Podcasts about allied

When we think of the Second World War, the story is so often told through an Anglo-American lens: Britain holding out alone in 1940, the United States joining the fight in 1941, and the combined Allied effort that followed. But this perspective tends to overshadow the contributions of other nations, particularly Canada. Canada was not usually regarded as a global military power, yet its role in the war was both significant and far-reaching. From the skies over Europe to the convoys crossing the Atlantic and the soldiers who landed on D-Day, Canadian forces made an impact far greater than their country's population might suggest. In this episode of the WW2 Podcast, I am joined by historian David Borys to look more closely at Canada's military in the Second World War. We discuss how Canada approached the conflict, the part it played within the wider Allied war effort, and how its contribution is remembered today. David is a Canadian academic, author of Punching Above Our Weight: The Canadian Military at War Since 1867, and host of Curious Canadian History. His new podcast, Conflict and Culture, explores the intersections of war and society, and we'll touch on that later in our conversation.   patreon.com/ww2podcast  

Dwight D. Eisenhower was born in Denison, Texas, in 1890. He was the President of the United States when I was born in Dallas, Texas, 68 years later.People called me “Little Roy.” People called him “Ike.”I worry that we have forgotten him.Ike Eisenhower graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1915 when he was 24 years old. His superiors noticed his organizational abilities, and appointed him commander of a tank training center during World War I.In 1933, he became aide to Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur, and in 1935 Ike went with him to the Philippines when MacArthur accepted the post of chief military adviser to that nation's government.On June 25, 1942, Ike Eisenhower was chosen over 366 senior officers to lead the Armed Forces of the United States in World War II.After proving himself on the battlefields of North Africa and Italy in 1942 and 1943, Ike Eisenhower was appointed supreme commander of Operation Overlord – the Allied invasion of northwestern Europe.Ike was now commanding the Armed Forces of all 49 Allied nations – including Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China – in the war against Hitler and his minions. He personally planned and supervised two of the most consequential military campaigns of World War II: Operation Torch in the North Africa campaign in 1942–1943 and the invasion of Normandy in 1944.Ike Eisenhower never talked like a tough guy, but only a fool would call him “weak” or “woke.”This past July, Robert Reich – an eloquent and intelligent spokesperson on the left – quoted a passage from an anti-war speech that Ike Eisenhower made at the beginning of his presidency in 1953. Reich ended his quote just prior to Ike's unsettling reference to the crucifixion of Christ.Eloquent and intelligent people on the right refused to believe that a celebrated warrior had ever made a speech that could be classified as “anti-war.”Curious, I decided to get to the bottom of it.Here is a link to the complete transcript and original recording of the speech that President Dwight D. Eisenhower made before the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953, from the Statler Hotel in Washington, D.C.This is the passage from that speech that got everyone worked up:“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.This world in arms is not spending money alone.It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals, it is some 50 miles of concrete pavement.We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”The title of that speech was originally “Chance for Peace,” but due to the vivid mental image contained in the middle of the speech, it quickly became known as the “Cross of Iron” speech.Words have impact when they contain vivid mental images.I own guns, but I am not a hunter. Neither my family nor my friends have ever seen my guns. But in the unlikely event of a home invasion, I am adequately prepared to protect

Joseph Picard was a teenager when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Unlike some of his peers, Picard was neither excited to join the service nor dreading it. He just accepted that he would need to serve.After completing basic training, Picard was assigned to the 552nd Field Artillery Battalion, working with the massive 240mm guns. The battalion was held out of D-Day operations and landed at Utah Beach in late June 1944.In this edition of Veterans Chronicles, Picard takes us through all the work involved in assembling and operating the 240mm guns. He also walks us from Utah Beach through the Battle for St. Lo and the Allied drive to Paris.Picard also describes the devastating combat at the Battle of Aachen, losing his best friend in combat, and the chaos and bitter cold at the Battle of the Bulge.

Think the WWII U-Boat War was Britain's closest brush with defeat? Think again. In this live History Rage special, historian Roger Moorhouse – author of Wolfpack: Inside Hitler's U-Boat War – joins host Paul Bavill to torpedo one of the Second World War's most persistent myths.Drawing on brand-new research from the German perspective, Roger reveals why the Battle of the Atlantic was not the near-disaster Churchill's famous quote suggests. He walks us through:Why most English-language histories ignore the German side of the U-boat campaign.How a brief “happy time” in 1940–41 shaped Britain's self-image as plucky underdog.The statistics showing how Liberty ships and countermeasures reversed the threat.Inside the cramped, stressful life aboard a Type VII U-boat — from “tin can rage” to PTSD-like symptoms.The propaganda, recruitment and astonishing casualty rates of the Kriegsmarine's submarine arm.Enigma, aerial radar, hedgehog mortars and other Allied innovations that made 1943 the turning point.It's WWII history as you've never heard it before — directly from the other side of the periscope. If you're fascinated by Second World War naval history, military myths, or the Battle of the Atlantic, this episode is a must-listen. Roger Moorhouse blends gripping stories with hard data to show how the real U-boat war unfolded — and why understanding it matters.Roger's new book Wolfpack: Inside Hitler's U-Boat War (out 9 October) is the definitive account of Germany's submarine campaign told from the inside.

In late 1942, German U-boats were sinking Allied merchant ships faster than they could be replaced, pushing Britain to the brink of starvation in the 'Black Pit' of the mid-Atlantic. In this episode Roger Moorhouse is joined by Saul David as he dives into the most critical period of the Battle of the Atlantic, from the peak losses of March 1943 to the stunning Allied victory in 'Black May.' They explore the high-stakes technological race—including the deployment of long-range aircraft, advanced radar, sonar, and breaking the Enigma code—that transformed the Allies from prey to predator and secured the lifeline that made the liberation of Europe possible. If you have any thoughts or questions, you can send them to - podbattleground@gmail.com Producer: James Hodgson X (Twitter): @PodBattleground Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Battleship North Carolina has a distinguished history as part of the Allied victory in World War Two, and for decades has served as a living museum and monument to that effort and to the technological innovations in its design. But it's also one of the most haunted places in the Carolinas! Come aboard for a deep dive discussion with Charlie and Michael about one of the Carolinas' most iconic locations! Links: Arcane Carolinas Vol. 3 (Charlie's newest entry in our series of nonfiction volumes!) Children of Solitude (Michael's latest horror novel!) Upcoming Live Appearances: SplatterFlix Film Series (Durham, NC - October 10 & 11, 2025) - Michael solo (he'll be selling books and giving away AC swag!) Book Ferret (Winston-Salem, NC - early November, dates TBD) - Michael solo (he'll be doing a reading and signing books) Follow us! Arcane Carolinas on Patreon Arcane Carolinas on Facebook Arcane Carolinas on Instagram Arcane Carolinas on Tumblr Contact us! arcanecarolinas@gmail.com

In the wake of the nuclear attacks on Japan, the official Allied line was that radiation sickness was not a danger. Yet, as this Long Read written by Steve O'Hagan reveals, the first Western journalist to witness the effects on the people of Hiroshima told a very different story. HistoryExtra Long Reads brings you the best articles from BBC History Magazine, direct to your ears. Today's feature originally appeared in the September 2025 issue, and has been voiced in partnership with the RNIB. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Allied forces in Tunisia, now designated the 18th Army gets a new leader, Harold Alexander. He wants training and new leadership. So on his way from Casablanca is Gen. Patton. Meanwhile, Rommel is out as the North African Axis Commander. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're a day late because spam filters can really slow things down. This week, Patrick and Lori welcome Drew Medlock, the CEO of Allied Cycle Works in Bentonville, Arkansas. The international nature of the bike business has been thrown into turmoil by government tariffs and we wanted to talk to Drew as Allied has experience […]

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The last 100 days of Franklin Roosevelt's life coincided with some momentous events in US history. As WWII was drawing to a close, the Yalta Conference brought together the three Allied leaders, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin to confront some of the thorniest issues of the day and that still loom large to this day. That conference laid the groundwork for the Post World War II Order which prevail to this day, 80 years later.

Send us a message or question! Have we got a treat for you...Something different - U-boats instead of aircraft!In our final episode of this series, “The U-boat War - Wolfpack,” we explore the U-Boat War from the German perspective with historian and author Roger Moorhouse, whose new book Wolfpack: Inside Hitler's U-Boat War will be published on 9 October 2025. Hosts James Jefferies and Jane Gulliford-Lowes dive into what life was really like aboard German U-boats, the shifting strategies of the Battle of the Atlantic,  the human stories behind the steel hulls, the role of Ultra Intelligence, the impact of Allied bombing and developments in technology. By looking at the war through the eyes of the U-boat crews, this episode reveals a side of World War II history that's often overlooked. Join us for a fascinating conversation that brings these powerful and complex narratives to life.Further reading: You can read Jane's articles on Ultra Intelligence in the Battle of the Atlantic and How to Survive Being Sunk by a U-Boat here. Never Mind the Dambusters Merchandise is now available at https://never-mind-the-dambusters.teemill.com/Support the showPlease subscribe to Never Mind The Dambusters wherever you get your podcasts. You can support the show, and help us produce great content, by becoming a paid subscriber from just $3 a month here https://www.buzzsprout.com/2327200/support . Supporters get early access to episodes and invitations to livestreams. Thank you for listening! You can reach out to us on social media at @RAF_BomberPod (X) or @NeverMindTheDambusters (Instagram)You can find out about James' research, articles, lectures and podcasts here .You can read more about Jane's work on her website at https://www.justcuriousjane.com/, and listen to podcasts/media stuff here

