tv 50th Anniversary of Winston Churchills Iron Curtain Speech CSPAN March 5, 2021 8:53pm-9:47pm EST
with 75 years ago in march 1946 that former british prime minister, winston churchill developed his iron curtain speech at westminster college in fulton, missouri. next, former british prime minister, margaret thatcher mark the 50th anniversary of the speech and outlined true at the college in 1996. she discussed how the world
changed in 50 years and about the collapse of the soviet union in 1991 but. >> cleveland, distinguished officials, students, faculty, alumni and friends of westminster college and ladies and gentlemen. since the beginning of the john family green foundation lectures in 1936, westminster college has been privileged to host some of the greatest men and women of 20th century talks. nowhere else in this nation could serve as a more fitting forum for world leaders that america's heartland. for the lifeblood of liberty flows purely and president lee. these great leaders travel here, securing the knowledge that no matter how different our cultures and our backgrounds, we have the capability to reach a common understanding of the problems of our day. today, we gather to celebrate the 50th anniversary of sir
winston churchill's immortal electric, traditionally known as his iron curtain speech. we are deeply honored that sir winston's grandchildren, edwina, c liu, julia and sans can be here with us for this commemoration. but i prefer sir winston's title for his lecture. the scene use of peace. and at first glance, the phrase might appear to be a contradiction in terms, after all, piece the notes tranquility, calm and rest. while seniors represent power, action and strength. but yet, world leaders such as our distinguished speaker will tell you that only threw power can peace be found. peace is preserved with strength, not weakness. and the struggle to maintain peace is constant. demanding our finest minds and our greatest leaders. today, i am privileged to introduce to you a woman who is
both. one of the century's finest minds and at the same time, one of our greatest leaders. born the daughter of grocer, margaret thatcher lived through the finest hours of the britons commonwealth, world war ii. during this time, she witnessed the inspired words of president -- prime minister within churchill, educated oxford, she worked at a reacher chemist for an industrial firm, and devoted most of her free time to studying for the bar. and in 1951, she married search denis thatcher. twins, mark and terrell were born to the couple in 1953, and the next year, she became a barrister, specializing in taxation law. now, as a member of the party of churchill, the conservative party, she came to the house of commons in 1959, a member from financially. following a series of ministerial positions, she assumed leadership of the conservative party in 1975.
when conservatives came to power in 1979, lady thatcher became the first woman prime minister in the history of great britain. her administration was marked with many successes, but there was a strong emphasis always throughout a, strong economic policies and government efficiency. after the conservative victory in 1987, she became the first british prime minister in this century to win three consecutive terms. but on november 29th, 1990, she resigned as prime minister to return to private life. as a result of her highly distinguished career in public service, she was awarded the order of merit back not just through the queen and made a member of the most noble, order of the guard. in 1992, she was elevated to the house of lords to become the right honorable, baroness thatcher. lady thatcher, you honor us by
calming through the side of sir winston pivotal speech, and an event to westminster college was marvelous with a beautiful winston churchill memorial. when i think of this memorial, i think of the words of referred brooke, that there is some corner of a foreign field that is forever england. it's a great honor for me to present to you, one of the outstanding leaders of our time, lady, margaret thatcher. but mr. chairman, mister
president, governor, ladies and gentlemen. i am sensible of the honor you will do me in inviting me to give this memorial lecture. i thank you governor, your kind and generous welcome. when my distinguished predecessor delivered his four to speech, exactly 50 years ago, he journeyed here by trail in the company of the president of the united states. on the way, they played poker to pass the time. and the president won 75 dollars. quite a sum in those non-inflation times for an unemployed former prime minister.
