tv 50th Anniversary of Winston Churchills Iron Curtain Speech CSPAN March 6, 2021 9:00pm-9:53pm EST
national churchill museum.org well, we'd like to thank everyone who's joined us both here on washington journal and on american history tv tv for this conversation this morning we would like to thank timothy riley for being on with us this morning he is the director and chief curator of americans national churchill museum timothy. thank you so much for being with us this morning. thank you very much. it was 75 years ago in march 1946 that former british prime minister winston churchill deliberate his iron curtain speech at westminster college in fulton, missouri. next former british prime minister margaret thatcher marked the 50th anniversary of the speech in a lecture at the college in 1996. she discussed how the world changed in 50 years and about the collapse of the soviet union in 1991.
present prayer later lady thatcher distinguished officials students faculty alumni and friends of westminster college and ladies and gentlemen. since the beginning of the john findlay green foundation lectures in 1936 westminster college has been privileged to host some of the greatest men and women of 20th century thought nowhere else in this nation could serve as a more fitting forum for world leaders than america's heartland. for the lifeblood of liberty flows purely and passionately. these great leaders travel here secure in 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 lecture traditionally known as his iron curtain speech.
we are deeply honored that sir, winston's grandchildren edwina celia. julian sands could be with us for this commemoration. but i prefer sir winston's title for his lecture the sinews of peace. and at first glance the phrase might appear to be a contradiction in terms after all peace denotes tranquility calm and rest while sinus represent power action and strength. yet world leaders such as our distinguished speaker will tell you that only through 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'm 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 a grocer margaret hilda thatcher lives through the finest hour britain's commonwealth world war ii. during this time. she witnessed the inspired words indeeds the prime minister, winston churchill. educated at oxford. she worked as a research chemist for an industrial firm, but devoted most of our free time to studying for the bar. and in 1951 she married sir, dennis thatcher. twins, mark and carol 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 and member from finchley. following a series of ministerial phys news 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 on 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. on november 29th 1990. she resigned as prime minister to return to private life. as a result of her highly distinguished career public service. she was awarded the order of merit by her majesty the queen and made a member of the most noble order of the garter. in 1992. she was elevated to the house of lords to become the right honorable baroness thatcher. lady thatcher, you honor us by coming to the side of sir winston's pivotal speech.
an event westminster college has immortalized with the beautiful winston churchill memorial. when i think of this memorial i think of the words of rupert brooke. that there's 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.
mr. chairman mr. president governor ladies and gentlemen i'm sensible of the honor you do me in inviting me to give this memorial lecture. may i thank you governor your and generous welcome. when my distinguished predecessor delivered his fortune speech exactly 50 years ago. he journeyed heather by train and 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 summon those non-inflationary times for an floyd form of prime minister the
historic impact of his speech on american opinion and subsequently on united states foreign policy. so 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. but there is some similarity in the circumstances of 50 years ago and today. mr. churchill spoke not long after the second world war towards the end of that great
conflict the wartime allies had 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 benevidently by bodies like the united nations the imf the world bank and the gap but the high hopes reposed in them were increasingly disappointed as stalin lowered the iron curtain over eastern europe. made no secret of his global ambitions and became antagonist rather than ally. church ill's here was the first serious warning of what was a foot. and it helped to wake up the entire west. do core step speech ball rich fruit in the new institutions forged to strengthen the west against stalin's assault.
the marshall plan laid the foundations for europe's post-war economic recovery. the truman doctrine made plain that america would resist communist subversion of democracy. the north atlantic treaty organization mobilized america's allies for mutual defense against the soviet steamroller. and the european colon still community 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 lives. and not just through western cold war. solutions like nato as the west recovered and united growing in possibility and confidence.