Marcia Franklin talks with Idaho author Anthony Doerr about his bestselling novel, "All the Light We Cannot See," which took ten years to research and write. The book debuted at #10 on the New York Times' Best Sellers list and received glowing reviews around the country. It also won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2015 shortly after this interview. Franklin talks with Doerr, who lives in Boise, about his novel, which depicts the lives of two European children in World War II, children whose lives ultimately intersect in war-torn Saint Malo, France. The town was nearly destroyed by Allied forces at the end of the war. Doerr discusses the book's themes, which include the power of radio during that time period, and the moral choices faced by civilians during wartime. Doerr also talks about what kept him motivated during the decade-long writing process. Originally aired: 07/10/14

Rome orders a new attack plan. Rommel tries to carry it out, but the Allied forces stop him. Still, the Axis take control of the Kasserine Pass. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] 1. The Internet That Would Be In July 1945, Vannevar Bush was riding high. As Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, he'd won World War II. His proximity fuse intercepted hundreds of V-1s and destroyed thousands of tanks, carving a path for Allied forces through the French countryside. Back in 1942, he'd advocated to President Roosevelt the merits of Oppenheimer's atomic bomb. Roosevelt and his congressional allies snuck hundreds of millions in covert funding to the OSRD's planned projects in Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. Writing directly and secretively to Bush, a one-line memo in June expressed Roosevelt's total confidence in his Director: “Do you have the money?” Indeed he did. The warheads it bought would fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in mere weeks. The Germans had already given up; Victory in the Pacific was nigh. So Bush was thinking ahead. In The Atlantic, Bush returned to a pre-war obsession with communication and knowledge-exchange. His essay, “As We May Think,” imagined a new metascientifical endeavor (emphasis mine): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-project-xanadu-the-internet