in the view of the historic impact of his speech, on american opinion, and subsequently on united states foreign policy, sir winston churchill later recorded that his loss was one of the best investments he had ever made. i did not travel here by train, nor in the company of the president of the united states, nor did i play poker. i don't have the right kind of face for it. it [laughs] [applause] there is some similarity, in the circumstances of 50 years ago, and today. we mr. churchill spoke after
the second world war, towards the end of that great conflict, the wartime allies forged new international institutions for post war cooperation. there was in those days, great optimism not least in the united states, about a world without conflict, presided over benevolently by bodies like the united nations. the world bank or the get. the high hopes in them, but increasingly were disappointed, as stalin lured the anchor over eastern europe. and made no secret of his global ambitions, and became antagonist, rather than ally. churchill speech here, was the first serious warning that they were a foot. and it helped to wake up the entire west. in due course, that speech bore
rich fruit, and the new institution strengthened the west against islands assault. marshall plan, mailed made the foundations for europe's post war economic recovery. the truman dockery doctrine, would resist communist version of democracy. the north atlantic treaty organization, mobilized americas allies, for mutual defense against the soviet steam roller. they devised to help reconcile, the former european enemies evolved over time into the european community. stalin had overplayed his hand. by attempting to destroy international cooperation, he succeeded in stimulating it, among more realistic winds. but not just through western cold war institutions like nato,
as the west recover and united, prosperity in confidence, it also brand new life into some of the first set of institutions like the gatt and the imf. they marched in what has been ruefully christened the golden age of capitalism. people rose to levels that would have astonished our grandparents. there were regional wars, but no direct clash between the superpowers and the economic and military superiority of the west eventually reached such a peak that they were forced into first a reform, then surrender the communist system, and then finally liquidation.
none of this however, was preordained. it happened in large parts, because of what churchill said here 50 years ago. he spoke at a watershed, one set of international institutions have showed themselves to be wanting, and some have not yet to be born. it was his speech, not the force celebrated by marks, which turned out to be the midwife of history. today we are at what could be a similar watershed. the long twilight struggle of the cold war ended five years ago, with complete victory for the west, and the peoples of the communist empire. and i much include the russian people in that description. it ended amid high hopes, of a new world order. but those hopes have been grievously disappointed. bosnia somalia, and islamic
militancy, all point to instability and conflict. rather than to cooperation and harmony. the international bodies in which we were opposed, after 1989 and 1991, has given us neither prosperity nor security. and there is a pervasive anxiety, about adrift of events, that remains to be seen whether this generation will respond to these threats, with imagination and courage of sir winston, of president truman, and the wise men of those years. but first, how did we get to our president state? like the breakup of all empires, the breakup of the soviet empire, brought changes way beyond its borders. many of these were indisputably for the good, a more cooperative superpower
relationship between the united states and russia. the spread of democracy in society in eastern europe and the baltics. better prospects for resolving regional conflicts, like those in south africa and the middle east. once soviet mischief making had been removed. the discrediting of socialist economic -- by the exposure of its disastrous consequences in russia and the eastern europe. and the removal of soviet obstruction from the united nations and its agencies. these were, and still are, real benefits for which we should be grateful. but in the euphoria, that came with the cold wars and, just as they called the fatal hiatus of 1944, to 1946, we failed to notice other less appealing consequences of the beast.
look at giant refrigerator, the that had finally broken down after years of poor maintenance, the soviet empire in its collapse, would release all the ills of ethnic, social and political backward-ness, which had frozen in suspended animation for so long. suddenly, border disputes between the successor states, erupted into small wars for instance like armenia and georgia. within these new countries, the ethnic divisions aggravated by soviet policies across unification and forced population transfer, produced violence, instability, and quarrels over citizenship. the absence of the legal and customary foundations of a free economy, led to a distorted rather capitalism, dominated by the combined forces of the mafia, and the old communist --
with little appeal to all of the people. the moral vacuum created by communism and every day life, was filled foursome by revived orthodox church. but for others by the rise in crime, corruption, gambling and drug addiction. all contributing to a spreading of luck and belief of economic life is a zero sum game, and are irrational loss, for a totalitarian border, without totalitarian methods. amongst these hopes in conditions, -- which have been extinct in america for two generations, it's surfaced and flourished. all peddling fantasies were done to compensate the domestic squalor. no one can forecast with
confidence where this will lead, but i believe that it will take long years of civic experience, and patient institution building, for russia to become a normal society. near communist may return to power, but whoever wins forthcoming russian elections, have almost certainly institute a moral foreign policy, while less friendly to the united states. a revival of russian power will create new problems, just when the world was starting to cope with problems that the soviet collapse has created, outside the borders of the ussr. when soviet power broke down, so did the control it exercised, however it responsibly, over rogue states like syria, iraq, and gaddafi's libya.