so it also breathed new life into some of the first set of post-war institutions like the gat and the iron. without the russians to obstruct them. his bodies helped to usher in what the marxist historian? eric hobsborne has ruthfully christened the golden age of capitalism. the standard of living of ordinary people rose to levels, that would have astonished our grandparents. there were regional wars but no direct clash between the superpowers. and the economic technological and mirror military superiority of the west eventually reached such a peak to the communist system was forced into first reform surrender and finally liquidation. none of this however was preordained it happened in large
part because of what churchill said here 50 years ago. he spoke at a watershed. one set of international institutions had shown themselves to be wanting another had yet to be born. and it was his speech not the force celebrated by marks. turned out to be the midwife of history. today we ordered what could be a similar watershed. the long twilight struggle of the cold war ended five years ago was complete victory for the west. and for the subject people's of the communist empire and i very much include the russian people in that description. it ended a mid high hopes of a new world order. but those hopes have been grievously disappointed. bosnia somalia and the rise of islamic militancy all point to
instability and conflict rather than cooperation and harmony. the international bodies in which our hopes were reposed a new after 1989 and 1991 have given us neither prosperity nor security. and there is a pervasive anxiety about the drift of events. remains to be seen whether this generation will respond to these threats with the imagination and courage of sir winston president truman and the wise men of those years. but first how did we get to our present straits like the breakup of all empires the breakup of the soviet empire wrought enormous changes way beyond its borders. many of these were indisputably for the good a more cooperative superpower relationship between the united states and russia spread of democracy and civil
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 planning by the exposure of its disastrous consequences in russia and eastern europe and the removal of soviet obstruction forms the united nations and its agencies. these were and still are real benefits for which we should be grateful. but in the euphoria but accompanied the cold wars end. just as in what churchill's private secretary called the fatal hiatus of 1944 to 1946. we failed to notice other less appealing. crunches of the peace like a giant refrigerator that would finally broken down after years
of poor maintenance the soviet empire in its collapse released all the ills of ethnic social and political backwardness, which it had frozen in suspended animation for so long. suddenly border disputes between the successor states erupted into small wars in for instance on media and, georgia. within these new countries the ethnic divisions aggravated by soviet policies of russification 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 robber capitalism one dominated by the combined forces of the mafia. and the old communist and mental terror with little appeal to ordinary people.
the moral vacuum created by communism and everyday life was filled for some by revived orthodox church. but for others by the rising crime corruption gambling and drug addiction. all contributing to a spreading ethic of luck a beliefs and economic life is a zero sun game and an irrational nostalgia for a totalitarian order without totalitarian methods under these hopesian conditions primitive political ideologies, which have been extinct in western europe and america for two generations surfaced and flourished. all pedaling panties of imperial glory to compensate for domestic squalor no one. caused with confidence where this will lead. i believe that it will take long years of civic experience and
patient institution building for russia to become a normal society. neo communists may well return to power in the immediate future postponing normality but whoever wins the fourth coming russian elections for almost certainly institute a more assertive foreign policy one less friendly to the united states. a revival of russian power will create new problems just when the world is struggling to cope with problems, which the soviet collapse has itself created outside the old borders of the ussr. when soviet power broke down so did the control it exercised however people in the responsibly over rogue states like syria, iraq and gaddafi's li. they have in effect being released to commit whatever mischieves they wish.
