He has won several awards for his work, among them the International Prize and the shore and the esteemed journalism award. The publication he writes for and within new york review of books, new yorker, New York Times and the guardian, which the guardian recently published a highly learned and highly entertaining review of the British Museum exhibition and leisure in japanese art. Japan 1863 to 1964. In the year zero, most of which he wrote while he was a fellow 2012e center in 2011 and to the serious envy of the fellows that he was so productive. He has produced a billion brilliant portrayal of the world emerging from the devastation and unspeakable horrors, thetacle skeptical about idea that we can learn much from history, he nonetheless wanted to know the end including his own father went through. For it helped him make a sense of himself and indeed all of our lives in the long dark shadow of what came before. Zero magnificent in its modesty and the Financial Times describes it as elegant, humane and luminous. The men honored at the New York Public Library lion has five, andmore than 80 most recently, state of england. He received the black memorial prize for his more experienced and was named the 50 greatest british writers in 19 five by the london times in 2008. 1945 seems to be tonight. We are fortunate to be able to listen in on a conversation between two mature writers well and questions from the audience. There are microphones on both sides. Rather than try to speak chair. And then they will sign books, so please let them get out to the table to sign is welcome. [applause] this is a tremendous book. It was amazing organizing a great deal of turmoil. The aftermath was determined itself andthe war shaped by the events that preceded it. Apart from being uniquely devastating in the 55 million and many ruins and all the , it looksn we know of increasingly weird and grotesque from some aspect of the war. It was not wondered into like the first world war. It was one man. The japanese experience is slightly different, but can be almost considered separately. But one man got this about. The only time hitlers ever made me smile is when i think it was just before the invasion of , which set the warren motion, but he was questioned by a general and said i havent gotten any nerves about this war. It ever since 1918. The fact that this one man most theany, the best educated country on earth, the best educated country that had ever been into this exploration of the best deal, which is what happened, it was still remarkable. The weirdness of much of the sort of inherent in the war. It is the great crux that no one cannot answer can answer. Bit and say that a the germans went like man to the slaughterhouse and got to work. Your german connections and feeling for germany, i think you did exceptionally well with this ambitious book because of your connection with england and america and holland and crucially in japan. I do not think it helps necessarily to know germany well or japan well to explain the human propensity for extreme violence. One of the reasons i am happy to be on the stage with you is because i think we share a sort of horrified fascination with why people are capable of doing terrible things. That are people who say you can explain this because the germans had an extermination mentality, that the japanese are unique barbaric and cruel. I do not believe that for a minute. I think that your question is a good one. How is one of the most highly educated and civilized countries in europe produce so much extraordinary violence because yes, it was hitlers that let it, but he could not have done it on his own. He had very active participation and i think hitlers one example and perhaps the most extreme example in modern history that there are others on a smaller scale of the political regime that deliberately exploits and is basic instinct think the idea that there is a torture in all of this is probably trite and not true. Not all of this but it is true that if the authorities in government give people license to do whatever they like with other human beings, you will find large number. You cannot put a particular number on this, but you will find a sufficient number of people who will do their worst and at least torture and kill. Livedf people have perfectly happily together again,that, and i think people often say for example in the balkan wars, people explain serbian violence against muslims, saying that these are ancient hatreds and they should find a way to explode the certain time. , evenot think that hatred though there are all kinds of ,yth that keep coming back manipulated by politicians and leaders and so on in order to put people up to violence. But i do not think theres such a thing as the smoldering hatred that occasionally like a volcano suddenly first spontaneously. It is always orchestrated. I think that one of the best examples of this in my book in 1945 is what happened particularly in czechoslovakia or poland, where large german populations whose families has theredaft have lived for centuries, and suddenly the polls and the checks were given license by their own leaders as well as the allies, who did nothing to stop it. There were told, now you can do what you like, we cannot live with these people anymore, they have to be expelled and in a way, do your