by Churchill’s police bodyguard. Walking down King Charles Street once on route for number 10, his policeman bodyguard recalled Churchill rounded furiously on a whistling newspaper boy. “Stop that whistling”, said Churchill. “Why should I?”, said the boy. “Because I don’t like it”, said Churchill. “It’s a horrible noise.” The boy said the policeman stormed past us. He gave a slight glance at Mr. Churchill and said, “Well, you can shut your bloody ears, can’t you?”

It was hardly a clever repost. It wasn’t witty, wasn’t even anatomically feasible. But Churchill was chuckling as he entered the foreign off his yard and his police escort heard him repeating to himself, “You can shut your bloody ears, can’t you?” That boy would’ve been shot dead had such a situation occurred in Moscow. Churchill, for all his aristocratic background, had that extraordinary ability to relate to anyone that he met. However grand and however poor, Churchill always related with them. I used to live in the county of Essex in Britain. And in Essex lived before the war, a writer of detective stories who was popular on both sides of the Atlantic. She was called Margery Allingham. And Margery, a bit like Christie, Margery Allingham was approached in 1940, when America of course wasn’t in the war, by her American publisher, Double Days, and they asked her would she keep a diary or an account of 1940 in Britain that they could publish in the States.

Double Days were part of that movement in the United States that were doing all that they could unofficially to support Britain and Double Days reckoned if they had this firsthand account from a woman novelist who was extremely well known in America, and therefore people would buy the book because they knew her earlier books, they might be able to help push American public opinion behind Britain. And she wrote a book and it’s the only non-fiction book she ever wrote and she wrote it about her village in deepest rural Essex. It’s a place called Tolleshunt D'Arcy. It’s a beautiful name. And she just told this story what happened in the village. And she tells the story of two char ladies, cleaning women, who were in London just after Churchill had become prime minister in May, 1940. And one of the villagers overheard these two cleaning ladies, these two char ladies, talking because one of them was crying her eyes out. And this is Margery Allingham’s book, which is called “The Oaken Heart”. And it is available, I’m sure it’s available in the States. But anyhow, it’ll be available through Amazon. This is a a new paperback edition. My old edition simply fell apart. And the story goes like this.

The fact that from the beginning, everybody chuckled when Mr. Churchill’s name was mentioned and still does is one piece of evidence of the support that he had and the conversation that one of the villagers heard in London between two large char ladies who turned up to clean an office, which had disappeared overnight. It had been blitzed into eternity. One of the char ladies was completely taken aback and temporarily demoralised. The whole mooring poster existence had come out of the rock in her hand. And the other one was telling her off. “My dear old girl”, he was saying. “Blub her away. But you can take it from me while one bloody brick stands on another. Old Churchill will never let us give in.” What a tribute. What a tribute. In May, 1940, when as Churchill himself said, as an aside in the House of Commons, “We had nothing to defend ourselves with, save the broken beer bottles”, he said. He showed empathy to ordinary people. He showed decisiveness. There’s a story of him walking through the East End of London after a blitz and he saw the horror of the blitz in people’s houses and they were all coming out and cheering him and he began to cry and his aids attempted to get him away. They thought seeing the prime minister cry would lose morale. And one woman saw him crying and she shouted out above the crowd, “You see, he does care.

He’s crying.” My goodness me. You have to be a leader who’s recognised as such for that sort of comment to be made and for everybody in the crowd to agree with it. And what about FDR, Roosevelt? Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Perhaps as I’ve said before, it’s rather pointless saying that he like Churchill had little if anything in common with Stalin other than to defeat Nazism. But he had a lot in common with Winston Churchill. In polls that have been conducted both in Britain and in the States, in Britain over the greatest prime minister, and in the States over the greatest president, Churchill has been voted such in Britain and Roosevelt in the States. Now maybe you can argue that both were voted because both saw their countries through to victory in a world war. And that’s fair enough. But I think on analysis, they are recognised for the quality of their leadership, for the empathy with ordinary people. And after all, in Roosevelt’s case, he had been dealing with the Great Depression during the 1930s and in Churchill’s case, he’d been warning since 1933 and the rise of Nazis the power of the danger of Hitler.

In fact, in truth, Churchill had been warning of the danger of Nazism before Hitler sees power. And I think across the world, people recognise the leadership of these two men. We often complain today in both countries of the lack of leadership and sometimes the young say to those of us who are older, “But you are old. You don’t understand.” But I think we do and I think we shouldn’t accept that. And I think we should continue to say that Roosevelt and Churchill were men that stood head and shoulders above the crowd of normal, not just normal politicians, but normal men and women. By December, 1941, when America entered the Second World War, as I’ve just said, FDR had already made his name as the person who set up the New Deal in the States to deal with the Great Depression. And he honed his technique of empathy through radio broadcast. No one had done that before. His weekly quote “fireside chats” unquote, extraordinary. This is a moment in history. You could, sitting in your own home, turn the knob of the radio, twiggle a bit, and Roosevelt was there in the room with you.

