Work his previous works of in the year in year zero a history of 1945. Most of which he wrote while he was a fellow 2012 to the envy of his fellow fellows, he displays a betrayal of the world emerging from the devastation and unspeakable horrors of world war ii in europe and asia. Skeptical about the idea that we can learn much from history, he whatd to know, he writes, those who lived through the war and its end went through, in the long dark shadow of what came before. The wall street journal called year zero remarkable in its combination of magnificence and modesty. The Financial Times described it as elegant, humane and luminous. Amos martin amis has published 25 books, including many collections of stories in novels. Stories and novels. One of the greatest british writers since 1945. 1945 seems to be a theme here. We are extremely fortunate to be able to listen in on a conversation between these two extraordinarily gifted writers, who are also friends. Talk for about 45 minutes they will talk for about 45 minutes, and then take questions from the audience. Books. Ey will sign when they are finished speaking, please let them get out to the table out there. Please welcome ian buruma and martin amis. [applause] this is a tremendous book. Ofs an amazing Task Organizing a great deal of because the aftermath of the war was determined by the war itself, and shaped by the years that preceded it. That preceded it. Apart from being uniquely it looksng, grotesquely weird and , some aspects of the war. It wasnt blundered into like the first world war. Man, the japanese experience could be quite different but one man brought this about. The only time hitlers ever made me smile was just before the which setf poland, the war in motion, but he was questioned by general and said i havent got any nerves about this war. Ever sinceon it, 1918. Manfact that this one the bestermany, theated country on earth, best educated country there had ever been, into this pedantic exploration of the bastille is remarkable. Weirdness of much of the aftermath is sort of inherent in the war. It is the great crux that no one can argue. It was said of the jews that they went like lambs to the slaughter. The germans went like butchers to the slaughterhouse. I think ian is especially wellequipped to write such an ambitious book. Germany,ection with england, america and japan. Ian i dont think it helps, necessarily to know germany, the humanexplain propensity for extreme violence. One reason i am happy to be on stage with you is we share a horrified fascination with what people are capable of doing why people are capable of doing terrible things. Say it caneople who be explained because the germans had an extermination nest exterminationist mentality, or the japanese were uniquely barbaric or cruel. I dont believe that for a minute. I think your question is a good one, how did one of the most highly educated and civilized countries in europe produce so much extraordinary violence because yes, it was hitlers who led it, that he could not have done it on his own but he could not have done it on his own. Hitler is a machine that deliberately exploits peoples basest instincts. Not all of this would make not all of us would make good torturers. Governmentties, the gives people license to do whatever they like with other aman beings, you will find large number and one can put cant put a particular number on this but there are a significant number of people who will do their worst. If people had lived perfectly happily together before that, and i think another trite thing people often say, for example in the balkan wars, people explain serbian violence say thesee muslims are ancient hatreds and the exploded a certain time. I dont think hatreds are necessarily ancient even though there are all kinds of myths that keep coming back and arm in italy did by politicians, an order to put people up to the violence. I dont think there is such a thing as a smoldering hatred that occasionally like a volcano bursts out. Best examples of this in my book, and 1945, is what happened in check with voc you and poland, in checklist of nokia in czechoslovakia and poland. They were given license by their theleaders, as well as by allies who did nothing to stop it. They were told, now you can do what you like to the germans, and we cant live with these people anymore, they have to be expelled, and in a way, do your worst. People did, for several months. German nationalists like to claim that what happened to the german population in poland and czechoslovakia, or what the germans in germany suffered from the soviet red army, which was also horrendous in terms of rapes and killing and torture, that somehow this is just as bad as what the germans did to others, which is not the case. Martin to put a different complexion on these. In that review in the new york times, that what ,ou didnt do in this book was the professional word is deh eroize the allies. One, hiroshima bombing. Bombing. Allied 10 Million People turfed out, ethnic germans of poland and czechoslovakia. Agreed to return to certains enslavement if not certain death, and the way we revived colonialism and also things like saying that the resistance in france was not that. But has become the myth, the truth was Something Like collaboration. Myself very much reacting against that in a visceral way. Equivalence. Oral thathould remember churchill referred to the moral