worst people people did for several months. German naturalist german nationalists to claim that what happened in poland and czechoslovakia or what the germans in germany suffered from the soviet red army, which was also horrendous in terms of archer,d killing and that somehow this was just as bad as what the germans did to in trying to not rewrite, but a different complexion on these. Review ind in that the bookork times, review, that what you did not do deheroize theas allies. That goes along the lines of the allied bombing, the paradigm of that and the return of the i think youns where half a million dead, that is a bit more. Returning russian prisoners of war to certain enslavement. That we have revived colonialism, gave it a shot in the arm, and saying things like the resistance in france. Articularly was not that that has become the myth, but the truth was Something Like collaboration. But i find myself very much reacting against that inner visceral way. Equivalence. Oral one should remember that war asll refers to the interestingg and concept was that they get old and the bigger they are, the faster they age. Of a lot, a kind of patience is my way of putting it. But we do not feel that, do we . He said while we created the United Nations and the european community, we destroyed hitlers. It was a necessary achievement. One cannot take away the heroism of that. But i think that bleak conclusion that one can draw is can very often, heroes quickly turn into villains. Or example, the soviet red army fought like heroes. The sacrifices of the soviet soldiers were extraordinary. They fought like lions and it was unnecessary fight and without them, they we would not have defeated hitlers. But they had behaved like beasts often when they invaded germany. Likewise, they were an army of rapists. When a woman is raped, she switches off the procreation of all mechanisms you might like to know that there are millions yes, indeed. Because e soviets, the Japanese Occupation of the , theries in Southeast Asia asians in those countries, the local populations certainly did not want to go back to the state , whereas the dutch and the french to some extent did have backion that they could go to the prewar order and take back the colonies. The nationalist in these collaborated often with the japanese, quite understandably, because they saw that as their chance to liberate themselves from their european colonial masters. Europe,r the war in these nationalists were depicted as collaborators. Who was sent to algeria and the Dutch East Indies and other places to put down the anticolonial, nationalist rebellion with root and often up atrocious force, people who fought against the nazis. My point is that human behavior, the atrocity and extreme violence, is not a matter of character or of culture, it is a master of sir matter of circumstances. These are the same people that can behave like heroes in certain circumstances, can behave like animals in others. You findinding that if yourself if you find you have someone completely at your mercy, the human thought that comes next is torture. General, make note in in this book, why violence has continuing to decline. The reasons he uses, one very important notion that took a lot of reestablishing itself after the war was, who had the monopoly of violence . And that must be the state. The idea of what makes the nationstate. Not in this country. I have always thought that americans have not accepted that preset and they want to be able to stand up to the u. S. Army if things should get slightly tyrannical in the white house. Policet has been the has been what have stop violence going back centuries and that gathering force. You may be interested that the novel made a big difference because stephen king does not like the word empathy. He heard a mother screaming at one of her two children, screaming, show some empathy question of what the novel promoted, do you think that this is erratic . I do not think so. Culture not think high makes us into better human beings. This is one of George Steiners great hobby horses how is it possible that an ss officer who can play schumann absolutely beautifully and read poems by greater can the next day aloft peoples fingernails. I do not think it is really all that mysterious. Nor do i think that higher into moremakes us moral human beings. I think it is a question of, as i said, of circumstances. Of moree if you think recent wars, it is a real moral dilemma because when you talk about the monopoly of force, Saddam Hussein certainly monopolized force in his state and in an extremely brutal manner. It was a state in which torture was widespread and people were gassed. He was a torturer. He monopolized it. That one thing that people fear more than a brutal dictatorship is anarchy, in which it is every man for seeelf and chaos, which we to some extent in libya now. To some extent in iraq as well. That thingsmean would be better if we had left Saddam Hussein alone, but it is something that people should think about a little bit more because before they casually say, we as americans, it is our duty to fight the dictatorship and ring freedom and liberty for us to do so. They should have listened to what saddam said ubiquitous torture and terror. Terrible, dictates oral order. For most people, it is probably preferred to the