Now I still can’t get over the fact that I’m sat in my room in Worthing and you are sitting South Africa, Australia, America, Canada, all over the world and you are seeing me live. I can’t get over that. But just imagine what it was like in the 1930s in America for them to hear the president direct. We wouldn’t have known before that. We didn’t know what they sounded like. We’d never heard you. We don’t have a recording of George Washington. We don’t have a recording of Benjamin Israeli. And now for the first time, and it’s intimate. People ask me when I do the Zoom In, “Aren’t you worried that you are talking to 2,000 people?” No, I’m not because I don’t think of 2,000 people. I think because John from the States emailed me before we started this evening, I think I’m talking to John. I don’t think about it. And so you could sit there and Roosevelt must have had in his head someone he was talking to. A friend of his or whatever, otherwise he could not have done the talks that he did.

By May, 1940 when Churchill became the British prime minister, he had prior to the start of the war, that is to say in September, 1939, as the war started, he was parachuted into office as First Lord of the Admiralty. He’d been in his own words, “living in the wilderness for a decade or so.” So unlike Roosevelt, who had the experience of being president before he became a wartime president in December 41, Churchill was thrown into it. Although he held high office, he was a washed up politician by 1939. Oh, a has-been. No one listen, took him seriously in Parliament. But when push comes to shove, he’s brought back into the cabinet. And when shove turns into potential collapse, he finds himself as prime minister. So both Roosevelt and Churchill arrived at the point of being wartime leaders through a different path, but they’re there together. Let’s think about what Roosevelt brought to his wartime presidency. JFK said that Roosevelt had a quote “curious mind” and was always keen to learn more. And he had a great ability to absorb enormous amounts of information and then use it and use it without hesitation. And I think that’s what, the emphasis I will place on both Roosevelt and Churchill. When difficult decisions have to be made, they made them.

That is a quality of leadership, which many leaders do not have. Some can’t even acquire the information and some, having acquired the information, can’t use it and be decisive. And both men, Roosevelt in particular, took advice. They didn’t always follow the advice, but they took it. They measured it and they made their decision. Both of them had tough decisions to make and they both needed to carry the people with them. When Roosevelt began his fireside chats, the White House had one person dealing with the mail into the White House. After his first broadcast, the very first one mail person expanded into 70 in the White House to deal with half a million letters per week. No American president or British prime minister had ever reached so many. And of course in 1940, Churchill took up the use of radio in Britain.

And people religiously, and I use that word carefully, religiously, turned on to listen to Churchill speaking. Both men had this enormous ability to communicate. Both men not only made decisive decisions but could make decisions, which others advised them not to make. They were their own men. And from the beginning of the war, well, particularly from 1940 onwards, Roosevelt was pro-British. Roosevelt did everything he could to ensure that America back Britain, short of entering the war. Why didn’t Roosevelt enter the war? Well, if Roosevelt felt that he had the sort of power or intended to use the power to take America to war, he would’ve done. But he realised that he would not get the support of Congress to do that. There was not a support for America. America had lost lives in First World War against the American policy of isolation from Europe, which they had followed the Napoleonic War. They had retreated into isolationism in between the wars as regard to Europe.

And there was no thrust in Congress to back that. And even if Roosevelt won in it, after the war, he said he thought he would’ve won, he wouldn’t have won with an overwhelming majority and therefore he would’ve divided the country. So he didn’t. He just did everything in his power as president without having to go through Congress. And the great thing he did, of course, was to ensure that there were supplies being provided here to Britain. If we look at the Atlantic Charter in particular, we have an interesting quotation. The Atlantic Charter, signed on board ships. The American and the British met in a bay, Placentia Bay in Newfoundland, and they signed this Anglo America Atlantic charter. It was an extraordinary moment, if you like, an extraordinary moment in world history. And it’s August, 1941 before America comes into the war. And this is a book written by H.V. Morton who was there and he’s talking about the religious service they held on board ship. It was on board the British ship. Roosevelt was there. And with Churcill. And Morton writes, “We sang the sailors hymn for those in peril and there were very many in peril on the sea. We sang "Onward Christian Soldiers” and indeed I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we were serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet had sounded from on high.

What an extraordinary thing.“ And Churchill said, "When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the same fundamental laws, of the same ideals, and now to a large extent of the same interests and certainly in different degrees facing the same dangers, it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the shore of hope of saving the world from measureless degradation. And so we came back across the ocean waves, uplifted in spirit, fortified in result”, said Churchill. Churchill had always recognised that Britain was unable to win the war when he became prime minister in May, 1940. He didn’t think about Russia at the time. But he didn’t because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But what he did say was he believed that America would have to come into the war and with America in the war, Britain with America could defeat Nazism. And remember that this is not just an Englishman’s hope. Churchill’s mother, the heiress Jennie Jerome was American and Roosevelt was pro-British and anti-Nazi. Churchill had every reason to suppose that America would come to Britain’s aid. And the Atlantic Charter of August, 1941 before America’s officially in the war is an indication of that, and an indication as Churchill, as I just read, Churchill is now sure that America and Roosevelt in particular will not let Britain down. We had by August, well, by September at least 1940, a survive the horror of Dunkirk, the surrender of France, and the Battle of Britain.