The final showdown in North Africa is here. In the final episode of our Tunisgrad series Saul and Roger discuss the climax of the campaign as Allied forces converge on the Axis in Tunisia. Together they break down the pivotal battles that sealed the fate of the Axis, from Montgomery's breakthrough at the Mareth Line to the decisive pincer movement at Wadi Akarit. And the final, coordinated assault, Operation Strike, which leads to the fall of Tunis and a capitulation on a scale even greater than Stalingrad. Discover the key factors behind the Allied victory: overwhelming logistical superiority, complete air supremacy, and a unified command structure that finally worked. Over 250,000 Axis troops surrender, marking the end of the African campaign and, as one historian notes, "the beginning of the end" for Hitler. If you have any thoughts or questions, you can send them to - podbattleground@gmail.com Producer: James Hodgson X (Twitter): @PodBattleground Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is the second episode in a mini series on the history of the Clan Line, one of Britain's most distinctive and influential shipping companies. In this episode Dr Sam Willis travels the length and breadth of the UK to speak with sailors who served on Clan Line ships, to hear and preserve their memories of this most crucial time in global maritime history. Founded in Glasgow in 1877 by Charles Cayzer, the line quickly grew into a vast fleet that connected Scotland with Africa, India, and beyond. What made it particularly interesting was its combination of commercial power and cultural identity: every ship bore a “Clan” name, giving the company a strong Scottish character that set it apart in the crowded world of British shipping.The Clan Line was important because it played a crucial role in Britain's imperial trade. Its ships carried goods such as jute, tea, and cotton, linking colonial economies to British markets. During both World Wars, the company's vessels were vital to the Allied cause, transporting troops, supplies, and munitions—often at great risk from enemy submarines. Many were lost, but the service of its crews contributed directly to victory.Beyond trade and war, the line symbolised the globalisation of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It represented Scotland's industrial and maritime strength, while also reflecting the dangers and opportunities of long-distance shipping. Today, the Clan Line stands as a reminder of how shipping shaped commerce, conflict, and community. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello Youtube Members, Patreons and Pacific War week by week listeners. Yes this was intended to be an exclusive episode to join the 29 others over on my Youtube Membership and Patreon, but since we are drawing to the end of the Pacific War week by week series, I felt compelled to make some special episodes to answer some of the bigger questions.   Hey before I begin I just want to thank all of you who have joined the patreon, you guys are awesome. Please let me know what other figures, events or other things you want to hear about in the future and I will try to make it happen.   So as you can see the title of this episode is, Why did the Japanese perform so many Atrocities during the Pacific War. Phewww, its honestly a difficult one to tackle, for there are countless reasons. I had a university professor who taught; ancient and modern Japanese history, history of the Japanese empire and the Pacific War. He actually answered this very question in a single lecture and in many ways I found it to be one of the most illuminating things I ever learnt about the Pacific War. To truly understand the reasons why they did such horrible things, you actually need to learn the general history of Japan, particularly the changes from Tokugawa, to Meiji, to Showa. I am going to do my very best, but I know many of you might be asking “what were the worst things they did?”, not everyone takes a special interest into such a niche part of history. May I recommend for those with strong stomachs “the knights of Bushido” by Edward Russel that covers pretty much all the atrocities of the Asia-Pacific War. For those of you who like darker things, check out Unit 731: Japan's Secret Biological Warfare in World War II by David Wallace and Peter Williams, absolute nightmare fuel.   I can't go through the entire history of Japan, but I think it's important to start off with the first Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. This was the first time the Empire of Japan fought a true war with a foreign nation, that being the Qing dynasty. At this point in time, there really emerged a sort of, to be blunt, race war. The Chinese had historically referred to the Japanese as “woren”, a racist term meaning dwarf. Now historically the Japanese had always revered the Chinese, kind of like in the way a little brother looks up to his big brother. In tokugawa Japan they would learn from the Chinese, but as the Meiji restoration began this dramatically changed. Japan watched as the Chinese were humiliating and abused by the western powers and failed to modernize. Meanwhile Japan emulated the best of the west, to modernize and become a great power themselves. In many ways, Japan saw itself become big brother and now China was little brother. The Meiji restoration had an element of nationalism built into it that would explode come the Show era. Japan for its entire history had this belief they were the “Yamato Race” dating back to the 6th century. Now while the Meiji restoration sought to emulate the west, they also emulated racism and propaganda, which in the 19th century was kind of a big deal. The Japanese government gradually began a long term campaign promoting the idea the Japanese, or Yamato people were superior to that of the other asian races. Who was the next big asian boy on the block? China, so it was inevitable they would direct a lot of racist attitudes towards the Chinese. During the first sino-japanese war, the Chinese, particularly Manchu had a habit of performing atrocities upon the Japanese. They would often cut off body parts of Japanese soldiers in grotesque manners and leave them to be found by their comrades. This was honestly a pretty typical thing of war in the region, but it did also have a racist element to it, the Chinese certainly saw the Japanese as lesser people. Just before the battle of Port Arthur, the Japanese found mutilated remains of the comrades, here is a passage from Makio Okabe who was there:   As we entered the town of Port Arthur, we saw the head of a Japanese soldier displayed on a wooden stake. This filled us with rage and a desire to crush any Chinese soldier. Anyone we saw in the town, we killed. The streets were filled with corpses, so many they blocked our way. We killed people in their homes; by and large, there wasn't a single house without from three to six dead. Blood was flowing and the smell was awful. We sent out search parties. We shot some, hacked at others. The Chinese troops just dropped their arms and fled. Firing and slashing, it was unbounded joy. At this time, our artillery troops were at the rear, giving three cheers [banzai] for the emperor.   The Japanese performed a massacre at Port Arthur, butchering perhaps up to 3000 Chinese civilians, some claim 10's of thousands and in full few of western war correspondents. It became a huge controversy that destroyed the image of the IJA internationally and hurt the Japanese governments efforts at riding themselves of unequal treaties with the western powers. The Japanese learnt a hell of a lesson and an Imperial Proclamation was made in 1894 stating that Japanese soldiers should make every effort to win the war without violating international laws. According to Japanese historian Yuki Tanaka, Japanese forces during the First Sino-Japanese War released 1,790 Chinese prisoners without harm, once they signed an agreement not to take up arms against Japan if they were released.   During the next major war the Japanese performed a dramatic 180, well at least to their enemy. During the Russo-Japanese War, over 80,000 Russian POWs were held by the IJA who were treated in accordance with the Hague conventions of 1899. The Japanese paid them for labor, housed them in conventional POW camps, made sure they received good medical treatment, ironically better than the Russians were capable of. The Japanese did all of this, making sure the foreign war correspondents wrote about it. It was a massive PR stunt in many ways. The Japanese were emulating how a world power should act, because they sought to be one. Meanwhile the Japanese swallowed their pride at being called yellow monkeys, as the prevalent Yellow Peril ideology was being pushed by Kaiser Wilhehelm and Tsar Nicholas II heavily. The Japanese treated the entire war like gentlemen and suffered horrific higher casualties than necessary because of it. But something many people don't take much notice of, because the IJA made sure of it, was they horrible treatment of the Chinese during the war.   Now the Russians in Manchuria looted, killed and raped many Chinese, pushed quite a bit by the Yellow Peril. The Chinese, certainly the Honghuzi bandits were working for the Japanese to attack them, so its not like they had no reasons. The IJA was more professional and had orders not to molest the Chinese, as they were helping the war effort, but this did not prevent it. The Japanese also looted, killed and raped Chinese. The Japanese would often wave it off as reprisals against potential spies. I only bring this up as it was very apparent, the Japanese treated the Russians much different than the chinese.   Fast forward to WW1, the Japanese had a battle against the Germans and Austro-Hungarians known in the west as the Siege of Tsingtau. The Japanese took up an identical methodology to the Russo-Japanese war with their approach to the Germans, but even took it a step further. After winning the siege, the Japanese seized nearly 5000 German POW's who were treated with a surreal amount of respect. They were brought back to Japan and housed for the rest of the war in 12 cities around Tokyo and Kumamoto. The POW's enjoyed humane treatment and a rather famous event occurred at the Bando camp where a large orchestra was formed of German POW's who toured the nation performing 100 concerts, lectures and plays. Evidence the Germans were treated well can be seen in the fact 170 prisoners never left Japan and sought wives and lives there. Now is this all a feel good love story, no, just like during the Russo-Japanese War, Japan was playing up the PR, for during WW1 they wanted official recognition as a world power and that of being racially equal to the whites.    Japan was officially recognized as a world power during the treaty of Versailles, but when Japan gave its racial equality proposal, President Woodrow Wilson of the US and Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes refused to allow it to pass, even though they received majority votes. Now The Japanese had been for a lack of better words, fucked over, during the first sino-japanese war when the triple intervention of France, Germany and Russia stole away their war earning of the Liaodong peninsula. During the Russo-Japanese war, Theodore Roosevelt limited the Japanese war gains and now here after WW1 the Japanese received another humiliation. To the Japanese, it was the last straw and it was a major reason they went to war with the west, who they viewed, and honestly rightfully so, would never see them as equals.   Ompf, lot of history there, but now we come to the Showa era, which was molded by the feelings of the past decades.   In 1937 Japan and China enter an unofficial war that saw one of the worst wartime atrocities in human history, the rape of Nanjing. It began on December 13th of 1937, lasting 6 or so weeks seeing the murder of possibly 300,000 civilians and pows, the mass rape of 20,000 and untold hardship upon the Chinese people. The Japanese followed this up with numerous other massacres in China such as the Changjiao Massacre claiming possibly 30,000 Chinese civilian lives, the Alexandra Hospital Massacre killing 200 patients and medical staff in Hong Kong, the Laha Massacre on Ambon island where 300 members of the Gull force were executed, the Bangka island massacre where 60 Australian and British soldiers and 22 Australian nurses were murdered, the Parit Sulong massacre in Malay where 150 wounded Australian and Indian POW's were executed, the Bataan Death march where negligence and brutality took the lives of 650 Americans and perhaps a possible 18,000 Filipinos, the Manila massacres claiming the lives of perhaps 54,000 filipinos including women and children in the Philippines, the Balikpapan massacre in the dutch east indies taking the lives of 78 Dutch Civilians, I can keep going and going. Where the Japanese went, massacres and horrors occurred.    Again if you really want to delve into these stories check out “the knights of Bushido”.   The Japanese also had the infamous special units like 731, who conducted horrifying experiments on civilians and POWs like vivisectioning live people without anesthesia, testing biological and chemical weapons on live people, the freezing peoples to study frostbite treatment and giving people sexually transmitted diseases to study. Lt General Shiro Ishii's unit 731 deployed plague infested fleas, cholera, bubonic plague and other nasty weapons upon Chinese civilians killing perhaps up to 500,000. This was seen during the battle of Changde and famously during operation Sei-go also known as the Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign.    The Japanese also enacted the infamous “Sanko Sakusen / three all's policy : kill all, urn all, loot all” in retaliation to the Chinese communists Hundred regiments offensive in December of 1940. Sanctioned by Hirohito personally, it is thought this act resulted in the death of 2.7 million Chinese civilians. According to author Werner Gruhl 8 million Chinese civilian deaths could be attributable to the Japanese.     So then we come back to the big question, why? So now that I've covered the loose history for coherency sake I want to list here the largest reasons for the atrocities and by no means is this official categories or even all of them, I am simply stating kind of my top ones I guess you can say:   Treaties signed or not signed War strategy and indoctrination  Ultra-Nationalism and Racism Surrender & the Bastardization of the Bushido code The Brutality of the Japanese military Treaties signed or not signed   Yes its time to talk about treaties, yawn. Now I said previously Japan did sign the Hague Conventions of 1899 and would ratify them in 1907. The Hague conventions did contain laws for prisoners of war, protection of civilians. Alongside this, in 1894 an imperial proclamation was made stating Japanese soldiers should make every effort to win a war without violating international laws. More significantly Japan “signed” but unlike the majority of other world powers did not ratify the Geneva convention of 1929. Why? To be blunt, the geneva conventions did not really benefit the Japanese military from their point of view.   First the Japanese had a very specific perspective on surrendering, they simply did not do it, so they did not expect many of their soldiers to ever become POW's, so how would it benefit them to ratify such a thing? If they are not going to have many POW's, why would they burden themselves with upholding all the conventional laws for POW's they would obtain during war?  Another glaring reason involved aerial bombing. Many Japanese leaders, like Kanji Ishiwara, believed the home islands would be subjected to massive aerial bombing if a global war broke out. If Japan was subjected to aerial bombing and ratified the geneva convention, this meant they would have to take the pilots who were caught prisoner. The Japanese believed this would encourage further bombing. Lastly the convention had rules for POW treatment that literally contradicted how Japanese soldiers were treated by their own superiors. More about that in the last part about the military's brutality, but summarized, the Japanese army were abusive as hell and to sign such a thing would literally contradict how they did things.   Emperor Hirohito personally ratified a decision to remove certain constraints of the Hague Conventions when it came to the treatment of Chinese POW's in the directive of 5 August 1937. This notification advised staff officers to simply stop using the term "prisoners of war". They would refer to their enemy as bandits, guerillas and such, anything but soldiers so they would not have to take any prisoners, though they typically did not leave anyone alive in China regardless. The Geneva Convention exempted POWs of sergeant rank or higher from manual labor, and stipulated that prisoners performing work should be provided with extra rations and other essentials. The Japanese in the later half of the war would be starved of provisions and resources, thus its to no surprise they could not meet these demands, even if they sought to uphold them. I will note in 1942, Japan indicated they would “follow” the Geneva rules and would observe the Hague Convention of 1907 outlining the laws and customs of war. Yet this is like a verbal confirmation, it had no legal basis, something the Japanese particularly loved to do during the war.   According to Dr. William Skelton III, who produced a document entitled American Ex Prisoners of War for the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, more POWs died at the hands of the Japanese in the Pacific theater and specifically in the Philippines than in any other conflict to date. For example in Germany, POWs died at a rate 1.2%. In the Pacific theater the rate was 37%. In the Philippines, POWs died at a rate of 40%.    Now these pieces of paper that were signed or not signed, what does this really matter when it comes to war, its obvious they were not upholding certain rules, but how did this quote en quote make them more brutal and perform more atrocities? Well here is the sticky thing, if you are part of the Japanese military and you know your nation did not ratify certain rules of war, this meant your enemy had no supposed legal basis to follow said rules against you either.    So I want you to think of two aspects of this. If your nation did not sign or ratify certain treaties, then you could not expect the enemy to respect such rules when it comes to you. But more importantly, what if the leader of your nation…just told you to believe that?    In early 1942, Great Britain, the United States of America and other great powers did officially let the Japanese know that they would, on their  part, observe all the provisions of the Convention and requested reciprocity. Japanese foreign minister at the time, Hideki Tojo gave a formal assurance that although Japan was not bound by the Geneva convention, the Japanese would apply it “mutatis mutandis” towards the Americans, British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealander POW's, note he most definitely did not extend this to the asiatic groups, nor the Dutch whom I guess he just forgot about. But this did morally bind Japan to comply with the convention. However the top brass of the Japanese military, notably Hideki Tojo in these cases, went out of his way to instill beliefs within the military as to what they should expect from the enemy. As you will see in the next points, this was basically a type of indoctrination.   War strategy and indoctrination    The leaders of Japan knew full well how unmatched they were in terms of resources and productivity before they began the war with the west. How could they possibly win the war? The IJN was dead set on a decisive naval battle, but for the IJA to compensate for their lack of resources, they believed their “spirit” would overcome the enemy. In many ways this spirit meant going above and beyond normal human endurance, to literally outperform the allies and notably to conduct the war with absolutely zero mercy. Once Japan lost the initiative in the war, after Guadalcanal, the IJA were forced to fight a war of attrition. Now they would prolong and exact maximum casualties upon the allies hoping to force them to the peace table. The idea was quite simple, the IJA would do everything possible to make the allies believe they would never give up and it would far too costly to defeat them. How does one go about achieving these aims? Well the IJA officers would tell you “by steeling your hearts”. To achieve all of this required extreme indoctrination.    Japanese children grew up in regimentation, they were desensitized to violence through tales of martial glory, and were taught that their purpose in life was to serve the emperor. Upon entering  military service, they were trained out of any individualistic spirit, and taught that compassion was a weakness and had no place in the field of war. The soldier's motto was faith equaled strength.  