without bothering to check with our arm supplier and bank manager. note that saddam hussein's invasion of kuwait took place after the ussr was gravely weakened and had ceased to be iraq's protector. the soviet collapse has so 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 are today acquired by middle-income countries with modest populations such as iraq iran libya and syria. acquired sometimes from other powers like china and north korea. but most ominously from former soviet arsenals or unemployed scientists or from organized criminal rings all by way of a
growing international black market according to stephen hadley it formally president bush's assistant secretary for international security policy and i quote. by the end of the decade we could see over 20 countries with ballistic missiles nine with nuclear weapons. 10 was 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 the capitals. europe will be within target range. and on present trends a direct threat to american shores is
likely to mature if that is the right word early in the next century. ad weapons of mass destruction to rogue states. and you have a highly toxic compound. as a cia has pointed out of the nations that have or are acquiring weapons of mass destruction many are led by megalomaniacs and strong men of proven inhumanity. or by week unstable or illegitimate governments in some instances the potential capabilities at the command of these unpredictable figures. either equal to or even more destructive than the soviet threat to the west in the 1960s it is that serious. indeed it is more serious than that we in the west may have to deal with a number of possible
adversaries each with different characteristics in some cases their mentalities differ from ours even more than those of our old cold war enemy. so the potential for misunderstanding is great, and we was therefore be very clear in our own minds about our strategic intentions. and just as clear in signaling these to potential aggressors. that is only the gravest threat. there are others. within the islamic world the soviet collapse undermine the legitimacy of radical secular regimes. and gave an impetus to the rise of radical islam. radical islamist movements now constitute a major revolutionary threat not only to the saddams and ourselves, but also to innovative arab regimes who are allies of the west indeed they
challenge the very idea of western economic presence. hence the random acts of violence designed to drive american companies and tourists out of the islamic world. in short my friends the world remains a very dangerous place. indeed one menace by more unstable and complex threats than a decade ago. but 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 run down our defenses and relaxed our god. and to comfort ourselves that we were doing the right thing. we have increasingly placed our trust in international institutions to save god our future. but international bodies have generally performed well indeed we have learned that they can't perform. well, unless we refrained from
utopian aims. give them practical tasks and provide them with the means and backing to carry them out. now. let's have a look at some of these institutional bodies. and their failure what's the best example of utopian aims is what is called multilateralism? this is the doctrine that international actions are most justified when they are untainted by the national interests of the countries which are called upon to carry them out. multilateralism briefly became the doctrine of several western powers in the early 90s when the united nations security council was no longer hamstrung by the soviet. it seemed to promise a new age in which the united nations would act as world policemen to settle regional conflicts. of course, there was always a fair amount of hypocrisy embedded in the multilateralist
doctrine the haiti intervention by united states forces acting under a united nations mandate for instance. was defended as an exercise in restoring a haitian democracy that had really never existed. but it might be better described in the language of closefits as the continuation of america american immigration control by other means but honest multilateralism without the spur of national interest has led to intervention without clear aims. no one could criticize the humane impulse to step in and relieve the suffering created by the civil war in somalia. but it's soon became clear the other humanitarian effort could not enjoy long-term success without a return to civil. up and no internal force was available to supply this. because the intervention created
a painful choice. either the united nations would make somalia into a colony and spend decades engaged in nation building all the united nations forces would eventually withdraw and somalia revert to its prior anarchy. since america and the united nations were unwilling to govern somalia for 30 years it followed that 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 as many problems as it solves. this was further demonstrated in the former yugoslavia where early action to arm the victims of aggression so that they could defend themselves would have been are more effective than the united nations half-hearted multilateral intervention.
a neutral peacekeeping operation lightly armed in an area where there was no peace to keep serve mainly to consolidate the gains from aggression. eventually the united nations peacekeepers became hostages used by the aggressor to deter more effective action against him. all in all a sorry and tragic episode ended by the croatian army nato airport and american diplomacy. the combined effect of interventions in bosnia are somalia and indeed rwanda. has been to shake the self-confidence of key western powers and to tarnish the reputation of the united nations and now a dangerous trend is evident. as the haiti case shows the security council seems single prepared to widen the legal basis for intervention.
we are seeing in fact that classically dangerous combination a growing disproportion between theoretical claims and practical means. compare this hubris with the failure to active effectively against the proliferation of nuclear chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them. as i have already argued he's a 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 invites us to do so by invading a small neighboring country. even then as we now know. says in destroying saddam's nuclear and chemical weapons capability was limited. and we can't be sure that the
efforts by inspectors of the international atomic energy authority to prevent saddam putting several nuclear power to military uses have been any more successful. we may reasonably suspect that they have not. what then can we do? there is no mysterious diplomatic means to disarm a state which is not willing to be disarmed. as frederick the great modernly observed diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments. arms control a non-proliferation measures have a role in restraining rogue states, but only when combined with other measures if america and its allies can't deal with the problem directly by preemptive military means understood least diminish the incentive for the saddams the gaddafis and others
to acquire new reference 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 nullified the rogue states arsenal and enable us to retaliate. so the potential contribution of ballistic missile defense to peace and stability. seems to me to be very great. first and most obviously it promises the possibility of protection if deterrence fails or if there is a limited and unauthorized use of nuclear missiles second. it was so preserve the capability of the west to project its power overseas. third it would diminish the dangers of one. be overturning the regional balance of power by acquiring these weapons.