wrong of the war. And the bigger they are, the faster they age. In, there was a loss a mild way to put it. Wasestroyed hitlers, that we destroyed hiler, that was the achievement. Ian a necessary achievement, of course. But i think the bleecker conclusion one could draw is that very often, heroes quickly turn into villains. From churchill, the soviet army fought like heroes. The sacrifice of the soviet soldiers were extraordinary, and they fought like lions and it was a necessary fight and without them, we would not have defeated hiler. But those same soldiers behaved like beasts. Invaded germany, they were an army of rapists. Martin there were a million births. Ian indeed. Soviets. The japanesef the occupation of countries in theheast asia, and so on, asians in those countries, local populations certainly didnt want to go back to the status quo, whereas the dutch and the hadch and the british delusions they could go back to the prewar order and take back their colonies. Now the nationalists in these had often collaborated with the japanese, quite understandably because they saw their chance to liberate themselves from their european colonial masters. After the war in europe, these were labeled as fascists and collaborators. Downers were sent to put the anticolonial nationalist. Ebellions often atrocious force against people who fought against the nazis. The propensity for atrocity and extreme violence is not a matter of character or culture. It is a matter of circumstances. The same people who can behave like heroes in certain circumstances can behave like animals in others. Thatn it is that finding if you find yourself, you find use you have someone completely at your mercy, the human thought that comes next is torture. We should make note that in why violence has declined. It is continuing to decline and of the reasons, one very important notion. It took a lot of reestablishing after the war but who had the monopoly of violence . Ive always thought that americans have kind of accepted that preset, and they want to be able to stand up with the u. S. Army if things get tyrannical in the white house. The police are what stops violence, going back a couple centuries. You may be interested to know stephen doesnt like the word empathy. Do you think this is irrevocable . The idea that you will torture someone if you get the chance. Ian no, i dont think that. I dont think high culture makes us into better human beings. This was one of George Steiners great hobby horses, how is it possible that an ss officer who could play beautifully and read poems to the next day go to work and pull out peoples anger nails . I dont think it is all that mysterious peoples fingernails . I dont think it is all that mysterious. I really do think it is a question of i think of circumstances. I suppose if you think of more recent wars, it is a real moral dilemma, because new talk about the monopoly of force because when you talk about the monopoly of force, Saddam Hussein monopolized force in his state, in an extremely brutal matter and it was a state in which torture was widespread, people were gassed. Martin he came up through the torture. Ian indeed. He monopolized it. Thanhing people fear more a brutal dictatorship, it is anarchy,y man every man for himself and chaos, which we see to some extent in on, whichiraq and so is not to say that things would have been better if we left Saddam Hussein alone, but it does it is something people should think about more, before they casually say we as americans have a duty to fight dictatorship and will use military force to do so. Martin they should have listened to what Saddam Hussein said, which was iraq was a terribly difficult country to govern. Terrible brutal dictatorial order would be preferred to violent anarchy. Violent in aki is in many cases what you had in 1945 until order violent anarchy inin many cases what you had 1945 until order was reimposed. Ideology, it was religion was like heroin and ideology was like methadone. It brings you troubling trembling down from religion. Barbarity not seen for centuries, because of ideology. Borderlines in ideology and religion are not always so clear. There is not a huge distinction between religion and ideology in maoism, because it was also a religious cult where people could be tortured to death for treading on a newspaper with maos image on it. That was religion at its worst. It is a cult. Martin it is to do with the peer group isnt it . If you think the peer group is overemphasized as a determinant fate, theeoples where itof that is established that the killing inads that went out behind poland and russia, who would go and kill everyone in the village. 38,000 dead . Kill all day, women and children and men, all day, and no one for seekingished transfer. Some penalt sent to commando in the front, they would be transferred. All you would have is jostling in the lunch queue. Not a single case of anyone being punished for requesting a transfer. Ian they didnt necessarily enjoy it. Nerves ofear on the ss members. That is why the gas chambers were employed because after a while, the it is a bit of a strain. Even if they got drunk, which they did. It was considered to be cleaner and more efficient to have gas chambers, and the people who operated the gas chambers werent often not germans either. It was often left up to the victims. Is, while we are on this cheerful subject, i have often thought that the reason warshe violence in civil to the ethnicck germans after the war ended in poland and czechoslovakia, the reason why they are so particularly brutal, and the killing almost always goes together with humiliation. You see this in india. Upon the i set cant remember now. In any case, you see it over and over in india. People would set upon their neighbors, and it wasnt enough to kill people, the way the jews were killed. It wasnt just enough to kill them. It was always preceded by hubley asian of some grotesque kind by humiliation of some grotesque kind. One of the reasons is it is not easy for one human being to murder another human being, especially if they identify with them. If they were neighbors. It makes it easier, if you reduce your victim to the status of an animal, some abject creature crawling around in the mud, and then you are killing an animal and no longer a human being, which is why you have to reduce people to that state. Tin animal is a animalization. The selffulfilling slander is remarkable to watch. If theghettos of poland, holocaust never happened, we would have noted that. Pulverized,zed, exploited and had to work for their conquerors. Goebbels wrote a report where he hesitated in the ghettos of warsaw. No selfrespect. Not even common decency. The way they treat their children, the children are starving. The imposition of what you think the cumulus recalling of indignation. It unpleasantund to visit concentration camps. Martin he fainted, nearly. If you had heard that they were machine gunning mental patients to clear bed space for people who had gone mad after killing women and children in the east, you would have thought something was not quite right in germany. In but on the other hand, 1945 after the liberation, russian troops, often teenagers rapedhospitals and people, sometimes on their deathbeds. We have to be a little careful. When you write about violence, there is a danger in the pornography of violence. We are frightened of it, and therefore fascinated by it. One always has to be a bit careful that you dont start to revel in descriptions of it, because there is a pornographic element. Guards against that, i have no clear answer to. It is a fact. As we sit here Holding Forth on it. When you come to these horribly unwelcome human experiences. Ian and it is close to sex, which is why i think there is a pornographic element. People read about violence with this fascination that is not entirely unrelated to the fascination for reading about sex. Martin it was said that many of the americans had visible erect ions. In another argument, one might note that there was a standing ovation in congress when got his sentence commuted. Thats a rockabilly song, was on top of the rockabilly charts. Americans didnt find it shocking. True. Hat is not entirely there was a horror. Ofricans are as capable doing these things as the germans are. It was an interesting case because, people often wonder about things like the rape of nanking in 1937 when the japanese took the Chinese Capital at the time and there was massive rape and killing and looting. It has often been explained as this japanese are particularly cruel and barbaric. How is it possible that an army behave like that even though in the russell japanese war in 1995, the Japanese Army was known for its discipline and how well it treated its pows and so on. Explains a little bit what happened in world war ii and afterwards, and that it was a particular situation when soldiers are in a foreign country, they dont understand you could be shot at by anybody. The distinction between guerrilla fighters and soldiers and so on almost doesnt exist. You have no idea who is going to be shooting at you. There is a great temptation to be triggerhappy and just shoot them all. I think that is i think it necessarily despite the cuckolded of failures, these things can also come out of fear. Martin and they had taken a lot of losses. Ian as had the japanese. And as we said, the dehumanization of the enemy. Two a lot of those soldiers to a lot of those soldiers from rural america, they would not have seen entirely human seemed entirely human. Book does sothis well is capture the amazing complexity of the different ramified itand how all was. We were just talking about yugoslavia. There were several wars going on at the same time, thought along political, ethnic and religious grounds. It sounds a bit like syria. Look at greece and indonesia. Ian what wars do, just as dictatorships often do in Foreign Occupation is they are deliberately manipulating resentment, divisions and so on that exist in society anyway. In france, the regime would never have come to power had it not been for the German Occupation. In greece, the antagonism between the left in the right goes back to the prewar, when they had a rightwing dictatorship and leftwing opponents were locked up in jail. The germans occupied greece. The resistance comes from the left, from the communists. The old guard becomes collaborators with the germans and that goes on after the war. Greece ended up in a very brutal civil war. In france, it was similar. Speakingm, the dutch flemish nationalists were deliberately inflamed by the German Occupation against the frenchspeaking will loons. There was no monarch in belgium to keep things together because he was tainted by trying to make a deal with the germans. What happened after the war is it is not that you topple the the brutal bring enemy to heel. In some countries, the problems went on or were made worse by the war. Having sort of a national figure, a king or queen who has the legitimacy to patch things deliberately very by talking about the heart and everyone had been antigerman and is now trying to pull together again. Necessary,ably because otherwise the country could have been torn apart. The reason you didnt have civil war in france and britain was you had stalin in the soviet union. Martin talk a little bit about a very extreme process went on. The cult of macarthur. Of japan, ian which came as a good is a great relief to the empire. The emperor preferred to have his english breakfasts. Martin talk about the process. Ian the difference between theany and japan is that other thing after world war ii, the allies often had a very hazy idea of what it produced of all whathorror, what explains the nazis did, the germans did . One of the most common theories at the time, one that churchill for a long time believed in, it was all because of prussianism, the German Military spirit had produced all of this. Later we knew better. Martin and the prussians were the colonels and officers. Ian who tried to assassinate hitlers. Tried to assassinate hitler. It was fairly easy because there had been a clear takeover in 1933 by a criminal regime that came to an end in 1945. It was not the party and hitler. In germany, you could make the case that if you get rid of the nazi elements in the government, you get rid of nazi is him, germany could be restored to a decent european country. It was also the country of mozart and all that. There was a real culprit, the nazi party, hitler, the ss. So simpleit wasnt because there was no equivalent to the nazi party. There was no holocaust, even though there was an enormous amount of killing. Deliberateo systematic attempt to exterminate an entire people. There had to be another explanation. The exultation was we decided it was a variant of prussianism. Fy germany, you could denazi and purify the best of german culture. The view was there was something so wrong about japanese culture, so feudalistic and warrior light, that the whole culture needs to be turned upside down. Kabuki plays about samurai had to be banned. Martin anything to do with feudalism. Democratize japan along american lines, they had to be reeducated in a fundamental way. There were some comical instances of this. A u. S. Army kansas, officer who was in charge of a town somewhere in japan, rural japan who thought that square dancing was the answer, because square dancing would democratize the japanese. First the case of the screen of the first screened case in movie theaters. Black americans, the need to be able to show affection openly and not in this futile way that is always hidden. The American Occupational authorities Censorship Board decreed that they had to have the first cinematic kiss, which was hugely popular with Young Audiences in japan, who knew when it was going to come and burst into wild applause. Germany,se, unlike they had to be reeducated, which was a key phrase at the time. Frightenede were so that the americans would do to them what they did to the thatse and other asians, they would be raped and whereas innd so on, fact the u. S. Occupation army were relatively benign. That came as such a relief that most the japanese who were thoroughly sick of the war and the military are more than happy to be the peoples of american reeducation efforts the pupils of american rhgh of american reeducation efforts. Perhaps you could tell two anecdotes, one about what happened to your father and the other belonged to your book. Idea to doave me the this book, was my fathers story, which is as follows. It baffled me for a long time. Incame as a law student 1941. Youou were a law student, joined the fraternity because that is where you made your contacts. He joined a fraternity and then and still today, that meant you had to go through initiation and that meant a lot of hazing and bullying and being made to jump around like a frog and being beaten up and so on. Wereraternities in 1941 banned by German Authorities but they thought are, it went on for another year but underground. All of the hazing was clandestine. Oath to theign an nazi occupational authorities. 75 of the students including my father refused to do this. And if you refused, you were forced to work in the german war industry. My father, like others went into hiding and somebody screwed up in the student underground and told them to come back to his hometown and he was met by my grandfather, who was in bad health, and there was a lot of German Police around, and it was announced that those young men who didnt sign the oath had to go to germany immediately, and if they didnt, their parents would be arrested. My father was afraid this would happen to his parents. He ended up in berlin and lived through the bombings, day and night. The red army. The battle of berlin. He was almost shot by a soviet soldier. He collapsed in the middle of berlin of exhaustion and hunger. He always said that those who had fleas didnt have lice and vice versa. He was nursed back to some kind of health by a german prostitute and ended up in a displaced persons camp and went back to holland in the summer of 1940. The initiation in 1941 had gone underground, they had to do the whole thing over again. Boys who suffered far worse than my father, who suddenly were forced to jump around like frogs. I said to my father, how is it possible you could have put up with this nonsense after all you experienced . He shrugged his shoulders and said that is the way it was. We thought that was normal. I think that is the keyword, because i think they were yearning for some kind of normality. To go back to the world that had been before the war. To him and others, this represented the normal world. Not he is not a particularly traumatized man. He was never particularly antigerman, but certain things from his experience did linger. One was the horror of fireworks and loud bangs. Are not a favorite place for him to be stuck in. In 1989, we decided we would spend new years eve in berlin. It was only the second time he had been back. There we were at the wall. It was all very festive. My father was happy to be there. Enormous crowds of people, champagne bottles and sitting on the wall. It was near midnight, and suddenly the fireworks exploded and we lost our father in the crowd. We couldnt find him. We look for him and went back to the hotel. About 2 00 in the morning, he staggered into the room. He had been hit by a rocket. Is reason i use this story 1989 was seen by many as finally, world war ii is over. This is the end. Eastern europe is now free. George bush talked about the new world order. Finally we are in this world that everyone hoped for. I mischievously use that anecdote to show that unfortunately, the brave new world will never come. [applause] please stick your hands up. It is hard for some people. Glad it has cooled off. I was beginning to feel like alan brooks in broadcast news. I have a question for both of you. Ian we cant hear you. Is this on . Ian no. Ok. Question may be directed to both of you, triggered by mr. Hiroshima andon some of the allied atrocities. I certainly agree there is no but it seemsence, one of the qualities of world war ii was targeting civilians on both sides. It was mostly professional military people killing professional military people on both sides. Germans bombed london and the raf and u. S. Air force some oferman civilians, them may have been just like the rest of us. I wonder if you would comment on that. Like thesea bit killers in poland. You get used to it. There are two reasons why the british began to bomb, deliberately bomb civilian populations in cities like homburg. One was an illustration of how people often learn the look learn the wrong lessons of history. The generals who fought in world war ii had fought in world war i, and the last thing they wanted was a war of attrition. They thought bombing would demoralize the enemy hop elation, that they would turn there turn against their leaders and turn the war to a speedier end, and it often did the opposite. It raised the morale. Martin they talk about the air war as being a defeat. Ian there is another reason, which is that the british were desperate. I think hamburg was 1942 . There was no way the british then 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 that bombing german cities was a token of fighting back. In the beginning, they tried to bomb harbors, railway stations, and they didnt have the kind of equipment that allowed you to bomb from a great height, so they had to go low and they were losing bombers. That is why they thought this new tactic of bombing civilians and demoralizing them. Once they started doing that, it got progressively worse. Then something that would have still been thought to be an atrocity, acceptable. When it came to the colonies, the first instance of bombing civilians, i think it was in iraq. Was churchill when churchill was the minister of war, that is when it started. At a large scale in germany, at got progressively worse and more vindictive. In japan, it was even worse because the cities were made of wooden houses and they dropped phosphorus bombs and they had firestorms. Bombing themrase, back to the stone age, we often associate with vietnam. In latelly said that 1944 when they were bombing japan. Robert mcnamara later in the famous documentary about Aaron Mcdonald said that if the allies had lost the war, it would have been war criminals. They would have been war, mills. Martin when the they would have been war chemicals criminals. Thing it is a different for this reason among others. Diedof thousands of people to the bombings. Only a handful of ss ever got killed in the rebellions in the camps. Ian absolutely. There waso it because some ideological program of exterminating germans or japanese. It was an atrocious act of war. Were, the war against the jews had no military exercise. It was purely about killing. My question segues into that bit, did america really have to drop the atomic bombs on japan or were they so weak that they would have surrendered anyway . Ian they probably would have, but the question is when . The americans want to finish the war as quickly as they could, because 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. At thats also the fear stage that the soviets would invade japan first. So they did want to avoid an invasion at all costs. Was it necessary . We will never entirely know for sure. What we do know is that even after the second adam bomb on on nine atom bomb diehards on nagasaki, in the war Council Still argued that they had to fight to the last man, woman and child. It was only the second time in his reign that the print that saidmperor did step in and we have to surrender. That thereason was japanese were afraid that the red army would get their first or that the communist party would have inspired rebellion. The other thing the atom bombs did was it gave the diehards an excuse to surrender, because they could say this is we have not lost face, we were not defeated. But with a weapon like that, it is like boxing somebody and then your opponent suddenly draws a gun. What can you do . It served as a way out. Whether it was necessary, as i said, we wont know. They would have surrendered, but it would have taken more time. I would like to know what martin thinks, because you have written on this more than i have. Is there a moral difference andeen firebombing tokyo killing more than 100,000 people in a few nights, and using an atom bomb and the numbers are not the relevant factor, lets say killing an equivalent number of people. Is there a moral difference between one weapon and another . It is not always clear to me. Say that theyuld only had two bombs. One uranium and one plutonium. They spent an incredible amount of money making them. They werehave thought just a demonstration over the ocean. This comes up all the time, the moral difference. Do you feel there was a moral difference in syria when chemical weapons were used . Ian it wasnt immediately clear to me, because of course using chemical weapons is absolutely horrific. But i think the red line was a rhetorical mistake, because if 100,000othing over people being killed using other means and then you say we have to go to war because they are using chemical weapons, i would feel dubious about that decision. Martin i think chemical weapons and biological weapons, they are exponential weapons. One should have, certainly in terms of international police, you have to have a difference. Be in favor of that but to say there is an absolute moral distinction, i am not so sure of that. Martin not absolute, but partly. They do kill lots of people. Then you say gassing people also kills a lot of people more quickly and efficiently then shooting them efficiently than shooting them. The gas chambers it was a lot cheaper. Ian that is a practical consideration. Thank you. I have learned a lot from the things you have said. I really liked what you said that we are all very educated does not mean we are better. We act the question then is what formation should we be talking about, to help humanity . To make sure that people behave well . Or are we doomed to believe that there is no formation out there that we can put together, to that each timeso we get into a crisis situation, it becomes a question of circumstances, and we just become violent . I realized in the last few years, especially in this country, humanities have been taking a hit. Studies in technology and what theeems to be universities are wanting to promote, and they bring more money in. Thinking the reading of humanities are not are they thinking that reading him entities are not going to improve . You are giving me very wonderful and insightful [indiscernible] what kind of formation . Ian im not sure i can help you. Unless you are religious and believe that religion will make us behave better, which in some cases may be true, but it is largely a question of institutions and law. You need to have a monopoly on force as a government. That playo have laws a major role in making people behave. You need a police force and proper institutions. Without proper institutions, the law of the jungle prevails. 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. [inaudible] im sorry . [inaudible] im not saying all human beings are monsters. Trade Dietrich Bonhoeffer was heroic and he was a moral hero. Again, i do not take if you or occupationent or whatever that works on peoples basic instincts its obviously not true that everybody then well behave like a monster. I think the number of people that behave like absolute monsters quite deliberate way is not the majority. The majority always tries to survive and look the other way if it suits them. So the absolute monsters are not the majority. Nor are the moral heroes and the moral heroes are even rarer. Even in the worst circumstances you will have moral heroes and he stood up to the regime. He paid with his life. He was intensely decent moral human being and there were others in germany. [inaudible] martin that determines whether you are going to be a monster or a hero. You are right, but as i said before, i think sometimes heroes can become monsters and possibly even the other way around. Ian there wasnt much heroism in germany, and there were many more monsters than there are heroes. I am sure of that. They said in the camps in auschwitz about one in 10 of the ss were monsters who clearly got satisfaction out of it. Martin its much more dangerous to be a moral hero than to be a monster. In those circumstances it is easy. Hero is a minor. Onsideration absolutely. You mentioned George Steiner and prima lovie said berlin was one of the best novels. Martin which novel . Bernama in or as it is translated here everyman dies alone. And i was wondering if either you or martin have opinions about moral integration about the moral or the other . That novel was considered to be part of immigration so more or less he stayed in germany even though his british publisher state and recounted what that say he was a hero, but he was able to give voice to what germans experienced during the war. It was published in 2010 by penguin. It was published in 1947. It was the last book that he published after his death. I couldnt finish that novel. I got halfway through. He goes off on a huge red herring about the gestapo in all wearingike he has them the star during the invasion of france. 1941. Id not come until but the writing of that book was very courageous. Have you seen the diary of a man in despair by friedrich racked . It is a scathing hate filled reaction to the nazis. Not a day by day diary but little chunks that he had hidden 10 feet deep in his garden but was to put pen to paper heroic. Like the diaries of Victor Klemperer . The linguistics professor also a heroic day by day account. Martin i dont think heroic is quite the word but yes its a fascinating one. Your question of inner immigration 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 or a fascist in most fascist states immigration was a possibility. He didnt stick your neck out and he kept quiet and you would survive. Under mao this was impossible, or stalin, you have to actively participate and voice your enthusiasm and you couldnt just withdraw. It was not an option. Thank you. My question is about japan the becoming more and more right wing in the beginning of the andear war, so to speak, now that the japanese trying to sell that nuclear industries. What do you think about that . Martin 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. In reeducation of japan 1946, 1947, was that the americans wrote as you well know a new constitution and because the war was blamed on militarism it was the pacifist constitution. Most japanese are proud of it even. Some japanese nationalists felt this was robbing japan of its sovereignty, if you cannot use military force under any circumstances and foreignpolicy. They 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 the 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 alcoholic or you can start waiving drink under its nose because it will go back to his bad ways. Look what happened in manila and so on. We should never be attempted again. As long as that argument is used the interventionists will say every country has wars in its history. Wars are terrible and they do bad things but no worse than any other country and theres nothing we should feel particularly ashamed about. 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 that nobodys really talking about attempts to find the truth anymore. Its all about what political agenda you have in that determines your view of the war rather than facing it coolly and squarely as the germans have tried to do. Late, but they learned. Im interested, very interested in the german peoples acceptance of hitler. I am not sure that it was as easy as you have depicted. Were there not perhaps as many as 30 active plots against hitler the most famous of which was in 1944 but are there not many others and whether not religious and military groups and other groups of people who did not care for hitler and many of them actively worked against them . The military intelligence were cooperating very closely, but angloamerican historians seem not to realize that. Is that true . Martin the only institution that stood up and affected 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 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. Ian 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 30s. The use of terror is effective. So it took more and more courage to oppose him. And openly it became almost impossible when he was in power. 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 there was not much in the way of real organized opposition. There was some. There were opposition groups here and there in the army. Ian the people. When the assassination attempt, the colonels plot failed, he had the nation behind him in 44. And those germans did ok as long as you werent jewish and until people got badly bombed. They were better than people and occupy countries and 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 have 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. Ian that does not matter after your death. Martin no, but its very a german would find it very difficult to contemplate. Von mocker said that is actually what stopped it was not the physical courage, but that shame. [applause] American History tv, exploring the people that tell the american story every weekend. Coming up, before election day, we will look at president s and president ial elections. Today at noon the final debate between Vice President al gore and governor george w. Bush. Then the first president ial debate between president george w. Bush and senator john kerry. At 8 00 p. M. Eastern, university of history Professor William coley on the personality and achievements of franklin roosevelt. Story, the american watch American History tv today. You are watching American History tv, covering history with event coverage, eyewitness accounts and films, lectures and college customs classrooms and visits to historic places, all weekend every week sent weekend on cspan3. You are watching American History tv all weekend every weekend on cspan3. Like us on facebook at cspan history. Next, the Kennedy Administration efforts on womens rights from alan price. Rightsains that womens were a part of the kennedy platform and how that transferred into the equal pay act of 1963