Dan Snow's History Hit - History's Greatest Speeches with Simon Sebag Montefiore

Episode Date: October 11, 2020

Simon Sebag Montefiore joined me on the podcast to talk about history's greatest speeches. From Martin Luther King Jr. to John Boyega, from Churchill to Trump, we also discuss British institutions and their link to Empire.Subscribe to History Hit and you'll get access to hundreds of history documentaries, as well as every single episode of this podcast from the beginning (400 extra episodes). We're running live podcasts on Zoom, we've got weekly quizzes where you can win prizes, and exclusive subscriber only articles. It's the ultimate history package. Just go to historyhit.tv to subscribe. Use code 'pod1' at checkout for your first month free and the following month for just £/€/$1.

Hi everybody, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. Simon Sebag Montefiore is one of the biggest names in history publishing. He's a brilliant historian. He's back. We got him coming up a little bit this autumn, this fall on History Hit. We've made a little documentary with him, but this is a start of a ten. He's got a new book out, History's Greatest Speeches, following the best-selling letters from history book. We also chatted about Jerusalem, because his podcast about the history of Jerusalem,

which was just a stunning gallop through thousands of years of history. That previous podcast, one of the most successful podcasts we have ever broadcast on this network. So we caught up about Jerusalem. We talked about his new book. And then he told me about his next book, which I can't tell you about, but it's super exciting. So there you go. Annoying, annoying little bit of gossip there for you. In the meantime, here is Simon Sebag Montefiore.

Simon, good to have you back on the podcast. Great to be here. You know, the one we did on Jerusalem is actually one of the most successful, most popular, most listened to podcasts ever. Is it? People are just fascinated by it. I've just done a new version of Jerusalem.

And what I thought was fascinating was about six months ago, just before lockdown, I was looking at the Middle East. I thought, actually, there's a new Middle East emerging. And I thought that they were going to sign pieces. There was going to be a sort of new paradigm where, without solving the Palestinian problem, tragically, but nonetheless, Israel was going to make new relationships with the Gulf State, with Saudi Arabia. And so things were going to change radically. And so I thought it was a good time to update Jerusalem. So it's still the sort of same book, but it's got the last 20 years added on. Isn't it amazing seeing that as a student in the 90s all anyone basically our sense was that all the big geopolitical problems

had been solved largely China was beginning to trade on WTO terms Russia was a sort of proto-Nazi and we all freaked out about the Palestinians

if we can just get this bit sorted obviously Congo but apart from that if we can get this bit sorted then everything will be great and now how often

do you hear the Palestinians I mean do kids these days know where Palestine is or what it is it's fascinating Well I think the progressive left is obsessed with Israel and Palestine.

Absolutely obsessed. And you only had to see what happened under Jeremy Corbyn to see that the Palestinian issue has dominated their approach. Yes. It feels like a pretty narrow section of the population. Yes, but we were told... You're absolutely right. We were told that the Palestinian problem was all that mattered.

The whole Middle East would be solved. And Bill Clinton spent a lot of his time talking about the Palestinians. I personally think that the Palestinian plight is a tragedy. And, you know, it needs to be solved. It must be solved at some point. And what is driving that, just realpolitik? Israel's been recognised as a Middle Eastern country, which is what it was all along. But then, of course, you know, the Trump presidency has also, ironically, been disastrous in so many ways. I mean, catastrophic. But in the Middle East, also ironically been disastrous in so many ways, I mean, catastrophic. But in the Middle East, their peace plan and their recognition of Jerusalem sort of resounded in the law of almost unintended consequences and resulted in the Arab powers of the Gulf saying, you know,

if you don't annex the West Bank, we'll open relations with you, which is what's happened in the last few weeks. The point is, anyway, that I've started having this feel about the new Middle East at the beginning of lockdown. So I wrote a new ending of the book involving Trump and... And the moving of the embassy. And the moving of the embassy and the recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital. But also, the Assad's, the Syrian civil war, the Iran, the fall of Gaddafi, Sisi in Egypt. I mean, all these things were important. I mean, most important of all is, you know, MBS in Saudi Arabia. And that's been a hugely important thing because

Saudi Arabia is now moving towards Israel. And I think that we'll see sometime, you know, providing MBS isn't overthrown, which is always possible in an autocratic monarchy. But if he succeeds as king, I think he will open relations with Israel. So you think the kind of old-fashioned great power rivalry between the leading Sunni and the leading Shia powers of the Gulf means the Saudis will swallow their misgivings about Israel? Well, it's very difficult with the Saudis because they are the protectors of the two sanctuaries, you know, Mecca and Medina. So it's a much bigger ask of them to actually open public relations, public diplomatic relations with Israel. But I think they'll do it. And I think it's the withdrawal of America that's caused all this, really. Again, it's the Obama law of unintended consequences.

