TRIGGERnometry - The Best Conversation About History You’ve Ever Heard - Dominic Sandbrook

Episode Date: August 24, 2025

Dominic Sandbrook is a British historian, author, and broadcaster known for his vivid storytelling and deep dives into modern British history. He co-hosts The Rest is History podcast with Tom Holland. Triggernometry is proudly independent. Thanks to the sponsors below for making that possible: - Superpower: Test 100+ biomarkers. Detect early signs of 1,000+ conditions. Click https://superpower.com - Sponsor: Qualia Senolytic. Go to https://Qualialife.com/TRIG for up to 50% off and use code TRIG at checkout for an additional 15% off - Augusta Precious Metals: Protect Your Retirement with Physical Gold. Rated #1. Click to learn more: https://bit.ly/triggergold - SPONSOR: Masa Chips! https://masachips.com/trigger and use code TRIGGER for 25% off your first order. Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Substack! https://triggernometry.substack.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Shop Merch here - https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. 00:00 Introduction 07:34 We Have Lost A Sense Of The Tragic 16:59 How People Talk About The British Empire 31:20 We All Have Different Views On History Changing Figures 39:48 Talking About People And Events In History As Being Evil 57:22 Hitler Being Seen As The Most Evil Person That Ever Lived 01:06:17 Does The State Of The Country Concern You? 01:12:40 Human Nature Is What It Is 01:19:44 What's The One Thing We're Not Talking About That We Really Should Be? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The mood music about history, which I agree in the last, let's say 15 years, has been intensely moralistic. Is that wrong? Like, should we not be trying to learn the moral lessons from the past? The biggest killers were utopian idealists. They were people who believed in a better world. Hitler undoubtedly, you know, it sounds weird to say it, but he's an idealist. Stalin is obviously an idealist. Mao is an idealist. They think they are going to make a better world. We now have a slightly sanitised and a self-deluding idealistic view of human nature and of what we're capable of. They've been completely insulated from the beast and other people and in themselves. Knowledge of the beast is so important.

Relax, relax, this is not an ad. I just wanted to let you know that you can watch this video without any advertising at all. No interruptions, no pop-ups, nothing. Just go to Trigopod.com.com.com. or click the link below and join thousands of our supporters who watch all our interviews with exclusive bonus content ad-free. This episode is brought to you by Netflix's remarkably bright creatures. What if a Pacific octopus held the key to a mystery that could heal your heart?

Well, that's Tova's reality. An elderly widow working at an aquarium. Tova forms an unlikely friendship with the cramudgeonly Marcellus, whose remarkable intelligence leads her to a life-changing discovery. Watch remarkably bright creatures with your remarkable moms this Mother's Day weekend. Only on Netflix May 8th. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money.

Because behind every headline is a bottom line. Whether it's the funds-fueling AI or crypto's trillion-dollar swings, there's a money-side to every story. And when you see the money-side, you understand what others miss. Get the money-side of the story. Subscribe now. at Bloomberg.com. Dominic Sambra, welcome to Shriganometry.

Thank you for having me. It's a great privilege. It's an honor to be here. It's an honor for us to have you. You're, of course, part of the hugely successful Lereste's History podcast with our former and future guest, Tom Holland. And history has always been a fascination of ours. Our audience love our history episodes. It's great to have you here. The thing we wanted to talk about with you is, I think, given the current political climate and everything else has been going on, a lot of people are kind of aware of the fact that the way history has been taught for quite some time now has produced people who see a history, our history, the history of the West, the history of much

of the world, really, in very one-dimensional, black and white, quite moralizing terms. Yeah. And what we wanted to explore with you is, A, you know, how that was generated and perhaps fill in some of the blanks and the gaps and, you know, contextualize and add the nuance that I think history always requires. So first of all, how do we get here? It's a good question. I think it's not so much actually about how history is taught, but it's how we talk about history more generally. So I do a lot of talks in schools,

events in schools to sort of promote history and whatnot. And I'm actually always struck by how enthusiastic the teachers are, how committed to history, but also how little time they have. So they have very little times. A lot of children will only do history for two hours a week, let's say, or two 40 minutes sessions. So they're not covering a huge amount of ground, first of all. But I think the actual, the mood music about history, which I agree in the last, let's say 15 years, has been intensely moralistic.

I'm certainly compared with when I was growing up. By the way, before you get into that, maybe the right question, is that wrong? Like, should we not be trying to learn the moral lessons from the past? Is it just like evil reactionaries like the three of us who are like, you know, we can't judge people by the new standards. Are we wrong to be moralistic about history? No, I think that's a very good point and not necessarily, right?

There have often been ages where people are very moralistic about history. So, for example, if you went back to, a lot of people watching this, if they are evil reactions, will say, oh, we should be just like the Victorians. The Victorians were intensely moralistic about history, and they really did tell it as heroes and villains. So there's always been a tendency within history, I think, to see it as black and white, you know, goodies and baders. and that goes back as long as people have been writing history at all.

So, you know, if you read, I don't know, Roman historians, let's say, my co-presenter's favorite subject, Tacitus, Soutonius or something, those accounts are very moralistic. You know, you've got bad emperors and good emperors. And often there's not much nuance when you're talking about Caligula or Nero or whoever it might be.

But I think when I was doing it, history, so let's say the 1980s, 1990s, the general discourse, I suppose, was not terribly judgmental. So in other words, there was a, there was no premium place, there was no great value placed on you saying, well, this person is a terrible person, I want to tear them down, and I want to, you know, diminish them. And this person, everyone has said this person was great, for a Snitigel, or whoever it might be, and actually they're a terrible person. I think there was an awareness that were all terrible people. And so it's not actually a very interesting conversation to have.

And I was quite conscious when I was doing my PhD and whatnot. In the late 90s, early 2000, so I did American history. So listening to a lot of people coming from America, that there was a new mood coming in actually from America. I think a lot of this has come from the US, which was much more moralistic, which was much more about, I mean, there's a very famous example in the early 1990s, a huge argument about Thomas Jefferson, had he fathered children with his slave, Sally Hemings, and therefore should Jefferson effectively be cancelled?

People didn't use that terminology then, but that conversation was already happening. And that was a sort of harbinger, I think, of what was to come in the 2000s, then obviously even more so in the 2010s, and then 2020, the kind of high point of it, the Black Lives Matter, kind of George Floyd, statue toppling moment. And for people of a slightly older generation like me, that's very disconcerting because I had grown up thinking, you know, very much history is warts and all, but that doesn't mean, you know, you are open about violence and cruelty and all those things that happened in the past, but you don't set yourself up as a hanging judge. And I think it's a question of tone, actually. It's not a question of what the story is that you're telling, but it's how you

tell it. So in other words, anybody who wrote about the British Empire, to give you an example, anyone who wrote about the British Empire from the moment that it was happening knew that there was a lot of violence, right? They knew that when the Indian mutiny happened and the British re-established their authority that there were reprisals and they fired people out for cannons and all of that kind of thing. But for a long time when people told that story, they sort of said, well, obviously the reprisals and very terrible things happened and there was a lot of savagery and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You know, that's not surprising

because that's how people behave in history. But I think what changed was the tone with which people describe those events. So suddenly, instead of saying, you know, it's very grim things happen in history, history is often very dark, so be it, people, there's a lot of suddenly, then a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth,

and this is terrible, how could this have happened? We should tear down the plaques to these people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Almost as though people were indignant and affronted and surprised. that something so terrible could have happened in history. Whereas I, when I approach history, think, of course people behave selfishly, greedily, you know, sadistically,

because that's in us. We would be no different. And it's not our place. Oh, it's actually, it's not even that's not our place. It's a bit boring to say, oh gosh, well, I'm so terribly moral, and these people are so immoral, and they live there, and they're got so compared with me. So obviously, I think that's a really foolish way

to think about human nature. and a slightly, it's a very egotistical and self-promoting and pompous way to talk about yourself as opposed to the people who are your predecessor. Well, I'd almost say that it's a denial of human nature. What's interesting to me, though, is how, why you think that tendency has happened. I mean, one of the things we might blame is the fact that we've had this massive period of, I use inverted commas when I say peace, but really, if you live in the West, if you've not voluntarily enlisted to go and fight

other than the war in Vietnam, which was many, many decades ago now, you've never really had to be confronted with the reality that if you, even, I walk around London, we're sitting here in the heart of London, almost every monument is to do with war. And yet no one in our almost essentially the three generations that anybody will know themselves,

their parents and their grandparents, has any experience of that really in the West at all. Is that why? Yeah, I completely agree with you. Sorry, it's very boring for you to have a guest on the podcast, which it tells you that it's great. My ego gets bigger and bigger. That's what we do. We bring experts on to make ourselves feel good.