they have in effect been released to commit whatever mischief they wish, without bothering to check with the arms supplier, or bank manager. note, the saddam's hussein's invasion of kuwait, took place after the ussr was gravely weakened, and had ceased to be iraq's protector. the soviet collapse, also aggravated the single most awesome threat, of modern times. the proliferation, of weapons of mass destruction. these weapons, and the ability to develop and deliver them, our today a crime by middle income countries with modest populations, like iraq, iran, libya, and syria. sometimes as other countries like china and says north korea,
-- or organized criminal rings, all by way of a growing international back market. according to -- formally president bush is assistant for national security policy, and i quote, by the end of the decade, we could see over 20 countries with ballistic missiles. nine with nuclear weapons, ten with biological weapons, and up to 30 with chemical weapons. according to other official united states sources, all of northeast asia, southeast asia, much of the pacific, and most of russia could soon be threatened by the latest north korean missiles. once they are available in the middle east and north africa, all of the capitals of europe
will be within target range. and on present trends, a threat to american shores, is likely to mature, if that is the right word, early in the next century. weapons of mass destruction to rogue states, and you have a highly toxic compound. as the cia has pointed out, of the nations that have or are acquiring weapons of mass destruction, many are led by many a maniacs, and strong men of proven in humanity. or by week unstable, or illegitimate governments. in some instances, the capabilities at the command of these unpredictable figures, is either equal to, or even more destructive, then the soviet threat to the western to the west in the sixties. and it is that that indeed, even more serious than that, we
in the west may have to deal with a number of adversaries, each with different characteristics, and in some cases there mentalities differ from ours, even more than did those of our old cold war enemy. so the potential for misunderstanding is great, and we must be clear in our own minds, about our strategic intentions and just as clear and signaling these two potential aggressors. that is only the braves threat, there are others. within the islamic world, the soviet collapse, undermine the legitimacy of radical secular redeems. and gave an impetus to the rise of radical islam. radical islam's movement now constitutes a major revolutionary threat. not only to the saddam hussein 's, but the conservative other
regimes who are allies of the west. indeed they challenge the very idea, of western economic presence. hence the random act of violence, designed to draw american companies and tourists to the islamic world, in short my friends the world today is a very dangerous place, and indeed one menaced by more unstable and complex threats, than a decade ago. because the risk of total nuclear annihilation has been removed, we in the west have lapsed into an alarming complacency, about the risks that remain. we have rundown our defenses, and relaxed our guard. and to comfort ourselves, that we are doing the right thing, we have increasingly placed our trust in international institutions to safeguard our future. international bodies, have
generally performed well, indeed we have learned that they can't afford it unless we are -- from utopian aims. and we provide them with a means to carry them out. let's have a look at some of these institutional bodies and their failure. why was the best example of utopian aims is what's called multilateralism. this is a doctrine, it's an international actions are most justified when they are untainted by the national interest of the countries which are called one to carry them out. multilateralism briefly became the doctrine of several western parts in the early nineties, when united nations security council was no longer hamstrung by the soviet beater. it seemed to promise a new age, in which the united nations would act as world policeman to settle regional confidence. of course there was always a
fair amount of cryptography embedded in the multi lateral list and doctrine they hated intervention by united states forces, acting under a united nations mandate for instance, it was defended as an exercise and restoring a haitian democracy that had really never existed but it might be better described in the -- as a continuation of american immigration control by other needs an honest multilateralism of natural interest has led to intervention without clear aims no one could criticize a humane impulse to step in and relieve the suffering, created by the civil war and somalia but it soon became clear that the eu humanitarian effort could not enjoy long term success without a return to civil order and no
internal force was available to supply this hence the intervention created a painful choice. either united nations would make some ali into a colony, and spent decades engaged in nation building or the united nations forces would eventually withdraw us somalia revert to its prior and arcade since america and the united nations were unwilling to government somalia for 30 years, it followed the job of feeding the hungry and helping the sick must be left to civilian aid agencies and private charities. conclusion, military intervention without an attainable purpose creates many problems as it solves this was further demonstrated in the form of yugoslavia where early action to arm the victims of aggression, so that they can defend themselves would have been far more effective than
