What are the psychological and biological underpinnings of human violence and our collective propensity for war? How important really is leadership in wartime decision-making?
Richard Overy is an honorary professor at the University of Exeter, and the author of several books. His latest are the brand new Rain of Ruin: Tokyo, Hiroshima, and the Surrender of Japan, and also Why War?, and Why the Allies Won.
Greg and Richard discuss Richard’s book, Why War?, which addresses the social and psychological aspects of war rather than just its historical dimensions. Richard explains the evolving nature of military history, the role of cultural and social factors, and the impact of major and minor conflicts throughout history. They also talk about current issues, including the war in Ukraine and how modern warfare strategies differ from traditional methods. Greg asks if Richard thinks World War II will start decreasing in importance as the generations who experienced it or stories of it pass on.
*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*
Show Links:
Recommended Resources:
Guest Profile:
His Work:
Episode Quotes:
How a leader's psychology shapes the path to war
28:58: Leaders through history have played an important part, often in motivating their people to fight war and imposing their own personal ambition on what's going on. I think the problem is that this is, in some ways, the most unpredictable source of war. I mean, there's no way you can't have a standard psychological picture of the potential aggressor. And anyway, we don't know enough about Alexander, Napoleon, or even Hitler to be confident about that. But there's no doubt that, at times, a leader does come to play a very critical part in driving a particular community to war. Otherwise, of course, you know, it can be a collective decision; it can be a decision taken in cabinet, by parliament; it can be a decision taken by the tribal elders when they're sitting around the fire. But this hubristic leader, the person who thrives on war, thinks war is the solution, not the problem, is unpredictable and dangerous.
The evolving history of war
The history of war has broadened out. Before, it was just soldiers and guns. But now, when you're doing the history of war, you've got to do the whole thing: politics, culture, the psychological effects on the men, women, and so on. So the history of war has become more like history in general. And I think that's why there is much more interest in war than there was 20 or 30 years ago.
The role of belief in driving war
51:44: Belief is a very important driver, and I think that the effort of social scientists, particularly to say, "Oh, well, belief is, in fact, a cover for something else. It's a cover for economic interest, or it's a cover for a social crisis, or whatever it is." It's just not the case. There are plenty of warlike societies, think of the Aztecs, you know—where their cosmology is central to the way they organize their life, organize their society, the way they make war, and why they make war. And, we might look at it and say, "What an irrational view of the world," but to them, it's not an irrational view of the world; it's their view of the world. And I think, throughout recorded history, belief has played a very important part in shaping the way people think about war and why they're waging it.
