Return to Transcripts main page


Christianity in America Declines; Interpreting Islam; Karen Armstrong, Author, "The Lost Art of Scripture," is Interviewed About Islam; "Hitler: A Global Biography," a New Book About Hitler; Interview With Author Brendan Simms; Interview With StubHub President Sukhinder Singh Cassidy. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired December 30, 2019 - 13:00:00   ET




CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." This Holiday Season, we're dipping into the

archives and looking back at some of our favorite interviews from the year. So, here's what's coming up.


KAREN ARMSTRONG, AUTHOR, "THE LOST ART OF SCRIPTURE": People don't read the Quran, they recite it. And so, reading the bible or reading scripture

is very like reading the libretto of an opera. You are missing a lot of it.


AMANPOUR: Karen Armstrong, the former nun who's become our most important interpreter of religion. I speak with her about her new book, "The Lost

Art of Scripture."

Then --


BRENDAN SIMMS, AUTHOR, "HITLER: A GLOBAL BIOGRAPHY": So, it's a trauma for him and that's what then drives this quest for living space in the East.

He says, we need space like the Americans have.


AMANPOUR: A new biography brings fresh revelation about Adolf Hitler's rise to power. What it means in our current era of nationalism. I speak

with the author, Brendan Simms.

And --


SUKHINDER SINGH CASSIDY, Founder, THEBROADLIST: They use it first order network. And if this first order networks are white and male, well, then,

how do you find trusted people?


AMANPOUR: Taking on structural discrimination in corporate America. Our Hari Sreenivasan sits down with the president of StubHub, Sukhinder Singh


Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

We live in irreligious time so often defined, nonetheless, by religion. In the United States, Pew Research estimates that the number of Americans who

identify as Christians has declined 12 percentage points in the past decade alone, to about 65 percent.

And yet, religion has an incredible on impact of our lives, from the American Evangelical Movement and its role in politics to the rise of

militant groups like ISIS.

Enter Karen Armstrong, the religious scholar is, herself, a former Catholic nun who left the (INAUDIBLE). She rose to popular prominence after 9/11

when she was able to do when few others would or could, that is explain Islam to an angry and terrified West.

Her new book is called "The Lost Art of Scripture: Rescuing the Sacred Text." And I've been speaking to her about her amazing life story and how

she's traveled from religious nun to secular scripture whisperer.

Karen Armstrong, welcome back to the program.

ARMSTRONG: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: I just want to start by asking you because you really did become very, very prominent after 9/11 because you were there to interpret

essentially Islam. Then and now, does this seem sort of ironic or weird or just unbelievable that white former Catholic nun, a woman, was the only

person really that the world sort of gravitated towards to understand Islam?

ARMSTRONG: I think there were many, many people in the United States who would have been able to do this. And at the time, I was a resident Harvard

University where there were scholars galore. The problem with some scholars is that they can't make things simple enough for the average

listener or viewer. They get stuck in a small academic quandary, and they weren't able to say -- just give people grassroots facts. And they also

said it was helpful that I wasn't an American for some reason.

AMANPOUR: Now, that's interesting.


AMANPOUR: But I wonder whether -- because it is counterintuitive, a woman explaining a religion that is highly patriarchal, for a start, and a

Christian woman. But you also happen to have written several books. But you had written just before 9/11, the book that was your exploration of

Islam. What brought you first, what made you sit up and take notice of that religion?

ARMSTRONG: First of all, my visit to the Middle East. Years before when I was doing a television program actually with an Israeli film company on St.

Paul (ph). But in Jerusalem, for the first time, I met both Judaism and Islam. And I began to explore those religions because -- and I -- at that

point, I'd had enough fake Catholicism and Christianity. But I began to see in these faiths things that I could relate to and they've helped me to

see my own tradition differently.

So I -- and then at the time of the Rashidi (ph) crisis.

AMANPOUR: That's Saman Rashidi (ph), the novelist who the Iranian put a famous Fatwa (ph) against?

ARMSTRONG: Yes, exactly. And there was awful -- but I was also worried about the fact that the greater -- the good here in this country,

novelists, philosophers were coming in print and saying that Islam was an evil and violent religion environment. And I thought we can't have this.

This is how Hitler began with a media campaign in the 1930s. We can't afford this.

And so, I wrote my biography of the prophet. And I didn't expect Muslims to read it, but they did read it because many of them are westernize.


So, they have the same kind of questions and want the same kind of answers as I have, and it speaks to them in a way that some of the traditional

texts don't.

AMANPOUR: It's really interesting because I find it fascinating that you came to Islam with your visit to the Middle East but also by seeing and

absorbing this vilification of a religion. And yet, you don't shy away from criticizing --


AMANPOUR: -- the way it distorted religion and the way it used religion as a tool for justifying or enabling terrorism and extremism.

ARMSTRONG: Well, some have -- do that and others use the tradition to counter that. But all our traditions are flawed. All our traditions are

patriarchal. And women are beginning to make a comeback. And we're beginning to -- because we are a violent species, and our scripture

reflects us. We are the only species, I believe, that kills its own kind and we've got devised -- with our huge brains, we've devised

extraordinarily, effective and horrible ways of killing people or mass.

And so, the scriptures reflect us. They are not just all holy. Every single scripture, it contains violent passages as well as those that speak

of compassion.

AMANPOUR: Yes. Because in your new book, "The Lost Art of Scripture," and this comes after your 2009 book, "The Case for God," I mean, you've really,

obviously, been digging into this so seriously. But you do talk about equal opportunity problems, if I can put it that way, with extremes in all

the major religions.