violent anarchy. Violent anarchy, in many ways that you have until 1945, until order was reimposed. Ideology. The period 19401945, it was not a war on religion on the face of it. Obviously, the sense was that ideology, religion was like heroin and ideology was like methadone. Down,ngs you trembling milliona bit of it 100 for communism and fascism. Also, the border is not always so clear. Phases,ost violent there is not a huge distinction between religion and ideology because it was also a religious colt in which people could be tortured to death for trading on a newspaper with his image on it that his religion at its worst really. It is a cult. If you think group overemphasizes young peoples behavior throughout their life, is great study of that Police Reserve battalion 101, where it is established that the killing squads went off behind in poland and russia, they , women andeveryone , andren and then all day no one ever got punished for seeking. They were not sent to the front, they would be transferred and all you might have in the meantime is a bit of jostling there was not a single chance of anyone being punished for requesting a transfer. Yet they would shame themselves in front of the group, they would kill women and children all day, every day. Did not necessarily enjoy it. There was a wear and tear on the nerves. Which is why the gas chambers were employed. After a while, the killing is a strain. Drunk, and it was considered to be cleaner and more efficient to have gas chambers and people that operated the gas chambers were not usually germans either, it was left up to the victims to do that. So it is not necessarily the case that they found it easy. The other thing is, while we are on the subject, i have often theght that the reason why and,nce and civil wars again, to come back to the act germans, thehnic reason why they are so particularly brutal and the killing almost always goes together with humiliation. You go to india, the last famous theance when the seats sikhs, see it over and over. Who set upon their neighbors and it was not enough to kill people the way that the jews were killed. It was not enough. They had to go it was always proceeded by humiliation of some grotesque time kind. I think this is speculation. One of the reasons is that it is not easy for one human being to motor and other human being, especially if they identify with them as their neighbors, if they look like you and so on. It makes me it makes it easier if you reduce your victims to the status of an animal, some abject creature crawling around in the mud. Then you are killing an animal and no longer a human being, which is why you have to reduce people to that state. Animal eyes asian. Imalization. That is why they were referred to as cockroaches on the radio. It is easier to kill cockroaches than your neighbor. If the holocaust had never happened, we would regard that how the polish jews were terrorized, exploited, and had to work for the conqueror. Report the ghetto in warsaw, if anyone still has any sympathy at all, they should t go and have a look at they have no selfrespect. Not even come in distance, etc. The way they treat their children. The children were starving. Ratherers found it unpleasant at the concentration camps. He fainted, nearly. German in 1942, they were machine gunning mental madence and people had gone while killing women and children in the east and i thought something was not quite right in germany. Hand, and 45,r after the liberation, russian raped, often teenagers people sometimes on their deathbeds. Careful. O be a little when you read about violence, there is the danger of ofraphy over violence violence. We are frightened of it and therefore fascinated by it, but always someone has to be a bit careful that you do not start to revel in the description of it because there is a pornographic element and how one guards against that, i have no clear answer to it. It is a factor. They call it when you come , unwelcome,rible rich human experiences. And it is close to sex. That is why i think there is a pornographic element. People read about violence with the fascination of not entirely unrelated to the fascination about reading about sex. Many of the americans had tions. E directions erec e, there was a ,tanding ovation in congress hymns a battle him that was on the top of the charts for months. No. There was sort of a horror that americans they are capable of doing these things as germans are. People often when the japanese took the Chinese Capital at the time. Ande was massive rape killing. It has been explained that the japanese were particularly cruel and barbaric. How is it possible that an army behaves like that . Even though it was known for its discipline . Lai explains a little bit what happened in world war ii. When soldiers are in a foreign country. They dont understand the language. You could be shot at by anybody. There is a distinction guerrilla fighters and soldiers. They would not have seemed to be entirely human. I would like to read a sentence. Ish this book does so well capture the amazing complexity of all the different theaters in different situations. How ramified it all was. This is talking about yugoslavia. Along religious lines. It sounds a bit like syria. Look at greece and and in asia. They dont in the after they have done that. What wars do