James Holland

Historian, author, broadcaster.

Establishing himself with many acclaimed books and programmes for TV and radio, James Holland is one of Britain’s eminent popular historians, rendering the tangled tales of history for an audience of millions. Today, outside of writing, he co-chairs the Chalke Valley History Festival and co-hosts the brilliant podcast We Have Ways Of Making You Talk with comedian Al Murray.

Why did we invite him on?

8 months ago, Tucker Clarkson invited the amateur historian Darryl Cooper on his show, and the episode cracked open new fault lines in the centre-right. Darryl’s divisive reading of World War II and its real ‘chief villain’ splintered the rational right from the “woke right”, each faction accusing the other of being the other.

We wanted someone to set the record straight - why Britain fought, and why Britain won. For that, James was the obvious choice. With his unrivalled skill at grappling with the complexities of the Second World War, we knew he would do a fantastic job of putting things into focus.

What did we learn?

”James, who was the ‘chief villain’ of World War II?”

So, this is what it’s come to.

The last few years have seen the history of the Second World War, its key players and events, combed meticulously. Actors from all corners of the political compass have put a magnifying glass up to the story, some for noble reasons, some for ulterior. The last few years have seen these behaviours flare again; the far left calling for Churchill statues to be toppled, while the far right ponder whether Hitler was, actually, such a bad guy.

Reevaluating our history always has merit, but we need to be discerning. With James’ invaluable insight, we want to look back at what transpired in the light of the last year.

Churchill, in the mind of his fiercest critics, was a “warmonger” - an imperialist bloodhound rubbing his hands at the prospect of throwing young countrymen into the jaws of death. Even if the critics don’t go that far, instead seeing the war as an unnecessary escalation that the Anglosphere needn’t have concerned itself with, it all suggests that the war was somehow avoidable, and desirably so. How true is that? If war should be the last resort, was it?

”Anyone who thinks that obviously thinks it’s fine to murder the whole of Europe’s Jews… that’s just ridiculous … Hitler had repeatedly showed he was a pathological liar, that he couldn’t be trusted, and when you can’t trust people, you have to err on the side of caution.”

Some argue that Churchill could have taken the peace deal Hitler agreed to. And if he did, perhaps some would have been killed, but it might have spared the tens of millions who ultimately perished over the course of the war. If that’s true, then war could have been avoided. Is it?