For instance, one of the quotes from the book you write, militant atheists have condemned the bible as a pack of lies, while Christian fundamentalists

have developed a creation science. Jihadis cite passages from the Quran to support their acts of criminal terrorism. Religious Zionists quote "proof

texts" to assert their claim to the holy land and justify their enmity towards the Palestinians.

So, it's these constant crosscurrents of claiming sort of ownership over the texts for whatever. I guess, political gains.

ARMSTRONG: But there are also those that insist that this is wrong and we can't do that. I was interested when I was researching this, for example,

to find the so-called Jihad texts, which are quoted so often by Islam expert, also by critics of Islam, did not figure at all in the first four

centuries of Muslim life.

The leading (INAUDIBLE) say that these effects don't -- these verses like slave and wherever you find them, for example, these reflected unique

events in the prophet's life that were no longer applicable. And so, they were never -- they didn't bother -- they did this that they were not worth

considering, they are no longer relevant.

They became relevant, however, when Islam became under threat from the crusaders from the West who committed hideous atrocities in the name of

Christ and the Mongols from the East, who took massive, whole swayed of Muslim territory, and that's when you begin to find these militant texts

used for the first time.

AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you because it's obviously not the same, and we always have to say this, you can't create a moral or a factually

equivalence. But there are quite a lot of texts that are used, even by American Christians, American evangelicals to justify what we might find,

you know, really appalling issues.

So, Jeff Sessions, who was Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in June of 2018 used the bible to justify separating children from their parents at

the U.S./Mexico border. This is what he said.


JEFF SESSIONS, THEN-U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I would cite, due to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws

of the government because God had ordained the government for his purposes. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent fair

application of laws is in itself a good moral saying and that it protects the weak, it protects the lawful.


AMANPOUR: I mean, I don't know whether you remember it at the time. But, you know, it got a lot of Christians upset actually --


AMANPOUR: -- because they saw what was happening. And, you know, many, many, you know, analysis have said that that book, that chapter was used

also to justify slavery in the United States. What do you think when all religions use these extremes?

ARMSTRONG: Well, because they're just using it to further their own policies. But you've got -- if you look at the whole St. Paul (ph), he's

very much almost an anarchist. He does not believe in government.


And what he's doing here in Romans, he said to obey the government. But in the whole context of his work, what he's saying is, don't mess things up

because Christ is coming back very, very soon. So, just stay quiet for a while, he tells the Thessalonians. Love one another but we wait for

Christ, he's coming to change everything.

AMANPOUR: Your book, "The Lost Art of Scriptures," why -- what is lost and what is the art?

ARMSTRONG: When you read "Pride and Prejudice," you are not particularly disturbed to discover that Mr. Darcy or Mr. Bingley never existed. But it

is still a form that is telling you something very profound about the human condition and helping us to live in that condition fully.

And scripture has its own art form. First of all, it was a performative art. It was always sung or recited. The Quran means recitation. People

don't read the Quran, they recite it. And so, reading the bible or reading scripture is very like reading libretto of an opera. You're missing a lot

of it.

Secondly, scripture was not attempting as with the issue from "Pride and Prejudice" to write writing history. The writing of history, accurate

history, was just not possible until the 18th century when we developed modern archeology and developed our knowledge of ancient languages.

AMANPOUR: So, let me talk about your life experience. I mean, you grew up in Birmingham. And I think at the age around 17, you told your parents,

and you were in a Catholic family, you are a Catholic obviously, that you wanted to become a nun.

And you write in your first book, "Through the Narrow Gate," "My parents could not really understand my decision. They were Catholics and knew that

if I had a religious vocation, it was their duty to let me go. But for them, religion meant Sunday morning mass and a decent morality. They were

bewildered by my decision to abandon all the good things of life and embrace an asceticism that they could only see as impoverishing."

How did you explain to your parents and why do you think you chose that role?

ARMSTRONG: Oh, it's a complicated thing. It's never a whole thing. I --

AMANPOUR: But as a woman and now, delving in also to -- we've just talked about women in Islam and how their reality has been prescribed as a modern

patriarchy rather than the book. And this -- Catholic women are very frustrated too, that they don't get equal treatment.

ARMSTRONG: Yes. And I remember my mother telling me quite late in her life, this is a man's world and you just have to deal with it. And in a

sense, I wanted to extricate myself from that because all the women that I could see were dusting and cooking and cleaning, looking after men.

And the irony is that when I got into the convent, all I did was sew, cook and clean for -- but I expected it to make me calm, serene and Buddha-like

and spiritual. And, of course, it didn't quite happen that way. But I don't regret it because I wouldn't be here today. It has put me on a

certain path.

AMANPOUR: It certainly has. I mean, you also then write about how some, for instance, Buddhist traditions, whether it's yoga, whether it's

mindfulness, these were spiritual religious traditions and actions in Buddhism.

But now, you write that they sort of been taken by a modern consumer stressed out society as almost self-help wellness, that whole doctrine

that's going around right now.

ARMSTRONG: One of the things that all the scriptures say is that you must lose yourself. And actually, I had to let my ego go and -- in the signs of

compassion, to go with the other. And a lot of these mindfulness, for example, I am sure it doesn't do anybody any harm. When Buddha devised

this for his monks, the whole object of it was you discovered you didn't have a self at all. But the self was a fiction because you realize how

many thoughts and impulses actually thrown through your heart and mind in the course of a single minute, and you should let all of this go.