Faith being devotion to duty and service to the Divine Emperor. Apart from ideology and spiritual toughening, training in the Japanese Imperial Army was also extremely harsh and violent. This was not even particularly a special aspect of Showa Japan, it went all the way back to the Meiji era. From a young age children's education directed them, like a pipeline for military duty.   Now at the offset of the war, Hideki Tojo released the “Senjinkun” “instructions for the battlefield”. This was basically a manual for soldiers on how to conduct war. The document was used to establish standards of behavior for Japanese troops and improve discipline and morale within the Army, it also included things like a prohibition against being taken prisoner. It stated if you were captured by the enemy, because Japan did not sign or ratify certain treaties, you would be killed or tortured by the allies, and if you survived you and your family would face shame back home, and punishment resulting typically in 6 months of prison.   Here is a small excerpt from the document Those who know shame are weak. Always think of [preserving] the honor of your community and be a credit to yourself and your family. Redouble your efforts and respond to their expectations. Never live to experience shame as a prisoner. By dying you will avoid leaving a stain on your honor.   The purpose was basically psychological warfare, against their own army. Those like Hideki Tojo believed Japan could only defeat the resource rich Americans with spirit. Thus the manuals like Senjinkun demanded the forces not ever surrender, because the allies would do horrible things, it was shameful to do so and there were disciplinary actions for any who did. In 1942 the Army amended its criminal code to specify that officers who surrendered soldiers under their command faced at least six months imprisonment, regardless of the circumstances in which the surrender took place. This change attracted little attention, however, as the Senjinkun imposed more severe consequences and had greater moral force.   In a report dated June 1945, the U.S. Office of War Information noted that 84 percent of one group of interrogated Japanese prisoners, many of whom had been injured or unconscious when captured stated that they had expected to be killed or tortured by the Allies if taken prisoner. The OWI analysts described this as being typical, and concluded that fear of the consequences of surrender, “rather than Bushido,” was the motivation for many Japanese battle deaths in hopeless circumstances–as much as, and probably more than, the other two major considerations: fear of disgrace at home, and “the positive desire to die for one's nation, ancestors, and god-emperor.”   Something barely talked about in the west, was during the Pacific War, the Americans had a habit of taking human trophies. Human trophies were Japanese skulls, gold teeth, finger bones and such. The famous novel “With the Old Breed” by Eugene Sledge spoke of his personal accounts of these actions, its a rather gruesome and dark part of the war. Now some of these actions were publicized, despite the US military's efforts to quell and hush it down. Time magazine famously had an iconic photo of a woman whose enlisted boyfriend sent her home a Japanese skull. FDR also famously was given a letter opener carved out of Japanese bones. These stories were seized up greedily by the Japanese government who used them as propaganda to prove to their soldiers what would happen if they were captured. It had a profound effect as you can imagine. And this was not limited to Japanese soldiers. The propaganda machine would contribute at the end of the war to mass civilian suicides on Okinawa and Saipan.   Back to the POW subject. When it came to the treatment of POW's, Hideki Tojo began submitting in May of 1942 a series of memorandum, basic orders as to how POW's should be treated. “Prisoners of war can be used for the enlargement of our production and as military labor, white prisoners of war will be confined successively in Korea, Formosa and Manchuria. Superior technicians and high ranking officers -- Colonels and above -- will be included among the prisoners of war confined in Formosa. Those who are not suitable for use in enlargement of our production will be confined in prisoner of war camps which will be built immediately on the spot.Although the working of prisoner of war officers and warrant officers is forbidden by the Regulations of 1903, the policy of the control authorities is that under the situation of our country where not one person now eats without working they want them to set to work. It is desired that you give proper orders on this.The present situation of affairs in this country does not permit anyone to lie idle doing nothing but eating freely. With that in view, in dealing with prisoners of war, I hope you will see that they may be usefully employed. In Japan, we have our own ideology concerning prisoners of war, which should naturally make their treatment more or less different from that in Europe and America. In dealing with them, you should, of course, observe the various Regulations concerned, aim at an adequate application of them . . . At the same time, you must not allow them to lie idle doing nothing but eating freely for even a single day. Their labor and technical skill should be fully utilized for the replenishment of production, and contribution rendered toward the prosecution of the Greater East Asiatic War for which no effort ought to be spared."   Thus in the end as a grunt in the IJA you were led to believe: if I am captured I will be tortured, killed maybe turned into a letter opener, or someone will place my skull on their mantle. If I surrender and survive and make it back home, I will be severely punished and worst of all me and my family will be shamed. I could not expect any humanity from the enemy, because my nation did not sign or ratify treaties like the Geneva convention. More so, because my armies conduct was so unbelievably barbaric, I could only expect the very same from my enemy. It was a vicious cycle. You perform atrocities, expecting the enemy to do the same, and thus it just keeps perpetuating itself. Ultra-Nationalism and Racism   Now we spoke a little bit about the concept of the Yamato race, the Japanese were indoctrinated to believe they were a superior race and that their emperor was something akin to a living god. Until this war, the Japanese empire was on a hell of a winning streak going all the way back to the Meiji Era. For the first half of the Pacific war, the Japanese won nearly every battle. This led to something historians called “victory disease” that made them become somewhat arrogant and cocky, but it also made them feel “superhuman”. The allies' news reporting at the beginning of the war began to frantically refer to the Japanese as “supermen”or  “super jungle fighters”. Particularly because of the Malay campaign, the Japanese soldier just seemed to be tougher, could survive harsher jungle climates, even doing so with less food or war materials. The Japanese read the allied news reports and came to the conclusion that had been driven down their throats by their government, indeed the Japanese spirit was winning the war. The Japanese public ate this up in their propaganda and it perpetuated their ultra-nationalistic beliefs. The Japanese truly came to believe they were destined to rule the asia-pacific. Look at the results in China for example. Within a short amount of time they conquered much of China, though the public really had no idea how bad the China was bottled down by 1940. Then came the greater east asia co-prosperity sphere propaganda, which is an excellent example of their megalomania.    Yet alongside their ultra-nationalism, seen more strongly perpetuated against other Asian groups, the Japanese also indoctrinated their public with racism against them. The Yellow Peril of the 19th century and anti-japanese or anti-asian racism fueled the Japanese soldiers. The Japanese as a people had faced brutal racist hardships historically at the hands of the west, particularly from their point of view from America. There was the slights against them during the first sino-japanese war, the infamous triple intervention of france, germany and Russia stealing away their prize that was the liaodong peninsula. Then during the Boxer rebellion they faced racism, not being allowed to lead mutli national army formations, despite them being the lionshare of said military force. The Russo-Japanese war saw from their point of view, America stealing their war prizes. Last but not least, after WW1 they were told to their faces that they were a world power, but not racially equal. The Japanese faced anti-Japanese and anti-asian immigration laws when it came to America in the form of the gentleman's agreement and Australia's “great white Australia policy”. During the war, the American propaganda machine began pumping out racist caricatures of Japanese as rats, goggle eyed  bucktooth people, literal yellow monkey's.   For the IJA the pacific war in many was a holy war directed at the arrogant whites who had abused them for so long. This will probably sound controversial, but indeed, the pacific war was very much a race war. If you are not convinced of that, I recommend reading “War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War” by John Dower. The human trophy taking, anti-japanese bucktooth, rat people cartoon propaganda, history of racial abuse like the japanese concentration camps, the gentleman's agreement, the stealing of victories during the first sino-japanese war, russo-japanese war and ww1 all plagued the mind of a Japanese soldier. To them in many ways, the “whites had it coming”. Which is rather ironic given how the Japanese would treat the other asian racial groups they came into contact with. But such is the contradictory nature of the Imperial Japanese military.    The Japanese also held racist beliefs about the westerners. The Japanese soldiers were taught the allies were akin to demons or beasts. They were described often as “the hairy ones” or “anglo-American demons”. Taught these men would rape women and girls, stample upon the civilians they captured with the treads of their tanks. The marines were especially dreaded.  According to a story circulated widely among the Japanese on Saipan, all Marine Corps recruits were compelled to murder their own parents before being inducted into service. It was said that Japanese soldiers taken prisoner would suffer hideous tortures—their ears, noses, and limbs would be cut off; they would be blinded and castrated; they could also be cooked and fed to dogs. As silly as this may sound, do remember the Americans were taking human trophies so the Japanese propaganda machine had its evidence. Tons of photos of skulls atop american tanks for example were displayed to the Japanese public. Another famous one was the cartoon appearing in an American servicemen's magazine, which was later reproduced and translated in the Japanese press. It suggested the existence of “Japanese hunting licenses, promising open season on the enemy, complete with free ammunition and equipment—with pay!    In terms of how the Japanese exacted their own racism towards their fellow asians. During the War the Japanese dragged into forced labor, Koreans, Chinese and southeast asians. 670,000 Koreans were brought to Japan to work mines and heavy industry, around 60,000 of them died to harsh conditions. Between April 1943 to May 1945, 41,862 Chinese were sent to Japan to work, 2800 died before even reaching the home islands. 6872 died in the work sites again from brutal conditions. When it comes to southeast asian numbers are hard to pinpoint but its safe to say at least 300,000 Javanese, Malay, Burmese, Tamil and other groups were mobilized to construct the Burma-Siam railroad between October 1942 to november 1943 and 60,000 perished. This all went for the men, for the women, all those racial groups would face the horrors of becoming comfort women, historians estimate there could have been 50-200,000 pressed into it. But for the Japanese, believing their were superior to these other asiatic groups, groups whom they would publicly say were like children, they as the father figure would guide, well they simply abused them.   So in a contradictive fashion, the Japanese believed they were superior and could do horrible things to their Asian neighbors while simultaneously decrying the racism cast towards them by western powers as justification for their brutal actions against them. These types of feelings and perspectives molded the mind of the average Japanese soldier, dehumanizing others has always been a standard military practice afterall.    Surrender & the Bastardization of the Bushido code   I think this is one the vast majority of WW2 history buffs know, the Japanese perspective on surrender and the bushido code. In the book “military trials of war criminals in the Netherlands east indies 1946-1949” Fred Borch had this to say about the variable of bushido for the brutality   As Japan continued its modernization in the early 20th century, her armed forces became convinced that success in battle would be assured if Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen had the "spirit" of Bushido. ... The result was that the Bushido code of behavior "was inculcated into the Japanese soldier as part of his basic training." Each soldier was indoctrinated to accept that it was the greatest honor to die for the Emperor and it was cowardly to surrender to the enemy. ... Bushido therefore explains why the Japanese soldiers who were stationed in the NEI so mistreated POWs in their custody. Those who had surrendered to the Japanese—regardless of how courageously or honorably they had fought—merited nothing but contempt; they had forfeited all honor and literally deserved nothing. Consequently, when the Japanese murdered POWs by shooting, beheading, and drowning, these acts were excused since they involved the killing of men who had forfeited all rights to be treated with dignity or respect. While civilian internees were certainly in a different category from POWs, it is reasonable to think that there was a "spill-over" effect from the tenets of Bushido.   It is very true, the Japanese soldiers and sailors were taught Japan was a sacred nation. Traditional samurai values of bushido were merged with modern training and weaponry. The government propagandized the figure of the Emperor as a living god who embodied the Japanese state, the Kokutai. Emperor Hirohito and his family were the spiritual essence of Japan. To even show your back to the enemy let alone surrender was deemed cowardly and brought dishonor upon your family. As written by Inouye Jukichi in 1910, something read by many Japanese “The Japanese warriors looked upon it as shame to themselves not to die when their Lord was hard pressed . . . their own shame was the shame upon their parents, their family, their house and their whole clan, and with this idea deeply impressed upon their minds, the Samurai, no matter of what rank, held their lives light as feathers when compared with the weight they attached to the maintenance of a spotless name”.    Young men of Japan were taught that "The greatest honor is to die for the Emperor" Additionally precept the Japanese were taught that it is an ignominy to surrender to the enemy. The combined effect of these two precepts was to inculcate in the Japanese soldier a spirit of contempt for Allied soldiers who surrendered, which, in defiance of the rules of war, was demonstrated in their ill-treatment of prisoners. They made no distinction between the soldier who fought honorably and courageously up to an inevitable surrender, and the soldier who surrendered without a fight. All enemy soldiers who surrendered under any circumstance were to be regarded as being disgraced and entitled to live only by the tolerance of their captors.   Surrender was unforgivable under their code, drilled into them through the Imperial Japanese education system and military. When the Japanese would come across vast swathes of the enemy surrendering, particularly if the enemy used up all their ammunition killing their comrades and then surrendered, well it added fuel to their brutality. One only needs to look at the deaths due to Banzai charges, take for example the incredibly massive one at the battle of Saipan seeing around 4000 dead Japanese. IJA officers brought ancestral katana's to the war, the Japanese cut off the heads of the enemies as it was seen to be honorable. When faced with death, many chose to commit seppuku, the bushido propaganda was intense.    A brutal practice emerged in the Pacific island hopping campaign, whereupon wounded Japanese would pretend to be dead or surrender only to explode grenades upon allied forces coming closer. This began to be noticed by US marines during the battle of Guadalcanal and Australians in New Guinea. This began a vicious cycle . There were of course Japanese who would surrender. Hell the Koreans forced into service often did try to surrender, but they would all be hampered by something. Because of the actions of those Japanese feinted death and taking down allied soldiers with them, the allied soldiers gradually began a practice of not bothering to accept surrender. It became a self fulfilling prophecy. Many Japanese made the allies believe all they could expect was a grenade death, thus the allies became more brutal to them. This simply led the Japanese to conclude their government was accurate about how the allies would treat them, so more and more did not surrender. An absolutely horrible cycle that went on to the very end of the war, though the allies did figure out means to get Japanese to surrender more in the last year.    The Brutality of the Japanese military   I think this is probably one of the most important factors, and its also one the “normies” would not know as much about. The Imperial Japanese military, more so the Army, had what I can only describe as a built in system of abuse. As described to me by the same university professor I keep bringing up in podcasts, picture a literal pecking order. Going from the highest ranked general to the very bottom grunt. Imagine each one who is higher than the other, routinely physically abuses them. For example, it was very typical for a colonel to slap a major across the face, the major would then strike one of his captains, and the abuse would continue through the ranks to the grunts who would have no one to abuse, thus they turned to POW's or civilian populations. This was not just an accepted part of the Japanese Imperial Army it was indoctrinated.    From day one of basic training, IJA officers taught their men, races like the Chinese were their blood enemies and racially inferior. These were people the Japanese would rule over one day. The trainers would toss the boys into rigorous training activities involving physical violence towards another alongside the notion any orders given by a higher ranking officer was infallible and to be treated as if the divine emperor himself, the living god was giving it.    The Japanese army even taught methods of torture that would be employed in all areas they occupied. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging. The Kempetai, were the ones doing the lionshare of these tortures. Other Army and Navy units, however, used the same methods as the Kempetai. Camp guards performed similar methods, local police forces organized by the Kempetai in the occupied territories also applied the same methods of torture. The Kempetai were administered by the War Ministry, trained at specialized schools who were maintained and operated by the War Ministry in Japan. Thus the conduct of Kempetai and the camp guards directly reflected the policy of the War Ministry.    The Japanese army leadership made sure recruits were physically and mentally abused, they were given strenuously duty tasks and pushed to their absolute limit. During the war given where they were deployed, take guadalcanal for example, the Japanese soldiers would be facing starvation as well. Being half starved, beaten and suffering the effects of war would drive anyone to perform horrifying acts. The life of a Japanese solider was simply at the whims of an extremely toxic management culture. The lowest ranking echelons received the lionshare of abuse and they took out their frustration with whomever they could find deemed lower than them, ie: POW's, civilians, etc.   All of these variables combined contributed to the creation of a military willing to perform just about any atrocity they thought necessary to win the war. It was a war they could not hope to win, but many of them went to their deaths trying to defeat the hands of fate. There are countless other reasons of course for the atrocities committed in cold or hot blood. Countless books have been written on this subject, please do check out the few I mentioned. With that again, a big thanks to you patreons, you guys are awesome. Please let me know what you think in the comments, and what you want to hear more about in the future. This has been the pacific war channel over and out.