is they deliberately manipulate, resentment. In france, the vichy regime would never have come to power if it wasnt for the german occupation. In greece, the antagonism between the left and right goes back to the prewar time. The resistance comes from the left. Old guard become collaborators with the germans. That goes on after the war. In italy it could have been a civil war. France was simmering. They were deliberately inflamed by the german occupation. It is not that you topple a dictator or bring them rigell dictator to heal. The problems go on. They have been made worse by war. How do you contain that . Who has king or a queen the legitimacy to patch things up. Talk about that. Now it is time to pull together again. It was probably a necessary thing to do. They very clearly divided the world. He said he would not support a revolution. Talk a bit about japan. It is very extreme down there. The emperor had to confess that he was human and not divine. Which came as a great relief to him. I dont think anyone wants to be a god. Talk about the protest. The difference between germany and japan, after world war ii, the allies had a hazy idea of what had produced all of this. What explains what the nazis did . One of the most common theories that churchill believed and was it was because military spirit that produced all this. Later we knew better. They were the officers, the colonel to try to assassinate hillary 19 before hitler in 1944. They were relatively speaking gentlemen. Been a clear takeover in 1933 by a criminal regime which came to an end in 1945. In germany you could make the case that if you get rid of the nazis and the government, you get rid of them. Armany could be restored to decent european country. It was the country of mozart and goethe. N and there was a real culprit. In japan, it was also simple. There was no equivalent to the nazi party. There was no holocaust, even though there was a lot of killing. There was no deliberate, systematic attempt to exterminate an entire people. There had to be another explanation. It was the samurai spirit, militarism, something deeply rotten about japanese culture. The feeling was there was something so wrong about ,apanese culture, warrior like that the whole culture had to be turned upside down. Kabuki plays about samurai had to be banned. Everything to do with feudalism. To democratize japan along american lines, they had to be reeducated in a very fundament away. There were some comical instances of this. Whoe was a man from kansas was in charge of a town somewhere in japan. He thought that square dancing with the answer. He thought it would democratize the japanese. Japanese men and women have to show their affection equally. The occupational authorities decreed that they had to have the first somatic test. It was hugely popular. Unlike germany, they had to be reeducated. That was the key phrase of the time. The japanese were so frightened that the americans were to to them what they did to the chinese and other asians. They would be raped and massac red. Army wereccupation relatively benign. That came to such a relief. They were more than happy to be the peoples of american reeducation. Even the emperor probably was. We are sort of coming to the end. Maybe you could tell a couple of anecdotes about what happened to. Our father what gave me the idea to do this book was my fathers story. Time. Fled me for a long was a law student in 1941. To join a fraternity, men had to go through a lot of initiation. A lot of hazing. In utrecht, it went on underground. All of the hazing was clandestine. Sign an oath of allegiance to the nazi occupational authorities. Many refused. If you were refusing, you had to work in the german war industry. My father, like others, went into hiding. Him to come back to his hometown. He was met by his grandfather. It was announced that those young men who did not sign the oath had to go to germany immediately. If they did not come of their parents would be arrested. My father was afraid that this would happen to his parents. He ended up in berlin. He lived through the bombings. The battle of berlin. He was almost shot by a soviet soldier. He collapsed of exhaustion and hunger. He was nursed back to some kind of health by a german prostitute. Ended up in a displaced persons camp. Holland. Back to i went back to university. Only to be told by members of the fraternity that because the initiation had, on underground, they had to do it all over again. There were boys who had suffered far worse than my father. They were forced to jump around like frogs. I said, hows it possible that you couldve put up with this nonsense . Shoulders ands said, that was the way it was. We thought it was normal. I think they were yearning for some kind of normality. This represented the normal world. He is not a particularly traumatized man. He was never even particularly antigerman. But certain things from his experience lingered. One was the horror of fireworks and loud bangs. A german crowd was not his favorite place to be stuck in. Decided we would spend new years eve in berlin. It was the second time he had been back. It was all very festive. These enormous crowds. Suddenly the fireworks exploded. We had lost our father in the crowd. We could not find him. We looked for him. Then we went back to the hotel. About 2 00 in