And it does us well to remember, and I know there’s lots of British, lots of Commonwealth folks listening, and of course there were South Africans and Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders fighting as pilots in the Spitfires and the Hurricanes of the Battle of Britain. But there were also Americans. Americans who came, volunteering to put their lives on the line for freedom and democracy. And so Churchill was confident in Roosevelt. And Roosevelt and Churchill got on well. That perhaps is the most important thing. They met a number of times during the war and they were speaking from, if I continue the analogy, from the same hymn. Largely anyhow. When Roosevelt died in office in April, 1945 just before the war ended, Churchill said, “In FDR, there died the greatest American friend we have ever known.” There’s a lovely story told by Eleanor Roosevelt about a visit during the war by Churchill and he was staying in the White House. And she writes this. “My husband, FDR, my husband was not given to sitting up late at night after dinner as a rule. But during Mr. Churchill’s visit, he stayed up. And I’m sure he was deeply interested at all times. But they seemed from the very first, not only to have a good understanding of each other and an ability to work together easily, but also to enjoy each other’s company.

They both loved history. Both loved the Navy. And while I think Mr. Churchill had a more Catholic interest in literature, they had some particular literary interest in common.” And on that, their friendship was built. And on that, victory is built. There’s something else about them that a leader needs in the darkest days. Optimism. Even if they themselves don’t feel optimistic, they have to exude optimism. There’s nothing worse than the leader who is, “Oh, we’re in a dreadful position, I’m sure.” No, no, no, no. You’ve got to be positive. And both Roosevelt and Churchill were. If we go back to the 1930s and Roosevelt dealing with the Great Depression, during his election campaign to become president, he campaigned, as you know, for the New Deal for America. He didn’t give many specifics about what the New deal would mean. But every time he appeared across America in this election campaign, they played the song “Happy Days are Here Again”. In the midst of the Depression, he plays the song and songs have an enormous impact on how an audience feels. How different is that when the Nuremberg rally has been held at the same time in Germany.

And then of course, at his inauguration in 1933, the very day, sorry, the very year that Hitler comes to power, it was a very gloomy day in Washington, but he somehow radiated optimism and he’s told everybody he would speak with candour, that he would lead with vigour and that he would act boldly. And then he made that extraordinary sentence, which reverberates down its years. He said, “I assure you of my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” And the media reported almost immediately, the sun began to shine. And what about Churchill? In Churchill’s own account of the Second World War, this is volume one, he ends volume one with this paragraph. He’s just become Prime Minister. 10th of May, 1940. “During these last crowded days of the political crisis, my pulse had not quickened at any moment. I took it all as it came. But I cannot conceal from the reader of this truthful account that as I went to bed at about 3:00 am, I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last, I had the authority to give directions over the whole scene. I felt as if I was walking with destiny and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.

Ten years in the political wilderness, it freed me from ordinary party antagonisms. My warnings over the last six years have been so numerous, so detailed and were now so terribly vindicated that no one could gainsay me. I could not be reproached either for making the war or with wanted preparation for it. I thought I knew a good deal about it all and I was sure I should not fail. Therefore, although impatient for the morning, I slept soundly and had no need for cheering dreams. Facts are better than dreams.” Now, he did write that after the war. And we do know that as he came back from Buckingham Palace with his police escort, he said to his policeman, who said he didn’t quite know what to say to Churchill. He could hardly congratulate him in May, 1940 in becoming Prime Minister. He said to Churchill, “I wished sir that this honour had come to you in better times.” “So do I”, said Churchill. “I hope this isn’t too late. But I think it may be.” In other words, the optimism that he wanted to show to the public and showed to the public in 1940, he shows again in his own memoir. But the reality was different. And I suspect the reality was different for FDR in the 1930s.

These are men who know what has to be done and they do it. How did they then work with Stalin? When Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa in June, 1941 against the USSR, Stalin becomes in a sense, almost immediately our friend. Good old Uncle Joe we called him in Britain and the Americans later pick up that term. Good old Uncle Joe. But Churchill had always been outspoken about Bolshevism, as outspoken about Bolshevism as he had been about Nazism. In 1920, January, 1920, that’s what? Couple of years only after the Revolution of 1917 that saw the Marxist take power in October. Churchill wrote, “The theories of Lenin and Trotsky had driven man from the civilization of the 20th century into a condition of barbarism worse than the Stone Age and left it the most awful and pitiable spectacle in human endurance. Devoured by vermin, wrapped by pestilence, and deprived of hope.” But what did he say of the German invasion of Russia and Stalin been thrown in as an ally to Britain. America not in the war of course at this moment in June 14th. Churchill said, “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” Realpolitik.