And so -- and yoga, too, was a devastating assault on the ego. It wasn't about sort of an aerobic exercise. So -- but we don't to let our egos go,

we want mindfulness to make us more so. And indeed, I think a lot of religiosity, certainly a lot of my early Catholicism was all about getting

into heaven and avoiding hell or polishing my soul and we were always thinking about my thoughts, where as they are not important.

And religion is about a loss of ego. It's not about ensuring its surviving in heaven in optimum condition forever.


And so, once you got that idea of letting the ego go, you begin to see the texts in a different way. That's why the Muslims bow there to the ground.

It's a sign to let that promising ego that's constantly preening itself and drawing attention, let it go and tuck your head to the ground like a


AMANPOUR: You talk about how television presenters are often presenting, some of the most difficult aspects of our human culture at the moment. And

you say, television presenters now seemed to be required to warn viewers that spectacles on the evening news may be distressing, giving them the

chance to close their eyes or switch to another channel lest they see yet more disturbing footage from war-torn Syria or Yemen. We have become

expert in refusing to allow the suffering of the world to impinge on our cocooned existence.

Well, obviously, I find that very relevant and I don't like warning people. I never used to have to do when I was in the field. And I also feel that

it's a convenient message to turn away.

ARMSTRONG: Yes. You see the scriptures tell us that they're not just about me, they all tell you, again, Chinese, Indian, the monotheisms, you

must go out and work for a better world. In the monotheisms, they emphasis is on equality, justice.

The prophets of Israel had no time for people who said their prayers nicely in the temple but neglected the plight of the poor and the oppressed.

Jesus, those who come into the kingdom are those who fed the hungry and looked after the poor, visited those sick and imprisoned. The Quran is

simply a cry for a just and decent society where poor and vulnerable people are treated with respect.

And so, it demands that we act and that we see such inequity in our world at the moment. In London, here, 25 percent of Londoners are living in

poverty in one of the richest countries in the world, record numbers of people are sleeping in the streets. I don't hear the archbishop of

Canterbury crying out against this injustice.

Now, in the -- so, it's a very relevant thing because we -- in the old days, the aristocracies kept their wealth to themselves. The poor people

never saw their beautiful homes and wonderful riches. Now, we advertise them, everybody sees how we live, our privilege and they want it.

But the other great problem we're looking at the moment is climate change. And the Chinese and the Indian, particularly from the very beginning

insisted on the fragility and sacrality of the cosmos and said that we must work with it. This was an essential thing. And the group of Chinese

people who now call themselves the New Confucianists, philosophers who've studied all the Western philosophies said that our contribution from our

Chinese Confucian scriptures is to emphasize the importance of climate change.

AMANPOUR: So, it's really interesting because -- let's just finish back in the United States where you say you have a better reception there because

of the seriousness with which so many take their scriptures and their religion.

A lot of climate denial has come from the religious right, from the evangelicals. Now, yes, they've done this creation signs but they also

have accepted as a person who they supported, a president who flaunts --


AMANPOUR: -- his own privilege, his own, you know, status, as he puts it, pretty much above everything else, not to mention the moral issues that

we've all been reporting on. How do you explain that?

ARMSTRONG: Because they're thinking all about themselves. Again, it's self, self, self. Ego. They're thinking of their comfort, their central

heating, their oil, their cars, their airplane rides, their convenience. And anyway, it's all supposed to be a lie anyway they say, it's not true.

So, it's a massive denial.

And similarly, the -- there's also -- but also worrying is a new sort of an anti-racial thing too. Remember when the Berlin Wall came down and there

was dancing in the streets. And now, there was cheering at the prospect of a wall between Mexico and the United States.

After the Brexit referendum in London, hate crime increased by 48 percent. And again, the scripture speaks out against this kind of -- this behavior,

and honor the stranger. Reach out to all tribes and nations, says the Quran. This is not a popular message.


And I think it may be a sign in the West of a society in decline, a society that's lost its way because these are -- this is such massive denial of

facts that are staring us in the face. And the scriptures do speak to us and they do jolt us out of our certainly, of our selfishness. But only if

we let them.

We can easily find some texts because the scriptures are very multifarious to cocoon us in our little -- in our world that is -- it's comfortable for

us at the moment but doomed.

AMANPOUR: On that note, that's a good place to end, Karen Armstrong, thank you so much indeed.

ARMSTRONG: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: We turn now to a historian of a darker period of our past, no less relevant to our world today. How could a man as demonstrably evil as

Adolph Hitler come to power? As population around the once again turn to authoritarian leader, the question is not academic.

Brendan Simms is out with a new book, "Hitler: A Global Biography." And I've been speaking to him about how it's not just the times that could give

rise to the worst type of leader.

Professor Simms, welcome to the program.


AMANPOUR: So, look, there have been a lot of biographies on Hitler, but yours and a couple of others are creating, you know, new interests and some

headlines, of course, and some awareness because you are writing about this dastardly figurine history at a time where we're seeing rising anti-

Semitism, increasing authoritarianism and some of economic conditions. Why did you think now was the time to revisit this figure?

SIMMS: Well, because I think that the American dimension through his thoughts has been completely overlooked. I think the question of

migration, which is now obviously very current is central to his thinking. And I think that international capitalism is a world view, which was

something that he challenged, is also very much under threat today.

AMANPOUR: So, just describe that. When you say the American dimension to his thinking, what did you mean?

SIMMS: Well, Hitler was exercised by the fact that the German rise, German empire couldn't feed his population in the 19th century. And many of the

millions of them immigrated mostly to the United States. And Hitler was very worried that they came back as enemy soldiers in times of world war.