the morning, he staggered into the room. Hit by a fire rocket. The reason i use this story is asause 1989 was seen by many finally world war ii is over. This is the end. Eastern europe is finally free. George bush talked about the new world order. In this better world that everyone is hoping for. I used that anecdote to show that, unfortunately, a new world will never come. [applause] please stick your hands up. It is better if they come to the mic. It is hard for some people. If it is too hard, talk loud. Im glad it cool off a bit. We cant hear you. That is better. I agree there is no moral equivalence. I buy into that. Seems that the unique quality of world war ii was the targeting of civilians on both sides. Killing military people. That was on both sides. Londone germans bombed in the raf and the u. S. Air force bonds german civilians. Some of them may have been like the rest of us in the room, not very political. I wonder if you would comment on that. It is a bit like these killers in poland. You get used to it. There were two reasons the british began to bob civilians in places like hamburg. Howwas an illustration of people learn the wrong lessons of history. The generals had memories of world war i. The last thing they wanted was a war of attrition. They thought bombing would demoralize the enemy population. They would have turned against their leaders and bring the war to a speedier and. End. Which turned out to be a faulty analysis. It did the opposite. It raised the morale. They talk about the air war as being a defeat. For the bombers. There is another reason. The british were desperate. There was no way. It must have been earlier. There was no way to fight back at that stage against what was still a formidable german enemy. It was felt that they had to do something. They thought bombing german cities was a token of fighting back. In the beginning they tried to bomb harbors and railway stations and that kind of thing. It was too complicated. They did not have the type of equipment that allowed you to bomb from a great height. That is why they thought this new tactic of bombing civilians. Once they started doing that, it got progressively worse. When they started doing it on a largescale, it got progressively worse. And more vindictive. In japan, it was worse than that. Bombs. Opped phosphor the famous phrase that they were bombing the back to the stone age. If the allied head lost the war, they would be war criminals. People have said this plan is a death camp. It is a different thing. It was an act of war. An approach an atrocious act of war. Did america really have to drop the atomic bomb on japan . Or were they so weak they would have surrendered anyway . They probably wouldve, but the question is when . The americans wanted to finish the war as quickly as they could. They were running out of money. Most americans were sick of war. They wanted the boys to come home. The appetite to prolong it was very low. There was also the fear at that stage that the soviets would invade japan first. Avoid anwant to invasion at all cost. Was it really necessary . We will never know for sure. ,ven after the second adam bomb theyapanese were counsel, were the ones to decide on whether to surrender or not. It had to be a unanimous decision. Some still argue that they had to fight to the last man, woman, and child. It was only the second time in his reign that the emperor did step in. Said we have to surrender. The japanese were afraid that the red army would get there first. Or it would be a communist inspired rebellion. The other thing the atom bombs did was it gave the diehards an excuse to surrender. They could say this is force majeure. We were not defeated. But with a weapon like that. It is like boxing someone in your opponent suddenly draws again. A gun. It served as a way out. We wont know if it was absolutely necessary. But would have surrendered it wouldve taken more time. You have written on this more than i have. The moral question. Is there a moral difference between firebombing tokyo and killing more than 100,000 people in a few nights and using an atom bomb . The numbers are perhaps not the relevant factor. Difference, a moral difference between one way and another . They had only two bombs, one uranium and one plutonium. They had spent an incredible amount of money making those. This comes up all the time. The moral difference. Did you think it was a moral difference in syria when chemical weapons were used . It was not immediately clear to me. Of course using chemical weapons is absolutely horrific. But i think the redline was rhetorical. Nothing, im a bit dubious about that distinction. Weapons arehemical exponential weapons. I would be entirely favor of banning them. But im not sure there is an absolute moral distinction. Absolute one. But maybe a practical one. They do kill lots of people. It also kills people more quickly. There a moral distinction between the gas chambers and shooting people in the neck . The gas chambers were in epiphenomenon. Gas is a lot cheaper. It was a practical consideration. I have learned a lot from the things you have said. We learn from the people of this world. What should we be talking about . Doomed to believe there is no formation out there we can put together to help humanity . So each crisis circumstance becomes violent. I