fourth it was strengthen our existing to talent against a hostile nuclear superpower by preserving the west's powers of retaliation and fifths it would enhance diplomacy's power to restrain proliferation by diminishing the utility of offensive systems. acquiring an effective global defense against ballistic missiles is therefore a matter of the greatest importance and urgency. but the risk is the thousands of people may be killed by an attack which falls thought and wise might have prevented. of course often the case in foreign affairs the statesmen are dealing with problems for which there's no redis solution. there must manage them as best they can. that might be nuclear proliferation but no such excuses can be made for the
european union's activities of the end of the cold war. face the tasks so obvious and achievable as to count as an almost explicit duty laid down by history namely the speedian corporation of the new central european democracies poland hungry. and what was then checkers slovakia within the european union's economic and political structures. early entry into europe was the wish of the new democracies. it would help to stabilize them politically and smooth their transition to market economies. it would ratify the post cold war settlement in europe. given the stormy past of that region the inhabitants are said to produce more histories and they can consume locally. everyone should have wished. to say it's settled economically and politically a stable european structure.
why was this not done? why was every obstacle put in the way of the new market democracies? why were they export subject to the kind of absurd quotas that have until now been reserved for japan? and why is there still no room at the inn? the answer is that the european union was too busy contemplating its own naval both the commission and a majority. close the commission and the majority of member governments were committed to an early deepening of the european union that is centralizing more power and the european union sukranational institutions. they filtered a widening of it that is admitting new members but complicate obstruct or even into this process. so while the deepening went ahead they arranged to keep the
central europeans out by the diplomat's favorite tactics. negotiations to admit them in making this decision the other pin union puts travagant and abstract schemes ahead of practical necessities and the manner of doctrine are projectors from dr. from jonathan swift down to the present and with the usual disastrous results. the visionary schemes of deepening either have failed or are failing. the fixed exchange rate of the european exchange rate mechanism. have made the yo-yo seem like a symbol of rigidity. they crashed in an out of it in september 1992 and have shown no signs of obeying the dictates of brussels since then. the next stage of monetary a greeted mastered the single currency is due in 1999 when member states will have to
achieve strict budgetary criteria. ago only luxembourg following leads these tests the attempts by other countries to meet them on time have pushed up on employment hiked interest rates depressed 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 a european state and people which don't actually exist except perhaps in the mind of a brussels bureaucrat. yet these symbols were pursued at a real political cost in central europe. the early enthusiasm for the western west institutions began to pain facing tariff barriers and quotas in western europe the
central europeans began to erect their own. and those politicians there who had bravely pursued tough-minded policies of economic reform believing that they were following the advice of european leaders found themselves left in the lurch when the going got right? only the czech republic under the very able leadership of that's their class has remained on course to a normal society. in the last few years the democratic reformers have fallen one by one in the former communist satellites to be replaced by neo communist governments promising the impossible. transition to a market economy without tears. in itself and unavoidable one. but with russia lurching politically into a more author. a nationalist course and the question of central europe's central europe's membership of
nato still unsettled. it has more than merely economic implications. which brings me to my last example of institutional failure massively only a partial one count of balanced by some successes namely nato. nato is a very fine military instrument in one the cold war when it had a clear military doctrine. but an instrument can't define its own purposes. and since the dissolution of the warsaw pact western statesman have founded difficult to give nato a clear one. indeed they have shirley shallot 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. of a fashion than we would like should nato turn its attention to out of area where most of the
postcode war threats such as nuclear proliferation now lie. should nato admit the new democracies of central europe has four members was full responsibilities as quickly as prudently possible. should europe develop its own defense identity in 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 noted into governmental conferences convened to look into the crystal ball. but on the anvil of necessity and in the heat of crisis, that is exactly what happened in the long running crisis over bosnia. at first the supporters of a european foreign policy and the european defense identity decl. former yugoslavia europe's crisis and arsenal united states to keep out.