the united nations halfhearted multilateral intervention a neutral peacekeeping operation, lightly armed in an area where there was no peace to keep, served mainly to consolidate the gains from aggression eventually, united nations peacekeepers became hostages, used by their aggressor, to deter more defective action against him all in all, of sorry and tragic adversary ended by the croatian army, nato and american diplomacy. the combined effect of interventions in bosnia, somalia and -- has been to shed self confidence of key western powers and to tarnish the reputation of the united nations and now, dangerous trend is evident. as the haiti case shows, the security council seems
increasingly prepared to widen the legal basis for intervention. we are seeing in fact, that classically dangerous combination of growing disproportion between theoretical claims and practical means. compare this hubris with the failure to act against the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them as i have already argued, these are falling into dangerous hands. given the intellectual climate in the west today, it's probably unrealistic to expect military intervention to remove the source of the threat, as for example against north korea. except perhaps when the offender advice is to do so, by invading a small neighboring country. even then, as we now know, our success in destroying the
nuclear and chemical weapons capability was limited. and we can't be sure that the efforts by inspectors, as international authority to prevent of putting civil -- to military uses have been any more successful. we may reasonable police suspect that they have not. but then can we do? there is no mysterious diplomatic means to disarm a state which is not willing to be disarmed as frederik the great modernity observed, diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments. arms control a nonproliferation method, in restraining rogue states. but only when combined with other measures. if america and its allies come with the problem directly by preemptive military needs, they must at least diminish the
incentive dubs, the death of these and others to acquire new references in the first place. that means, my friends, the west must install effective ballistic missile defense which would protect us and our armed forces, reduce or even notify the road states and enable us to retaliate. so the potential contribution of ballistic missile defense took peace and stability seems to me to be very great. first, i'm and most obviously, it promises the possibility of protection if deterrence fails. or if there is a limited and authorize the use of nuclear missiles. second, he also preserve their capability of the west to project its power overseas. third, it would diminish the dangers of one country
overturning the regional balance of power by acquiring these vet weapons. fourth, it will strengthen our existing deterrent against their hostile nuclear superpower by preserving the west's powers of retaliation. and fifth, it would enhanced diplomacy's power to restrain proliferation by diminishing the utility of offensive systems. acquiring an effective global defense against ballistic missiles is there for a matter of the greatest importance and urgency. but the risk is, the thousands of people may be killed by an attack rich forethought and wise preparation might have prevented. which is often the case in foreign affairs, but statesman are daily with problems for which there is no ready solution. they must manage them as best they can. that might be true of nuclear
proliferation, but no such excuse is can be made further european union's activities of the end of the cold war. it faced a task so obvious and achievable, as the counters of almost explicit duties merged about history, mainly, a speedy incorporation of the new central european democracies, poland, hungry, czechoslovakia within the european union's economic and political structures. early entry into europe was the wish of the new democracies. it would help to them politically and smooth their transition to market economies it would ratify post cold war settlement in europe given the stormy past of that region, the inhabitants are said to produce more histories that they can consume locally everyone should have wish to see a saddled
economically and prolifically inside a stable european structure if i was this not done? why was every obstacle put in the way of the new market democracies? why were there experts subject to the kind of absurd quotas that have until now been reserved? and why is there still no room at the in? but the answer is that the european union was too busy contemplating its own naval, both the commission and -- but -- both the commission and the majority of member governments were committed to an early deepening of the european union. that is, centralizing more power in the european union's supernatural institutions that they felt a widening of it, that is admitting new members would complicate, obstruct or even prevent this process.