realized in the last few years , especially in this country, the humanities have been taking it. Taking a hit the study of technology and science seems to be with the universities want to promote. Money. Gs in more are they thinking that the reading of humanities will not improve our wellbeing . I dont want to ramble too much. Anyone of you will help me think through these questions. Im not sure i can help you. Unless you are religious. And you believe religion will make us behave better. In some cases that may actually be true. A question of institutions and law. That playo have laws a major goal in making people behave, you need a police force, you need proper institutions and without proper institutions, the law of the jungle prevails. As i said, i think when the law of the jungle prevails, it doesnt matter whether you are german or american or japanese or black or white or yellow, the worst happens. [inaudible] im sorry . [inaudible] im not seeing im not saying all human beings are monsters. A moral hero, and man who was [inaudible] yes. I dont think if you have a look, a government or an occupation or whatever it is that works on peoples basest instincts, i dont think it is not true that everybody will behave like a monster. I think the number of people that behave like monsters deliberately is probably is not the majority. The majority tries to survive and look the other way if it suits them. The absolute monsters are not the majority, but nor are the moral heroes. The moral heroes are probably even rarer. Even in the worst circumstances, you will have moral heroes. One stood up to the nazi regime, he paid with his life, he was a decent and moral human being and there were others in germany. [inaudible] that determines whether you are going to be a monster or a hero . Yes. Again, ibe true, but yes, you are right, but, as i have said before i think , sometimes heroes can become monsters and possibly even the other way around. There wasnt much heroism in germany and there were many more monsters than there were heroes, i am sure of that. Yes. Austerlitz,mps, in one in 10 of the ss were monsters who clearly derived satisfaction out of it. Yes. But one in, what, 1000 work euros in prison. Its much more dangerous to be a moral hero. To be a monster is easy. , a minoral hero consideration to the real hero. Absolutely. You mentioned George Steiner and prima lovie, and prima lovie said berlin was one of the best novels. Which novel . Alone in berlin or every man dies alone and i was wondering if either you or martin have opinions about moral integration about the moral or the author . Im not entirely clear he stayed in germany even though his british publisher was going to get him out and he stayed and recounted what her what ordinary german life was like auntie did not say he was a hero but he was able to give voice to what germans experienced during the war. When was that published . It was published in 2010 by penguin. It was published in 1947. It was the last book that he published after his death. He died before it was published. I couldnt finish that novel. I got halfway through. He goes off on a huge red herring about the gestapo and odd things like he has them wearing the star during the invasion of france. Untilarted not come in september 1941. But the writing of that book was very courageous. Have you seen the diary of a man in despair by friedrich recht . It is a scathing, hatefailed reaction to the nazi rule. That he hid 10 feet deep in his garden, but just put pen to paper. Like the diaries of Victor Klemperer . Victor klemperer, the linguistics professor, also a heroic day by day account. I dont think heroic is quite the word, but yes, its a fascinating one. Your question of inner integration is a very important one because not every system allows that. The difference, i think, between actually nazi germany, unless you are jewish, in which case you are doomed, but if you were a nonjewish german in germany or most fascist states, integration was a possibility. He didnt stick your neck out and kept quiet and you would survive. Mao, this was impossible, or stolen, you have to actively participate and voice your enthusiasm and you couldnt just withdraw and retreat. It was not an option. Thank you. My question is about japan. Japanese colonizers are becoming more rightwing and at the beginning of the nuclear war, so to speak, and now the japanese government is trying to sell nuclear industries. What do you think about that . This is a long way from 1945. Although, not entirely. Lets leave the nuclear question aside for a minute. The rightwing nature of the current prime minister, that does go back to 1945. The reeducation of japan in was that the1947 americans wrote, as you well know, a new constitution and because the war was blamed on militarism, it was the pacifist constitution and most japanese even,content, proud of it but some japanese, nationalists, felt this was robbing japan of its sovereignty. Military forcee under any circumstances in foreign policy, then you have to leave it up to somebody else, your security, and in this case to the americans. , there has always been a vociferous minority that wants to change the constitution and restore japans sovereign rights to use its armed forces as they saw fit. Now, the mainstream in japan, especially the left, have