the united states was glad to do so. but the other pain unions farcical involvement made matters worse. and after a while was effectively abandoned. then the united nations became involved and asked nato to be its military agent in its peacekeeping operations. finally when united nations nato personal taken hostage. the united states intervened employed nato airpile with real effect forced the competence to the conference table for better or worse imposed an agreement on them and now heads a large nato contingent that is enforcing it. in the course of stamping its authority on events the united states also stamped its authority on the european members of nato. and since the logistical supply chain goes through hungering it drew the central europeans into nato operations in a small way.
whether nato will apply the logic of this crisis in future strategic planning remains to be seen. but for the armchair theorists of a closed passive and divided nato bosnia has be no end of a lesson. his various institutional failures are worrying enough in the own terms and in our own times. if we look ahead still further to the end of the 21st century, however an alarming and unstable future is on the cards. the number of medium to large states in the world that have now embarked on a free market revolution india china brazil, probably russia. add to these the present economic great powers the united states and japan. under the federalists get their way a european superstate with his own independent forum and
defense policy separate form and perhaps in limical to the united states. what we see here in the our 20196 is an unstable world, and we should have a more than half a dozen great powers. always their own clients all vulnerable if they stand alone all capable of increasing their power and influence if they forms a right kind of alliance and all engaged willingly and perpetual diplomatic maneuvers to ensure that they're relative positions improve rather than deteriorate. in other words 2096 might look like 1914 played on a some of larger stage. this need not come to pass if the atlantic allowance rem. as it is today in essence america as the dominant power
surrounded by allies, which generally follow her league. search of the realities of population resources technology and capital that if america remains the dominant partner in the united west and military engaged in europe. then the west can continue to be the dominant power in the world as a whole. what is to be done? i believe that what is now required is a new and imaginative atlantic initiative. it's purpose must be to redefine atlanticism in the light of the challenges. i have been describing. is when history is open and it's course change means such as these. security as my discussion of the bosnian crisis demonstrated the
key lies in two reforms. opening nato membership to poland hungary and the czech republic and extending nato's role so that it is able to operate out of area. both reforms were require a change in noto's existing procedures. an attack on the territory of one member must of course continue to be regarded unambiguously as an attack on that at all. but that principle of universality need not apply to out of area activities. indeed it needs to be recognized that a wider role for nato can't be achieved if every member state has to participate in an out of area operation before it can go ahead. what is required of flexible arrangements which to use a fashionable phrase? the creation of coalitions of the willing wouldn't nato
expansion mark a new division of europe and give russia the right to intervene in states outside the phone not in the least. among other reasons we could hold out the possibility of admitting those countries which subsequently demonstrate a commitment to democratic values and which have trained military forces up to an acceptable standard. that would be a powerful incentive for such states to pursue the path of democratic reform and defense preparedness. nato also provides the best available mechanism for coordinating the contribution of america's allies to a global system of ballistic ballistic missile defense. that is one providing protection against missile attack from whatever source it comes. if how united states is to build this global ballistic defense system with its allies.