Send us a message or question! In Episode 56 ( the penultimate episode of series 3), we delve into a chilling chapter of World War II history: the murders of Allied airmen in Germany. As the war raged on, downed airmen often found themselves at the mercy of their captors - military, civilian authorities and sometimes ordinary citizens.This episode uncovers the fate of one Allied airman, missing in action in January 1945. We are joined by German historian Thomas Rost, and together we explore the complex web of wartime  and post-war justice, and the search for the truth.  A thought -provoking discussion about crime, justice, due process, human responses and revenge.Support the showPlease subscribe to Never Mind The Dambusters wherever you get your podcasts. You can support the show, and help us produce great content, by becoming a paid subscriber from just $3 a month here https://www.buzzsprout.com/2327200/support . Supporters get early access to episodes and invitations to livestreams. Thank you for listening! You can reach out to us on social media at @RAF_BomberPod (X) or @NeverMindTheDambusters (Instagram)You can find out about James' research, articles, lectures and podcasts here .You can read more about Jane's work on her website at https://www.justcuriousjane.com/, and listen to podcasts/media stuff here

Operation Little Vittles" - an initiative during the Berlin Airlift to drop Allied sweets and chocolates from planes as a gift to the German children below - began on September 22, 1948. Lt. Gail Halvorsen, a 27-year-old U.S. pilot, had been moved to the gesture by a group of children he encountered one day near Tempelhof airport. After seeing their eagerness to share even the most meagre of resources, he decided to drop sweets for them during his next flight, signalling his arrival by waggling his plane's wings. The drop soon became a weekly event, remembered by a generation of Berliners, some of whom had never tasted chocolate before. In this week's Sunday's episode, exclusively for our

The landscape of American defense manufacturing has transformed dramatically since World War II—and not for the better. What happens when a nation with the world's most advanced military technology can't produce enough conventional artillery shells to supply Ukraine while maintaining its own reserves?This episode brings together three exceptional voices to examine America's critical vulnerability: our diminished industrial capacity. Arthur Herman, author of "Freedom's Forge," provides historical context on how America became the "arsenal of democracy" during WWII, when two-thirds of all Allied war materials came from American factories. Rand Simberg offers insights on how this manufacturing crisis affects the space industry, where China is rapidly closing the gap with American capabilities. Cameron Schiller, CEO of Rangeview, shares frontline experience trying to rebuild American manufacturing through advanced robotics.Their conversation reveals how decades of globalization created a nation with "a surplus of designers and a deficit in people who actually make real stuff." While America once had abundant workers with mechanical aptitude, today's workforce requires different approaches—highlighting SpaceX's role as an industrial "graduate school" teaching engineers how to build physical systems. The panel examines how vulnerable supply chains, dependent on foreign sources for critical components, create national security risks.The solution? A return to the "founder mentality" that prioritizes innovation over efficiency, rebuilding domestic supply chains, leveraging new technologies like AI and robotics, and cultivating a workforce skilled in modern manufacturing techniques. This isn't just about economics—it's about America's ability to project power and protect itself in an increasingly competitive world.Listen now to understand why, as Schiller puts it, "a nation that can't produce is a nation that can't project power."Support Our WorkThe Center for Demographics and Policy focuses on research and analysis of global, national, and regional demographic trends and explores policies that might produce favorable demographic results over time. It involves Chapman students in demographic research under the supervision of the Center's senior staff.Students work with the Center's director and engage in research that will serve them well as they look to develop their careers in business, the social sciences, and the arts. Students also have access to our advisory board, which includes distinguished Chapman faculty and major demographic scholars from across the country and the world.For additional information, please contact Mahnaz Asghari, Associate Director for the Center for Demographics and Policy, at (714) 744-7635 or asghari@chapman.edu.Follow us on LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-feudal-future-podcast/Tweet thoughts: @joelkotkin, @mtoplansky, #FeudalFuture #BeyondFeudalismLearn more about Joel's book 'The Coming of Neo-Feudalism': https://amzn.to/3a1VV87Sign Up For News & Alerts: http://joelkotkin.com/#subscribeThis show is presented by the Chapman Center for Demographics and Policy, which focuses on research and analysis of global, national and regional demographic trends and explores policies that might produce favorable demographic results over time.