always used the argument against revision of the constitution by saying, look, japan is like an all gallic, you cant start waving a drink under its nose because it will go back to its bad ways. Happened, we should never be tempted again. As long as that argument is used, the revisionists will say, every country has wars in its history, wars are terrible, we did bad things but no worse then any other country theres , nothing we should feel particularly ashamed about. So lets revise the constitution and feel proud of ourselves. Thats the attitude of the current prime minister. And what is disturbing about it is history has become so polarized and politicized in japan that nobody is talking about nobody attempts to find the truth anymore. Its all about what political agenda you have and that determines your view of the war rather than facing it coolly and squarely as the germans have learned how to do. Lights, but they learned. I think they learned. Im interested, very interested in the german peoples acceptance of hitler. Im not sure that it was as easy as you have depicted. Where there not more than a score, perhaps as many as 30 active plots against him there the most famous of which was in , 1944, but are there not many others and were there not religious and military groups and other groups of people who did not care for hitler and many of whom actively worked against them . Allen dulles, core operating very closely with the military intelligence that angloamerican historians seem not to realize that. Is that in fact true . The only institution that tohitle hitler was the army. I think the army, all the opposition in the army happened in france in the summer of 1940. No one believed he could conquer france in the way he had proposed and he did it and it did look like a miracle. Very sound and good people said just for a couple of weeks or so i thought, well, he is a bit rough around the edges, but look at this. France, the historical enemy. Once the army came aboard, that was the end of the opposition. And he got rid of generals very quickly who didnt go along with him. So there were indeed people in germany who opposed him in the 1930s. The use of terror was very effective. And so it took more and more courage to oppose him openly and it became almost impossible. Once he was in power. And there were many people who didnt like what was going on, but many chose inner immigration because that was the only way to survive. But i dont think its angloamerican prejudice to say there was not much in the way of real, organized opposition. There was some. There were opposition groups here and there in the army. Not much. People, when the assassination was attempted, the colonels plot failed. He had the nation behind him in 1944. Both germans did ok as long as you are not jewish until , people got badly bombed. They act better than people in occupied countries life wasnt , all that bad. I mean, it was oppressive, but it took a huge amount of courage to actively resist it and i dont think there was a huge amount of it. It was very difficult to be brave in nazi germany. You had to be prepared to die. You had to be prepared for torture. You had to withstand that because naming no names and its not very accessible to us. Its a very german thing that in the occupied countries any , criminal could die like a martyr, but in germany, it was arranged so that any martyr would die like a criminal. You wouldnt be celebrated after your death. Your wife would turn your photograph around your parents , wouldnt talk to you. Your children would be told that does not matter after your death. No, but it is very german it , very difficult to contemplate. Von mocker said that is actually what stops people not the , physical fear but the shame. [applause] thank you. Thank you very much. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] bookshelf features the bestknown American History writers of the past decade talking about their books. You can watch our series every saturday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. The president s, available on paperback, hardcover, and ebook from public affairs, residence biographies of every president , inspired by conversations with historians about the leadership skills that make for a successful presidency. As americans go to the polls to decide who should lead our country, this collection offers perspective into the lives and events that forged each president s leadership style. To learn more about the president and the books historians, visit cspan. Org thepresident s and order your copy today wherever books are sold. You are watching American History tv, all weekend every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. Next, we hear about the kennedy administrations efforts on womens rights from alan price. Rightsains that womens where part of candidate kennedys platform and how that translated into the commission and the status of women in the equal pay act of 1963. The National ArchivesFoundation Hosted this discussion and provided the video. Alan one of the joys of my position is there is a heritage to president ial libraries and all of the prior directors of the jfk president ial library and museum have been mentors to me, as i have taken on the role. We have announced to the Community Just a couple of days ago the passing of the very