so while the deeply went ahead, the range to keep the central european out by the diplomats favorite tactic. negotiations to admit them. and making this decision, the other european union put extravagant and abstract schemes ahead of practical necessities and the manner of doctrine projectors from jonathan swift and the president. over the usual disastrous results, the visionary schemes are deepening, either have failed or are failing. the fixed exchange rates of the european ex change rate mechanism have made the you seem like a symbol of but -- they crashed and items of september 1992, and have shown no signs of -- the next stage of monetary
union agreed to single currency is due in 1999, a member states will have to achieve strict criteria. but three weeks, three years ago, only luxembourg fully ace these tests. the attempts by other countries to meet them on time, have pushed up unemployment, hiked interest rates, the price economic activity and created civil unrest and for what? across the continent, businessmen and bankers increasingly questioned the economic need for a single currency at all it is essentially a political symbol the currency of the european state and people which don't actually exist, except perhaps in the mind of a brussels these symbols were pursuit at a real political cost in central europe. the early enthusiasm for the western institutions began to wane.
facing tariff barriers and quotas in western europe, the central europeans began to erect their own. and those politicians who had bravely pursued tough minded policies of economic reform, really believing that they were following the advice of european leaders found themselves a left in the lurch when the going got rough. only the czech republic, under the very able leadership of -- has remained on course tour normal society. in the last few years, a democratic performance have fallen one by one and the form of common satellites to be in place by neo-communist governments. . transition to a market economy, without tears. this is a tragedy in itself and unavoidable one. but with russia lurking politically into a more
authoritarian nationalist course, and the question of central europe's membership of nato, still unsettled, it has more than mere economic implications which brings me to my last example of institutional failure only a partial, one counterbalance by some successes, namely nato nato is a very fine military instrument, it won the cold war, when it had a clear military doctrine but an instrument can define its own purposes, and since the dissolution of the war saw packed, western statements have found it difficult to give nato a clear one indeed they have -- on the four major questions facing their lives should russia be regarded as a potential threat or a partner? russia may be about to answer that in clear fashion than we
would like. to nato turning its attention to -- where most of the post cold war threats such as nuclear proliferation now lie should nato admit the new democracies of central europe as for members, as full responsibilities as quickly as possible? should europe develop its own defense identity and nato, even though this is a concept driven entirely by politics, and has damaging military implications. such questions tend to be decided, not in the abstract, not in the governmental conferences looking into the crystal ball, but on the anvil of necessity and in the heat of crisis. and that is exactly what happened and the long run in crisis over bosnia. and first, the supporters of the european follows policy, and the year in peony defense identity, declared the former
yugoslavia, europe's crisis and asked the united states to keep out the united states was glad to do so but the european union's farcical involvement only made matters worse and after a while, was effectively abandoned. then, the united nations became involved and asked nato to be its military agent and its peacekeeping operations. finally, the united station united nations personnel, were taken hostage. and they employed nato air power with real effect, forced to come to the conference table, for better or worse impose an agreement on them, and now has a large nato contingent that is enforcing it. the united states also stamped its authority, on the european members of nato. and since the logistical supply
chain go through hungry, it drew the central year peony into nato operations in a small way. whether nato will apply this in future strategic planning, but for the armchair -- who have closed and being passive and divided nato. bosnia has been a lesson. these institutional failures, are in their own terms and on our own times, if we could move further to the end of the 24 century. however, an alarming and unstable future is on the cards. consider the number of medium to large states in the world, that are now involved in a free market revolution. china, possibly russia, add to these the present economic great powers, the united states, and japan.
