You've described what you do as "history without a licence". What do you mean by that?
What I mean is that it ought to be possible to write history in such a way that it's fully accessible to the general public - written so that people who don't think of themselves as having a pre-existing interest in the subject are attracted to it - and at the same time meets all the standards of academic rigour. I don't claim to be an expert, so when I grab a subject such as British resisters during the First World War, I try to learn everything I can. Then I move on to the next subject, which is usually in a different century and a different country.
You don't have an advanced degree in history. What is your relationship like with academic historians?
It's very friendly. I have had interest from academic historians who feel that their discipline has strayed too far from the public.
Do you admire the work of popular historians such as Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson?
They're terrific writers. I think the tradition of well-written history hasn't been squashed out of the academic world as much in Britain as it has in the United States.
How does your new book about the First World War relate to your earlier work?
I'm fascinated by the connection between this war and imperialism, which I wrote about in King Leopold's Ghost [published in 1998], for example.
Many of the British, French and German generals had experience of colonial wars, where they were the ones who had the machine-guns while the other side didn't. It's partly because of that experience that they were all so optimistic about securing a quick and easy victory in 1914. Knowing a bit about imperial history helped me to tell that story.
Why do you think the European socialist parties failed to mobilise mass opposition to the war after 1914?
I think that, in almost all human beings, there is buried a profound tribal instinct that makes us very susceptible to being aroused to patriotic fervour. But I remain enough of an optimist to believe that it can be overcome - it can be sublimated into sports, for instance.
What effect did the Russian Revolution have on opposition to the war?
It certainly made many people on the left in Britain and elsewhere feel that the Messiah had arrived. It is touching and sad, in retrospect, to read the accounts of how conscientious objectors in prison greeted the news of this revolution in Russia. Even somebody who was ultimately as sensible in his attitudes towards Russia as Bertrand Russell felt exhilarated.
You show that there was a much stronger anti-war movement in Britain than in France or Germany. Why was that?
I think it had to do with two things. One was a long tradition of civil liberties. The other was the fact that Britain had not been attacked. As for France and Belgium, you can tell why they wanted to fight: there were huge numbers of German soldiers on their borders. The movement,
if you can call it that, which did take place in France was this tremendous mutiny of French soldiers in 1917, when they refused to take part in an attack.
You've written recently about the parallels between the First World War and the US invasion of Iraq. What are they?
In both cases, there was an expectation that the war was going to be over quickly. In 1914, the kaiser told his troops they'd be home before the leaves fell from the trees. And in 2003 George W Bush landed on that aircraft carrier with a big sign saying "Mission accomplished". He thought the Iraq war would solve all problems. Of course it didn't. And in Afghanistan, where there was more apparent justification for going to war, it's been ten years and we're still there.
Do you know what your next book will be about?
No. I'm looking and I'm feeling very lost - but I always have that bereaved feeling when a book of mine is published. l
Interview by Jonathan Derbyshire
Adam Hochschild's "To End All Wars: How the First World War Divided Britain" is published by Macmillan (£20)
