Unlike other more academic historians, James Holland is a familiar face for appearing in documentaries like Hitler's Circle or Normandy 1944. He is also a regular presenter on BBC programs. He works in archives, interviews survivors of the events he narrates, but if something defines his work, it is his willingness to try everything. Holland has traveled in a Jeep, disassembled and reassembled an MG42 machine gun, flown in a two-seater Spitfire, fired an 88-millimeter cannon, climbed aboard a Sherman tank, and tried on all the uniforms of the conflict, in addition to touring the battlefields of half of Europe.
He now presents Victory '45, a book about the five treaties that ended World War II and gave birth to the Cold War world.
I ask this question after visiting, this morning, the former officers' mess of the Wehrmacht Engineering School in Karlshorst, Berlin, where the German surrender was signed on May 8th. Are those eight peace agreements that laid the foundations of the current world now in serious danger?
We are undoubtedly living in very worrying times. History teaches us that major economic crises are always followed by political upheavals, which can be very dangerous. The global depression following the stock market crash of October 1929 led to the rise of nationalism, directly brought Hitler to power, and had catastrophic consequences for the entire planet. The collapse of 2008, followed by the pandemic, has also caused political turmoil. Populism, Brexit, Trump, AfD in Germany, or Le Pen in France are the results of this. Enemies of the West feel emboldened, and this is a cause for great concern. Now we face Trump's tariffs and his rejection of the global economic order. None of this bodes well.
ictory '45 explores how the conditions agreed upon in those surrenders influenced international relations and the geopolitical structure of the post-war world. Are we now at a similar decisive moment - the birth of the Cold War? Do you consider this current period of rapid changes a kind of second Cold War?
The Cold War was essentially a matter of power balance. From the conflict emerged two opposing views of the world: the liberal democracy, free trade, and low tariffs led by Roosevelt and later by Truman; and the authoritarian and centralized communist vision of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, both managed to coexist. Today the situation is different: those views are blurred and mixed. Western Europe urgently needs to unite. Russia, on the other hand, is weakened after three years of disastrous war and lacks the hegemony that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact once had. There is no longer an iron curtain. Furthermore, the new axis of enemies of the West is far from being a united bloc. Nevertheless, unity and determination are key. There is no doubt that European NATO members must rearm and create a credible deterrent system without delay. If they do, the possibility of future war in Europe will decrease significantly.
The title of your new book suggests a celebration of victory, but we also know that 1945 was a year of enormous suffering and sacrifice to achieve that triumph. Does this new turning point in history represent a betrayal to those who gave their lives to secure that costly peace?
I am not sure if it is a betrayal, but it certainly reflects a reckless disregard for history. The past is the compass that guides us to the present and helps us prepare for the future. History does not repeat itself, but human behavioral patterns do. Although we have advanced technologically since the 1930s - and since 1945 - we are essentially the same. The 80th anniversary of the most terrible war in history should serve as a warning: this is what can happen if problems are not resolved and evil is not stopped. As a regular reader of your work, I have always been interested in your focus on the operational level of war, a source of insight that many historians often overlook. I also appreciate how you combine historical facts with personal stories. What new sources did you discover in this research that you found particularly revealing? Was there a story that particularly moved you?
The idea of this book was to tell the stories of surrenders from different perspectives and through the people who participated in them. It was impossible not to be moved by cases like those of Hugo Gryn and Alan Moskin. We wanted to narrate both the liberation of the camps and the experience of American soldiers fighting far from home for the liberation of Europe. Many people know the most famous units or the emblematic camps like Buchenwald or Bergen-Belsen, but there were literally hundreds of camps throughout Germany, all of them places of indescribable human degradation and misery. We wanted a Jewish American soldier from a lesser-known division - the 71st - to meet a Jewish prisoner in an equally little-known camp. It was very tough to write about it, I won't deny it.
The war in Ukraine has often been compared to certain phases of the great war and the Second World War, especially on the Eastern front. However, the massive use of drones as true battle hammers has transformed the conflict. As an expert historian in weaponry - and having personally tested many of these weapons - how do you assess this revolution? Are we facing an invention that will forever change the way war is waged?