and if the federal get their way, a european superstate, with its own independent and foreign defense policy, perhaps an amicable to the united states. what we see here as, in the year 2096, is an unstable world, which there are more than half a dozen great powers, always as -- all vulnerable if they stand-alone, all capable of increasing their power and influence, if they form the right alliance, and all engaged willy-nilly, in perpetual diplomatic maneuvers, to make sure that their situations improve rather than deteriorate. in other words, 2096, might look like 1914, played on a somewhat larger stage. this as may not come to pass, if the atlantic alliance
remains as it is today. in essence, america as the dominant power, surrounded by allies, which genuinely follow her lead. such is the reality of population, resources, technology and capital, that if america remains the dominant partner, in the united west, and militarily engaged in europe, then the west can continue to be the dominant power, in the world as a whole. what is to be done as? i believe that what is now required, is a new and imaginative atlantic initiative. its purpose must be to redefine atlanta system, and in light of the challenges i have been describing. there are rare moments when history is open, and its course is changed by moments such as these. perhaps you are at that moment
now. first security, of my discussion of the boston crisis demonstrates the key lies in reforms. opening nato membership to poland, hungary, and the czech republic, and extending nato's role, so that they are able to operate -- . both reforms, will require a change in nato's existing procedures. an attack on the territory of one member, must continue to be regarded unambiguously, as an attack on them all. but with that principle of universality, need not apply to all activities. at least indeed to be recognized, for the wider role of nato, it cannot be achieved in every member state as they have to participate in operation before they go ahead. what is required of flexible arrangements, which to use a
fashionable phrase, will create coalitions of the willing. would nato expansion, market new division of europe? and give russia the right to intervene? not in the least? among other reasons we should hold out the possibility of admitting those countries who subsequently demonstrate the commitment to democratic values, and have trained military forces of two an acceptable standard. that would be an incentive for such states, to pursue the path of democratically formed preparedness. nato also provides, the best available mechanism, for coordinating contribution of americas allies. to a global system of ballistic missile defense. that is, while providing protection against missile tech, from whatever source it comes, if however the united states is
to build this global ballistic defense system with its allies it means they're assurance that the alliance is a permanent one. resting on solid foundations, of american leadership. that raises in my view, very serious doubt, about the fashionable idea, of a separate european defense identity within their lives. essentially, this is another piece of political symbolism. associated among european federalists, would long-term aspirations, for european state with its own foreign and defense policy. it would create the armed forces of our country, which does not exist. but like a single currency, it would have damaging practical consequences in the here and now. in the first place, it contains the germs of a major future chance --
and in the second, it has no military rationale or benefits. indeed it has potentially civilian militia serious military draw backs, and even as this committed during the gulf war, the united states forces were the eyes and ears of french troops. without america, nato is a political talking shop. not a military force. nor is that likely to be changed, in any reasonable circumstances. defense expenditure has been falling sharply, in almost all european states in the recent years. even if this process were now traversed, it would take many years before your could hope to replace, what america presently makes available to the alliance. by airlift capacity, surveillance and sheer firepower. defense policy, cannot be built
on political symbolism. and utopian projects of nation building, which ignore or even defy military logic, and fiscal prudence. but even a vigorous and successful nato, would not survive indefinitely in a west divided along the lines of trade and economics. one of the great threats to atlantic unity in recent years, has been a succession of trade wars. ranging from steele, to pasture, which has strained relations across the atlantic. so the second element, of this new initiative, is to take the form of a concerted program to liberalize trade, thereby stimulating growth, and creating badly needed new jobs. more specifically, we need to move towards a transatlantic free trade area, united north american free trade area, and
