Professor Richard Overy Q&A

Stansgran

The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history. Do you agree?

No, there are many things to learn from history, but history is not a manual where solutions to current problems can be found. A knowledge of history, however, could help policy makers and public make more informed and sympathetic decisions and soften attitudes based on prejudice. The problem is not history, but how that history is communicated.

Nelliepara10

Is it true that a lot of the records relating to WWI were destroyed in the London Blitz WWII?

My grandfather was in Salford Pals (Lancashire Fusiliers). I know he was awarded the Military Medal because he rescued several soldiers by carrying them across the field in April 1918 at the battle of the Somme.

He did show me his medals and they had been presented at his local church. He refused to go to the Palace because he said every soldier on the field deserved a medal. Sadly he had to retire from work when he was in his fifties due to 'bad legs'. He became bitter about the way he had been treated by the Government and gave his medals to a man knocking at the door seeking scrap metal!

I have tried to find information regarding the award but have been told, as mentioned that most records were destroyed.

No, most World War I records survived the bombing. Those that are lost may well have been deliberately weeded out or dispensed with because they were regarded as unnecessary for the historical record. A trip to The National Archives might well turn up detail of your grandfather’s record.

MiceElf

War crimes have been committed continuously since the end of WWII by all the participants in the many conflicts. Would you like to see a sort of permanent Nuremburg instituted, to hold both national leaders and individuals to account?

There is such an institution – the International Criminal Court. The problem is that even with a court and a body of international law, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to impose that law on major powers. Otherwise Putin and his colleagues would be arraigned for violating the UN Charter.

MiceElf

Two more questions, Professor.

How far do you think WWI contributed to the rise of nationalism in Europe in the interwar years?

And

As this year rolls on there will be commemorations / remembrances and so on, where the events of WWI are recalled. I suspect that many of my generation will have their perceptions of the war heavily influenced by relatives who died. In my case, my French mother's three elder brothers and my English father's two elder brothers. That will not be the case for those of succeeding generations who will perhaps just be aware, for the most part, of names on war memorials and half digested scraps of history, or, perhaps, hopefully, the television series. How do you feel the nation should remember and what are the implications, if any, for European unity and cohesion.

Yes, the First World War was a critical experience in building a modern sense of national identity and national rivalry, which played an important part in causing the crises of the 1930s and the eventual world war. I think that the First War should be remembered as a disaster for Europe as a whole and not simply be seen in national or nationalist terms. The anniversary should provide an opportunity to reflect on the dangers of national rivalry and prejudice and to endorse the principles of the new Europe.

Aka

A question that's always puzzled me about Hitler. This is not meant frivolously but how could such a ridiculous-looking individual, coming from nowhere, rise to such a position of power, and carry a nation along with him? I know you've written a whole book about him, but is it possible to sum up his apparent appeal in a few sentences?

And could it happen again in the 21st century?

No, it could not happen in the same way, but throughout history there have been bizarre, messianic figures preaching their own vision of salvation. What was unusual about Hitler was his success in projecting that bizarre personality into German politics and persuading a fraction of German society to follow him like some malign Pied Piper. Messianic figures succeed only to the extent that other people see them as messiahs, but not necessarily from their own qualities, which in Hitler’s case were clearly limited.

StrangerOnTheBus

I've recently purchased The Definitive Visual Guide. You’ve not focused heavily on the impact of war - how would you describe your focus and how did you come to decide on it? In schools we often teach the impact of the war as opposed to it’s sequence.

The decision to shape the book this way reflected the need to show a wider public that the war was not just the Somme and the Western Front. The narrative thrust presents all aspects of what was a truly global war and getting that message across is an important one in itself. The impact of war is a large and often speculative subject, and one that would really deserve its own volume.

Custard

I liked the fact that the book was visual and wide ranging, however I can still sense that the book is written for a British audience and with a sense of reflecting the consensual British narrative (no criticism, of course it would be!). Do Historians outside the English speaking world have a significantly different take or focus on events? I’d imagine they do but sadly I’m not bilingual and have always wondered.

A good question, though a great effort was made to avoid making this volume appear through a British lens. Of course other cultures see the war differently. In the former areas of European empire, the war can be seen as evidence of the bankruptcy of European claims to be the most ‘civilised’ and hastened the collapse of the old imperial order. In Germany the war is seen much more as the prelude to decades of disaster rather the triumph of ‘right’ over ‘might’. In Italy there is a strong pacifist tradition which sees the war simply as an unnecessary tragedy for Italy and peace as a more sensible option, both then and now.

brightonrock

My fascination has always been with Russian history, but one thing that still bothers me to this day, and which I read about years ago, was the death of Sergei Kirov. Forgive me if this isn't your area of expertise, but I'd like to hear your opinion - did Stalin have him killed, or was it (as it was presented) a grudge killing by an expelled party member? I always think I know which one I think it is and then reconsider!

brightonrock

Am I allowed another ? Could you also give us your most little-known things that happened during the WWI or II?

My view is that the murder really was carried out by an embittered party member, but this is the kind of issue where the evidence (if there is any) to convict Stalin will long ago have disappeared or been suppressed. So any conclusion will necessarily be tentative.
To your second question it is difficult to find a ready answer. Much of what happened is poorly known to a wider audience, which is one of the purposes behind the DK book. Perhaps the least known of all is the Japanese occupation of the German island colonies in the Pacific (Marshall and Marianas Islands) which were later fought for by the American in World War II at terrible cost to both sides.

hindsight

I know WWI had a huge effect on the way wars were fought after that but what was the effect of the second world war ?

What a huge question too. The Second World War, in brief, consolidated some of the changes seen in the First War (radio, tanks, aircraft) but also opened the way to the weapons systems of the Cold War (rockets, nuclear weapons, radar and electronic warfare, electronic intelligence systems) as well as changing the way forces were organized (more mobile, self-contained, multi-arm units – derived from the famed Panzer Divisions of the German Army).

papaoscar

Hello, Professor Overy. How do you see the increasing use of drones and other remotely-controlled devices influencing the way future wars are conducted? I notice more and more reference to these devices and their increasing sophistication. Will their use limit or extend the risk of warfare?

I think these weapons are already at war, so the risk has already been realised. They do have the danger that war will seem easier to wage if you are a rich power with the capacity to launch attacks of devastating power while sitting in a bunker thousands of miles away. War will seem more and more like a vast video game and the damage inflicted will be too remote to matter very much to those inflicting it. Anything which makes international conflict easier to contemplate should be treated as a dangerous development, but finding a way, either through international agreement or popular protest, to restrict the use of drones is difficult.