In this eye-opening episode of History Rage, host Paul Bavill is joined by Professor Hanna Diamond, a leading expert in French history and author of "Josephine Baker's Secret War." Together, they uncover the remarkable and often overlooked wartime contributions of the iconic entertainer and spy, Josephine Baker, who defied expectations and played a crucial role in the Second World War. Episode Highlights:- The Real Josephine Baker: Hanna passionately debunks the myth of Baker as merely a performer in a banana skirt, revealing her as a brave spy and activist who used her fame to fight for justice.- Unseen Wartime Activities: Discover the extent of Baker's involvement in espionage, including her vital contributions to the Allied efforts in North Africa and her work with General de Gaulle.- Celebrity and Intelligence: Explore how Baker's celebrity status allowed her to navigate dangerous territories, gathering intelligence while performing for troops and dignitaries alike.- Intersection of Race and War: The discussion highlights Baker's experiences as a woman of colour in a predominantly white intelligence world, and how her identity both aided and complicated her efforts.- Post-War Activism: Hanna shares insights into Baker's transformation into a civil rights activist, advocating for equality and using her platform to address segregation in America.Join us for a compelling journey through history that not only celebrates Josephine Baker's extraordinary life but also challenges us to reconsider the narratives we hold about historical figures. For those eager to learn more, Hanna's book "Josephine Baker's Secret War" is a must-read. Connect with Professor Hanna Diamond:- Follow Hanna on Twitter: @hannaediamond- Follow Hanna on Instagram: @hdiamond2010- Find her on Bluesky: hdiamond.bsky.socialBuy the Book: Josephine Baker's Secret War: https://uk.bookshop.org/a/10120/9780300279986Support History Rage on Patreon for early episode access, exclusive content, and the chance to engage with future guests at patreon.com/historyrage. Stay connected with History Rage on social media:- Twitter: @HistoryRage- Instagram: @historyrage- Facebook: HistoryRageStay curious, stay passionate, and most importantly, stay angry! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When 35,000 Allied paratroopers dropped into Holland in September 1944, four Australians from opposite corners of the continent found themselves at the heart of one of World War Two's most catastrophic operations.In this remarkable episode, Mat McLachlan reveals the forgotten Australian stories of Operation Market Garden. Through authentic accounts and personal testimonies, we follow Keith Prowd from Gympie as his burning bomber falls from the sky at 550 feet; Alan Wood from Sydney, typing dispatches while German mortars explode around him; John Hackett from Perth, leading bayonet charges before being hidden by three Dutch sisters who risk everything to save him; and Tom Hall from Melbourne, whose Typhoon rockets try desperately to keep Hell's Highway open.From Prowd's Death March through frozen Poland to Hackett's months in hiding during the Hunger Winter, these four men experienced Market Garden from every angle - in the air, on the ground, and through the typewriter keys that would preserve its history. Their stories capture not just the military disaster, but the extraordinary humanity that emerged from catastrophe.Why did the de Nooij sisters risk execution to hide a stranger? How did Alan Wood keep typing as the battle raged? What drove Keith Prowd's mates to carry him through freezing temperatures when dropping him would save their own lives? Mat explores these questions through the actual words of the men who were there.A powerful testament to the Australians who fought at Arnhem - and the Dutch civilians who saved them."If in years to come any man says to you, 'I fought with the Arnhem airborne force,' take your hat off to him and buy him a drink." - Alan Wood, September 1944Episode Length: 24 minutesFeatures: First-hand accounts from Keith Prowd's 2003 interview, excerpts from personal memoirs and on-location insights from Arnhem and OosterbeekPresenter: Mat McLachlanProducer: Jess StebnickiReady to walk in the footsteps of heroes? Join Mat McLachlan on an exclusive river cruise that visits the battlefields of Waterloo, WWI and WW2 in 2027: https://battlefields.com.au/history-cruises/Find out everything Mat is doing with books, tours and media at https://linktr.ee/matmclachlanFor more great history content, visit www.LivingHistoryTV.com, or subscribe to our YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/LivingHistoryTV Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“I focus on contributing and winning—and it's not winning for me—it's winning for everyone on my team.” - Pete HilgerThank you for tuning in to The CUInsight Network, with your host, Robbie Young, Vice President of Strategic Growth at CUInsight. In The CUInsight Network, we take a deeper dive with the thought leaders who support the credit union community. We discuss issues and challenges facing credit unions and identify best practices to learn and grow together.My guest on today's show is Pete Hilger, CEO and president of Allied Solutions, a leading provider of products and services to the credit union industry. Pete shares his fascinating journey, from a young man with entrepreneurial ambitions to his current role leading a company that has a $3 billion annual impact on the credit union industry. Pete describes how he initially wanted to be an entrepreneur, but after a stint in the military, he ended up co-founding a document destruction business with his brother, an experience which taught him the realities of running a company which then led to an opportunity to join his family's business.In our conversation, Pete reveals how he worked his way up through the organization, eventually becoming President and then CEO when the company was sold to Securian in 2004. He discusses the importance of understanding a business from the ground up and how that has made him a stronger and more effective leader. He also discusses the various services Allied Solutions provides to credit unions, from generating non-interest fee income to asset recovery management. He highlights the company's focus on trust in its partnerships, openly sharing financial details to build long-term relationships.As we wrap up, Pete touches upon his deep admiration for his mom and shares insights into leadership, work-life balance, and the importance of gratitude and positivity. Enjoy my conversation with Pete Hilger!Find the full show notes on cuinsight.com.Connect with Pete:Pete Hilger, C.E.O. and president of Allied Solutionsalliedsolutions.net Pete: LinkedInAllied Solutions: LinkedIn | FacebookBook mentioned: Tools of Titans by Timothy Ferriss

In August 1942, over 7,000 Allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, in a largely forgotten landing, with only a small fraction surviving unscathed. The raid failed due to poor planning and lack of underwater reconnaissance, which left the Allies unaware of strong German coastal defenses and underwater obstacles. Inadequate submersible technology prevented effective pre-landing surveys, leading to heavy casualties and the inability to secure a foothold. Scientists had a rudimentary grasp of mixing air for prolonged underwater survival, with limited rebreather technology, poor understanding of oxygen toxicity, and inadequate gas supply systems. Two summers before D-Day, the Allies realized they desperately needed underwater intelligence to succeed in another beach invasion and win the war. Led by controversial biologists J.B.S. Haldane and Dr. Helen Spurway, an ingenious team of ragtag scientists worked in makeshift labs throughout the London Blitz. Amid a rain of bombs, they pioneered groundbreaking advances in underwater reconnaissance through painful and potentially fatal self-experiments. Their discoveries enabled the safe use of miniature submarines and breathing apparatuses, ultimately allowing the Allies to take the beaches of Normandy. Blast-injury specialist Dr. Rachel Lance, author of Chamber Divers: The Untold Story of the D-Day Scientists Who Changed Special Operations Forever, joined us a few years ago to discuss the CSS Hunley, a Confederate submersible used during the American Civil War, the first submarine to sink an enemy ship in combat. We explore these experiments while bringing to life the men and women whose brilliance and self-sacrifice shaped the war’s outcome, including the danger they faced in their quest to enable Allied troops to breathe underwater.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Imagine you're an Allied soldier in the Pacific during WWII. You're captured by the Japanese, survive brutal conditions as a POW, and the dangerous voyage in a “hell ship” to Japan, where you endure more years of captivity. Finally, in August 1945, the war ends. You're freed, ready to go home. But there will be no happy ending. Some transport planes and ships never make their destination, including a B-24 carrying 20 former POWs, which crashes into a 3,496-meter peak in Taiwan's southern Central Mountain Range during a typhoon. Compounding the sadness, 26 members of a team made up of Japanese, Taiwanese, and Indigenous people die in a rescue/retrieval attempt.This once little-known story was featured in Season Two of Formosa Files. In 2025, however – the 80th anniversary – many news organizations featured stories marking the event. Taiwan President Lai offered a moving tribute in a Facebook post, which in part read, “Eighty years ago, a group of people, without regard to nationality, blood, or side in the war, risked their lives to save others.”Help others find us by rating/reviewing the show.