You know you already agree with it. I mean, that is a podcast model. Let's be fair. I mean, we don't actually do that, but it's a pleasant change from arguing with idiots. No, but I do completely agree with you. I think what we have lost is somebody described it as a sense of the tragic. So, for example, we no longer have coalitions with a sense of the tragic, a sense of how close we always are to the precipice, as it were. But not just actually to the precipice as in terms of our civilization could fall apart, a load of people would turn up in our village and kind of burn all the houses down and rape and ravage and behave really badly, but also how close we are to the beasts within ourselves, as it were.

Now, I think of people who had been, who lived in societies that were geared for war and where war was a fairly regular occurrence, That would not be surprising. In other words, I mean, you just think about it in terms, you don't have to go very far back in history. So go back to, let's say, the first half of the last century. You've got two world wars. You have in central and eastern Europe endless little conflicts in the 1920s and 1930s.

You know, if you're really unlucky and you're living in what's now eastern Poland or Belarus or western Ukraine, you know, the borders are changing every few years, endless pogroms, ethnic cleansing, all of this kind of thing. I mean, those are people who really do have a sense of the tragic because they know that things can change

with dizzying speed and in a couple of years the people who you've relied on all your life who your neighbours may turn on you and try to kill you. And I think what's clearly happened is that we now have a slightly sanitised and a self-deluding

idealistic view of human nature and of what we're capable of. And a great example of this in the period that I've written about. is the way that people thought about war and war crimes. So, for example, in the Falklands War in the 1980s. So the Falklands War, by the standards of wars, is a really, really clean war. It's been fought over islands where any tiny population live.

The two groups of people who are fighting of the islands, the Argentines and the British, most of them have never been to the islands before. So it doesn't feel personal for them. They're almost fight. It's as though they're fighting kind of they've agreed neutral territory and they're fighting on this neutral territory. There are no war crimes against civilians because the civilian population is so small.

So actually, it's a sort of, in a vertigo, commas, a fair fight. But after that war happened about, let's say, eight or nine years later, when a servicemen started to write their memoirs, they would describe things like, for example, cutting off ears of enemy soldiers who had been killed as souvenirs. I mean, it sounds, lots of people watching this will be like, wow, that's pretty horrific, right? That you would take a trophy or posing for photos with dead bodies, those kinds of things. Is that a war crime?

I mean, people, I guess, can make it their own mind about that. But here's the thing. When that was first reported, oh, whoa, oh, what terrible behavior. How could we have behaved so badly? This is unbelievable. We have to have investigations. And then furious arguments. Other people say, no, that it didn't happen at all.

But actually, if you read any account of previous. Wars, anybody who'd fought in Fevers Wars would say, I mean, as grim as this is, this is pretty standard stuff. You know, Canadian soldiers at the day were notorious for, I mean, notorious is a very loaded word. They were well-known for, you know, taking ears, taking trophies, for being really kind of, you know, they were pretty hardcore. Now, because it's World War II, it's the good war, we don't make it to great fuss about it. But these things happen in wars, and people who had fought in previous wars were unsurprised by the reports coming from the fullness.

They were like, come on, this is what happens. You train young men to fight, you know, to do the most savage thing possible to kill an other young men. And that line is always going to be a little bit more gray and a bit slippery than we would like. Let's not, you know, be pearl-clutching about this. But I think what that reaction suggests, and of course the reaction to what's happened since in stories coming out about, Afghanistan or Iraq or whatever, is that probably we have, we like our conflict now, very sanitised. You know, we like it kind of... With drones?

Yeah, right, exactly. We like it at a distance. We like to shy away from the kind of the hand-to-hand, the physical nature of it, I guess. And that goes back to your point about we have been incredibly fortunate to grow up in an age of peace. And, you know, a lot of people now have lived and died in this. country, or in the West more generally, they've had the dream. They've been completely insulated from the beast and other people and in themselves. So they've kind of lost sight of that, I suppose. I love the fact that you use the phrase warts and all, which is famously Oliver Cromwell.

Yeah. When a painter asked how he should have his portrait painted, he famously said, paint me warts and all. Yeah. And actually, he's a fascinating figure, because on the one hand with Cromwell, You talk to my Irish family, for example, and you can't hear anything but, you know, expletive, laid and invective from them, rightly so. And on the other hand, father of democracy in this country, etc., etc. But what's really interesting is how we can't seem to accept that people like Commonwealth, great figures of history, have this duality to them. Yeah, you're right.

I mean, I think Churchill is a good example of this as well, right? that people will say, oh, yes, Churchill, I know you say he saved democracy from Nazism, but on the end, he said some very cool things about Indians. You know, people are complicated. And I think anybody who thinks at all seriously about human nature or about even the characters that you meet in great literature or something, you don't even have to think about the people that you know. You know that people are capable of tremendous things, but also terrible things. I mean, Cromwell, think is the most fascinating character in all English and indeed British history. He's much more complicated than people think. It's actually much more fun-loving than people think. By the way, he

didn't ban Christmas. It's not Cromwell who bans it. Anyway, we don't need to get into all that. But, yeah, Cromwell can be a very savage character. You know, when he's commanding at some of his later battles, people describe him kind of laughing as though he's drunk. You know, he's seized with this kind of martial spirits in the sense that actually we might find very unsettling now that he's doing God's work and his opponents are God's enemies and therefore they will be, you know, he will sigh through them as though through chaff or whatever. So that side of Cromwell, a lot of people might find very unsettling. And yet on the other hand, he's somebody who wrestles with his conscience, wrestles with what he thinks is God's plan, feels himself unwelcome.

worthy, you know, one of the reasons in the 1650s after he basically, he's got effectively supreme power. And he wrestles with this issue about whether he should take the crown or not. It's, you know, would that be too arrogant? Is that what God wants for me? Am I good enough? All of that kind of thing. Most dictators don't think like that. Most dictators can't wait to get their hands on the ground. So I think Cromwell's a fascinating character. And he's a really good example of somebody who, you know, there's a statue of him just down the road from us, outside the Palace of Westminster, because

as you say, he is seen as one of the, you know, the people in the Victorian period and the late Victorian period saw him as one of the great heroes of democracy in this country. Would I like to see, I've got an Irish wife, would I like to see Kromwell statue taken taken down? Absolutely not.

Because I think, as with all statues, it's a testament to a particular time period, that in which it was put up. But also because I think, big, it's good that people know about big, complicated figures like that, and they appreciate precisely your point about warts and all. I think that's true of Churchill, it's true of Cromwell, it's true of almost all of what we would think of as an in inverted, in inverted commas, great characters in history. They're always more complicated.

Absolutely. And in particular, let's look at the British Empire, because as someone who has a South American background, I actually find it infuriating when people talk about the British Empire and they're like, this is the most evil empire that's ever lived. I'm like compared to what? The Belgians in Congo? The Spanish empire, the Portuguese. It smacks not only of ignorance, it smacks of a certain type of arrogance as well

that the British are, you know, not only did we have the greatest empire, but we were also the most evil. I'm like, really? It's a tremendous self-absorption. And actually it's something that we share actually with our American cousins. You know, they love to, no coup can happen anywhere in the world,

but the CIA's fingerprints aren't all over it, according to kind of, you know, very ultra-liberal kind of American commentators. You know, indigenous people or people in foreign countries never have any agency. It's always got to be the evil American puppet masters who have done it. And as you say with the British Empire, there's a narcissism about some of the commentary about it, which is kind of, we have to be the most evil.

Everything must be our fault. conflicts in the 21st century because we drew the boundaries in the wrong places, all of this kind of thing. Now, on empires more generally, my view on empires is actually very simple, that empire is the natural unit

of human organization. There are others, of course, and we live in an age now where lots of people watching this will think of the nation-state as the most sort of obvious and natural model, but no model is really natural.

But empires from most people who've lived and died, lived and died in empires of one kind or another. China effectively now is an empire. The United States is obviously an empire, not merely continental empire across its North America, but internationally. Having an empire is in itself, I think, not illegitimate. It's the way that most people have been ruled. It's the way that the Romans or the Persians or whoever, the Ottomans, organize their societies.

one group dominating another, again, is not unnatural. It's the norm in human history. I think what makes the British Empire quite really interesting and really unusual is that right from the beginning, it has the seeds of its own dissolution in it because one of the things it exports is the idea of the rule of law, liberal democracy, all of those kinds of things. So from the beginning, the British Empire is kind of an internal argument

There are always people, lots of people in Britain who don't like the idea of colonization and of dominance and so on. There are always ferocious arguments about it. And, you know, some of the British Empire's most well-known, celebrated critics, Gandhi, a great example. These are people who are profoundly shaped by British institutions, British traditions, by the British ideas of fairness and freedom and all of those kinds of. of things, the kind of rhetoric of liberty, if you like. That's not to say, of course, there's elements of hypocrisy and greed and all of these things

in the British Empire, as they all are in all human phenomena, all human institutions. But, I mean, to go back to your point about, you know, the Belgian, Portuguese, the Spanish, and so on, if you had, you know, it's a bit like the philosopher kind of John Rawls' famous sort of conceit, which is, you know, if you could choose, if you had to make a blind choice, And you didn't know how rich you were going to be. You didn't know what you're going to look like, but where would you choose to start again? And you had to choose an empire, a European colonial empire in which to do it. I think the British Empire would be a pretty good place to choose.