Britain had to deal with Stalin. And later Roosevelt has to deal with Stalin. We can’t ignore Stalin. And of course, by the end of 1941, it isn’t a two-way process between Britain and the USSR. It’s a three-way process between Britain, America, and the USSR. Between Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. As some historian has written, the Big Three entered into a tent three-way shotgun marriage. On the 1st of January, 1942, less than a month after the bombing at Pearl Harbour, America and Britain and Russia signed quote, “The Declaration by United Nations.” That’s where the phrase the United Nations begins. Declaration by United Nations. It was a non legally binding document, but nevertheless yoked these three men and their countries together in a grand alliance to achieve the overthrow of Hitler and of Nazism. And that’s what they’re focused on. That’s what they’re focused on. The defeat of Nazism. Churchill never trusted Stalin and Stalin was paranoid and trusted no one.

And from the beginning, it was Roosevelt that found himself in the middle between Churchill and Stalin, trying to calm Churchill down, saying they won’t take over Europe when we win the war and trying to feed Stalin’s aspirations to be considered a major power after the war. Roosevelt is trying to find a middle way to deal with Russia. Churchill is adamant that there cannot be a middle way to deal with Russia and Stalin is merely using the other two. FDR wrote to Churchill in 1944 quote, “It should be possible to accomplish all of this by adjusting our differences and compromise by all the parties concerned and this ought to tide things over for a few years until the child, that is Russia, until the child learns to toddle.” Churchill didn’t believe it. Churchill believed that Roosevelt had got it wrong. And in a wonderful quote from Churchill from the Geneva Conference of 1955 when both Stalin and Roosevelt are dead, Churchill had this fantastically, it’s very amusing little comment. “There I sat”, says Churchill, “with the great Russian bear on one side with paws outstretched and on the other, the great American buffalo. And between the two sat the poor little English donkey who was the only one who knew the right way home.” 1955. The Cold War has started in earnest.

And Churchill had warned about that in 1946 at his speech at Fulton in Missouri when he talked about an Iron Curtain descending across the continent of Europe. Churchill was under no illusions about the dangers faced by America and Britain and indeed by Europe of communism. But the truth of the matter is by 1944, Churchill hardly counted. Churchill’s war in one sense was over. He had seen Britain stand alone in 1940 along with the Empire and Commonwealth. He brought us through to June 41 when the second front opens by the Germans in the East with Russia. And he’d seen us through to December 41 when America entered the war. What Churchill had been hoping for since May, 1940. His job was done. And frankly by 1944, the British could have had any prime minister because the truth is that Roosevelt was the leader of the Grand Alliance of the West in the same way that Eisenhower was the military leader at D-Day. Churchill’s work was done, but he outlived both and he’s still attempting to deal with what he sees as the threat from Russia.

And he identified a three point Cold War strategy. Military strength to balance the Soviet armors after World War II was over. Two, to open and keep open a dialogue with Russia. And thirdly, a United States of Europe to match the United States of America and USSR. Although interestingly, he didn’t see Britain as a member of the United States of Europe. He saw Britain as facilitating that because he saw, still saw Britain as this Imperial Britain. And if pushed, he saw Britain allied to America and not to Europe. And of course over all of that, he turned out to be wrong. He couldn’t as a Victorian come to terms with the loss of Empire and therefore reassess our role in world affairs. The three of them met at Tehran for the first time. They met in Tehran because Stalin could get there by train. Stalin wouldn’t fly so the others had to meet him in Tehran. And they agreed on an invasion of France because Stalin was anxious that the Americans and British opened a second front. Enroute Stalin begins to play Roosevelt and Churchill. And the second time they met was at Yalta.

1945 in February. In truth, FDR is dying. He’s got two months to live. And Churchill, Churchill is really now an old man. He was born, remember in November, 1874. He’s now over 70. Now, okay, lots of us listening and speaking tonight over 70, but we’re talking about a long time ago. And he hadn’t been in the best of health. And although it was spun at the time, both in Britain and the States of that, the Allies, Britain and America, had done enormously well for both Roosevelt and Churchill. In truth, they had gained one thing, which was Stalin’s promise to declare war on Japan, which of course he did, but only after the bombs had dropped. And of course we didn’t need him, although at the time we didn’t know that the bombs would be dropped or would be successful. And in return, we allowed Russia, USSR to take control a part of Germany and part of Berlin. We convinced ourselves that they would create and help us to create a unified democratic Germany. And of course they didn’t. And the Iron Curtain we agreed to, although we didn’t refer to it in that way of course at the time, that Russian influence would be across Eastern Europe and the only concession gained was Churchill’s concession, that Russia would leave Greece alone. And that was a considerable concession. But are we right to say that Roosevelt and Churchill failed?