The Allied Intervention into the Russian Civil War remains one of the most ambitious yet least talked about military ventures of the 20th century. Coinciding with the end of the first World War, some 180,000 troops from several countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Italy, Greece, Poland, and Romania, among others, were sent to fight alongside Russian “Whites” against the Red Army. Despite one victory for the Allied troops – independence for the Latvians and the Estonians – the two-year long attempt at reversing the 1917 Russian Revolution ended in humiliating defeat. To explore this crucial event of the early 20th century is today’s guest, Anna Reid, author of “A Nasty Little War: The Western Intervention into the Russian Civil War.” What was originally aimed to prevent Germany from exploiting the power vacuum in Eastern Europe left by the Russian Revolution ultimately morphed into the Allies’ gamble to destroy Communist ideology. It was a mixture of good intentions and self-delusion, flag-waving and empty promises, cover-ups, exaggerations, and downright lies from politicians.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nick Lloyd's "The Western Front: The History of the Great War, Volume 1" provides a comprehensive narrative of the Great War in Belgium and France from 1914 to 1918. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, this work aims to offer a nuanced understanding of this pivotal theater, moving beyond common myths and focusing on the operational perspective of senior commanders across all involved powers. 1919 LONDON CHURCHILL Z PERSHING Here's a summary of the key aspects, figures, and events covered: Lloyd's Ambition and Approach Comprehensive Narrative: Lloyd, a reader in military and imperial history at King's College London, undertook this "big project" to create a grand narrative of the entire Western Front, encompassing the French sector, American sector, and the German story, alongside the often-emphasized British perspective. Focus on Senior Commanders: A primary goal was to view the war from the lens of senior commanders, challenging the traditional portrayal of them as "donkeys or butchers and bunglers." Lloyd aims to help readers appreciate the immense pressures and difficulties these individuals faced, offering a "cooler perspective" on their successes and errors. Trilogy: This book is the first of three volumes; future volumes will cover the Eastern Front and global warfare in the Middle East and Africa. Lloyd emphasizes that while other fronts are mentioned, the Western Front remained the decisive theater where Germany, France, Britain, and America determined the war's outcome. British Involvement and Leadership Initial Reluctance: Britain initially entered the conflict with a limited commitment, deploying only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division as the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), a "small army" compared to the French (80 divisions) and Germans (over 100 divisions). This reflected a desire for "limited liability" to the Western Front, contrasting sharply with French demands for more manpower. Early Leaders: H.H. Asquith (Prime Minister) was reportedly distracted by personal affairs at the war's outset. Lord Kitchener (Minister of War) was a professional soldier and hero of the empire, wary of deep British involvement but committed to supporting the French. Field Marshal Sir John French (Commander-in-Chief, BEF) was a Boer War hero who found himself "out of his depth" by 1914, struggling with the war's scale and intensity. During the August 1914 retreat, French considered pulling the BEF out of the line due to immense losses and pressure, a move Kitchener personally intervened to prevent, ordering French to stay and fight. Frencheventually "breaks down" due to losses and pressure and is sent home at the end of 1915. Later Leadership and Strategy: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from late 1916) is credited as "the prime minister that wins the war" in Britain. He showed great energy in revitalizing British industry and re-equipping the army, despite having poor relations with his top generals. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig replaced French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig and Lloyd George had fundamentally different strategic outlooks, leading to "constant arguments and backstabbing". At the Battle of the Somme (1916), Haig favored a breakthrough strategy, aiming for maneuver and cavalry deployment to defeat the German army. However, his army commander, Rawlinson, advocated a "bite and hold" strategy, focusing on concentrated artillery to smash enemy lines, take ground, then consolidate before repeating, acknowledging that a grand breakthrough was not yet feasible for the largely "green" British army. German Strategy and Commanders Initial Invasion: The German invasion of France and Belgium in 1914 was based on the ambitious Schlieffen Plan, which aimed for a massive attack through Belgium to outflank French defenses and destroy their army in a grand battle of envelopment. Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (Chief of the General Staff) was under immense pressure and altered the Schlieffen Plan, weakening its critical right wing, and ultimately suffered a nervous breakdown by mid-September 1914. Moltke's controversial decision to order General Kluck's First Army to turn southeast instead of enveloping Paris contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, despite Kluck initially ignoring the order. Kaiser Wilhelm: His character was inconsistent, often described as a "weather vane," and he gradually became a less central figure as Hindenburg and Ludendorff gained influence from 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn (replaces Moltke in 1914) was the architect of the Verdun Offensive (1916). His vision was unique, aiming not for territorial gains but for attrition: to "kill Frenchmen" and exhaust them. Political Interference: Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg often opposed Falkenhayn's desire for unrestricted submarine warfare due to diplomatic concerns (e.g., fear of American entry), illustrating the German military's tendency to prioritize tactical effectiveness over political and strategic issues, which was ultimately "fatal". French Efforts and Leadership Joseph Joffre (Commander of French Forces): Described as a "great hero" of the French army, Joffrepossessed remarkable calmness and an ability to absorb punishment and react quickly. His leadership was crucial in defeating the Schlieffen Plan and counterattacking at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, preventing a German victory. Raymond Poincaré (President of the French Republic): A nationalist deeply involved in military analysis, Poincaré was central to the political efforts to reassert civilian primacy over the army and secure British manpower commitments. General Castelnau (Joffre's chief of staff): A deeply religious man who personally lost three sons in the war, Castelnau exemplifies the human cost and personal horror experienced by some senior commanders, helping to humanize these figures in Lloyd's narrative. Robert Nivelle: An artillery officer who rose rapidly due to his successes at Verdun, Nivelle replaced Joffrein December 1916. He attempted a decisive breakthrough in his Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 with a "formula" for success, but it failed catastrophically due to his being "out of his depth" at the command-in-chief level, leading to French army issues including mutiny. Philippe Pétain: Replaced Nivelle, Pétain became a "savior of France." He was renowned for his deep understanding of battlefield realities and a strong connection with his troops. At Verdun, he innovated by rotating divisions out of the line for rest and recuperation, contrasting with the German practice of fighting units "until basically there's not a lot left". Ferdinand Foch (Supreme Allied Commander from April 1918): Foch is widely regarded as one of the most important generals of the war. He was an energetic and charismatic leader who successfully coordinated the American, British, and French forces in 1918, leading them to victory in the multinational war. His reputation continues to strengthen over time. American Involvement Entry into War: The United States declared war on Germany and Austria in April 1917. General John J. Pershing arrived in Paris in June 1917 to lead the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), despite having only 113,000 men in the army at the time. Rejection of Amalgamation: Pershing steadfastly resisted French and British desires to "amalgamate" American manpower into their existing divisions, insisting that American soldiers fight as an independent army. He argued that the Allies had a poor record of "not killing your own troops". German Miscalculation: Germany severely underestimated how quickly the United States could build and deploy an army, believing it would take years. This misjudgment ultimately contributed to their defeat once the Americans demonstrated their seriousness in 1918. American involvement became "crucial" by 1917, changing the atmosphere. Evolution of Warfare on the Western Front From Movement to Stalemate: The initial German invasion failed to achieve a decisive victory, leading to the establishment of trench warfare after the Battle of the Marne. Realization of No Breakthrough: After the Second Battle of Champagne (1915), Allied and Germancommanders like Joffre and Falkenhayn began to recognize that a "grand shattering breakthrough" was not achievable in the foreseeable future. Constant Adaptation: This realization led to a continuous arms race. As Allied artillery and tactics improved, German defenses evolved from single lines to complex "zones of pill boxes," making progress difficult and bloody. The war became an intense exercise in violence where commanders constantly adapted to a "cauldron of war". Key Battles and Their Significance Battle of the Marne (September 1914): Joffre's successful counterattack forced the Germans to retreat, effectively ending the Schlieffen Plan and leading to the beginning of trench warfare. Second Battle of Champagne (September-October 1915): A major French offensive that, despite immense effort and casualties, failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, solidifying the understanding that trench deadlock could not be easily broken. Verdun (1916): Falkenhayn's attrition battle, designed to "kill Frenchmen," concentrated immense firepower in a small area, creating a "moonscape effect." While not decisive in destroying the French, it was a moment where "things start to go wrong for Germany," from which she never truly recovers. Somme (1916): A British and French offensive intended to relieve pressure on Verdun, but also driven by Haig's ambition for a breakthrough. The debate between breakthrough and Rawlinson's "bite and hold" strategy highlighted the dilemmas of Western Front warfare. Nivelle Offensive (April 1917): A disastrous French attempt at a breakthrough, which highlighted Nivelle'soverreach and led to significant disillusionment and mutiny within the French army. End of the War and its Legacy German Defeat: Lloyd's book argues that the German army was "falling apart" and "defeated rapidly in 1918" despite the persistent "stab in the back" myth that claimed they were betrayed at home. Armistice Decision: The decision by the Allies not to invade Germany was primarily political, as the British and French were "totally exhausted," while the Americans were "much fresher" and more keen to continue. Lloyd considers the armistice "fair on all sides". Lloyd's work underscores that the Western Front was a complex, multinational struggle marked by evolving strategies, immense pressures on commanders, and profound human costs, which ultimately determined the course of the Great War and cast a long shadow over the 20th century.

