Skip to main content

tv   Book TV  CSPAN  October 8, 2017 11:29am-12:01pm EDT

11:29 am
they really do. and i think we should rectify that. >> you are watching book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. here's our primetime lineup. at 6:20 p.m. eastern, alex rifkin talks about the anti-israel agenda that he says is being pushed by the united nations, religious groups and on college campuses in the us and europe. that 7:30, economist mohammad yunus explores how to solve the problems of global poverty, unemployment and climate change. on both tvs "after words", former radio host and msnbc contributor charles sykes discovers the conservative movement in america with tammy bruce and at 10, the
11:30 am
atlantic's franklin ford takes a look at influence of tech companies like amazon, facebook, google and more on our news, politics and free will and we wrap up our programming 11 pm with andrea peter provides a history of concentration camps that have existed around the world over the past two centuries. that happens tonight on c-span2's book tv. >> you are watching book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. joining usfrom the feet of fest convention is author , lee edwards whose most recent book is a brief history of the cold war. it's where we get into the cold war mister edwards, how many books is this for you? >> about 25, 26 but who's counting? >> what topic? >> i got the best job in washington dc. i'm there at the heritage foundation, i'm their in-house historian. i love to read books so i've written books about reagan, goldwater, and mees, l and fuller, you name it, i've written a book about it.
11:31 am
>> why are you a conservative? >> i believe in freedom, that's one of the reasons i'm here at freedom fest. i think they got it right when it takes to the economic issues so they're not so terribly good when it comes to the cogent issues which is why i'm a conservative and not a libertarian. >> you have another book coming out this fall, what is that? >> this is a book i've been working on where people say how long has this book taken you, i'd say about 40 years and it is my memoir looking back at the last 40 or maybe 50 years and what i've been able to be a part of in the conservative movement.>>
11:32 am
our daughter was a press at claremont mckenna college and until teaching at catholic university by the way. both of us teaching foreign-policy, national security, we were not happy, we were not satisfied with the textbooks we saw out there. so we decided we're going to write i history of the cold war but a brief history, about 500 or or 600 page thing a something that could be used in classrooms to educate young people particularly about the cold war, which began way back, , young people would say, in 1945 with an meeting between fdr, churchill and stalin at a place called delta. in fact, began the cold war which continued until 1991. so some 40 secures the most protected conflicts in which america has been involved. very important one and somewhat
11:33 am
overlooked, people talk about world war i, world war ii at the cold war in its way was just as important, just as significant in affecting the outcome of the world and of history as the other two. >> host: mr. edwards, that meeting at yalta happened just before the end of world war ii, correct? >> guest: yes. fdr was dying -- >> host: january or february? >> guest: i think february. fdr was dying, looked terrible but still he wanted to be there to try to pin down as much as he could what postwar europe and the rest of the world would look like. they thought he and churchill thought they had worked out an arrangement with joseph stalin, the dictator of the soviet union, regarding forthcoming elections in eastern and central europe. and mr. stalin said don't worry about a thing, we will have free
11:34 am
and open elections there. and, of course, poland also was a key factor in their discussions as well. they thought on our side, the west, things had worked out, things are going to be perfectly fine. and if they were not that we could depend upon the united nations to keep the peace. it didn't work out that way. >> host: did they basically divide europe amongst themselves? >> guest: i think it's probably -- >> host: much like churchill did the middle east at one time? >> guest: that's a bit of an oversimplification but there is way of talking about it in those ways, but at the same time what fdr and churchill said to stalin, look, with regard to eastern and central europe we want free and open elections of the people can decide which way they're going to go. so of course, we will do that. >> host: you say that began the cold war. how did it develop? >> guest: it developed because in a very short order really
11:35 am
within a year, truman realized stalin was not going to keep his word, that the red army had invaded and was the city in poland, hungary, , czechoslovaka and the rest of those countries. and that, he said publicly, almost publicly, i'm tired of babying the soviets. and what was needed was a position taken from strength, position taken from a commitment to freedom and an opportunity for the people of eastern and central europe to make up their own futures. but that didn't entailed some very definite actions on the part of truman, including the truman doctrine which afforded greece and turkey, the marshall plan which economically supported not only eastern and central europe but france and great britain who were economically flat on their backs, and politically were really under some stress and strain. it's possible the communist
11:36 am
parties of those two countries, particularly france, might've been able to even win an election. so for those reasons, truman saying to himself we must take a strong stand, begin what was called a policy of containment, of making sure the soviets could go no farther than they had, which was eastern and central europe. >> host: what was the soviet reaction? >> guest: they were not happy. they were a little bit shocked that we would take that kind of a position of strength, that kind of the commitment if you will to the freedom and liberty of eastern and central europe. and so they thought to themselves what can we do? they put pressure on both greece and turkey. the reaction to it was the truman doctrine. it began agitating and propagandizing in france and england, and elsewhere, the netherlands and so forth. our reaction to that was not only a marshall plan but also a
11:37 am
