Ian Kershaw: “I am confident that European democracies will withstand the challenges of Italy, Hungary and Poland”

Ian Kershaw, a 79-year-old Briton, is one of the great European historians.

He is best known for his biography of Hitler, considered the canonical investigation of the Nazi dictator, but he is also the author of a two-volume history of Europe,

(1914-1949) and

(1950-2017) .

, which are measured by their ambition and breadth with Tony Judt's

.

He just published

(Review, translation by Tomás Fernández Auz and Joan Soler Chic) in which, from Lenin to Gorbachev, reviews the lives of 12 leaders who marked the history of the continent, some dictators, other democratic leaders such as Margaret Thatcher or Helmut Kohl.

Beyond the moral consideration caused by mass murderers like Hitler, Stalin or Franco, Kershaw tries in this book to answer the complicated question of whether some individuals were capable of changing history or if it was the other way around and without the circumstances that around them they would never have come to power and, therefore, to influence their time.

The conversation with the author took place in Madrid, before the victory of the Italian far-right Giorgia Meloni in the elections on Sunday, although Kershaw took her electoral victory for granted in the conversation.

Ask.

It is difficult to draw parallels with the past, but when reading his book, when he describes the chaos in which fascism was born, he speaks of instability, inflation, economic crisis, and violence.

Today we have seen in the United States the capture of the Capitol, and now the rise of a neo-fascist leader in Italy.

Does she worry you?

Are we living in a new twenties?

Response.

I am worried, but I am reassured by the considerable differences between the present moment and the twenties of the last century.

It can be said that all fascists are populists, but not all populists are fascists and what we have now are populists, as is the case with Meloni in Italy.

But this is happening in the context of democratic structures, which are now much more firmly entrenched than they were in the 1920s and 1930s.

The violence we see now is miniscule compared to that of those years.

We don't have gangs of thugs roaming the streets beating up...

Q.

And does that also apply to the US?

R.

The scenario there is very worrying, I agree.

But even the assault on the Capitol was an extreme episode.

That kind of violence is not that widespread.

Therefore, I am confident that even in the US, the constitutional structures will be able to hold, as they did under the Trump presidency.

And in Europe I am confident that the democracies will withstand the challenges they face, not only in Italy, but also in Hungary and Poland.

But if we compare with the twenties and thirties the differences are much greater than the similarities.

Q.

In your book on the fall of the Third Reich,

, you quote an intellectual who wonders how millions of people could follow Hitler and states: "The problem was not Hitler, the problem was us."

How is it possible that fascist dictators managed to have so many millions of followers?

R.

Large sectors of the population supported those dictators.

That's true.

But they supported them in a situation of enormous crisis in their countries.

And even so, as you know well in Spain, it was not the entire population, but a part, sometimes a large minority as in the case of Hitler.

Because he never achieved a large electoral majority.

So I don't think it's fair to accuse those countries of having brought those dictators to power, that's more of a shortcut.

Very complex reasons were what brought them to power.

And those causes have to do with the enormous national crisis that Italy and Germany suffered after World War I, the Great Depression.

It is easy to generalize and hold citizens responsible for bringing those leaders to power.

P.

Is your book a reflection on whether individuals transform history or is it the other way around?

R.

Were they forged by history or did they forge history?

Well, each of the individuals that appear were marked by the moment they had to live, by circumstances that they did not control.

But then they marked history, often disastrously, using the power they had achieved.

Both things happen: they are influenced by history and they influence it.

Q.

A very interesting character is Helmut Kohl, because he could have gone completely unnoticed and forgotten if it wasn't because he was in power when the Berlin Wall fell and suddenly he became a giant.

R.

I included him obviously because of his role during that crisis in which Gorbachev was also a crucial figure.

Kohl played an essential role in German unification and in what would later become the European Union.

But he came to power in a very conventional way and during his early years he was not a particularly distinguished chancellor.

If he were to be replaced in 1988, no one would remember him.

He is a clear example of politicians who are the product of certain circumstances.

Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, in 1937. Heinrich Hoffmann (Getty)

Q.

A common characteristic of the characters in your book is that they all seem quite unbearable.

Are all great politicians?

R.

They are not nice figures.

That's part of being a major political figure.

I don't like any of them except Gorbachev.

From a personal point of view, they are figures to which many buts can be put, and with none you would want to spend a vacation.

Some are downright repulsive, but at certain moments in the story some repulsive figures can be very attractive.

P.

Given what has happened in Russia with Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine, do you think that Gorbachev's reforms were a failure, that everything changed so that everything remained the same?

R.

Gorbachev, despite the circumstances in which he came to power in 1985 and the years that followed, changed the history of his country, with the collapse of the USSR, but also that of Europe, which experienced a new era with the end of the Cold War.

He was the ultimate architect of all that transformation.

But his legacy was also the Yeltsin years of chaos, which led to Putin.

P.

In your book there is only one woman, Margaret Thatcher, and you explain that this reflects the patriarchy in the politics of the 20th century.

Does she believe that things have changed in the XXI?