I mean, it's definitely not the Belgian Congo, right? It's not, you know, you're not in Mexico in the 1520s, kind of ravaged by smallpox with Cortez and the conquistadors rampaging around what becomes Mexico City. So, yeah, I think the British Empire, it's clearly not the most evil empire in history. It's not dedicated to extermination or to violence in the way that the Third Reich is or whatever. So those comparisons that you see quite a lot nowadays, especially online, just strike me as utterly bonfaces. Well, they are. And one of the things that also bothers me about this, and you mentioned, you know, Central America, for example,

There is this sort of idea that, you know, everyone's living peacefully and singing kumbaya and holding hands and then these evil Europeans arrived and like started being violent. Yeah. Like that's not entirely my reading of the Aztec Empire. Exactly. Right. Do you know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, the more I read about the Native Americans in North America, I suddenly figure out, they're not really, they weren't really, you know, they weren't really that peaceful or loving or. There are very simplistic ways of talking about this.

So even the distinction between indigenous people and European colonizers is wrong, because often, say, to give the example of the Aztecs, the Aztecs had come from somewhere else. They were armed migrants, or you might call them colonizers themselves. They come probably from what's now, roughly what's now Colorado. They'd come south. They subjugated people around them. They ran this empire.

You know, they did sacrifice people to the gods. They did all these kinds of things. numbers. They were no strangers. Exactly. They were no strangers to violence. Now, that's not to say they're terrible villains and the Europeans of Great Saints. They're both complicated societies capable of all the extremes of human nature. I think that's my approach. It's not to say, you know, because I've written about the Aztecs for it in a book for children. It's not to say... You probably have to sanitise that a fair bit, I'd imagine. No, no, not at all, because kids love the violence. Yeah, they do. When I taught the Aztecs at school,

The kids loved it. Yeah, of course. Why would that be worrying? That's normal. Kids, if you're standing in front of 40, 10-year-olds, and, you know, you've got 40 minutes, if you're not careful, they will be very bored very quickly. And the best way to keep them interested is to, you know, every few moments, every few minutes, punctuate it with somebody having his heart ripped out or, you know,

Henry the 8th having an enema or any of these kinds of details, these kind of grim, gory details that are sticking kids' mind. They love it. They love it. Of course they love it because people are fascinated. Right. In many ways, kids are human beings at their most unseasoned, well, in not many ways. That are very obviously. They're most raw and unseasoned, right?

And kids are fast, why do kids love gladiators? You know, they're not really interested in Roman baths or in Roman law codes. What they like is the Colosseum and basically people, you know, gouging each other's eyes out and whatnot. Because kids, like all of us, they're kind of voyeurs when they look at history and they love the extremes. I think that's completely normal and natural. And, you know, I'm not saying we should completely pander to it and sink into the kind of pornography of violence when we talk about history.

But it's self-eluding, I think, to pretend that that's not why people are often interested in history in the first place. You know, when I fell in love with history, when I was very small, it was knights, battles, kings and queens, executions, all of these kinds of things. If you had said to me, no, actually, little Dominic, age seven or something,

it's much better for you to learn about the suffragettes and the struggle for equal rights and all of these people. How many people are really going to be that enthusiastic about history? That's not to completely dismiss those subjects and say, don't do them later on, but what gets you into history is narrative conflict. Imagine having a personalized health blueprint, a plan built just for you based on exactly what your body needs.

That is what superpower delivers. Their goal is to help you reach your full 100-year potential. Here's how it works. A licensed professional comes to your home or you visit a nearby lab for a single lab test that looks at over 100 biomarkers, heart health, liver function, thyroid, hormones,

metabolism, vitamin and mineral levels, and even environmental toxins. Check it out at superpower.com. Have you ever left a doctor's appointment feeling like you got nothing useful? Maybe they just said, you're fine, or told you to drink more water. No real data, no game plan,

just a pat on the back. That is where superpower comes in. The results are not just numbers on a page. Superpower turns them into a personalized action plan with targeted supplements, nutrition, and lifestyle changes you can start right away. You will even learn your true biological age and how to improve it. Each year you build on your data seeing exactly how your choices are shaping your long-term health. Normally, it's $499, but right now it's just $199 for the full test and plan, which is far less than what other services charge for less comprehensive results. Visit superpower.com to learn more and lock in the special 199 price while it's still available. When you sign up, they will ask how you heard about them, so just say trigonometry.

That site again is superpower.com. Give me one minute to tell you about Cenolytics and why they're being called the biggest discovery of our time for promoting healthy aging and enhancing your physical prime. As a middle-aged man, middle-aged man, who wrote this script? Look, we all have big goals, but let's be honest, the aging process isn't our friend when it comes to endless energy and productivity. That's why I use qualiocenolytic. As we age, everyone accumulates senescent cells, also known as zombie cells.

These old worn-out cells cause symptoms of aging like aches, slow recovery and sluggish energy. They take up space and nutrients from healthy cells. Much like pruning dead leaves off a plant, Qualicenoletic removes these senescent cells, allowing healthy cells to thrive, and you only need to take it two days a month. The formula is non-GMO, vegan, gluten-free, and designed to maximise the combined effects of its ingredients.

Plus, it comes with a 100-day money-back guarantee. Since I've started using qualiacenolitic, I felt more energetic, more productive, and my girlfriend tells me I'm now somewhat mostly bearable. Just a little joke, don't have a girlfriend. Plus, those middle-aged aches and pains virtually gone. Resist aging at the cellular level and try qualia senolytic. Go to qualiaLife.com slash trick for up to 50% off.

And use code trigger checkout for an additional 15% off. That's Q-U-A-L-I-A-L-A-L-A-L-A-L-A-L-F.com slash trig for an extra 15% off. purchase. Thanks for Qualia for sponsoring today's episode. I get so many headaches every month. It could be chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more. Botoxia autobachycinin A prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for those who have 14 or fewer headache days a month. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a

life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS-Lugherg's disease, Myasthenia Gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. Why wait? Ask your doctor. Visit Botox Chronic Migraine.com or call 1-800-44 Botox to learn more. So I interrupted you when you were saying you wrote the book about Aztecs for kids.

Yeah. Oh, yes, you did. Yeah. So I felt with that that, you know, you have two sort of complicated societies. You have a conquest that actually is, again, very nuanced and very complicated because it's actually not the Spanish just conquering Mexico. The Spanish have loads of, they actually have far more, the great battles, there are far more indigenous Meso-American soldiers on the Spanish side, than there are Spaniards, right? There are internal struggles, there's internal dissension. This is a clash of empires, a clash of colonizers, if you like.

So to see it really simplistically is, these guys are the good guys, these guys are the bad guys. Now, that's obviously how people initially told the story when it was told from the European, perspective. Now the trend is to completely do it the other way and to say that everything about the Spanish or other European colonizers is terrible and they're greedy and they don't really care of their Christianity is just a pretext for their sort of ruthless mercenary ambitions. I think that's just as simplistic as the old stories, whereas the kind of Aztec slavering covered in blood and the Spanish kind of noble Christian warriors, they're both really sort of silly ways to talk about history, I would say.

I always remember when I was in Venezuela being pinned against the wall by what my uncle's friend who told me and in great detail about how Francis Drake was a bitata. Oh, yeah. A pirou. And I was like, well, I'm kind of seven years old, mate. I don't really understand what you want me to do with this information. Yeah. But it was a very powerful lesson for me because it made me understand, oh, the way that I see Sir Francis Drake and I was taught in school,

Right. To a Latin American, he was a pirate, a plunderer, a thief on a mass scale. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly. I think it's a fascinating. These lessons are really good, actually. So you mentioned Cromwell. Yeah.