military alliance, nato. that really truly brought about a serious commitment on both sides to a cold war. >> host: how did these two superpowers use surrogates during the cold war? >> guest: both of them use surrogates. for the russians it was the moscow backed in which they brought everybody from eastern and central europe into it and began saying to them all right, these are positioned you must take for the greater good of bringing about a communist world. we, through nato, working to people like great britain, france, but who could not do it on their own, they really need our support both economically and militarily to bring about a balance, if you will, a policy of containment as i say to prevent the soviets removing any further. this precipitated a really
11:38 am
critical act of those taken, and that was the berlin airlift of 1948, truly an extraordinary thing. stalin cut off berlin, west berlin which was in the hands of the west, and said what do you want to do about it? and we launched an airlift of food and supplies which lasted for over one year, millions and billions of pounds of food and supplies, medicine, all the other things. and finally stalin said okay, i understand, you guys are serious about this. lifted the embargo which had imposed upon west berlin as a result of a very brave action by harry truman, one of the true heroes of the cold war in a post world war america. >> host: during this 41 years that the cold war was going on, did u.s. policy stay consistent? >> guest: what happened was that in the beginning it was a
11:39 am
policy was called containment, this idea as i say, no further. then came under truman, after truman, under nixon and then a little bit under ford and carter a policy of detente, the id of maybe we can work with the soviets. maybe -- idea. if you can bring about some kind of balance militarily that we can sit down and do away with this idea of conflict, perhaps being inevitable. that unfortunately did not work out too well because during this period of detente, during the 1970s, this was the time when all of a sudden there were communist regimes in africa, in ethiopia, mozambique, angola, a time when nicaragua went communist. and so we could see, , least i should say we, i mean the conservatives could see, that there was a need for something
11:40 am
beyond detente, that we had to go back not just to containment but to something beyond that. and so this along came ronald reagan who for the first time in almost 40 years talked not just about accommodation or detente or even a tie, but some did have a very famous talk that he had with richard allen which he said dick, i know this may sound simplistic about ending the cold war, but i do have a solution. and dick allen said what is that, governor? he was still governor at that time. it's very simple, dick. we win and they lose. and that, no president had said that ever before really in those times of simple but yet very direct terms. beginning out of that was a very sophisticated, it wasn't a something of dropping a bomb on moscow and ending the war that way. as a matter-of-fact margaret thatcher thatcher said about ronald reagan, the end of the cold war without firing a shot, that's precisely what he did by
11:41 am
using a very sophisticated multifaceted reagan doctrine, which included psychological warfare, economic warfare, persuading people not to buy, for example, soviet oil and gas, beginning with an arms race and this thing called defense initiative which made the russians realize that they could not win an arms race. and that led to mr. gorbachev, mikhail gorbachev, who is certainly one of the important players in this time said okay, let's sit down and talk about how we can negotiate and in to the cold war. not on the battlefield but at the bargaining table. >> host: how close did become due actual hot war during this time? >> guest: it's true, there was one time, the so-called human missile crisis of late fall of 1962. mr. khrushchev had at various
11:42 am
offensive missiles, not defensive but offenses missiles put in place in cuba 90 miles away. some of these missiles had a radius of 1000 or even 1500 miles they could get washington d.c., new york city and so forth. this was a serious bringing about, what a brought about a serious imbalance in the nuclear situation between us and the russians. president kennedy said we can't allow this to happen. and so there was a very serious time of negotiating, how can we possibly get them and it happened through true diplomacy, and for this president kennedy deserves much, much credit indeed, let's talk again about how we can bring about an end to this impasse, this nuclear impasse if you will, through negotiations. that was something which was worked out between the shop and between mr. kennedy, --
11:43 am
khrushchev. >> host: has anyone ever put a figure on the cost of the cold war, how many lives were lost during the cold war? >> guest: some people talk about for example, maglite lost in the korean war on our side, about 35,000. people say what about vietnam, another shooting war during the cold war? that was about some 58,000 americans. and, of course, many more vietnamese both north and south. so one could say easily that hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. one could say at the same time that the cost of this was in the trillions over the years. people asked me was it really worth it? was it really worth all that? and i say what price peace? to my mind bring in end to the cold war, which is been so much at the center of our foreign-policy and our nasa security for more than four decades, that was a good price to pay, to end that war
11:44 am
peacefully, without any fire, in shot being fired. >> host: what's the legacy of the cold war with our relations with russia today? >> guest: i think initially they were pretty good back in the times when boris yeltsin came in following mikhail mikhal gorbachev and there was a time there where one might said detente between us and the russians. nasa good under mr. putin although there some changes going on there. we'll have to see how that plays out. but you cannot understand russia without understanding the soviet heritage and legacy. one has to realize that mr. putin spent the first 41 years of its life under communism, that he was ten years being trained by the kgb. one of the lessons from the cold war is that legacies matter and ideology matters. you can't touch base with summary like that without taking
11:45 am
into account that he spent most of his life under communism. >> host: here's the book, "a brief history of the cold war." lee edwards and elizabeth edwards, this is booktv on c-span2. >> here's a look at some of the current best-selling nonfiction books according to the "new york times."