the european union, and to cooperate the central european countries. i realize this may not seem the most s -- moment in american politics to advocate a new trade agreement. but the argument against treat free trade, and advanced industrial countries, and poor third world ones, even if i accepted them which i do not, do not apply to transatlantic free trade deals. such a trade would unite countries with similar levels of regulation. and job losses still bringing significant gains and prosperity. this has been recognized by american labor unions. notably, by mr. ben kirkland, in a series of important speeches. and it would create a trade block, for unparalleled wealth
and influence, and world trade negotiations. of course economic gains, our only half of the argument, of our chants at atlantic free trade. but it would also be solid economic underpinning, to america's continued military commitment to europe. while strengthening the still fragile economies, and political countries of central europe. it would be in effect, the economic equivalent of nato, and as such the second pillar, of atlantic unity. the first security, the second trade, under american leadership. in letters as -- . and never forget there is a third pillar, the political one. the west is not just some cold war construct, devoid of significance in today's freer more fluid world. the distinctive values of
virtues, and ideas and ideals, but above all, on a common experience of liberty. true the asia pacific might be fast coming the new center, of global economic power, quite rightly, both united states and britain, have taken ever closer interest in developments there. but it is the west above all, and perhaps the english people the english speaking people of the west, that has formed that liberal democracy, which is politically dominant, and which we all know offers the best hope of global peace, and prosperity. in order to uphold these things, the atlantic political relationship, must be constantly nurtured and renewed. so we must breathe new life, into the conservative political institutions of the west, such as the atlanta council, and the north atlantic assembly, all
too often my friends, they lack influence and presence in public debate. above all, however, as much as i am to suggest another body of international leaders, i would propose an annual summit, of the heads of government of all the north atlanta countries. under the chairman ship of the president of the united states. why all this adds up to, is not another international entity, that would be an wielding, as it is something more subtle, but i hope more doable. a form of atlantic partnership, which attempts to solve common problems while respecting the sovereignty of the member states. in the course of identifying those problems, and cooperating to solve them, governments would gradually discover, that they were shaping and atlantic public opinion, and political consciousness, and reaction 50
years ago, to that earlier speech, was thrift, dramatic, and it first highly critical. indeed to judge the critics, he would've imagined that it was not stolen, but churchill who had drawn down the iron curtain. but for all the immediate disarm any, it soon became evident, that fulton had struck a deep record. it resulted in a decisive shift in opinion, and by may the opinion polls recorded, that 83% of americans, now favored the idea. on a permit alliance, between the united states and britain. to subsequently broaden into nato. by speaking, churchill guarded against a repetition of the withdrawal of america from europe. which often and after 1919, allow the instability to emerge, which plunged the whole world,
including america into a second world war. like my uniquely distinguished predecessor, i do maybe i maybe i'm accused of alarmism, and pointing to dangers in which present institutions and attitudes, are proving an equal. also like him, i have every confidence in the resources, and the values of the western civilization, that we all defend. in particular, i believe to use churchill's words, there are no better. if all british moral material forces and convictions, are joined with your own, for eternal association, the high roads of the future, will be clear. not only for us, but for all as. not only for our time, but for a century to come. that my friends, at least has not changed in 50 years.
then on sunday, at 2 pm, artists edwina saenz and author clifton truman daniel reflect on their grandparents. when's been churchill and harry truman. and at 4 pm, real america features an audio recording of winston churchill's entire march 5th 1946 iron curtain speech, accompanied by images and brief a motion picture segments. exploring the american story. watch american history tv. this weekend on c-span 3. 75 years ago, in march of 1946, winston churchill delivered his iron curtain speech at westminster college in fulton missouri. as part of the colleges of green foundation electricity areas. up next, former secretary of c, madeleine albright from the same lecture seek series, in september 2019, sh