Well, a future American Secretary of State, James Burns, who was actually at Yalta, wrote in his memoirs, “So far as I could see, Roosevelt had made little preparation for the conference. Lord Moran, who was Churchill’s doctor, thought that Roosevelt was a very sick man with only a few months to live”, which was correct of course. And Churchill said, “Roosevelt is behaving very badly. He won’t take any interest in what we are trying to do.” But Alexander Cadogan, who was the Permanent Secretary in the Foreign Office, the senior civil servant who’d been there years, Cadogan said, “Uncle Joe Stalin was much the most impressive of the three men. He’s very quiet and restrained. The president flapped about and the prime minister boomed. But Joe just sat there taking it all in and being rather amused. When he did chip in, he never used a superfluous word and spoke very much to the point.” If you’re going to write the history of the Cold War, I think you should start with Yalta. And Russia believed it had the upper hand and indeed had the upper hand. And I think that plays into all sorts of issues, not least to Putin’s position in 2021. I’m going to end because I know lots of people want to ask things. I’m going to end with Churchill.

My, I may, no, I’m British and I’m doing this and you can’t stop me. I’m going to end with Churchill. But I’m going to end with an American talking about Churchill and I’m going back to Eleanor Roosevelt. And Eleanor wrote, “I was to lunch with Churchill once more in London.” This is after the war and after FDR is dead. “I was to lunch with Churchill once more in London at a later period when he had begun to fail a little. His hearing was not quite so good, but he was still a very determined man. Most people remember him best as he was when he made his speech, which stirred the British people and stirred the American people too. He said, "We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.” Eleanor comments, “The pride of race and of the Englishman who represented an Empire on which the sun never set rang in every word of that speech.

He could put into words the feeling of his own people about the defence of their island and his speeches gave real hope not only to the people of Great Britain, but to the people of the United States.” In her memoirs, Eleanor cuts off Churchill’s famous speech, “We shall fight on the beaches” with the phrase “And we shall never surrender.” And in fairness, Eleanor, if I’m talking about Churchill, I often stop the speech at that point ‘cause it’s so dramatic. But Churchill had another three lines of the speech to deliver. And those are very important to us as we look at these three leaders. So Churchill, “We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it was subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle until in God’s good time, the New World”, by which he means the United States, “the New World with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and liberation of the old.” It’s an incredible speech. And remember he wrote it himself.

So what do we say in summary? That the friendship between these two men, FDR and Churchill, was a strong personal connection and that strong personal connection and their common belief in that phrase I read from Churchill about from the Atlantic Charter about a common language, a common belief and so on, that they both deeply believed in that. In parenthesis, so did Eleanor when she was concerned after the war with human rights and she went back to Magna Carter. We came from the same stock and they recognised that and they knew what they were fighting for. They were fighting for something which pulls Britain and America together historically. And that is that our democracies did not come from the French Revolution. Our democracies emerged in 17th century England in the fight against the monarchy in the Civil War, in the beliefs of the Puritans who believed that they had the right to worship God as they wished and the right to choose their form of government. And they took those beliefs, many of them across the Atlantic in appalling conditions, and they wrote Constitutions, which we did not have in England, but they wrote them in Connecticut and they wrote them in Massachusetts and they wrote them again at the time of the American Revolution. And we were bound by the same ideals.

And that in the end counted for a great deal. And Stalin, I have to say that in the end, I don’t believe either men managed him. But then I’m not sure that anyone can manage a madman. They used him successfully as it turns out. But then Churchill always believe that Russia would defeat Germany even when his advisors in 1941 said that Russia would only last two weeks. He said nonsense. In two years, they will be victorious. Well, it was a little more than two years, but they were victorious. So it’s an interesting comparison, these three men. But it tells us something about where we are today. Putin may no longer regard himself as a communist, but he’s certainly an autocrat. He may not be mad, but he certainly, well, can you use the word that begins with an E and ends in an L and that’s four letters long? Maybe you can. And we live in a world where the alliance between Britain and America is weakened. That is clear as America emphasises its role in the East rather than in Europe. And Britain itself has withdrawn from Europe entirely with Brexit. But I don’t think the ties will ever disappear between Britain and America. And Britain is about to send a aircraft carrier to support the American fleet in the China Seas. Interesting. Very interesting. Both countries view Russia with alarm. America is concerned about NATO and it needs Britain in NATO. And I think America and Britain, maybe both, at least people in both countries, leaderships are different, are concerned about the rise of populism, which we’ve seen in America and we are seeing in Britain, but are alarmed at the rise of populism of a neo-fascist kind in Poland, in Hungary, potentially even, publish it not in the streets of Gath, potentially in Germany and France. So the history is past, but it relates to the present and the present relates to the future. So this story is an important one for me, for you, for all of us. Thanks for listening. I’ve enjoyed talking. I hope I haven’t bored you. Judi then.

• Yes. Sorry. So sorry, William.

• Have you-

• Oh. Sorry, Judi. I was going to say are you happy to answer questions, William?

• Yes. I put the chat up. Anyone? I don’t seem to have got any comments yet. Has anybody tried to put-

• There are 54 comments on the Q&A. On the Q&A, William.

• Oh, are they? Sorry. I’ve not got to it. Oh, yeah. I’ve got it now. Sorry. It’s on Q&A. I beg your pardon.

• No problem.

• [William] Let me see what-

• William, I’d like to jump in. William, I’d like to jump in and say thank you for an excellent presentation. And you’re quite right. One hour is not enough to discuss these three giant, you know, impactful human beings. And it would be great if we could, you know, I think we should schedule more sessions.

• Oh, well that would be nice. It always, I like doing introductory things because it enables people to make their own judgments by reading and seeing other things. I-

• Of course.

Q&A and Comments:

• I always say you don’t have to take what I say. My opinions are my opinions. If you agree with them, fine. If you disagree with them, fine. I try and make the facts as objective as I can. But the judgement is always yours.

Q: Who do I think had the better leadership skills between Churchill and Roosevelt?

A: I can’t answer that. I think the only answer anyone can give is Churchill had the right ones for Britain and Roosevelt had the right ones for America. And that, and if you think that’s dodging the question, well, maybe it is, but I don’t think I can honestly answer in any other way. That’s what I feel. Yes, there is. There’s a current series on Churchill on Channel five in the UK. And as someone said, it’s very informative. I haven’t watched it because I’m talking about Churchill a couple of times and I didn’t want it to influence what I said, but I shall watch them in due course.

Q: Did Stalin lack the reason thinking that align Roosevelt and Churchill or was it a choice?

A: That’s a difficult question. Stalin was as anti-German as Hitler was anti-Stalin. It’s the old divide between Slav and Teuton and Russia had suffered under the Napoleonic invasion and they were determined not to give in this time either. And Stalin would have sacrificed the last living Russian to defeat Germany. He would’ve starved the last of his people to defeat Germany. And so Stalin was not in a position of either Roosevelt or Churchill was in. He had Germans, enormous size army on Russian soil. And that to Stalin was a horror. Holy Mother Russia. Remember that Stalin started off his life being trained for the Orthodox Christian, Russian Orthodox priesthood. He’s one of those who switched from a religion, like many of the Jews in Russia switched from being religious Jews to being Marxist.

He switched from being Christian training for the priesthood to become Marxist. So he had this view about Russia. No, Stalin’s mother wasn’t Jewish. I was told he killed 15 million. It depends what you count in. The numbers are horrifying. There comes a point really with the numbers killed, adding in those killed during the war, and we don’t know the full numbers. It’s like Hitler as well. The numbers are so horrendous. You can’t take them on board. I always say to people. I’m a football fan. Well, to Americans, a soccer fan. I can, I’ve been in crowds of 30,000 and 40,000. I can just about imagine a crowd of 30 or 40,000, but I can’t begin to think of 10 million, 15 million people. Just think for a moment. If 10 million people were to walk through my door, which is on my left, and jump out the window on my right, how long would it take for 15 million? It’s just horrifying.

Q: And what’s my view of Alan Bullock’s book? Sorry Angela.

A: Alan Bullock’s book is now out of date. If you want to read up to date research, then the book to read is Hitler, oops, I can’t. Let me close that for a minute. It is “Hitler and Stalin” by Laurence Rees. This is the book that now you should read. History goes out of date. It particularly so as regards Russia and Russian sources, because following the collapse of communism, a lot of Russian archives were opened to researchers. And so a lot more became available. And so earlier books, like books, are no longer, would no longer be on a reading list in a British university. Let me put it like that. Laurence Rees’ book is excellent on Hitler and Stalin. I can’t emphasise that. I do know people that don’t like Laurence Rees’ writing. I do. So you buy it and read it and think what, make your own mind up.

Q: Are there lessons in dealing with Russia and China today? Wow. Are there lessons in dealing with Russia and China today?

A: There are lessons with dealing with Russia. It’s to stand firm. And that’s difficult. And it’s difficult about, we, NATO is standing firm in the Baltics and on the Polish border. There are NATO troops there. The problem is the Ukraine. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and the Western allies allowed Crimea to go, which is actually fine because Crimea was always Russian. The bit that’s problematic is East Ukraine, which is to all intent and purposes, now controlled by Russia and the threat of Russia to the West Ukraine. If Putin thinks he could get away with it, which he has in Crimea and East Ukraine, he might do it. And would America, because it’s no good talking about NATO, would America be prepared? Would Biden be prepared to put troops into the Ukraine? I, we don’t know the answer, but from the evidence we’ve got, probably not. And Putin is probably at this very moment thinking, would Biden send troops to the Ukraine? Could I just chance it. Maybe I’ll push a little bit, rather like Hitler did to the Rhineland. As for China, oh, China is such a problematic place.