I mean, Obama wanted to stop nuclear proliferation with Iran. But to do that, he had to move towards Iran and away from Israel and Saudi Arabia so what do Israel and Saudi Arabia do when they lose their biggest friend they make friends with each other and that's exactly what's happened it's like simple psychology and they want to confront Iran Iran is their big fear Iran is the great is the big player whether it was under the Shah um or whether it's today under the under Khomeini it's a powerful country, huge, huge history, a huge deep culture. I mean, it's an amazing country

with just astonishing history and astonishing aspirations to great power in the Middle East. I mean, one's got to remember, one sometimes forgets that there were times in the past where Persia had Jerusalem, had Egypt, had Syria, had the lot, you know. So even though these people aren't sort of really, they aren't really empire builders in the sense of Darius the Great and Cyrus the Great, they've inherited partly that worldview. You've had a busy year because you haven't just written the Jerusalem book, but you've got another primary sources book

out, which is great fun, after the letters that we talked about last time. Yeah, that was so fun. So this one's more speeches, is it? This one is speeches. So this is this one, which is Voices of History, Speeches That Changed the World. And it's the companion to the other one written in history, Letters That Changed the World. And this is all the speeches that you should know, and many of them you won't know,

and some you'll be very familiar with. Do speeches matter? Like, I see people making speeches on the floor of the Senate or in the House of Commons in the UK, and you know there's about to... No one's in the chamber. There's about to be a whipped vote, which is going to go on party lines. Finishing this book,

are you left with a profound sense of the importance of oratory? Yeah, I mean, I think... But it depends how you define oratory. And I think that's what you're getting at. Because, you know, speeches on the Assembly floor, in the Congress, in Parliament now, are usually pretty mediocre. By the way, I think they probably always were.

Most speeches were pretty mediocre. It's just that we've had them distilled by history for us. I mean, you know, do you think most people were speaking like Winston Churchill and, you know, in Parliament? No, very few were. But I think that television has changed the nature of speechmaking because, you know, politicians know that in Parliament they're seen by sort of 600 people, but on television they're seen by 50 million people. So all speaking is now about what we call soundbites, but it's oratory. I mean, look at Tony Blair.

He was a sort of master communicator, or Donald Trump for that matter. I mean, we may not like what he says, his coarse and crass speeches, but his speeches are a way to delight his base. And he's a master communicator with tweets, with speeches. I mean, look at those amazing speeches he gives. He has nothing written down.

He walks out there in front of 10,000 people and he's being watched on CNN by millions of people, including people who hate him but are just fascinated by him. And that is oratory, but it's not what I'd call good oratory. It's very bad. It's kind of meandering. It's bigoted, But it's political communication. And that's what this is about. This book is about the greatest speeches. And we've got sort of Churchill and Martin Luther King and Socrates. And then it's about sort of the worst speeches,

too. And we've got one of Donald Trump's speeches, the first speech he gave when he launched his campaign. The Mexicans are rapists. The Mexicans are rapists speech, which when you read it, by the way, is just extraordinary. I mean, it's hilarious. It's got long kind of long digressions where he's just boasting about how rich he is and thinking aloud. And then he gets back, but the message is there. And that's one of the sort of great tests of speeches is that sort of the message has to be simple

because you're really dealing with television nowadays. And so... So has the medium changed? I mean, do Pericles speak completely differently to chatham to pit the elder and then to elizabeth tudor does it all depend who you're talking to where inside outside well it all depends first of all speech making is risky because it's the one thing about is it's spontaneous and we saw that with uh lukashenka for example when he was booed outside that factory the other day in belarus or with chaucescu when he gave that speech

where he was booed and then shot afterwards. So, you know, giving a speech, it's live, it's a risk. You know, that's one thing. But then there are all sorts of different circumstances, you know, whether it's in a... You have to know your audience. And, of course, in modern politicians, there are two audiences. In the old days, there was one audience,

and that was whoever was there. And then when you got the microphone, that expanded. Then you could have thousands of people. And once you got radio and television, then you had millions of people and you had to have two audiences. You had to pretend you were speaking to the people with you, but really you were speaking to the whole nation.

But you can't ignore the people who are with you, as Ceausescu discovered and Lukashenko discovered the other day in Belarus. You can't ignore the people there because they can screw it up too. So the key thing is just to have a simplicity of message. And another key thing is authenticity. I mean, all politicians are actors. But when we watch theatre, when we watch actors on stage, we know that they're not who they're pretending to be. But politicians have to be actors who we have to believe are totally authentic.

Once you can fake authenticity, then you're made. Once you can fake authenticity, you're made. And that's what it's all about. And of course, the more authentic you are, the more you can be yourself. I mean, Donald Trump is the classic, is one example of that. Another example in here is Elizabeth II, Queen of the Queen. Now, her speech in COVID, because we've got some really modern speeches in here. We've got her speech about COVID, you know,

we will meet again, which I think is a brilliant speech. And we've also got John Boyega's speech about Black Lives Matter in here. So we've got some really modern ones from this year, which I think everyone should read. But also she makes some quite sort of complex ideas, if you read the speech, about Britain's, the British dilemma, which is obviously a huge dilemma. How does a country that, you know, made its wealth and power through empire adapt to an age in which many of our sort of institutions are still linked to empire? And it's a very, very difficult dilemma, which we're sort of struggling with now. But another modern speech is this John Boyeghi, you know, the Star Wars actor, and he talks about Black Lives Matter. And that's a very

different sort of speech because it's passioned, it's raging, it's, you know, it's after the murder of innocent black people by American police. And yet he gives this speech spontaneously and the speech is actually rather a beautiful thing. And I like spontaneous speeches. I mean, another great spontaneous speech in here is Cromwell's speech, you know, to Parliament, you know, where he actually loses his temper, but in absolutely beautiful prose, really,

you know, in God's name, go, that speech, when he calls the parliamentarians prostitutes, wretches and all that. But he goes in there and loses his temper with his parliament and chucks them out. That's a completely spontaneous speech. And it's perfect. Do you think speaking... I mean, obviously, you're pointing out that even the, say,

