ALFRED BERNHARD NOBEL was a dedicated student of chemistry who focused on the development of explosives. In his lifetime he established ninety armaments factories. A French obituary simply wrote le marchand de la mort est mort at his death in 1896. It is unfair and misunderstood. Nobel was a distinguished scientist who devoted himself to find safer ways of producing and applying nitroglycerine which had been discovered in 1847. He lost his young brother in a nitroglycerine explosion in 1864 and focused on improving the stability and safety of explosives. He succeeded with the introduction of dynamite in 1867.

Perhaps paradoxically to many, Nobel was a believer in pacifism and in his will he dedicated the main part of his estate to the creation of five Nobel prizes, in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace. Nobel's friendship with the Austrian peace activist Bertha von Suttner may have influenced his decision to include peace. As the literary prize was to be given to work expressing an ideal philosophy the word ideal came to be interpreted as idealistic by the Swedish Academy and hence both Henrik Ibsen and Leo Tolstoy were excluded from the literary prize while Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson received it in 1903.

Bjørnson was a peace campaigner and it is possible that he was one of the strong influences on Nobel's decision to honour Norway with the administration of the Peace Price, given to a Committee of five members chosen by Parliament. The Norwegian Parliament was active in the Inter- Parliamentary Union in the attempt to suggest mediation and arbitration in conflict situations. It was also a gesture to the union partner, perhaps less burdened by military traditions and armament than Sweden. Norway received an unexpected and challenging gift which would enhance her international standing and prestige.

The Times editorial of 15 March 2015 referred to the granting of the Nobel peace prize to President Obama in 2009 as ‘patently absurd only a few months after he had taken office, a piece of political grandstanding in opposition to George W. Bush’. It was argued that a more selective approach, not routinely every year, would help to restore lost prestige for the prize.