And I quote an incident which has not been spotted any of his biographers before, which is his encounter in July 1918 with the first American

prisoners. And later in the 1920s, he says, these are all blond blue-eyed German -- either German immigrants or the sons of German immigrants. And

so, these are people we've exported for decades and now, they're coming back to fight us. So, it's a trauma for him and that's what then drives

his quest for living space in the East. He says, we need space like the Americans have and then we won't need to export our population.

AMANPOUR: So, you know, one of the headlines that described your theory as a provocative departure is that Hitler was obsessed by the danger, in his

view, of Anglo-American capitalism even more than what history has generally thought was his big fear of Soviet communism.

SIMMS: That's correct. In fact, he saw Soviet communism and Bolshevism as a subordinate threat. He was obviously very concerned but he saw communism

as an instrument that international capitalism used to break down successful national economies.

So, his analysis of German's predicament was that Germany had a successful national economy but that's the powers of international capital by which he

meant both Jews and non-Jews, so people like J.P. Morgan, for instance, really the captains, the lords of industry and the lords of capital in Wall

Street and in London, that they were jealous of the German rise and therefore, you know, subjugated it in the first World War and then put

various subversive elements like trade unions or like communists on to disrupt Germany internally

AMANPOUR: So, this was his kind of distorted world view, very paranoia, that -- the whole sort of victim persona that he had. And you have said,

the question that Hitler, inequality, migration, the challenge of international capitalism, they're as salient as they were when he set out

to provide his procurely, destructive and demented answers. In a very alarming and upsetting way, Hitler is actually less strange today than he

was 20 or 30 years ago.


SIMMS: Well, 20 or 30 years ago, the notion that the Jews around the world, which we'll now find all over the blogosphere, you'll find in

newspapers and media in the Middle East, for instance, but also in Eastern Europe, that notion 20, 30 years ago was much less current or the idea that

faceless international capitalist corporations are running around the world.


Obviously, it was there. But even its stronger now than it was then. So, a lot of the rhetoric that I quote Hitler as indulging in the book against

international capitalism is rhetoric you can find today everywhere.

AMANPOUR: Well, let's just go to an immediate situation. You discussed at the beginning the rise of anti-Semitism and, frankly, around the world

including in the United States with the attack on synagogues there. We just saw one in Germany again. And we saw this past Sunday an election in

which yet, again, the AfD, the far-right Alternative for Deutschland, are showed very well. It got about a quarter of the vote in the regional

election. It didn't come first, but by a point, it beat Angela Merkel's CDU.

And he, the leader, Hocke, Bjorn Hocke, has been described by opponents as a Nazi, people have even compared him to Hitler. I mean, he obviously

denies that, but nonetheless. Give us the significance of him, AfD's continued presence in a significant way and the sort of Nazi parallels.

SIMMS: Well, the AfD's view is that Germany is in the grip of international powers, that Germany is not free, that Germany is run by

outside capitol. I wouldn't say it's anti-Semitic in every respect, but certainly people like Hocke and others have had made remarks, which one can

construe as anti-Semitic.

AMANPOUR: For instance, like the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, as he has said, is a -- I believe, a monument to shame.

SIMMS: For example.

AMANPOUR: But not shame because what they did to the Jews but shame to have put it up to commemorate that terrible crime.

SIMMS: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: So, that's way out there.

SIMMS: That is completely off the spectrum, particularly for Germany where this source of think has, for very good reasons, been put beyond the pale.

But what I think is particularly interesting is that this is coming as part of a general world view which is embedded within the idea that the Jews run

the world and that international capitalism runs the world. And this is something you find very strongly in AfD reference.

AMANPOUR: Can I just play a part of an interview that I had with Angela Merkel when I spoke to her about the threat to Germany and to other

democracies with this -- not just populism, the nationalism but also anti- Semitism.


ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR: We have always had a certain number of anti-Semite amongst us. Unfortunately, there is, to this day, not a single

synagogue, not a single daycare center for Jewish children, not a single school for Jewish children that does not need to be guarded by German

policeman. Unfortunately, over the years, we have not been able to deal with this satisfactorily that we can do without this. But we have to face

up indeed to the specters of the past.


AMANPOUR: So, that was Chancellor Merkel admitting this terrible reality in Germany today. And, you know, you have said, Hitler's long shadow is

therefore still with us. And we'll have to go on defeating him for some time to come. How does that work? What does that look like, this effort

to defeat him?

SIMMS: Well, I think what's really important is that this effort is not just directed to people like the AfD and those even further to the right

who were pretty open in their attitude. A lot of the problem is that anti- Semitic attitude persists among people who don't actually realize that their world view is structurally anti-Semitic. That if -- you know, they

find other phrases, for example, anti-Zionists or anti-capitalist or whatever, to support positions which are actually structurally anti-


And that, I think, means that a lot of intellectual broadcast (ph) to take place to combat that and to show its roots, how far this goes back in the

discourse of 20th century sort.

AMANPOUR: I am going to get to the specifics of Hitler and the mechanics that allowed him to become so successful in perpetrating his message and

his evil deeds. But I want to first ask you something, because you just talked about all different forms of anti-Semitism. I don't know whether

you've been watching, but in the impeachment hearings in the United States, a Colonel Vindman was testifying lately on Capitol Hill. He is the army

colonel who was on the call. He says he was on the call between the president and the president of Ukraine.