Democrat convention, when they're just addressing the camera, those can still be speeches. So do you think political oratory will always have a place? I think it's returned because of television. I think it's got much more important because of television. It means it's a different sort of speech because what you're talking about is like classical oratory where you're sort of Pericles, Cicero

and then of course the 18th century, the great 18th century, 19th century, early 20th century leaders were all raised on classicism. So Churchill, Pitt the Younger, they all spoke in a pretty much the same idea of sort of how a speech should be. And I mean, of course, Churchill was different because he developed it for radio. He had to develop it for radio. But it's very interesting looking at Churchill. He couldn't have worked really on television and on television, you know, none of his speeches would have worked because he couldn't deliver on television.

Well, the platform's saying, I mean, Lloyd George couldn't do radio, right? So Lloyd George was haranguing great big crowds in slate quarries in Wales. That's right. The minute he went to radio, he was absurd. And some Baldwin had a bunch of... That's exactly right. That's exactly right. So you've got people like Gladstone and Lloyd George, brilliant at these huge crowds, but would have sounded insane

on radio. Then you've got Churchill, who's like this Edwardian character, and yet actually his style, which is very carefully written speeches, worked over many times, is brilliant on radio, but would have been disastrous on television. Hitler, funnily enough, would have been good on television. Because you watch, because

Hitler is all about physicality. Churchill just sits there, and when he's speaking he just stands there with his glasses in his hand, which is very boring, would not have worked on television because you watch because hitler is all about physicality churchill just sits there and when he's speaking just stands there with his glasses in his hand which is very boring would not have worked on television but hitler not to compare him to donald trump but he understood just how to play to his base and he was a physical performer you know those great photos of um hitler in those lederhosen practicing his moves like this and like this and he sort of he understood that all that he understood theater so he actually oddly would have worked well on television which is a strange thing practising his moves like this and like this. And he sort of, he understood that, all that. He understood theatre. So he actually oddly would have worked well on television, which is a strange thing.

But I've got some sort of new ones in here that I want to mention while I'm at it. Can I read one? Yes, you can read a favourite. I want to read this because this is an interesting one that I think everyone should know. I've added this to the book. Now, this is a speech by al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf,

who was the sort of henchman and hatchet man, an enforcer of Abdul Malik, the caliph. The caliph, in fact, who built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. And this is his most famous speech. It's an extraordinary speech, which I've had beautifully translated by an Arab friend of mine. And what is interesting about it was he's given the governorship of Kufa in Iraq, and he goes there with all his troops and he surrounds this rebel city in iraq and basically he's going to kill everybody in the city so he surrounds it with his troops but then because he's a good muslim and also he's slightly sort of he's got a very kind of he's brilliantly educated because he's an ex-teacher um from arabia um he

goes and he gives a speech on the friday night prayers and the speech he gives is in in arab Arabic it's in perfect poetry it's like someone sort of giving a Shakespearean speech off the cuff and in the Arab world I found out about this because I told you people they said like because in the Arab world we just recite our judge's address we learned it as children and it's actually the most bloodthirsty speech I'm just going to read you if I can actually see it here. Yeah, it goes, O people of Kufa, by God I can bear the weight of evil. Grab it like a shoe by its sole and strike them with it. I see hungry stairs and straining necks. I see ripened heads ready to be plucked. I am their master. I see blood flowing between turbans and heads. O people of Iraq, centre of disunity, hypocrisy, corruption and vice. I have been chosen for my experience. The commander of the faithful, may God prolong his life,

gathered his arrows, loaded his bow and then struck you with the arrow. The arrow is that is me because you surrendered to temptation, got swept away by delusion and walked the road to darkness. By God, I'll grind you down to dust and beat you like unruly camels. It goes on like that. But

he does it in perfect poetry. It's a masterpiece of Arabic poetry, but also the most terrifying speech. And how did the people of Kufu respond? They listened in silence and then were all killed. Oh, OK. Yeah, but it was recorded. But I just think it's interesting that it's a speech

that's completely kind of everyone in the Arab world knows it off by heart, and we've never heard of it over here. So it's very nice to have something that not everyone... We've got Churchill and Kennedy and Roosevelt in here, and Pitt the Younger, but it's very nice to have some people who aren't so familiar. Well, thank you very much for bringing them all to our attention. The book is called?

It's called Voices of History, Speeches That Changed the World. Thank you very much for coming to talk about it. Thanks. Always fun. Thank you.