it needs their assurance that the alliance is a permanent one resting on solid foundations of american leadership. that raises in my view very serious doubts about the currently passionable idea of a separate european defense identity within the alliance. essentially, this is another piece of political symbolism associated among european federalists with long-term aspirations for european state with its own foreign and defense policy. it would create the armed forces of a country which does not exist. but like the single currency it would have damaging practical consequences in the hair and now in the first place, it contains the germs of a major future transatlantic rift and in the second it. no military rationale or benefits indeed. it has potentially severe
military drawbacks. even a french general admitted that during the gulf war the united states forces were the eyes and ears of the french troops. without america nato is a political talking shop. not a military force. nor is that likely to be changed in any reasonably foreseeable circumstances? defense expenditure has been falling sharply in almost all european states in recent years. process were now halted and reversed. it would take many years before europe could hope to replace what america presently makes available to the alliance by way of command and control facilities airlift capacity surveillance and sheer firepower. defense policy can't build on. she calls symbolism and utopian projects of nation building
which ignore or even defy military logic and fiscal prudence. but even a vigorous and successful nato but not survive indefinitely in a worst 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 steel to pastor which australian relations across the atlantic. so the second element where new atlantic initiative was 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 uniting the north american free trade area with the european union in incorporate the central european countries i realize this may not
seem the most proficious moment in american politics to advocate a new trade agreement. but the arguments against free trade between advanced industrial countries and poor third world ones. even if i accepted them we try to do not certainly do not apply to transit atlantic free trade deal. such a trade block would unite countries with similar incomes and levels of regulation. it was therefore involved much less disruption on temporary job loss while still bringing significant gains in efficiency and prosperity. this has been recognized by american labor unions notably by mr. lane kirkland and a series of important speeches and it would create a trade block of unparalleled wells and influence in world trade negotiations of
course economic gains are only half of the argument or chance atlantic free trade area. it would also provide my friends solid economic underpinning to america's continued military commitment to europe while strengthening is 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 yet. let us never forget that. there is a third pillar the political one. the west is not just some cold war construct devoid a significance in today's prayer more fluid world. it rests upon distinctive values. virtues ideas and ideas and above all on on a common
experience of liberty. through the asia-pacific may be fast becoming the new center of global economic power. quite rightly both the united states and britain taken ever closer interest in developments there. but it is the west. above all perhaps the english speaking peoples of the west that has formed that system of 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 consultative political institutions of the west such as the atlantic council and the north atlantic assembly. often my friends, they lack influence and presence in public debate.
above all however, loath as i am to suggest another gathering of international leaders. i would propose an annual summit of the heads of government of all the north atlantic countries under the chairmanship was a present president of the united states. what all this as up to is not another supernational entity, that would be unwieldy and unworkable. it is something more subtle, but i hope more durable. a form of atlantic partnership which attempts to solve common problems while respecting the sovereignty of the member state in the course of identifying those problems and cooperating to salt them governments would gradually discover that they were shaping an atlantic public opinion and political consciousness. section 50 years ago to that earlier fulton speech was swift
dramatic and at first highly critical. indeed to judge from the critics you would have imagined that it was not stalin, but churchill who drawn down the iron curtain. but for all the immediate disharmony it soon became evident that fulton had struck a deeper chord. it resulted in a decisive shift in opinion by may the opinion pose recorded that 83% of americans now favored the idea of a permanent alliance between the united states and britain to subsequently broadened into nato. by speaking as and when he did. churchill god it against a repetition of the withdrawal of america from europe which after 1919 allowed the instability to emerge that the whole world including. america into a second war like
my uniquely distinguished predecessor. i too may be accused of alarmism in pointing to new dangers to which present institutions and attitudes are proving unequal. it also like him i have every confidence in the resources and the values of the western civilization. we are defending in particular, i believe to use churchill's words for there are no better. if all british moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association. the high roads of the future will be clear. not only for us but for all not only for our time but first century to come. that my friends at least has not changed in 50 years.
you're watching american history tv every weekend on c-span 3 explore our nation's past american history tv on c-span 3 created by america's cable television companies and today we're brought to you by these television companies who provide american history tv to viewers as a public service. the c-span cities tour travels the country exploring the american story since 2011. we've been to more than 200 communities across the nation like many americans our staff is staying close to home due to the coronavirus. next a look at one of our city's tour visits. divorce is really probably the thing that put reno on the map first. it had been known for being a railroad junction. it was a pretty modest town reno started out as a crossroads and