11:46 am
>> one thing i wanted to ask you before we finish is, you've been flat out come you been running, it's been tough and even writing a book. i get time to read much and what kind of books attract your attention? >> i just finished a great book called the boys in the boat. >> isn't that wonderful? >> it is really a wonderful
11:47 am
book. now i'm reading the guns of august which you would've thought, world war i, and you thought i would read the book but i hadn't. i read a fiction book that i thought was really terrific. it was recommended to me by joee klein junior called all the light you cannot see. that's another amazing book. i do read and agreed a lot of philosophy, too. i mean i really a lot of frankly spiritual philosophy. but my wife reads almost one book a week. she just finished the book roosevelts last hour, the story of the last years. and she is how i'm so proud of her. she is a voracious and she will give me the things that she thinks i would really enjoy. what i do is i absorb a lot of information every day with my ipad, and i read magazines,
11:48 am
too. i wish the new yorker stories could be longer. are you kidding? are you kidding me? but i absorb a lot of information, and, but i would probably do a lot more reading. >> i have two for you. one is called three days in january and it's about the transition between eisenhower and kennedy picked the thing that makes that so powerful to me right now particularly is eisenhower said concern nuclear weapons were an issue. cuban missile crisis was, happened right after that transition. and his concern about ensuring that you had something control over the military. from a five-star general. there's a lot that translate. the other is again about eisenhower called eisenhower scandal and it's a time of the suez crisis and the first time that we really got involved in
11:49 am
the middle east. and the mistakes we made. big mistakes. they are very informational books i want to ask it okay -- >> let me give you one more that i've read i think is one of the best books i've read in a long, long time and that's david mccullough is book on the wright brothers. >> yes, yes. >> he is -- >> is wonderful. >> just a genius. so all these people from north carolina, kitty hawk come all you had was a bunch of sand and went. created the airplane in ohio, or just remember that. national title or not. we claim aviation not you, okay lex. >> you can watch us of the programs online at >> is a look at the books being published this week.
11:50 am
11:51 am
>> what about your kids? your kids will ask, i asked my mother, 1973, i'm sure people asking all over the place, and imagine you're white and your kids and how can you could always so some is black even if you can't see them? the impulse is to say that's not true. black people sound like southerners. you know that's not true. or the impulse is to say no, everybody talks in different ways. you shouldn't stereotype. if your kid has an iq over 40
11:52 am
they will think i'm not stereotyping, i'm hearing the truth. so what do you tell the kid? i think we need to get comfortable saying black people have slightly different sound because they often spend more time with one another just like white people sound more like one another because they tend to spend more time together and that's true of all human groups. it's not racist. it's just true and harmless. there's nothing wrong with the way viola davis sounds as opposed to the way melissa mccarthy sounds, but she definitely sounds black. and i can tell you because she does the voice of a quinine on the disney cartoon series sofia the first -- queen. yes, to my house because i have small children. and once i have my back occurred and the queen said something and i'd never seen that character and it was at the lobel that went off. i thought the queen is black. is she? i turned around and i forgot
11:53 am
what the queen looks like but i went on to imdb, who does the queen? it was viola davis. it wasn't accident. i driving special powers. there's a black sound. i have a chapter about that in the book. third thing in the book is the answer to an objection that is traditionally leveled against arguments that like english okay. they can't talk that way in a job interview somebody always says of that. somebody's talk about some of the complexity might be about how you shouldn't mock the language because you are mocking the speakers and somebody will say yes, that's true but they can't talk to witt at a job interview. but okay, nobody said they were going to. nobody needs to be told that. and i think that why you get a response is because of a a sene that we often have that the way
11:54 am
somebody speaks casually is going to interfere with their ability to speak the formal variety where they are. with black english that stephen was because anybody thinks it's mistakes. assume if you talk that way you won't be able to speak standard. even if we understand it's not mistakes, there's a sense if you use that system it will keep you from using the standard. that is an american kind of misimpression, a perfectly understandable. our dialect is relatively thin. english hasn't been here for 2000 years as in for example, england where different ways of speaking have been doing this for much longer. and so there are kinds of english there that person like english to us. america's 15 minutes old, and so we don't have that depth of this i'm not going to call it dialect differs a vacation. that sounds like a disease. it's just there has been as much of this going on.