If I was Irish, I undoubtedly would have a very dim view of Oliver of Cromwell. I'm not, so I don't. You know, it's not that complicated. People always, you know, looking at historical characters, you always have to be conscious of where you're standing, right? Where I'm standing, where your standing will always be different places. just because, you know, not because of any differences between this, but nobody can be exactly where you are

and coming to it with the baggage that you have. And I think actually, instead of, you know, these people get into really frenzied and fierce arguments, which to my mind are actually unnecessary. It's completely reasonable that people have different views about characters in the past. And the idea that one view must dominate, that it becomes intolerable for anybody to say,

well, actually, I quite like Winston Churchill. I mean, that's obviously ridiculous. You know, Winston Churchill, sure, I understand. I completely get that if you're an Indian historian, you're going to look at different aspects of Churchill's life and career that will jump out to you, and, you know, you may regard him as objectionable. That's fine. I don't need to persuade you of silence you.

You say your own thing. But I think it's completely reasonable that people in Britain see Churchill, the incarnation of the Bulwark spirit as the symbol of patriotism, isn't the symbol of winning the Second World War or those kinds of things? Why wouldn't we? I mean, it'd be weird if we didn't. And it's also as well acknowledging the fact that when you're dealing with these seismic figures who change history in such a profound way,

they're going to change history in ways that are you perceive to be good, but also other people will perceive to be bad. Yeah, yeah, of course. And to take that on a little bit, it's mad to think that other, to reward people in history purely because they, agree with you. In other words, to celebrate only the people who mirror your own prejudices and preconceptions, right? So in other words, to look back at the 18th century and to say, well, so-and-so is obviously a good person because they believed in equality like me. But this

person who appears to be very interesting and civilized and whatnot is actually a terrible person because they invested in the slave trade or whatever it might be. We can be horrified by the slave trade and think that slavery is wrong and all those kinds of things. But you've got to grant people in the past their own agency, their own space, their own, their difference, I guess, and sort of, and respect their difference. I guess respect the fact that they, their moral world, their mental world, the baggage they're carrying with them is completely different from ours. And of course, what I always say, especially when I'm in schools, actually, and this always

makes the children kind of go, oh, is to say, you're not the end. Like, there will be people who come after you who will say, you were bonkers and immoral and wrong, and why couldn't you see that eating meat is morally wrong? Or getting on an airplane. You know, whatever, all these kinds of things that the kids will take for granted, right? It's a bright picture of the future you're painting that meant. You know, I really realized I was in Uzbekistan recently, and they have these giant statues of Timor, they call him Timur Khan. He's called Tamerlane. But they don't like that because

that's Timur the lame. Right. Yeah. Basically making fun of a disabled person at this point. Right. But if you actually look at what he did day to day, right, this is a guy that every time he had an opportunity, he'd go and invade somewhere, right? Kill all the men, the women, whatever, right? Come back home and then he'd go and hunt and kill animals to chill out. This is, and that was basically what you did. And that was the way that these people thought. And when I thought about that, I just went, well, this person's brain worked so

differently to me and to anyone I am ever likely to me. These are different people. Like, they think differently. The whole worldview is different. But I guess where it leaves me, Dominic, and it comes back to what you're saying is a question about the truth then, because you go, well, you know, everyone's got

their own perspective, everyone's standing in their own place. And now you've got these morons on the internet going, well, actually, Winston Churchill is the greatest villain of World War II. And that's just isn't true, right? And that's not because they're standing in a different place, it's just because they're wrong. Yeah. Unless they are standing in Adolf Hitler's place, at which point maybe they do. Do you see why I'm getting that? No, I do completely. It's a really difficult one, actually. And it's one that I kind of wrestle with a little bit. Like, is there such a thing as historical truth? I think to some extent,

You know, the conversation that we've been having, you'll probably be appalled by this. But to some extent, all of us living in the 21st century are postmodernists, to the extent that we all recognize that there can be different accounts of something that are all equally correct or all equally flawed, right? Equally? Yeah, I think there can be. No, I don't recognize that. No, I think you probably do because I think you and I, I think you do without knowing it.

In other words, that you and I, you might have a take on history, right? And I might have a slightly different take on history, a slightly different take on history. And we would say, well, we're probably not going to agree on this, but I can see why you're coming from and where you'd say it, and they're probably both reasonable narrative accounts of what happened. In other words, just to give you a tiny, really petty and trivial example, if we were both writing accounts of this conversation afterwards,

we might write different accounts, but they might both be right. Okay, fine. So, in other words, what's the true account of our conversation, even the footage that you're doing right now, depending on the camera you choose, to be, they might say, well, actually the camera didn't pick up that bit of nuance. That was kind of lost one. You're right.

Or the conversation that happened before we started or whatever. Exactly. So it's actually hard to, it's very hard to get at what the truth. Yeah, that was a really exciting conversation. It's really hard to get at what that truth would be. However, at the same time as saying that, in other words, we can sort of see that you can have lots of competing accounts that all have some validity. So otherwise, you know, you would be able to write the definitive history book on the Crusades and nobody would ever write a book on the Crusades again because that person would have published

the truth. That will clearly never happen. There will always be lots of different books on the Crusades. People ask different questions, people see different things. It doesn't mean that the others are wrong and untrue, but you can have competing versions. But you can't then, what you obviously I think most historians would say is, what you don't want to do is open the door and say, well, they're all equally valid or invalid. That was the reason I disagree with it.

Because obviously that's not... Because if I retold this conversation as, you know, a 6-44 black man sat down and we started talking about geography, that's not true. That's just factually incorrect. Exactly. Exactly. So to give an example of the Crusades of the Second World War,

I think we could say there are many different accounts that are often wildly different, but they're all valid and they're all valuable. But then there are some accounts that are not valid and valuable. So there is a dividing line between truth and untruth, right? So in other words, the Second World War, there are lots of different books on the Second World War, seeing it from different perspectives, some that say,

I could write a book on the Second World War saying a tremendous victory for democracy and freedom, blah, blah, blah, blah. A Polish historian could write a book on the Second World War that says, well, hold on, we ended up being conquered by Stalin. Stalin's the big winner of the Second World War, not Churchill, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You know, you can have different accounts that you could say, yeah, I can understand where you're coming from, that's valid, that's also valid. It's good to have different opinions.

like people always, people always do that about all kinds of things. But there has to be a dividing line. I think that's what most is academic historians or scholars would say. There has to be a point where you say, hold on, you know, they didn't just sit there and talk about geography. You know, there is right and there is wrong. And this is what obviously has become more and more slippery in the last 20 years or so. So the examples you're picking up, you know, people who are getting a lot of traction,

sometimes going on shows like this or on podcast or whatever saying, actually, you know, Hitler is the great victim of the Second World War and Churchill is the villain, all of this kind of stuff, right? I think historians clearly have a duty to say, no, you're just wrong. There is such a thing as fact. I guess it's, truth is a very loaded word. I guess accuracy is maybe a more useful word in that context. Say that's just not accurate. It's just not correct. Churchill clearly is not the villain of the Second World War. Britain did not force Hitler into war, all of these kinds of things. So I think it's slightly more complicated than to say true, untrue.

I think you can still have disagreement. You can still have competing versions. But what has happened, I think, because basically the technological change, it's a bit like the invention of the printing press in the 16th century. Technological change means that suddenly it's like the ground beneath your feet has become unstable. You don't know what to trust. There are loads of competing versions of reality, some of which are basically completely fraudulent and founded on nothing.

And historians are, I guess it's also a bit of a problem that as academic historians have slightly vacated the field, right? They're not quite as public facing as they could be. They're not talking to the public, and they're talking to each other. That allows opportunists and charlatans and whatnot to enter the conversation, to dominate the conversation instead.

Once you've left that arena, and if you're not very good at speaking to the public, then it becomes very hard to fight back against it. Donnie, I want to talk to you about the evil, because a lot of people use that word, particularly to talk about events in history, whether it's the British Empire, whether it's Adolf Hitler.

And Adolf Hitler, when we think about evil, we think about Adolf Hitler. And you look at these people and you go, in Hitler's mind, obviously what he did was horrendous evil, but in his own mind, he thought he was doing good. And if you look at a lot of these figures from history,

they believe that they were doing some type of good, whether it's upon Christodores, Whether it's, you know, the Mayans who are praying to the God, why wouldn't you rip the heart out of a child? You have to appease a God, otherwise we all die. Yeah. How do we reconcile that? Typical, isn't it?

Even Bridgett Phillipson thinks she's doing good. I think how do you reconcile it? Do you need to reconcile it? Do you need to, in the sense that human beings never think they're the bad guys. You know, that scene, the famous scene from the Mitchell and Webb sketch, where they're looking at their Nazi society. soldiers and they're kind of looking at their badges and saying, are we actually... Are we the baddies?

Yeah, are we, their baddies, the skulls, like, really? Have you looked at our caps recently? Our caps? The badges on our caps. Have you looked at them? What? No. A bit?

They've got skulls on them. Have you noticed that our caps have actually got little pictures of skulls on them? I don't. Hands, are we the baddies? There's never a moment, I think, where people, you know, willfully, genuinely cast themselves as the villains. So to take your example of the Nazis, we did an episode of the rest of history about Nazi ideology

and about why they thought they were. You know, they were doing not God's work, but they were doing sciences work, actually. They thought life was racial struggle, and they believed that they were, you know, operating in the cause of racial hygiene and that they would leave Germany a better place and the world are better placed. Right? That's what Nazi ideologists think.

It's what they tell their soldiers. Their soldiers, even as they're carrying out what would strike us as appalling atrocities on the eastern front, they sort of will write in their diaries and their letters, they'll say, well, it might sound grim, but it kind of had to be done, and it's better that we've done it. I think there are, it's very hard to find people in history who say, I know this is evil and I'm actually a terrible person, but does Stalin think he's a bad man? I would say not. All that we know about Stalin is that, you see, I don't think Stalin isn't inverted on as a monster. I think Stalin is a Marxist, which is slightly different. If I can say that a monster and a

Marxist on this show are two different things. So Stalin thinks he takes his Marxism very seriously. I think the recent scholarship on Stalin has really emphasized the extent to which he's a true believer in his own ideology. He thinks he's operating again, not unlike the Nazis, following scientific laws that will lead to human progress and that the world will be a better place and that collectivization or purges, getting rid of enemies, all of these kinds of things, that ultimately the world will be better afterwards. And he will have done tough work, you know, dirty work, but it had to be done. That's what a lot of people think in history, that this was, you know, more interesting people.

Of course, there are always people who were just sort of boringly greedy and venal and corrupt or whatever. But somebody like Stalin, I think, is interesting and chilling precisely because he thinks he's on the side of right. He's on the side of morality. And it's the capitalists who are the bad people. He's a good person. Now, Hitler undoubtedly thought of himself as a good person, as somebody who would be rewarded by posterity for having done what had to be done

to make Germany safer, cleaner, happier, racially pure, all of those kinds of things. It's very shocking for us to think that people could think that they were the good guys. But people in history always think they're the good guys. They're always the heroes of their own story. It's one of the reasons I always, I've talked about this a lot.

I don't fear evil people that much. One of the reasons, they do exist, in my opinion. There are people who are just a bad people. Evil, genuinely evil. People who like torturing other people or killing other people for the sake of it, right? But it's very difficult if you're evil to motivate millions of other people to join you.

However, if you have a very persuasive story about why certain evil things need to be done for the greater good, that's when you can persuade yourself into ignoring rules, conscience, whatever. And you can lead millions of people behind you, which is why I am always very wary of people who have this very strong sense of certainty

about the fact that they are leading us in the right direction. And just this one time, we just need to ignore the rules of normal behavior just to get to, you know, we'll just suspend democracy for a bit. We just kill these people. Or we just, those are the really dangerous people in history, aren't they? The big killers, the biggest.

the biggest killers were utopian idealists. They were people who believed in a better world. Hitler undoubtedly, you know, it sounds weird to say, but he's an idealist. Stalin is obviously an idealist. Mao is an idealist. Pol Pot, when Khmer Rouge come in and Kambada in the 1970s, year zero, empty the cities, start again on the land. They think they are going to make a better world.

And you know, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. That is the classic thing, that's what, the Jacques-A-Mathor in the French Revolution. It's funny because I was only I was rereading the Handmaid's tale the other day you know Margaret Atwood's sort of feminist sort of science speculative fiction book and which lots of people

watching this will have seen the TV adaptation and she gave an interview about that when she said the real enemy here it's absolutely not an anti-religious book it's not an anti-male book the real enemy is in a quote utopian idealism because the people who are the oppressors

who run the regime think they are doing the right thing and that they will cook. And I think all great, you know, dystopias, 1984, Brave New World, whatever, the villains, as it were, are people who think they're good people. And I completely agree with you. And this is probably because I'm a very reactionary person as well. The enemy is certainty. The enemy is people who say, I know what should be done. I know what right, where right and wrong lie. I know I'm a good person. And that goes back to the point I was making earlier about, you know, losing the sense of the tragic. And one of the things that I think the sense of the tragic makes you aware of is your own weakness and frailty. And your own,

you know, I think if we're honest with ourselves, we know that we could be greedy and corrupt and violent and sadistic. Because we, when we know from history, by the way, that lots of unexpected people have that in them. They're kind of all those people who previously had been. been a boring bank clerk in Hanover, but actually suddenly for a few months in 1941 or 1942, you turn out to be the most unbelievable sadistic killers, and then go back and be a boring bank clerk again for the rest of their lives. So it's a lot about bankers, but I think with all of us, knowledge of the beast. I'm just joking, of course.

Knowledge of the beast is so important. But let me push back on the idea. So you talk about certainty and, you know, you have it. that knowledge that we're all flawed and broken. And I agree with you. Yeah, but. But look at Churchill. Churchill was pretty certain. He was the one raising the alarm in the 1930s, banging the drum. He had been, he had made many mistakes, but he had that certainty. Comeeth the hour, cometh the man. Yeah, but what Churchill believes in is, first of all, Churchill is very aware of his own flaws and his own frailty, precisely because he's made so many mistakes. So Churchill knows that he, he,

has a terrible screw up in him at any given moment, you know, and his mad schemes, often they don't work. Churchill, I think, has a, one reason I'm always slightly baffled by the intense antipathy to Churchill by sort of the more sort of woke element, is that I think Churchill, of all historical characters has a very kind of generous human sense of his own frailties, the qualities and frailties of others, how complicated life is. You know, you only have to read his memoir on my early life when he's talking about, you know, serving in the Northwest Frontier in India.

He's talking about the men he's served with Indians as well as British. There's a kind of, there's a wryness to it and an awareness of kind of the complexity of human life and human nature. So sure, Churchill has things he really believes, and he really believes in the empire. He believes in Britain. He believes that Britain stands for freedom

and that the Nazis are bad people and that Hitler is a threat to democracy and one of those kinds of things. But I don't think that is, I don't think that flows from that sort of intensely moralistic, slightly self-promoting certainty that we're talking about, which is the sense of I'm a good person,

I'm a really kind and, you know, a generous person, and I'm on the side of the angels and all of that kind of thing. I think Churchill absolutely did have the sense, what I would call the sense of the tragic. So in other words, Churchill believes that, you know, life can be pretty brutal. Because he's seen war up front. You know, he knows how tough it can be.

And I don't think he thinks, he thinks we're going to muddle through. You know, his famous catchphrase, keep buggering on, KBO. You know, you keep, just keep going and you'll get there eventually. But Churchill doesn't think, you know, I will lead the world into a place where everybody, you know, there'll be kind of lamb gambling in the fields and everybody will be singing come by R and all of that kind of thing. Churchill's not an idealist in that sense, I think. His life, he is devoted, he's devoted his life to kind of quite concrete things to Britain, to its empire, to, you know, its traditions, its history, all of that. But not to an abstract noun.

He's not trying to remake the world. And I think one of the other things, because I agree with Francis in the sense that I think quite often the people who really do make a difference in the world, the people who have very strong faith in things that they believe and that they want to bring in the changes they want to make, et cetera. I think the issue is quite often what you're willing to do in the service of that. And if you're willing to violate particular standards and norms and rules about not hurting other people, not killing other people, not disenfranchising other people in order to achieve your goals, that's where I see the distinction, right? Because if you firmly believe in a particular worldview, well, that's fine. As long as you're not willing to use that to hurt other people. So I think there's a couple of things.

I think one of them is seeing other people as expendable. Other human beings' lives is expendable. I mean, that's obviously what I'd say Stalin would have done. So Stalin's thinking is, you know, I will make this better world. Unfortunately, these X million people will have to go first. But I mean, you know, that's the price worth paying. Yeah. I think once you're using that sort of language, you know, politicians always, by definition,

a political leader will have to make bad choices that would involve some people getting hurt, right? Even if it's in a very small way because they're going to lose a benefit. or are they going to pay the facts or something, right? You're always going to make choices. If you're a sensible politician, I mean, obviously if you're like Kirstama or somebody, you don't like making choices at all. But most effective politicians know that they're always going to be losers. There's always going to be people whose lives are worse.