We, China will only respect power. And the good thing about dealing with the Chinese is that there’s an increasing multilateral force in the China Seas. France and Britain, Japan. It’s really important and the crunch will come over Taiwan and we’ve got to defend Taiwan. Otherwise we may as well wash our hands here. But China, like Russia, is vulnerable. They’re vulnerable economically. They’re vulnerable in Russia because it’s an autocracy and they’re vulnerable in China because they have a Marxist political system and a capitalist economic system. So both countries are vulnerable. And I guess there is both in America and in Britain many people studying a way this very day on how you can help bring down Putin and how you can bring down Marxism in China. I think Putin will be brought down internally and if Navalny dies in prison, I think we could see real trouble in Russia. Both in China and in Russia, they depend on the police and the military. Once they lose that support, they’re done for. And I don’t know. It, we, I always say I’m going to live to 250 ‘cause I want to find out what happens.

I better come on down a bit. I like the people who make personal comments. Somebody I know from the past says she can’t believe how I sit down because I’m always charging around. The truth of the matter is I can’t move quite so quickly anymore.

Oh, somebody’s put, Rodney has put, Churchill had his acts of anger that costs lives. We would have to have a long discussion about that. I, my view of Churchill is that he was very human. He had many faults, but when it counted in May, 1940 when Britain stood alone, Churchill, all Churchill’s faults as well as his good points all came together. I always say it was like a fairy godmother waving a stardust over Churchill from 19, May 40 to June 41.

I’m not sure what you relate to in terms of anger. I would defend the decision on Dresden. I will defend the decision on the sinking of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir. And there is a perfectly valid defence of the Bengal famine. But the, you may well have different views about that, and that’s what makes history interesting. Maybe we will have an opportunity to go back.

I guess Leonard who sent, he must be American, and he’s saying that you must remember that Roosevelt was anti-Semitic and they did everything to block any rescue of Jews. I don’t know enough to comment about that American politics. What I do know is that Churchill was not anti-Semitic. And I’ve gone into rouse about this before. If anyone is wants to read about Churchill and the Jews, Sir Martin Gilbert, who is the doyenne of historians of Churchill and himself Jewish wrote a book “Churchill and The Jews”. Do read that if you are at all interested.

It, Martin Gilbert, it was, he sadly died a couple of years ago. Martin Gilbert was an outstanding historian. I mean really outstanding. And let me tell you a story. A few years back now, I was giving a lecture to a Jewish organisation in Britain, which had been set up by children who had found exile in Britain from Nazism called the 45 Aid Group. And I was giving a talk about Churchill and it was open to the general public. And a young man, a Jewish young man began to say, “Well, Churchill was anti-Semitic.” And I thought there might be that sort of comment. And I had an answer prepared. And before I could give the answer, those who had suffered under Nazism, those who’d fled, others who’d had family in Auschwitz leapt in. I didn’t have to answer at all because to them, Churchill was the hero and the saviour. They were all Jewish, of course. And they put this young man firmly in his box. And I was so grateful for them to do that because it meant so much more that they had said it. And I as a non-Jew didn’t have to defend Churchill over anti-Semitism. And they did it. So do read that. And I’m really interested, and I’m going to have to find a book to read about Roosevelt and his cabinets, anti-Semitism.

Thank you ever so much, Leonard. That’s a really interesting point. Hang on. It’s gone. I need to find another question.

Q: How do you explain Churchill losing the election after the war?

A: Very easily actually. After the First World War, British prime minister Lloyd George who promised a country fit for heroes to live in. And that never happened. And we went into the horrors of the 1920s and 30s, which wasn’t Lloyd George’s fault, but in 1945, people didn’t want to go back. They also remembered the 1930s when the Conservative Party were in power and did very little for the working class and the, in the army in particular, and the RAF at the end of the war, when the lads had nothing to do, they received lectures. And the lectures were given by, well, a couple of generations before me of adult educators. And I’d met them in my earlier days. And most of them were socialists. And they told the men who came to the lectures basically to vote Labour if you wanted to make a land fit for heroes a reality. And so there was a lot of people who wanted a change. They loved Churchill as a wartime leader, but they couldn’t risk Conservative government. And so they voted Labour. More than that, Labour actually had a policy. I’d say that, so sorry, that sounds as though no political party has policies, but actually probably that’s true. But they had a policy. It would’ve been written in the war by Beveridge. Beveridge was a liberal, and in British terms of the Liberal Party, big L. And he’d written this report called the Beveridge Report about a new social structure that the government would implement, including things like the National Health Service and so on and so forth. And that had been commissioned by Churchill because Churchill had known Beveridge when Churchill himself was not a conservative, but a liberal in Esquid’s government. And Churchill approached Beveridge. Beveridge wrote this report and Attlee accepted it and said, “We will implement it.” Churchill said, “I believe in the report, but we can’t afford it.” Attlee in effect said, “We can’t not afford it.” And so people voted for Attlee because they were voting for hope and change and that the war would actually mean something.

I tell you a little story. When my father-in-law was retired a number of years ago, we were sat talking and we were talking about this very thing. And he suddenly, he, as far as I knew, he and his wife, my mother-in-law, had voted conservative all their lives and suddenly said, “Do you know William? I voted Labour in 1945.” And at that moment, my mother-in-law came in and said, “What did you say?” And he said, “Well, I just told William I voted Labour in 1945.” She didn’t speak to him for days. She was furious. She’d never known. He wouldn’t have dared vote Labour if he’d been back in Britain because his wife would’ve made sure that he didn’t vote Labour. But he voted Labour because for the reasons I’ve told you. Because they wanted hope and they wanted change.