11:55 am
some, hawaiian pidgin, louisiana creole conference. those are all spoken literally on the geographical margins of the space and louisiana creole french is essentially extinct. i just thought that many people who speak those. for the most there are dialect differences but there's a certain vanilla aspect to the way english goes here. black english is the most divergent form of english and most people living in the united states have any reason to hear. so what we meant is that living in two very different dialects of the same things is a very ordinary human experience, and in the legions of places where this is normal nobody worries that speaking the home thing is going interview with speaking the formal thing. nobody in sicily is worried that somebody who speaks sicilian is going to use it in a job interview instead of standard
11:56 am
italian. and in sicily standard time is italian and language takes some of in college is a that. then there's sicilian which was different enough from that that if you roll the dice again in a sicily were different country, it would be a separate romance language. if you see something like the godfather or some episodes of boardwalk empire use characters translating using sicilian rather than standard time because it's different enough that to anybody who knows the territory to show this characters speaking textbook college classroom italian would be ridiculous. whenever you see one of those sicilians into the godfather speaking that language they are really speaking something almost as different from italian and spanish. that person speak standard italian in school, in the job interview. there's no debate in sicily about whether sicilian threatens standard time pick would neverr to anybody. similar is in most arab speaking
11:57 am
countries. if you know someone who speaks arabic, when they say i speak arabic, the looming i speak latin and french. they stick to things, they speak the standard language then what they learn on their mothers in the is something so different that it is, although often the speaker feels fun having it puts his way because of culture unity, it's a different language. the language they learned at home is like french. then he went to school and they learned something like latin. a moroccan was he of the moroccan and then they learned arabic. in arabic speaker that you know unless they are roughly from malta is like that. they wouldn't say they are bilingual but the idea that egyptian arabic is a threat to standard arabic, no. as i mentioned this there's an article in the new yorker last week that actually addresses that almost beautiful language. lindquist gets his article thinks this'll run five minutes
11:58 am
but it dwells in standard arabic and egypt's and arabic and anti-people need to let go of the egyptian because it threatens the standard, no. it's the other way around. black english is the same thing. what it is is a black english speakers are, he too was some terminology, by classic, two tongues. this isn't a term made up for black people in the united states. this is people speaking all over the world. the idea that you learn something on your mothers needing or fathers knee and then you go to your school and pretty much of that same family of spg is what your teachers use and the same way of speaking is on the printed page and everybody around you speak that way and so you have learned this standard form way of speaking at home. that sounds so normal to us. that is very strange. i would venture that at least every second person in the world
11:59 am
would never dream of that being the situation. that was even more the case until about 200 years ago when a literacy became widespread in me parts of the world such that vernacular languages were used on the page. for a very typical experience, there are no figures but if your typical experience is the way you speak most spontaneous he is with the family and friends. you go to school and what's on the page is something rather different. it's not a different language but it's different. it's as if you say house but what's on the pages domicile and you just have to know nobody imposes a it's just what it's always been. you just make your way and you learn that school way. that's humanity. that's how it works. only about 100 of the world seven dozen languages are written in any real way. most people have to make the jump. black english is a situation. like people have larger english than most white people.
12:00 pm
i wanted to call one of my very first books a larger english and they didn't like that. what i meant was black people have more english. nobody is going to try to use black english at the job interview. we understand it's really an okay for a speech but different come something else that any black person into it is there's a way speak it another way you speak to bear. the black english is not a problem in that way. >> you can watch this and other programs online at >> next up on booktv's "after words" investigative journalist art levine reports on the mental health industry. he looks at facilities, pharmaceutical companies and highlights clinicians were challenging traditional methods of treatment. he is interviewed by dr. jeffrey lieberman, director of the new


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on