And you hope that there'll be as few of those as possible. But once you're getting into the game of constantly saying, well, there's a price worth paying. And fortunately, those people had to die or whatever. I think that's very dangerous. I think the dying part is where I'm aiming my... And I think the... the corollary of that, to go back to your point about certainty,

and I think there's a difference between believing something strongly and being suffocatingly certain about it. So in other words, I would say, I mean, you obviously believe something strongly, right? You have strong views, but I would, well, I would assume, or I would hope, that you're aware that not everybody has those views, and other views are available, right? Of course, we all are. So I think it's being aware of the contingency of your position that if you were somebody else, you might believe something different, and that that's kind of

fine, right? I don't expect, I don't think I have a hotline to God or to the truth, and that therefore everybody should fall into line with me, and they're just wrong, and I'm just right. I think that's the issue, isn't it? Someone like Stalin or Hitler, they thought, well, I'm just right, because in the both cases, actually, they were kind of scientific materialists to some degree. They thought the laws of nature and the world, I know them, you know, Karl Marx or whoever told me them. And I'm just following those laws. So the other opinions are by definition illegitimate. They are totally wrong and the people who are promoting them are liars. And basically, I need to get rid of them. Whereas in a pluralistic society, you're aware that there's lots of

valid viewpoints. And let's say Churchill, Churchill doesn't like He doesn't like socialism, but he's perfectly happy to work with socialists in his war cabinet. Clement D'Altli will get on brilliantly with them. And Churchill himself is ideologically complicated. He's changed parties. He was once very radical. He ends up becoming much more conservative. You know, he's conscious of the complexity of a kind of pluralistic worldview.

And that's what makes him, ultimately, I think, a very attractive figure. Because I think what he's representing there is a kind of breadth that these are, monsters don't have. They're narrow. There's something claustrophobic, I think, about their worldview because they exclude everything outside of it. All right, people, it's trivia time. Financial trivia, to be exact.

Do you know what retirement asset grew the most in the first six months of President Trump's second term? Many of you probably guessed the stock market was the best since what's backing the most retirement accounts in American today is that. But from January the 21st through July 21st, the Dowellon's grew less than 1%. What about Bitcoin? President Trump loves Bitcoin, so it must have performed well, right? Well, it did. It grew nearly 15%, an impressive six-month investment, but it's not the number one. The heavyweight champion was, wait for it, gold and silver. Gold and silver are considered

to be safe haven investments, so many of you will be surprised to learn they both grew by a whopping 25% in President Trump's first six months. 25% in six months. 25% in six months. Not bad, but for safe haven investments. Our partner's Augusta Precious Metal specializes in helping Americans move wealth and retirement into self-directed IRAs, backed by physical precious metals like gold and silver. They are consistently scored as the most trusted gold IRA company by major financial publications, and they enjoy an A-plus rating with a better business bureau. In a world where governments print money and rack up debt like it's going out of fashion, I like assets you can hold in your hand. That's why I've always taken steps to secure my family's future with gold. If you have over

$100,000 in your current IRA, 401k or other retirement account, visit triggergold.com, that's triggergold.com, to learn how Augusta precious metals can become your lifelong self-directed IRA partner. This episode is brought to you by Massa chips. Here's something you might not know. All chips and fries used to be cooked in beef tallow. That is until the 1990s when big food company swapped it out for cheap, ultra-processed seed oils. Now, seed oils make up about 20% of the average American calories, and they've been linked to inflammation, metabolic problems, and energy crashes. Massage chips decided to go back to the good stuff. Their tortilla chips are made from just three ingredients, organic,

niximalized corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow. That's it. No seed oils, no nonsense. They don't just leave out the bad stuff. They taste incredible. Crunchier than the usual junk, strong enough to scoop without snapping, and you don't feel bloated or sluggish after eating them.

In fact, thanks to the tallow, they're actually satisfying. You eat a half, feel good and move on. Massa's got a serious fan base, tens of thousands of happy customers, plus endorsement from guys like Ben Greenfield and Gary Brecker. Ready to try them? Go to Massachips.com slash trigger and use code trigger for 25% off your first order. That's Massachips.com slash trigger and use code trigger. This episode is brought to you by Well Welch's fruit snacks. Big news for your kids' lunchbox. Welch's fruit snacks are now made without

any artificial dyes. A snack parents can feel good about and the same delicious taste kids can't get enough of. All made with no artificial dyes. Try Welch's fruit snacks today. And when we think about Hitler, we think about the most evil man that has ever lived. And I think, look, obviously, he's not, whether he's, no, no, no, no, sorry. Sorry. I was checking myself. I was saying, I was going to say, I don't know whether he is. But the fact that it's in my head is partly a result of education. And we think about him as the most evil man that ever lived,

even though he'd Stalin killed more people, Mal killed more people. And yet you talk to the average person. And if someone says they're a communist, we'd just go, okay, he's communist. Where someone says they're a Nazi. Yeah. How many conversations are Nazis? you have. Quite a lot, mate, with our fan base.

Genuinely, do you know what I mean? No, I do know what you mean. I think it's a really funny thing. You know, I often tell this story. I was backpacking in Bulgaria with some student friends in the 1990s. And we were in this village. And there was a bloke there.

He was like selling old communist memorabilia. And we were looking through it. Because, you know, we're interested in history. We were kind of looking through, oh, look, there's a medal of Stalin. There's all this kind of thing. And this bloke said, they have other tray and he kind of pulled out this other tray underneath the, this is like the real tray.

And the real tray was full of like SS stuff and not. And we're like, oh no, put it away, put it away. Terrible. I'm not interested in that. But afterwards, we were talking about it how our reactions were different, right? The communist stuff to a Brit in the 1990s was kind of slightly comical, right? You could have a hammer and sickle t-shirt as a student and people would kind of, you know, or CCCP or whatever.

And no one's going to think anything of it, really. You know, it's a bit of an affectation. You're sort of showing off a little bit, but it's an aesthetic thing as much as anything. Obviously, you know, a swastika t-shirt, walking into a studio of swastika t-shirt is pretty punchy. And you're going to get a very different kind of reaction. And I think, obviously, to some degree,

that reflects the fact that for us in Britain, Nazism was the real enemy. We're very conscious of the death toll. It seems nihilistic and horrendous and utterly beyond the pale, right? Somebody wears a swastika t-shirt. I think you pretty much say, okay, that's it. It's inconceivable to me that one of my friends could come in with a swastika t-shirt. Unless they're Hindu.

Right. Well, you're trying quite hard there. Or a famous rapper. You're wearing that hammer and sickle t-shirt in Poland? or the former occupied Eastern Europe or you're walking around with a Khmer Rouge T-shirt in Cambodia or something, I mean, that's obviously

going to have a very, very different. So it does slightly depend where you're standing. Is that because there's also a perception of intentionality? There's the sense... I think most people fundamentally don't understand the thing we've been talking about in this conversation, which is the Nazis were also well-intentioned. They think the Nazis were just,

just evil, whereas the communists were well-intentioned. I think you're right. And the things that they did were kind of like, well, they were trying to do good, but then they just put these people in camps or they killed. And also, I think the other thing as well, the difference is, communists killed millions of people, Mao and Stalin. A lot of the deaths were actually through incompetence and the inability of the economic model that they were applying to actually feed people, basically.

Yeah, right. So they do kill people deliberately, of course they do. Of course they do. Stalin's purges, the Great Terror. Yeah. You know. But that doesn't compare to marching seven million people if you'll include all the different groups into others.

Yeah, exactly. Do you know what I mean? Exactly. There's not the sort of, there's not quite the same industrialized, deliberate methodical apparatus of extermination. But the really controversial thing I wanted to ask you is when Francis said Hitler's the most evil man, blah, blah, blah. They see the most evil man.

From my reading of World War II, like, I think, I think, I was a very controversial thing. Like, I know this will be controversial. I'm not sure what the Japanese did in World War II wasn't worse than what the Germans did. I think the death toll of... The Japanese don't have an exterminatory program in the same way that the Germans do. The Japanese...

So if you're... Imagine you had a Japanese guest, right? A sort of nationalistic Japanese guest. That guest would say to you. I can't believe I've degenerated to impersonating. I hope you don't do the accent because that really would take us out of life. He would presumably say, look, we're doing what European colonialises.

Yeah, I'll do it again. Well, butchering millions of people with shovels and bayonets and... He would say violence happens, people, but he'd say, did not Dominic say earlier in the show? Right. That violence happens and bad things happen in all empires and so on and so forth. Why are you judging us by different standards? Yeah. He would probably say that.

But wouldn't that if Hitler say that too? No, because I think Hitler might, but Hitler has an exterminator, program which very few other empires do. That's fair. So to give you an example that you mentioned, which is the Spanish in the Americas. The Spanish, a lot of people die when the Spanish alive. Loads of people die, and they die through disease, they die through massacres, all of those kinds of things. But the Spanish really don't want to kill a lot of people. What they really want is workers. And they gutted when all these people start dying in the Caribbean or whatever. So the so-called genocide that the Spanish carry out in the Caribbean, the Taino people, when they're

There are none of them left, right, within a couple of decades. And the Spanish were really disappointed because they'd wanted these people to be working in the gold mines and whatnot for them. They don't want to go to the Americas and kill loads of people. It's not part of their program. They want to make loads of money, and if they have to kill a few people, fair enough.

That's, as they see it, that's part of the game. But they don't have a genocidal program. The Third Reich is unusual in having a deliberate genocidal program. Even the Mongols weren't really genocidal. They were like, either surrender will kill you. But if you surrender, yeah. Exactly. Sacking your city is just far for the course, right?

That's what they think. So that's what makes the Nazis kind of different. I think it makes them, yeah, makes them really chilling and unsettling. And there is a sort of this application of the apparatus of industrial modernity to killing people. I think that's what a lot of people. It's like, you know, you think about some of the most, you know, some of the most chilling films about the Holocaust, There's the film Conspiracy, which is about the Van Zay Conference, and it's literally just people sitting around a table like this,

talking about how they're going to organize the infrastructure. Yeah. Or the film, I can't remember the title now, where you never see it, you never see it, but you hear it, where it's set just over there. It's the camp commandant at Auschwitz. Very recent film did really well. And again, you don't see what's happening in the camp,

but you see the banality and the ordered methodical, almost sort of humdrum nature of the apparatus of killing. I think that's what we find really terrifying about the Nazis. And that's different, I think, from, let's say, Stalin's great terror. I mean, it's not unlike other terrors in history. There's a sort of an ad hoc nature to it. It's a regime trying to purge people within it. We've seen it many times in history.

It's on a much bigger scale, of course. But it doesn't have that kind of quite have that kind of, quite have that cold... It's kind of like the French Revolution and what happened after it, because basically you've got a bunch of these crazy lunatic revolutionaries and you can't really run a country like that,

so you have to kill them off and then you kill off the people who kill them off until you really... It's the idea of the enemy within. Yeah. I think the idea of the enemy within is a very... The traitor within

is a really dangerous one. Once you go down that road, it almost always happens with revolutionary genes. They're in battle from the very beginning, because they've got the old regime, they're worried they're going to come back, or they've got foreign adversaries. They've got foreign adversaries, as they did in the French Revolution.

So I'm getting so excited talking about the French Revolution that can't even speak. And then when you start looking at your kind of, you look internally, and you look at domestic opposition, you say, well, these people are not just critics or opponents, they're traitors. And they're a threat to our revolution. Then they've got to go. and you see that again and again. And what's really interesting and worrying at the same time is you look at our economy, which is faltering, to put it mildly.

Yeah. People are getting poorer. People aren't going to be able to... I'm intrigued about where you're going to go with it. Yeah. Is it... Are you going to ask the key question, which is basically is Kirstama Stalin? Yes, exactly.

I don't think he's at competent, if I'm going to be honest with you, or has the courage of his convictions either. But I guess my point is, do you get concerned when you see us enter these kind of economic times where rich and poor, the gap is getting ever wider, people are struggling economically, that we're going to enter more turbulent times. And these are the times where utopianism,

socialism, you know, these people are bad, that's going to start to creep in as people look quite naturally for someone to play. Are I concerned about it? I think it will happen, but I'm not concerned about it because I think that's history. That's just what happens.

That's a really shit reason not to be concerned about it. No offense. My entire family is going to get wiped out, but that's history, mate. You know, don't worry about it. That is what I think. What do you mean that's what you think? I think that's what I...

You have children, right? Yeah. What if they all get killed? Are you not concerned about this? Well, I always say to my son, you know, the lesson of history is your neighbors will probably try to kill and eat you, so make sure you kill them first. He is right, Whig.

I think that's like complaining and you're not concerned that very soon the summer will be over and winter will come I'm like of course I'm not concerned about it I mean I know it's going to happen it'd be waste of time to lie awake worrying about it I think people who like us you know born in the post war period

grew up in the years of affluence sort of came of age in the post-cold war era end of history, you know, liberal democracy. We still, even though we intellectually maybe think, oh yeah, I know that's not the norm and I know history is much darker. But I think still instinctively we kind of think, I'd be nice if it was like that all the time, you know.

Be nice if it was just economic growth and everybody was happy. It would be nice. It would be nice, but it's never going to happen. The 21st century will see loads of wars and disasters. There'll be a lot of, you know, are my worry? worried about people being scapegoated or whatever. I mean, I guess it's sad that it happens. It is sad that it happens for the avoidance of tap.

It is sad that it happens, but it's going to happen. Like, history's not going to stop. There will be people who are tremendous villains who will come to power, and there will be, you know, massacres and stuff. Because human nature is never going to change. People will always keep behaving badly, and stuff will keep happening, and there will be migrant crises, and there will be coups and there will be a revolution somewhere

and all of those things will happen. Am I concerned about it? Not really because I spent all my life reading about it about happening in the past and I know that history is not suddenly going to stop. You know, I'm not Tony Blair or Bill Clinton thinking that brilliant, the world is perfect. We're in 1999 and let's hope that nothing ever happens again.

The world was pretty good in 1999, no, don't you think? It really was. It was a great time. It was a great time. I guess it kind of was, but I mean, maybe we, obviously, we think that for very contingent reasons. You know, there are lots of places where it wasn't great. Yeah, we don't care about them. I'm talking about for us.

Yeah, it was great for us. I think this is precisely the problem, right? This is the problem about us having a slightly starry-eyed view of humanity and how history works and what the future will bring. You know, that sort of sense that people have now where they sort of, you know, you talk about, oh, Britain's in such a mess, the Western world tearing itself. apart. We live in age of populism and polarisation. Isn't that a terrible shame and blah, blah, blah, blah. And often I'm like, you know what? When we talk about how terrible everything is, most people in

history would say, well, A, those things are completely normal. I mean, that's just life. And B, you've got all those things that we always had, but also you're living until you're 80 and you have central heating and you get to go on holiday all the time and you, you know, all this kind of thing. And your children survive into adulthood and all of that. What are you winging about? Yeah, you've got all the... I think what people are winging about, and I don't blame them is that things are moving in a downward direction. Right. That's what people are winching about.

Because objectively speaking, I completely agree with you. Life's great. And my pin thing on my Twitter is the West is brilliant. There's a clip of me talking about why we're all lucky. And we are lucky to live here. But I'd quite like my children and grandchildren to also feel lucky to live where we live. And that's what people are concerned about.

Of course. I understand why they're concerned about that. But your point is that there's nothing you can do about it. I don't necessarily think that. There'll be lots of winners. There always are. You know, the nature of being apparent is you want your children to be among the winners and not the losers. Indeed.

But ultimately, the nature of being a parent is also realizing that you can't control your child's destiny. So to some degree, you do your best, but there's no much point worrying about it. I just always think, you know, a thing that always plays on my mind, I think about this a lot, is what it would have been like to have been a German in 1910.

You live in a newly unified country where life really has got a lot better in the last few decades. You live in one of the most sophisticated, civilized. The German people were amazing. This is the thing that we all lose because of everything that happened after 1910, quite rightly. They were an amazing people. So advanced in so many different things. Like reading about the, they were actually, you kind of read it and go, Hitler kind of had a bit of a point.

This was like a superior race to some extent in terms of all the development. about the industrial development. I'm joking, obviously, but you know what I mean. They were incredible. Right, of course. And so that's 1910. If someone says to you then, well, how do you think the future will play out? People are like, well, probably will be like this.

Yeah, it's going to be great. And actually, you know what? You could not conceive of how terrible it's going to be. So looking forward, do I worry, looking forward to the future, I just think it's unknowable. And there are societies right now that seem sophisticated, safe, United, that may well, you know, you're 2050, you'll be talking about it and saying, my God, who knew that Belgium, what a civil war that would last 20 years or whatever?

Silly example, but you just simply cannot predict what will happen. And do I worry about it? I don't really worry because I just think that really is a waste of time. That's a really interesting way of looking at it. Maybe as we wrap up, the one thing I, it's probably worth asking as well is, you know, You've delivered a masterclass of presenting the tragic vision. Thomas Sol talks about this kind of being the core of the more right of center, the more conservative world view, really,

which is human nature is what it is. Technology changes, therefore we express human nature in different ways. Yes, exactly. Oh, before we get to that, actually, something else I was going to ask you, which ties into this. Do you think that nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the course of human history because this peace dividend that we've had is actually because of nuclear weapons.

Yes, I do. Is that why? I do. I think there would have been a third world war without nuclear weapons. That makes sense to. There's no question in my mind. I think there would have been a war.

Maybe not immediately. Well, we'd be in one now, right? I mean, Russia, Ukraine probably would have become... Yeah, it could be. I think there would definitely have been a war probably over Berlin and maybe it would have been delayed until 1960, 61 or something like that.

Right. But it would have come. Then human missile crisis, obviously what holds them back is the fear of nuclear annihilation. Again, in the early 1980s, you could have a multiple world war during the Cold War. And every time they're held back by nuclear weapons. It's so fascinating. It's almost like human nature in that way, where the worst thing is also the best thing,

because nuclear weapons probably will lead to the annihilation of all humanity at some point. It's very possible, in my opinion. But also, it's why we've had, we've avoided a global war. Yeah, I agree. It's so weird. But anyway, coming back to this tragic vision, which you presented, I feel like the way we talk about modern things that are going on, conflict in Russia and Ukraine, in Israel and Gaza, is partly because we've got, we've lost that, right? Do you get what I'm going with this? I do.

Yeah, I do. Sorry, I was distracted by the fact that I was resting my foot on your foot and I thought it passed the table. And actually, there's quite a lot of happens under the table. It's unbelievable. You don't get that on every podcast, do you? You're going to Joe Rogan, you're not going to get that. Yeah, people always go, why haven't you got enough female guests? It's because of him.

Listen, I can't help me. Women aren't into that, so, shit, as it turns out. Sad. It doesn't often happen on podcasts where the host is playing footsie with you on the table. But yeah, you know, something we have to be a special three minutes. So in the sense that we're talking about those wars and we're surprised by them, we're surprised by them. And we're very moralistic in the way we interpret. And the way we talk about them, you know, genocide, like,

Everything's a genocide now. Do you know what I mean? I do. I do know what you mean. That there's the language of... We're sort of... We're horrified. We're surprised.

We reach for extreme language to describe what we're seeing. Yeah, and I think maybe the war in Ukraine is a really good example of this because Putin, if he was here now, would say, and he said it himself, you know, I'm doing what Peter the Great did. I'm doing what Catherine the Great did.

I want to make Russia strong. And that's my job. And I really would like an outlet. on the Black Sea. You know, I'd like Crimea. And actually, I'd really like Ukraine to be a puppet state. And that's what empires do. We want puppets.

We want puppet states. And this is our sphere of influence. And we'll do whatever the hell we want. We'll do what we want because that's what big powers do. That's exactly what he would say. And he would say, look at you having a hissy fit about it. Now, I think Putin's a terrible man, very committed to the defense of Ukraine. But I think pretending that Putin is something abnormal.

Yes. Is a weird way of thinking about it. Like, I've been very, very pro-Ukraine. but on the basis of exactly what you're saying, which is, of course he's going to do that, that's why he can't be allowed to do it. Yeah, exactly. You know what I mean?

It's the most obvious thing in the world. He wants to conquer that country, and it's not in our interest to let him. Yeah, that's exactly my... I wrote this column, actually, before the war happened, just as he was gearing up. And there were people saying, oh, he's not going to do it, he's not going to do it.

And I said, I wrote a column saying, I think he is going to do it because thinking about Putin, the way he sees the world, why wouldn't you do it? He thinks the West is really divided and weak. It was about the point where, like, you know, I gave the example at the time, there was a massive hullabaloo about Boris Johnson having a cake or something to do with COVID. And I was like, he looks at the West right now.

Joe Biden is 3,000 years old. Boris Johnson is battling with a cake or whatever. Why wouldn't you, if you're him and you have that ruthless, cold-blooded, amoral view of human relations and all you care about is basically old-fashioned Russian imperialism, why wouldn't you do it? Totally. And that's, so I think, so when people are, it's pure. he's mad, but he's not mad.

He would say, I'm doing exactly what empire builders have done all through history. No, I don't want his empire to succeed. I don't like it, so I think we should stop him. Right. But I don't delude myself about what the nature of the game is. It's why I never used all this bullshit language about, like, it's an illegal war.

What do you mean? Yeah, I agree with you about that. What does I even mean? I think that I agree with you completely, and I think most people who, I don't want to completely go down the road of saying might is right, but A geopolitical level. Most wars that have ever been fought were, in averted commas, illegal wars, right?

With a hundred years war, a legal war. I mean, maybe Edward III would have said it was because it was claimed to the throne of France. But come on. You know, this is the point about the conservative view of human nature, I space, right? That people will try to do what they can to maximize their own power and their own stability and security. And we shouldn't be surprised when somebody who is not our friend tries to do that, you know, when tries to benefit his own country at the experience. other. Putin would say, you've misunderstood the game. You don't understand the rules. I'm playing the game properly and you clowns in the West, you know, preening yourselves about your principles,

have misunderstood what we're all doing. And it's also as well, like you use the word amoral. I imagine Putin would push back on that and go, I'm not amoral. I am doing something very moral, which is the best for my country. Yeah, he would. And that's a fair point. That I think one thing that's, I think, really interesting that we have lost is a sense of national interests. There's a famous interview of the story often told somebody sitting next to the then cabinet secretary. I think it was Sir Gus O'Donnell. And they asked him, what's more important in your view for you to do as the British cabinet secretary? Is it the Britain's interest or the world's interest?

And he said, I'd like to think it's the world's interests. I'm like, whoa, I think it should be Britain's interests. I think, again, you're misunderstanding the nature of the game you're playing. Because let me tell you, the Chinese aren't thinking, oh, I'll do what's in Britain's interest. If you're not thinking it, nobody else is. And I think we have, partly as a result of the understandable revulsion at the excesses of nationalism in the first half of the 20th century, partly because we've built this kind of liberal rules-based international order and so on

that so many people are very committed to, we have actually lost sense of the fact that there is a competitive element to world affairs in which basically, you know, you do what you can for your team, and that that means another team will lose out. And that's, again, that's the nature of the game. Dominic, it's been great having you on. We're going to head over to Substack where our audience get to ask you their questions.

But before we do, the last question we always ask is what's the one thing we're not talking about that we really should be? So it's something that you've actually alluded to already, so I was gutted when you brought it up because I was preening and priding myself having thought of this. It's actually nuclear annihilation.

I think it's an interesting how much, for me growing up in the early 1980s, this was a constant threat. You know, it was on TV, there were dramas about it, there were people protesting about nuclear weapons, you know, it was Ronald Reagan and press the button, all of this kind of thing. And now, of course, we live in an age where we don't really talk about it very much at all. As an omnipresent fear, it has vanished. Yet there are more countries with nuclear capability. And to go back to the whole argument about human nature,

nuclear weapons, I do think probably have saved lives since the Second World War and prevented wars, but human nature being as it is, one day people will use them. And they'll use them, I think, out of fear because I think that's how war starts. They will use them not because they are mad or because they're evil, but because they're frightened

and they feel they have no alternative. And especially in a world where AI will be running a lot of these defense programs, I think once that process starts, it will be very difficult to stop. And it's a bit like, you know, if you're a sort of existentialist philosopher or something, you think to yourself, how can people walk around knowing that they're all going to die? Like, why are they bothering buying a sandwich from press and making plans for Sunday when actually their own inevitable extinction is coming?

And the reason is, of course, your inevitable extinction is too big a thing to think about, and it would paralyze you. And I sometimes wonder, you know, we'll add descendants living in their kind of, irradiated ruins, say, how could they walk around saying how brilliant life is, you know, knowing that they're sitting on all this stuff, that one day probably it will go off and it'll kill everybody and destroy civilization. And the answer is, I guess, that we're mugs, you know, we're blind, we're willfully blind to the potential that this stuff has. And also, there's no one inventing it, right? Never going to go away. We're just stuck with it now.

So, yeah, that's a cheery thought. You really are an optimist. Yeah, we're all going to die on a nuclear holocaust. But you seem to believe that there will be survivors, people who live after that, which makes you an optimist. Yeah, sort of mutant, half crab, half human, scuttling in the ruins. And on that, no. On that, no. Head on over to Substack where Dominics can answer your questions.

Are there any keen moments in history of what-if scenarios that you believe could have dramatically altered the outcome of a particular battle and in turn change the course of a war? Hey, honey, it's mom. Did you know if we switched to Verizon, we can get four phones for $0, plus four lines for $25 a line? Call me back. Me again. That's just $100 a month for four lines on Unlimited Welcome.

Plus four phones, no trade in needed. Call me. It's Mom. America's Best Network, Verizon. That's the one we're talking about. I'll send you text. America's Best Network based on Root Metrics, Best Overall Mobile Network Performance, U.S. second half, 2025.

Four new lines on a limited welcome and auto pay. See Verizon.com for details.