It is possible, but new weapons always generate countermeasures, and we are already seeing them emerge. Yes, drones have changed the war in a certain sense, but not in all aspects. There are still 600 miles of trenches, men hidden underground, and ultimately, artillery - in whatever form - remains the queen of the battlefield. What struck me the most is that, despite modern technology, smart weapons tend to quickly disappear from combat because they are very expensive and difficult to replace. In the end, more conventional weapons remain. There are images from Ukraine that could easily pass as scenes from the Second World War.
What common mistakes do you think are still made when interpreting the last months of the war? What false narratives have taken root about this decisive period?
From the Allied perspective, 1945 must be understood in the context of the war against imperial Japan. The Allies did not expect the atomic bomb to be ready and were preparing to invade Japan. The closer they got, the more fiercely the Japanese fought. The battle of Okinawa, which began on April 1, 1945, and lasted until June, was probably the bloodiest and most violent of the entire war. The bombings of cities like Dresden and Pforzheim were carried out with increasing fury at the folly of Germany continuing a war it had already lost. The Allies made it clear that the bombings would cease once Germany surrendered. Allied leaders were frustrated because they still faced a terrible conflict in the Pacific, while Europe continued to consume lives and resources unnecessarily. This also explains why Eisenhower halted his troops at the Elbe River instead of advancing towards Berlin, which they would have conquered more easily than the Red Army. He did not want to sacrifice more lives than necessary.
As a historian, did you ever imagine the US adopting such an isolationist stance and showing such sensitivity to Russian claims under Donald Trump's leadership?
No. Everyone knows that Trump is an atypical case and a true destabilizing element, but his first term was very moderate compared to the chaos he has brought in his second term. The mineral deal with Ukraine is good news because it shows a certain level of commitment, but we are facing a narcissist who believes he is always right, who does not read or know history, who constantly changes his mind, who advocates economic theories opposed to almost all economists and history itself, and who does not respect institutions, precedents, or political norms. This is extremely dangerous because democracy depends as much on rules and precedents as on individual votes. Furthermore, he has surrounded himself with flatterers and people who try to outdo him in his style. This is not good in any way.
Do you see a parallel between the rise of totalitarian regimes that led to the Second World War and the growing populist and autocratic movements today?
Undoubtedly. That does not mean we are heading towards war, but we must be very cautious.
What lessons can we draw from 1945 to better face the international security challenges we are facing today?
The liberal global economy established before the end of the war - in Bretton Woods in July 1944, with the creation of the IMF and the World Bank and the commitment to free trade and low tariffs - provided lasting stability. The Marshall Plan, as an extension of this idea, meant that the victors economically helped the defeated in an unprecedented way. History shows that a good peace leads to lasting peace. The Vienna Treaty of 1815, for example, brought 99 years of peace in Europe, and for the most part, we have had 80 years of peace in Europe since 1945. The 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War should seriously invite us to reflect on these lessons: why the war started, what happened, and how the free and democratic world thrived afterward.
Keeping in mind the failure of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy with Hitler, is appeasing Putin really the best strategy to avoid a major war?
I think invoking Chamberlain in 1938 is a misleading argument. Great Britain was rearming and more successfully than any current European nation. The lesson is that 92% of the British opposed the war in the fall of 1938, and today Europeans have little interest in rearming or in war. The challenge for European NATO members is how to create mass - that is, a large number of weapons - and mobilize to offer a strong conventional deterrent. If they succeed, Putin will think twice before invading the Baltic states, for example. We cannot predict his moves, but we can minimize the risk. Furthermore, rearmament can help boost economic growth. But action must be taken now. It all depends on political will.
What did your friend Al Murray, your regular podcast partner, bring to this book?
Half! We divided the chapters: he wrote some, and I wrote others. We discussed it, debated, and collaborating was very fun and enriching. It has been a fantastic experience.