And Trump's backers, people who don't like this impeachment have cast dispersions on Vindman's credibility by saying that he's a Ukrainian, by

saying that he's Jewish. For instance, Vindman has been accused of Jew loyalties.

These are also classic anti-Semitic tropes, right? Does that concern you that this is even happening, you know, in a court of law, so to speak, in

the United States right now.


SIMMS: Very much so. And what's interesting is you find these tropes not merely in the United States on the old right, but also, of course, in this

country, particularly on the side of the Labour Party where you have Labour Party politicians being criticized in very similar terms.

And that shows, to my mind, the ubiquity of this message. You find this on both sides of the Atlantic. You find it right and left. And what holds it

together is the sense of hostility towards something faceless and international which is controlling their lives.

AMANPOUR: So that brings me to another reason that your book and the book of a colleague, or a fellow writer, Peter Longerich -- both of you have

written these new tomes on Hitler.

"It's not the case that dangerous development only stems from social movements or structural trends," said Longerich. "It can also be simply

that a person has the abilities to use a certain political situation to set a new agenda."

I find that fascinating, because the mainstream or whatever you want to say, the centrists, over the last three years of this rising nationalism

within Western democracies, as well as elsewhere, the move from freedom back to authoritarianism in the form of communist states, they're all self-

flagellating and saying, it's because of us, it's because of globalization, it's because we've missed the boat, because we've kept people uncovered and

unprotected, while a small elite benefits.

But here, in your books, you're saying that it's not just those facts. It is the people who profess to be the prophets to lead them out of that.

Tell me how Hitler did that. And then we get onto today's.

SIMMS: Well, it's an extraordinary story.

Hitler is effectively discovered by the German army in 1919, for whom he works as a propagandist. Then he is sent along to monitor (INAUDIBLE) a

small party, the German Workers' Party, and then he takes that over, famously, builds it up, has failed putsch in 1923, is released, rebuilds

the party.

And what he manages to do is to keep all the different wings of the party more or less in line, with some difficulty, and to develop a message which

is carefully calibrated, but essentially argues that I have a vision to rebuild Germany's position in the world.

Essentially, there is a reaction to the defeat of 1918, and that everything that's gone wrong in Germany since then, since the Versailles Treaty, is

the fault of the last war. That's the reason why they are poor.

And he manages to persuade Germans to vote for him on that basis. But he never gets beyond the antechamber of power. He never gets more than 43

percent of the vote, even in a halfway of free and fair election.

Actually, to get power, he depends essentially on the miscalculation of conservative elites around President Hindenburg, who think they can use

Hitler for his own purpose -- for their own purposes.

And that's really where his political skill lies, that he's able to persuade them to let him in, in a cabinet, which he initially doesn't

dominate, but which he then takes over. And the rest, we know.

AMANPOUR: And, again, there are many people who are very skillful, whether they have a certain voice and a certain pitch, and a certain what some

might call charisma, for good or for bad.

And they use technology incredibly carefully, like we understand that Goebbels made sure that every household in Germany, at that crucial time,

had this newfangled technology, which they called, I think a Volks radio. It was a people's...

SIMMS: Volksempfanger.

AMANPOUR: There you go.


AMANPOUR: And it was specifically designed to impregnate Hitler's voice into people's minds.

Talk a little bit about the use of that technology.

SIMMS: Well, Hitler was very much ahead of his time in that sense.

So, for instance, he used the airplane to move between electoral meetings. That was new at the time. Of course, he use amplification. That's less

new. He tried to break into radio before he took over power. He didn't succeed.

And the Volksempfanger certainly had a strong propaganda dimension. But the radios were also and I think primarily intended as items of

consumption. This -- the idea was Germans should have radios, because British and American people have radios, just like they should have cars.

So I think the propaganda and consumption worked together hand in hand. That's part of a vision of the new society which he was offering German


AMANPOUR: And when you see -- and you've written all of this, and you see what's happening around us right now, do you see a parallel or a symbolic

referral also to the use of the latest technology by some of those authoritarians and the like?


SIMMS: I think there are obvious -- there are parallels. But I think they're more superficial. That's what you would expect to find, that

political leaders will attempt to use new technologies.

What I find more concern is what we're talking about earlier, which was the revival of a very old pattern, but very potent patterns of thoughts, of

conspiracy and world view.

That's really where I think the lesson from Hitler lies, rather than into technology and in the charisma.

AMANPOUR: So the idea that a certain person would use these facts on the ground, these historical moments to benefit themselves or whatever their

agenda is, there could be a flip side to that.

There could be people who have the same set of facts, the same set of historical realities, but don't have evil intentions and don't pander just

to people's fear and their lowest common denominators and fears and hatreds.

That could also have happened, right? It wasn't absolutely inevitable that Hitler would come to power and be this effective.

SIMMS: Yes, you're absolutely right.

In fact, he was in some ways facing a situation where his tide was going out. He was actually losing. Between July and November 1932, he lost a

few million votes in the two Reichstag elections in 1932.

So he made his deal with the conservative elites around President Hindenburg, almost at the last moment when he could have done it. It's

perfectly possible, had there been another election, a free and fair election, which, of course, the one in March 1933 was not -- but, even

then, he didn't get more than 43 percent of the votes.

Had there been another election under free circumstances, he might well have lost even more votes, and then we wouldn't be having this


AMANPOUR: To what do you attribute, not only the -- well, the authoritarian trends that we see today, but also 30 years since the fall of

the Berlin Wall, you see these former Soviet states, Warsaw Pact states having gone from dictatorship to freedom and now back to authoritarianism,

not all of them, but the trends are there, sometimes even more than trends, using democracy as the vehicle, in fact.


I think a real opportunity was missed immediately after the fall of the wall, at the time of the enlargement of Europe, both in terms of NATO and

the European Union, actually to create a full political union of mainland Europe, because what we now have is very fragmented states.

And then it provides breeding ground for people like Viktor Orban perhaps also the current government in Poland to play on nationalist fears.

Very often, on issues of migration, where the European Union has simply failed to guard the border, external border, the union -- or has failed, if

was to determined to let in larger numbers of people, which I can understand, you would then have to have some kind of mechanism to

redistribute them.

But one way or the other, we don't have a single European state, which would have made this possible. And I think this is a large part of the

story of the travails we have in Europe today.

AMANPOUR: The worst single European state will set Boris Johnson's hair on fire and all the hard-line Brexiters.

SIMMS: I hope so.


AMANPOUR: But it looks like they're going to get their project through, and he's called for an election, and, finally, he's managed to get one

through Parliament. It's going to be in the next couple of months.

What do you think? What is your prediction where British politics is going?

SIMMS: I think the really interesting question will be, how will the United Kingdom play the role that it has historically played over hundreds

of years in Europe after it has left the structures of the European Union?

So, according to the European Union, that role will be greatly diminished, or possibly zero. Now, anybody who has studied the history of this country

over hundreds of year would find that surprising. Has the world changed so much that the U.K. will be of no account?

At the same time, I think -- this would be my message to Boris Johnson, if he were listening -- I think that notions of global Britain are actually

exaggerators and, thus, European Union will now be the near abroad of the United Kingdom.

Europe will be more important to the United Kingdom than it was before, because it now has to find a way back into Europe, having left the

structures of the European Union.

AMANPOUR: Which means that Britain will be less important than it was before?

SIMMS: Well, it will be, in my view, important. But the problem is, we don't have a mechanism to enable that role to be played. There's no

structure. We're in a totally new situation.

So, probably, we need to develop some form of confederal structure, by which the European continent will be co-managed after Brexit. But that's

something that I don't think the British are thinking about and the Europeans want to countenance.

AMANPOUR: Brendan Simms, author of "Hitler: A Global Biography," thank you for joining me.


SIMMS: Thank you.


AMANPOUR: And, next, we turn to the effort to launch structural reform of corporate America.

It is now widely accepted the diversity of gender, race, and background is, in itself, a valuable goal, not just morally right, but something that

makes any organization perform better.

It's something that Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, president of the ticket marketplace StubHub has been thinking a lot about, even finding a talent

recruitment forum, Boardlist.

She sat down with our Hari Sreenivasan to discuss how you increase that vital diversity.


HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You grew up in Canada, the daughter of a couple of doctors. What made want to go into business?

SUKHINDER SINGH CASSIDY, PRESIDENT, STUBHUB: They talk about entrepreneurship running in families, and I believe it.

I say believe it because, although my parents are both doctors, my father loved running a small business. So, they had come from East Africa and

resettled in Canada late in life. They ran a medical practice together.

But, I mean, at 7 or 8, I was help -- like, learning how to do his books. You know, by 12 or 13, I knew how to do his taxes. My father always told

me to work for myself.

And he loved business as much as he loved serving people, which he really did. I often tell people the story. I think he was, -- you know, and my

father was older. So he was in his 70s when I was in high school.

And I remember being 15 or 16, and he would call his broker and look at the paper every deciding what stocks to pick.

SREENIVASAN: Because you had to do that back then.

SINGH CASSIDY: Because actually, you, had to do it. And his eyesight was going.

So he had this gigantic magnifying glass. And he would look at the paper, and I remember he would call his broker. He would be like: "Tom, some RBC

Securities." And he'd be like: "Tom, let's buy some AOL."

I didn't even know what AOL was. But here was my father in his late 70s, who loved innovation, business, serving people, told me to work for myself.

And so, you look back, and I'm like, well, in hindsight, it's probably not a surprise that, by my mid-20s, even though I was in investment banking, I

was in London, and I worked for BSkyB, which is part of News Corp.

By my mid-20s, I was like, I want to start a business. And I didn't know how. But I really credit my dad. I sort of feel like I did -- grew up in

an entrepreneurial family. And I feel like I saw it firsthand.

SREENIVASAN: How did you get to the StubHub? How did you get to this position in tech in the Bay Area?

SINGH CASSIDY: Oh, you know, you grind. You grind for 20 years.



SINGH CASSIDY: I started a few companies. I spent the majority of my career building my own companies, and the other half helping to scale

larger companies.

So I ended up at Google early on and helped build their local and maps business before building their international business. I went back to

being an entrepreneur again. And so I think my career has been a journey of big and small companies, but always building, some serendipity and luck

hopefully in there, and awesome people who gave me some good chances.


As you got into these companies, what about those kind of different glass ceilings? What did you find as you went from company to company?

SINGH CASSIDY: So, it's interesting, because I'm kind of -- I have these dichotomous views on this.

On the one hand, over a long period of time, I feel like Silicon Valley has been a place where I found my tread, right? I say that because I arrived.

By my late 20s, I got to be a founder. I enjoyed a relatively exciting career.


SINGH CASSIDY: I was supported well.

You know, I was given tremendous opportunity everywhere, wherever I was, including at Google. And, obviously, I got to be a CEO.

So I think for me to say this is a poor me story on either being a person of color, a woman, feels like a fallacy.

