stamguest_8a030952 asks: Won't the British aggression against Argentina under Thatcher be remembered as the last gasp of Empire?

Ivanstenhouse asks: She also taught the brits to stand up straight after the loss of empire as Reagan did after Vietnam

Paul Johnson: Yes. Well, I agree with the comment. The first question is wrongly phrased. It was Argentinean aggression against the British. Taking over a colony to which they had no right at all. We had to reverse that process. Just like in the early nineties we had to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, in the 1980s the British had to kick the Argentineans out of the Falklands. And in both cases, the world was taught that aggression doesn't pay. So I think the beneficiaries of those two actions were the entire world.

Timehost: Again, let me put two questions to you together...

matsguest_268d31447 asks: Did the Blair victory represent a repudiation of Thatcherism, as the Clinton victory overturned Reaganism?

Ivanstenhouse asks: But Thatcherism is being undone. Doesn't longevity have something to do with importance?

Paul Johnson: I think in both cases Reaganism has perpetuated itself, and I don't see that Clinton has done anything to undo the essential work of Reagan. And the same in Britain. Nothing has been done to undo the Thatcher reforms. Tony Blair and John Major before him have built on the Thatcher administration and made it a part of the British scene. And I would have thought it's the same story in the U.S.

TheGiantTeddybear asks: Who is most important female in American history?

Paul Johnson: That is a very difficult question. I would say that in my opinion... I daresay a lot of people will not agree... the most important female is the poet Emily Dickinson. I think she was a very great poet, of a very rare kind. A woman who lived her life in solitude, who took very little part in public life of any kind. Lived in one small part of the US. And yet produced a very large quantity of verses which I believe will be remembered and treasured in hundreds and hundreds of years' time. Dr. Samuel Johnson once said, "In the long run what matters in a nation is its poets." And that's more important than businessmen and statesmen, etc. In a thousand years' time, she will be remembered where great presidents are forgotten.

Malvolio_1 asks: How great a threat to world order do you view the growing criminal control of much of Russian life

Paul Johnson: If it is true, as some argue, that a kind of mafia has got control of large sectors of public life in the Russian life that is very serious indeed. But I don't believe it's true. I think one should not underestimate the religious and moral resources of Russia. They are very strong. At the moment, they can't always find the expression one would like, but they're there. There's a famous quotation by Talleyrand: "Russia is never as strong as it looks. Russia is never as weak as it looks." At the moment Russia looks weak morally, but I think it's much stronger than it looks.

Daviddd asks: Do you believe that America's future can be separated from the rest of the world? Globally there is greater poverty and more widespread than ever before.

Paul Johnson: I've got two points here. First of all, it is obvious that America's future cannot be separated from the rest of the world. The world is becoming more interconnected with every second, and the days when America could isolate itself are gone forever. I don't think it's true that there's more and greater poverty than ever before. I think there are huge sections of the world that are moving out of poverty into relative affluence. Like India and China, for example. The whole of Latin America is doing much better now than ten years ago. Many Asian nations are fundamentally moving toward affluence, and I think will continue to do so in the 21st century. And even in Africa, there are signs that governments are beginning to learn the lessons of the mistakes they've made, and a start is being made in the right direction. I'm not worried about poverty in the long run, nor the gap between rich and poor. That gap is narrowing and will continue to do so.

Timehost: Hi...this one kind of sounds like the 64-thousand dollar question...

BERKELEY_STAG asks: Dear Mr. Johnson, I am 15, and I want to know who you feel is the most influential person, of this century, for my generation. David in SC

Paul Johnson: Well, I may be a bit partisan here. But I would nominate Winston Churchill. For two reasons. I remember vividly 1940 when Churchill came to power. We had our backs to the wall then, Hitler was triumphant everywhere, and a lot of people thought Britain, and freedom and democracy were finished. As Churchill's voice rang out over the radio, a completely different mood gripped Britain. We felt that not only would we not lose the war, but we would win it. And I think this mood spread throughout the world. And we did win the war thanks to the Americans and the great friendship between FDR and Churchill. And we reasserted the virtues of democracy and political freedom, and have built on that with NATO. We retained the position throughout the Cold War and then won the Cold War and dismantled the evil empire known as the Soviet Union. And now democracy is triumphant throughout the world. Many people can claim credit for this, but I don't think it would have happened without Churchill.

Timehost: We're speaking with historian Paul Johnson, who's joining us from London. We're getting down to our final questions... I'd like to ask this one, because it's one that we've been debating around the hallways of TIME...

Creatureking asks: Although Adolph Hitler may have been a madman, don't you think he impacted world history more than anyone this century?

Paul Johnson: I don't think he was a madman at all. I think he was an extremist. I think he was a realistic person and in many ways extremely sane. Until 1939 when he occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia, he was a very popular figure in Germany and regarded as a great success, who'd ended the depression there, got back full employment and had restored the self-respect of the German people and made Germany an upright country again. And a successful country, standing on its own feet. He then miscalculated and plunged Germany and the world in to a world war which he couldn't possibly win. That was a miscalculation, not a sign of madness. I think Lenin was the most influential person in an evil respect. It was Lenin who began the process of totalitarianism in 1917 and set the pattern that others followed. He was imitated by Mussolini in Italy, and then he and Mussolini were imitated by Hitler in Germany, making Germany Nazi. Without Lenin, Hitler would not have been possible. He would not have come to power. And of course, Lenin's state lasted for nearly 80 years, outlived Hitler's regime and was imitated throughout the world -- and those states continue to exist. Without Lenin, communist China would not have been possible. He rates much higher than Hitler in that regard.

ZoeMac1 asks: Mr. Johnson, Do you honestly believe that Emily Dickinson's contributions are greater than Margaret Sanger's, the founder of the American Birth Control Movement?

Paul Johnson: Yes. Because women who've advocated birth control are many, and they're not unique. Whereas Emily Dickinson was entirely unique being a great poet. And her poetry was very much that of a woman and there'll never be anything like it. Many women have advocated birth control throughout the world.

Timehost: I'm afraid that's all the questions we have time for tonight. but before we go, any closing thoughts?

Paul Johnson: Yes. It's been a great pleasure for me to take part in this chat. I love America and Americans and I had enormous pleasure writing my history of America. I wish America well during the 21st century. I think it's going to be a great century for the U.S. and for the world as a whole.

Timehost: Thank you Paul Johnson for being with us tonight, and for being the initiator of our TIME 100 online conversations.

Paul Johnson: Thank you very much . I've enjoyed it. Good night.