Oh, the, yeah. Somebody, Sharon has put “The Vile and The Splendid”, a new book is excellent on the Battle of Britain. It’s a fantastic book, “The Vile and The Splendid”.

Myrna has put Paul Johnson in “Modern Times” give a chilling description of Stalin. Well, I agree. I think Stalin is chilling. I’m just trying to go through.

See if I can get more people answered.

Roosevelt didn’t on a personal level liked Churchill. I don’t think that’s true. I really don’t think that’s true. And I’m, and I’ve quoted you Eleanor. Eleanor wouldn’t have written well of her husband if in, just to make him sound good. By no means it’s true. So I’m sticking with Eleanor. It’s true that at the end of the war, I think Roosevelt, but then he’s not a well man. Roosevelt got, Roosevelt realised that Churchill’s powers I think were waning and they were waning towards the end of the war. And that was recognised in the British Cabinet. On one occasion, toward the end of war, Clement Attlee, the Labour leader who was a member of the Wartime Cabinet and was his Deputy during the war, said at a cabinet meeting, “Prime Minister, if you haven’t read the papers, there’s very little point in us having this meeting.” And Churchill haven’t read the papers. And that’s not the Churchill of 1940. His powers are not the same. And Eleanor explains that. And I think Roosevelt realised that. But because Churchill was this huge figure, I think Roosevelt found that difficult to deal with.

Q: Now, somebody else has asked a question about Roosevelt. Why did he refuse to help Jews?

A: To answer, I think you need an American historian to answer that. I’m not, I don’t know enough about that, but I’m intrigued by it. If you get an American historian to talk to you about that, I should tune in.

Oh, how interesting. Linda, what an interesting comment. My grandfather, Frank Renton, recorded a series of talks on Hyde Park called “Broadcast to the American People” for the BBC in 1941. The purpose is to bring the US into the war. There were lots of people involved on both sides of the Atlantic before America entered the war to encourage America to enter the war, to change public opinion in America to enter the war. As I said earlier, Roosevelt felt couldn’t get a majority in Congress and it’s an intriguing, it’s a whole intriguing issue. The British had military, had intelligence officers operating in the States, trying to push American opinion behind Britain. And I gave you an example of Double Days, the American publisher and the book “The Oaken Heart”. It’s a fascinating study in its own right.

I can’t answer the question about Jews in sort of two minutes.

Did either Churchill or Roosevelt… It’s a complex question and I thought some folks would ask that, but it wasn’t sort of in my remit today. I’m happy to talk about that at some future point if you would like me to because it’s a huge subject in its own right. And it’s a complex subject. Very complex. Oh, yes. Yeah.

That’s interesting from a British point of view. I don’t know whether David is, David Glassman is British or American.

Q: Please will your comment on the tough terms Roosevelt imposed on the UK in return for the various forms of aid he gave, in particular in connection with animosity to the British Empire?

A: Well, hmm, yeah. Well, America had been anti-empire since Woodrow Wilson had spoken at Versailles and talked about the right of self-determination, which got up the nose of Lloyd George and Clemenceau because they saw it as an attack on the French and British empires, which indeed it was. The Americans had this view. Oh gosh. That gets me into hot water. Had this view about British Empire with a lacuna in their own eye or in their own minds about American Empire. And I guess all the Americans know the rather unfortunate comment made about American occupation of the Philippines. If not, I’ll tell you about that another time. Yes. There was a problem. There it, there is a problem over America post-war and British payment back. It, that is a difficult issue. You are raising such fantastic issues. I could go on for weeks talking about this.

• William, why don’t we make, why don’t you, let’s make notes on possible presentations that the participants are asking for.

• I’ll talk to Trudy and say.

• Okay. The three of us will get together. I know that Trudy’s on today too. We can sit and chat about taking this forward, but it certainly needs more time. And I’ve said to you, Trudy, over and over again, go slowly. Go slowly. There’s no rush.

• No, and the question, Wendy, the questions people have raised and the challenges are so fascinating and there aren’t any clear answers to some of the questions. Although I’m not Jewish, I’m happy if they’re happy for me to talk about attitudes towards Jews who, when roots to freedom were closed down, that I’m more than happy to talk about it. And I’m sure we would have a bigger disagreement about that. I’m happy to talk about post-war and America’s desire to pull away from Europe, but was forced back into Europe because of the Russian threat to Western Europe, which would’ve been detrimental to American interests as well. So there’s a lot to talk about. Shall I close at that point?

• I want to say thank you for an excellent presentation and we have a lot to look forward to.

• Well, thank you.

• Thank you very much.

• And thank you everyone for listening.

• Thank you. See you soon. Bye-Bye everybody.

• Bye-bye. Bye-bye.