R.

Yes and fortunately they continue to change.

Now there are women in power in many countries and soon in Italy.

Also in the UK we have another woman who is prime minister.

Women have entered politics in a resounding way.

In the vast majority of democratic parliaments there is broad representation.

And this was not at all the case in the Thatcher era.

P.

Are there other points in common between the dictators of the 20th century beyond their predisposition to murder and violence?

R.

If one observes the characteristics of these leaders, because among the 12 characters there are many democratic leaders, there are some common characteristics, but they are very banal.

In their past, their childhood, their families, there are not many points in common.

As for cruelty, I don't like to use that word.

Stalin was obviously cruel, but I think ruthless is a better fit, because that is something that, with all the differences, can also be applied to democratic leaders, who can fire their ministers or take drastic economic measures.

It has nothing to do with the actions of the dictators, naturally.

Many of these leaders saw themselves as people marked by destiny, capable of changing history, and that leads to some common traits: ego and narcissism.

They had a desire for power, a very strong drive.

Winston Churchill (1874-1965), in 1941. Getty

P.

Is the ego a characteristic of the politicians who marked history?

R.

Without a doubt, Churchill was a tremendously self-centered person.

And Eisenhower.

And Charles de Gaulle, whom I define as a democrat, although from many points of view he was a leader with a very authoritarian style, and very self-centered, but very much so.

I believe that ego is a characteristic shared by all the politicians I describe.

P.

In your book you argue that Hitler, of whom you have written a biography that is already a classic, is the leader of the 20th century who caused the most pain and disasters.

Only from the 20th century?

R.

I do not like to make comparisons with the number of victims.

All the dictators I'm talking about killed a lot of people and caused enormous damage.

And the human cost of those regimes was enormous: Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini... But, beyond moral considerations, I highlight Hitler in the sense that his impact in the first half of the 20th century was enormous. .

Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but the vast majority in his own country.

Hitler tried to conquer most of Europe and terrorized many countries.

It's a subjective judgement, but I think its impact was enormous.

P.

And without Hitler the Holocaust would not have existed?

He writes it in his biography.

R.

There would certainly have been anti-Semitic policies in Germany.

There would have been a nationalist government.

But the process that leads from anti-Semitism, from clearly discriminatory policies towards Jews, to the extermination of six million human beings without Hitler would not have taken place.

Kershaw, during the interview.

Louis Sevillano

P.

Of the leaders who are currently in power and who, therefore, do not appear in your book, who do you think can change history?

A.

Putin is obviously changing the history of Europe with his policies and the war in Ukraine.

Trump can have a major impact, although I think we still have to wait.

All my chapters end with a section dedicated to the legacy of each of the leaders and it is too early to be able to measure it.

But in the case of Putin we can say that he has changed the policies of the EU and Ukraine.

What will be the impact of Trump?

Or the rivalry between China and the US?

We still cannot see the end of the story.

P.

Your book ends with Gorbachev at a time when it seemed that liberal democracy was going to triumph in the world.

How do you see the present now?

Are you pessimistic?

P.

We are seeing the negative impact of globalization and also of the neoliberal policies of the 1990s with the increase in inequality.

In the US or the UK it is an extreme situation.

But this inequality is also creating social conflicts, populist movements, even in liberal democracies.

In the case of India, poverty is enormous.

We live in a long-term crisis of globalization, which began with the

financial

Since 2008 a series of crises have shaken the foundations of liberal democracies.

Q.

What characteristics do you think a good leader should have?

How would you define leadership?

R.

If we talk about a liberal democracy, a good leader has to be able to work in a team, not in an authoritarian way.

And carry out policies that address issues that affect a very important part of the population, not just the elites, which are the groups that already have a lot of power and wealth.

For me, a good leader is someone who affects the redistribution of wealth in their policies and who knows how to work for the community at the head of a team of people who seek to transform societies, rather than trying to introduce drastic changes in a short period of time.

For me, and it is a subjective point of view, a good leader is someone who cares about the majority of the population and who does not carry out policies that seek to divide rather than unite.

P.

From that point of view, it is difficult to maintain that Margaret Thatcher was a good leader...

R.

In my book I have tried to avoid any moral consideration: I have focused on the impact they had on history.

I lived through the Thatcher years and I personally dislike her deeply, but it's obvious she had a huge impact on the UK.

She took some measures that were beneficial to the country, such as controlling inflation, but the price was very high.

But I have not chosen the characters, especially the democratic ones, because they are good or bad, but because of their impact.

P.

And what has been the impact of Elizabeth II?

Was it as big as it has been written these days?

R.

I wrote two great books on the history of the 20th century and I seem to remember, now that you say it, that I do not mention Elizabeth II at any time... She was a figure of stability, of identity in a country that suffers great divisions.

She is a figure with little weight in the pure political sense, although she does from the point of view of soft power.

She had a certain global impact, in the Commonwealth for example.

And also when she went to Northern Ireland and shook hands with Martin McGuinness, who had been an IRA leader.

Subscribe to continue reading

read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber