British historian Ian Kershaw, in Madrid, before the interview. /
Ian Kershaw | Historiador
This British author explores the biographies of the great European leaders of the 20th century in his book ‘Personality and Power’
Are great men the ones who build history or is it history that ‘selects’ its protagonists? “It is a combination of both factors, but great leaders take advantage of circumstances to leave their mark,” summarizes the prestigious British historian Ian Kershaw (Oldham, 1943), who publishes ‘Personality and power’ (Criticism) in Spain. The book analyzes how twelve political leaders, including Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Franco and Thatcher, came to power and exercised it. This professor of Modern History at the University of Sheffield is the author of the canonical ‘Hitler. The definitive biography’ and key works to understand the 20th century, such as ‘Descent into hell’ and ‘Rise and crisis’.
What personality traits do great leaders share?
-All the leaders of the past, and also of the present. they are self-centered, narcissistic and wildly ambitious. They have an uncommon level of determination, thirst for power, a clear ideological goal, tactical skills and opportunism, as well as ruthlessness and the ability to draw individuals into their leadership in order to attract a following.
-Is Hitler the character that produced the most impact in the 20th century?
-You could talk about Lenin or Stalin, but Hitler’s impact was greater than that of any other person, taking into account that he was the unfortunate protagonist of the two most important milestones of the century, the Second World War and the Holocaust. In the second half of the 20th century, Gorbachev would be the most influential character.
-What traits do Stalin and Putin share?
-Both are ruthless individuals, with clear vision and very specific goals that they pursue with total determination, and both have had an interest in enhancing the power of the Soviet Union and Russia. But they are different individuals in different eras and with different goals. Not everything is explained by looking for parallels. Stalin was the leader of a Soviet Union whose goal was to fight fascism. Putin’s goal is to resurrect the Russian Empire and for this he is not inspired by Stalin, but by Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, two emperors of the 18th century.
– Zelenski is one of those cases in which the circumstances build a great leadership?
-Of course. No one had a high opinion of Zelensky before the war. He was even unpopular in his country. But he has been a great revelation. The world has nothing but admiration for what he has done, though whether he can transfer those skills to a time of peace remains to be seen.
-Why did Elizabeth II, who never held real power, accumulate so much symbolic power?
-Precisely because he did not have political power, he was able to become a representative figure like no other. He did not say a political phrase in his life, which allowed him to stay out of the day-to-day affairs and not suffer any erosion. He exemplified the positive characteristics of British society, unity, identity, stability, integration, but all from a purely symbolic point of view. He had extraordinary soft power. I’m not particularly a monarchist, but the funeral was moving.
Franco
«The Civil War or the role of Spain in the Cold War make him an international character»
-You affirm that, for many authors, Franco is a peripheral character in the history of Europe, but you choose him among the twelve leaders that you have reviewed in the book. What is the relevance of it outside of Spain?
I thought a lot about that question before writing the book. The Spanish Civil War was more than a Spanish affair, there were tens of thousands of volunteers who came to fight and at that time, it was thought that the Spanish war would lead to a European one that ultimately did not happen, at least for a direct reason. The fascist powers used the Civil War to test weapons aimed at civilians, and there we have a new European dimension. And there is the Blue Division. In addition, during the Cold War, Spain had great geopolitical relevance. Without a doubt, Franco was more than a Spanish phenomenon.
-Do you consider that Spain has accepted its past?
-It has been a long process, necessarily, but Spain is on the way to accepting that traumatic episode in history. When a country has suffered something like this, like Germany, the first generation cannot adapt, it takes two or three generations. Spain is a very modern democratic country and increasingly capable of coming to terms with its past.
-The countries are torn between oblivion and memory.
-In the end, a country has to face its past, which is not the same as looking for blame. But the responsibility for the past does not go away quickly, and that moral legacy only fades after a long time.