However -- and there is a big however -- if I think back to my first job in the Valley, I had arrived out of investment banking and News Corp, both of

which are aggressive cultures, largely been awarded for aggressiveness, right, been promoted, all I have gotten, great projects.

In my very first job in the Valley on the second day I'm in the office in my late 20s, my boss tells me that I have scared the secretaries, I mean,

on day two. And I said, what do you mean I have scared the secretaries?

SREENIVASAN: By doing what?

SINGH CASSIDY: By doing what? Exactly. I didn't know.

And over the ensuing six months, in my first job in the Valley, I become increasingly less confident of my ability to succeed, despite having come

from these hyper-aggressive, male-dominated cultures in banking and media.

I get told that I'm the rookie on the team, even though I see this volatile very senior male colleague, not my boss, but somebody else he managed, who

takes tantrums in the office, who gets what he wants.

And I'm asking for more responsibility, and I'm getting increasingly diminishing tasks. I mean, I'm writing marketing collateral, not that

there's anything wrong with writing marketing collateral.

You know, I have been used to being this, like, hot shot who gets to like help take companies public and is trusted. And I challenged him on that.


And I -- again, I kept getting these sort of rookie statements. By month six, I quit. And, luckily for me, instead of leaving the Valley, which I

really thought about -- I really thought, like gosh, maybe I'm just not meant to be here -- I ended up at a start-up called Junglee, right, with

five computer scientist founders, out of Stanford, all kind of a tribe of the Indian mafia at the time, right?


SINGH CASSIDY: They've all gone to be very successful.

And they gave me a shot at a job at company called Junglee. And I think I was hired as product manager. By day two, they put me in a business

development job. And my very first day in the job -- by the way, that was same job I had at the company that I just left, feeling very insecure.

I then go into this other start-up. And, like, my career takes off. They give me, again, incredible amounts of responsibility. Amazon buys the

company six months later. You know, I'm part of the key team that goes to Amazon. My reputation is built, and away I go. And I have a very

successful career, as it turns out, in business development, before becoming a general manager.

SREENIVASAN: So tell me a little bit about Boardlist. Why did you start it?

SINGH CASSIDY: I came back to sort of an idea I had discussed with the V.C. when they came to me and said, Sukhinder, how do we solve the women in

tech problem?

In a private conversation, I said, well, you guys always talk about this as a problem of women in STEM. I'm like, you realize you can solve a lot of

the problem without having to wait two generations.

I'm like, you've got every Series B company and beyond and they don't even have a single woman on their board. So if you really wanted to change the

game, I said to V.C.-X in question, why would you just declare and get your some fellow V.C.s to declare that every Series B company and beyond has a

woman on its board?

You could change the culture right now, and you could start at the top. And the V.C. said -- in question, said, hey, that's a great idea. Six

months later, I was like, did you do anything with that idea? They're like, no.

So maybe I should just go straight to founders again and people I have respect and say, hey, why don't we just build a product that helps get more

women on boards? And why don't we use technology to do it?

And the Boardlist was born from the idea that you can crowdsource a number of amazing women today and make available a curated marketplace, where

people can discover great board talent that's diverse.

And you can solve that sort of myth, mythical problem that there are not enough women who are great.

SREENIVASAN: So, how many women are in that network now?

SINGH CASSIDY: So, the Boardlist today has about 14,000 members, organically built over the last three years.

SREENIVASAN: How do you get on the Boardlist?

SINGH CASSIDY: You have to be nominated by somebody with board experience.

That network includes amazing endorsers. That's what we call them, people like Reid Hoffman or Zander Lurie, who runs SurveyMonkey, people who have

board experience who nominate people they know from their networks to serve on boards.

And then the other half of the marketplace is women who seek to serve. Today, we've had 1,400 different companies, from private to large global

public companies, use the Boardlist to find the diverse board talent.

About -- almost 50 percent of the placements onto boards that are influenced by the Boardlist are of women who have never served on a board

before, but who are eminently qualified, right? You just want to solve the problem of discovery.

SREENIVASAN: That's part of the problem, is that most of these people in their personal networks don't include women in the first place.

SINGH CASSIDY: Look, it's not that founders are mal-intended.

I don't even think it's the average board director is mal-intended. I think it's that they use their first-order network. And if those first-

order networks are white and male, well, then, how do you find trusted people to bring into your company or to your board?

SREENIVASAN: The S&P 500, there was a recent number that just said it was about 25 percent of the composition of the S&P 500's boards are women.

You still have...

SINGH CASSIDY: A long way to go.



SREENIVASAN: And that's with something like the Boardlist that exists.


SREENIVASAN: That's with at least a national conversation about this bubbling...


SINGH CASSIDY: Yes, without a national mandate. Obviously, California has one. But on private companies, that number drops to about 11 percent of

all board seats, and that includes investors, right?

If you have a female investor, that counts towards a board seat vs. independents.

The numbers are still low. You're right. And, look, I think it's not just a question of making women great, with female talent or diverse talent,


As you know, board tenure, it was a big part of the issue, right? So if you look at the stats -- what's encouraging is, more recently, on open

board seats, you find, I think, a pretty significant number -- and we can come back with the exact numbers -- of open board seats going to diverse


So, that is certainly kind of a portion of what's open. But the issue is, if you don't have board terms, and any requirement to refresh your board,

and to bring in the skills it needs to be successful and the diverse perspectives, there's just no room.

SREENIVASAN: So what's the kind of easiest business case that you can make? I mean, is it just that it's good for business to have a more

diverse set of leaders?

SINGH CASSIDY: Absolutely.

I mean, look, I think that you probably -- you've probably seen all the research. There's no doubt that diverse teams outperform, at both the

executive level and the board level. And there's plenty of data, whether it's from Catalyst or others, that supports that fact.

That's the business case, right? I think the -- I think the imperative for boards today goes far beyond that. You've got disruptions from technology.

You've got a changing consumer, right, whether that's millennial consumer, whether that is the female and household being sort of the chief purchaser.


You've got a changing demographic of employees. So you can say the base imperative is business performance. But if you look at the level of change

that most companies are going through -- and they're customer-based, they're employee-based, and technology -- why wouldn't you rush to the

doors to create those sets of perspectives on your board?

SREENIVASAN: So, last night, I went on the app. I tried to find some Lizzo tickets in D.C.


SREENIVASAN: And the Lizzo tickets, it was a pair of tickets. I didn't even know it was this expensive to go to her concerts. But two tickets for

her are 150 bucks a piece, $300. And then all of a sudden, by the time I get to the very end of the transaction, it's $400, right?

And that's one of the concerns that people have had, is that why isn't that greater transparency in the very beginning? And I would know, OK, if this

is for $400, I can't afford it.

So why not put the full all-in price up front in the transaction?

SINGH CASSIDY: Back in about 2013, I think it was, 2013 or 2014, StubHub, in fact, tried what you're suggesting.

We took the all-in price of the ticket, and we moved it all the way up to the beginning of what we would call our buy flow, right, so very up front.

At the top of the flow, you saw with the all-in price was.

Unfortunately, the rest of the industry didn't follow. What does that mean? It meant that, for the customers, there was confusion, because they

looked at StubHub and they looked at other marketplaces and, in fact, believed we were 20 percent more expensive than our competitors because we

actually took the action to give them transparency first.

So for a feature like the one you're talking about to kind of work, we want it to work for everyone. We would love to see all boats rise. We would

love to see every ticketer get to the same level of transparency and trust at the same time, because we live in an environment where the customer is

comparing apples and oranges and isn't even aware.

So, today, as you know, everybody puts their buy fees towards the bottom of the funnel. If everybody in the entire industry went to the top of the

funnel, that would be a great way to make sure that the consumer was able to compare apples to apples.

But that would need to happen across the industry.

SREENIVASAN: Well, this seems like a failure of the market to regulate itself. I mean, this seems like a case where somebody in the government is

going to step in with a piece of legislation based on a bunch of complaints and say, hey, enough people are angry about this that as an industry you

all have to do it.

SINGH CASSIDY: Well, interestingly, that speaks to another point.

We spend a lot of time in D.C. working, in fact, with regulators, because we actually do want to see a fair and equivalent marketplace for consumers

for tickets.

So there's the BOTS Act, which you may or may not be aware passed that really was about consumer protection on one side. There's a proposed new

piece of legislation called the BOSS Act, which, in fact, contains thoughts around fan transferability of a ticket, which I noted earlier is a really

big and important issue, particular as tickets become more mobile, ideas like all-in pricing, what you're talking about.

Do you move the kind of -- where in our buyer flow do you show the all-in price of the ticket, display fees and fees? And, in fact, I think the

government does think about how to help this industry regulate itself.

And we think of the most important thing is what I talked about before, which is, we offer higher standards, but we want those higher standards

equivalently applied to every player in ticketing.

SREENIVASAN: A lot of tickets are coming from Live Nation and Ticketmaster. What if those guys just say, you know what, if you want to

deal with tickets, it's really got to be our own marketplace; you can't buy it on StubHub?


SREENIVASAN: What happens?

SINGH CASSIDY: We believe any market, including ticketing, thrives when fans have choice of where they buy and sell.

To your point, why do I worry about how sellers might interpret our fees or on one side or the other?


SINGH CASSIDY: Because my entire reputation of this business is built on fan trust and transparency.

So, we know we are held to that standard every day. And if we need to go back and figure out what else we need to do to create a better experience,

I live and die by that sword.


SINGH CASSIDY: But when we talk about Live Nation and Ticketmaster, I think you point to sort of an important thing in this ecosystem, which is,

if you control the venue, and you control the artists, and you control the ticketing or the place they get the original ticket, oh, and now, you also

have a business that's competitive with StubHub, because you also have a resale marketplace, your ability to try and control the value chain is

pretty significant.

So, I think when you ask -- sort of ask the question, well, what happens if Live Nation says, gosh, we want everybody to transact on our platform? I

would say, well, that's a pretty anti-competitive environment for the fan.

And I would go at it the other way, which just says, there are millions of tickets that are being moved and bought and sold by fans everyday around

the country. And the first and foremost thing we need to ensure is, they can take that ticket and transfer it and go to the venue they intended, or

I can sell it to you, and you ought not be turned down at a stadium by virtue of who controls everything in the ecosystem.



SINGH CASSIDY: So we believe pretty strongly that, whether you're Live Nation and Ticketmaster, whether you're StubHub, the number one

responsibility is the right of fan -- is the right for fans to buy and sell what they choose, and to freely and safely and trustedly interact, right,

and be able to get into any stadium, any concert venue if they have bought a legitimate ticket.

SREENIVASAN: Sukhinder, thanks so much for joining us.



AMANPOUR: That's it for now. Thanks for watching this special edition of AMANPOUR.

And, remember, you can always listen to our podcast, see us online at, and you can follow me on Instagram and Twitter.

Goodbye from London.