Nick Lloyd's "The Western Front: The History of the Great War, Volume 1" provides a comprehensive narrative of the Great War in Belgium and France from 1914 to 1918. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, this work aims to offer a nuanced understanding of this pivotal theater, moving beyond common myths and focusing on the operational perspective of senior commanders across all involved powers. 1914 ROYAL FLYING CORPS Here's a summary of the key aspects, figures, and events covered: Lloyd's Ambition and Approach Comprehensive Narrative: Lloyd, a reader in military and imperial history at King's College London, undertook this "big project" to create a grand narrative of the entire Western Front, encompassing the French sector, American sector, and the German story, alongside the often-emphasized British perspective. Focus on Senior Commanders: A primary goal was to view the war from the lens of senior commanders, challenging the traditional portrayal of them as "donkeys or butchers and bunglers." Lloyd aims to help readers appreciate the immense pressures and difficulties these individuals faced, offering a "cooler perspective" on their successes and errors. Trilogy: This book is the first of three volumes; future volumes will cover the Eastern Front and global warfare in the Middle East and Africa. Lloyd emphasizes that while other fronts are mentioned, the Western Front remained the decisive theater where Germany, France, Britain, and America determined the war's outcome. British Involvement and Leadership Initial Reluctance: Britain initially entered the conflict with a limited commitment, deploying only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division as the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), a "small army" compared to the French (80 divisions) and Germans (over 100 divisions). This reflected a desire for "limited liability" to the Western Front, contrasting sharply with French demands for more manpower. Early Leaders: H.H. Asquith (Prime Minister) was reportedly distracted by personal affairs at the war's outset. Lord Kitchener (Minister of War) was a professional soldier and hero of the empire, wary of deep British involvement but committed to supporting the French. Field Marshal Sir John French (Commander-in-Chief, BEF) was a Boer War hero who found himself "out of his depth" by 1914, struggling with the war's scale and intensity. During the August 1914 retreat, French considered pulling the BEF out of the line due to immense losses and pressure, a move Kitchener personally intervened to prevent, ordering French to stay and fight. Frencheventually "breaks down" due to losses and pressure and is sent home at the end of 1915. Later Leadership and Strategy: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from late 1916) is credited as "the prime minister that wins the war" in Britain. He showed great energy in revitalizing British industry and re-equipping the army, despite having poor relations with his top generals. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig replaced French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig and Lloyd George had fundamentally different strategic outlooks, leading to "constant arguments and backstabbing". At the Battle of the Somme (1916), Haig favored a breakthrough strategy, aiming for maneuver and cavalry deployment to defeat the German army. However, his army commander, Rawlinson, advocated a "bite and hold" strategy, focusing on concentrated artillery to smash enemy lines, take ground, then consolidate before repeating, acknowledging that a grand breakthrough was not yet feasible for the largely "green" British army. German Strategy and Commanders Initial Invasion: The German invasion of France and Belgium in 1914 was based on the ambitious Schlieffen Plan, which aimed for a massive attack through Belgium to outflank French defenses and destroy their army in a grand battle of envelopment. Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (Chief of the General Staff) was under immense pressure and altered the Schlieffen Plan, weakening its critical right wing, and ultimately suffered a nervous breakdown by mid-September 1914. Moltke's controversial decision to order General Kluck's First Army to turn southeast instead of enveloping Paris contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, despite Kluck initially ignoring the order. Kaiser Wilhelm: His character was inconsistent, often described as a "weather vane," and he gradually became a less central figure as Hindenburg and Ludendorff gained influence from 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn (replaces Moltke in 1914) was the architect of the Verdun Offensive (1916). His vision was unique, aiming not for territorial gains but for attrition: to "kill Frenchmen" and exhaust them. Political Interference: Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg often opposed Falkenhayn's desire for unrestricted submarine warfare due to diplomatic concerns (e.g., fear of American entry), illustrating the German military's tendency to prioritize tactical effectiveness over political and strategic issues, which was ultimately "fatal". French Efforts and Leadership Joseph Joffre (Commander of French Forces): Described as a "great hero" of the French army, Joffrepossessed remarkable calmness and an ability to absorb punishment and react quickly. His leadership was crucial in defeating the Schlieffen Plan and counterattacking at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, preventing a German victory. Raymond Poincaré (President of the French Republic): A nationalist deeply involved in military analysis, Poincaré was central to the political efforts to reassert civilian primacy over the army and secure British manpower commitments. General Castelnau (Joffre's chief of staff): A deeply religious man who personally lost three sons in the war, Castelnau exemplifies the human cost and personal horror experienced by some senior commanders, helping to humanize these figures in Lloyd's narrative. Robert Nivelle: An artillery officer who rose rapidly due to his successes at Verdun, Nivelle replaced Joffrein December 1916. He attempted a decisive breakthrough in his Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 with a "formula" for success, but it failed catastrophically due to his being "out of his depth" at the command-in-chief level, leading to French army issues including mutiny. Philippe Pétain: Replaced Nivelle, Pétain became a "savior of France." He was renowned for his deep understanding of battlefield realities and a strong connection with his troops. At Verdun, he innovated by rotating divisions out of the line for rest and recuperation, contrasting with the German practice of fighting units "until basically there's not a lot left". Ferdinand Foch (Supreme Allied Commander from April 1918): Foch is widely regarded as one of the most important generals of the war. He was an energetic and charismatic leader who successfully coordinated the American, British, and French forces in 1918, leading them to victory in the multinational war. His reputation continues to strengthen over time. American Involvement Entry into War: The United States declared war on Germany and Austria in April 1917. General John J. Pershing arrived in Paris in June 1917 to lead the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), despite having only 113,000 men in the army at the time. Rejection of Amalgamation: Pershing steadfastly resisted French and British desires to "amalgamate" American manpower into their existing divisions, insisting that American soldiers fight as an independent army. He argued that the Allies had a poor record of "not killing your own troops". German Miscalculation: Germany severely underestimated how quickly the United States could build and deploy an army, believing it would take years. This misjudgment ultimately contributed to their defeat once the Americans demonstrated their seriousness in 1918. American involvement became "crucial" by 1917, changing the atmosphere. Evolution of Warfare on the Western Front From Movement to Stalemate: The initial German invasion failed to achieve a decisive victory, leading to the establishment of trench warfare after the Battle of the Marne. Realization of No Breakthrough: After the Second Battle of Champagne (1915), Allied and Germancommanders like Joffre and Falkenhayn began to recognize that a "grand shattering breakthrough" was not achievable in the foreseeable future. Constant Adaptation: This realization led to a continuous arms race. As Allied artillery and tactics improved, German defenses evolved from single lines to complex "zones of pill boxes," making progress difficult and bloody. The war became an intense exercise in violence where commanders constantly adapted to a "cauldron of war". Key Battles and Their Significance Battle of the Marne (September 1914): Joffre's successful counterattack forced the Germans to retreat, effectively ending the Schlieffen Plan and leading to the beginning of trench warfare. Second Battle of Champagne (September-October 1915): A major French offensive that, despite immense effort and casualties, failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, solidifying the understanding that trench deadlock could not be easily broken. Verdun (1916): Falkenhayn's attrition battle, designed to "kill Frenchmen," concentrated immense firepower in a small area, creating a "moonscape effect." While not decisive in destroying the French, it was a moment where "things start to go wrong for Germany," from which she never truly recovers. Somme (1916): A British and French offensive intended to relieve pressure on Verdun, but also driven by Haig's ambition for a breakthrough. The debate between breakthrough and Rawlinson's "bite and hold" strategy highlighted the dilemmas of Western Front warfare. Nivelle Offensive (April 1917): A disastrous French attempt at a breakthrough, which highlighted Nivelle'soverreach and led to significant disillusionment and mutiny within the French army. End of the War and its Legacy German Defeat: Lloyd's book argues that the German army was "falling apart" and "defeated rapidly in 1918" despite the persistent "stab in the back" myth that claimed they were betrayed at home. Armistice Decision: The decision by the Allies not to invade Germany was primarily political, as the British and French were "totally exhausted," while the Americans were "much fresher" and more keen to continue. Lloyd considers the armistice "fair on all sides". Lloyd's work underscores that the Western Front was a complex, multinational struggle marked by evolving strategies, immense pressures on commanders, and profound human costs, which ultimately determined the course of the Great War and cast a long shadow over the 20th century.

Nick Lloyd's "The Western Front: The History of the Great War, Volume 1" provides a comprehensive narrative of the Great War in Belgium and France from 1914 to 1918. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, this work aims to offer a nuanced understanding of this pivotal theater, moving beyond common myths and focusing on the operational perspective of senior commanders across all involved powers. 1914 BELGIUM Here's a summary of the key aspects, figures, and events covered: Lloyd's Ambition and Approach Comprehensive Narrative: Lloyd, a reader in military and imperial history at King's College London, undertook this "big project" to create a grand narrative of the entire Western Front, encompassing the French sector, American sector, and the German story, alongside the often-emphasized British perspective. Focus on Senior Commanders: A primary goal was to view the war from the lens of senior commanders, challenging the traditional portrayal of them as "donkeys or butchers and bunglers." Lloyd aims to help readers appreciate the immense pressures and difficulties these individuals faced, offering a "cooler perspective" on their successes and errors. Trilogy: This book is the first of three volumes; future volumes will cover the Eastern Front and global warfare in the Middle East and Africa. Lloyd emphasizes that while other fronts are mentioned, the Western Front remained the decisive theater where Germany, France, Britain, and America determined the war's outcome. British Involvement and Leadership Initial Reluctance: Britain initially entered the conflict with a limited commitment, deploying only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division as the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), a "small army" compared to the French (80 divisions) and Germans (over 100 divisions). This reflected a desire for "limited liability" to the Western Front, contrasting sharply with French demands for more manpower. Early Leaders: H.H. Asquith (Prime Minister) was reportedly distracted by personal affairs at the war's outset. Lord Kitchener (Minister of War) was a professional soldier and hero of the empire, wary of deep British involvement but committed to supporting the French. Field Marshal Sir John French (Commander-in-Chief, BEF) was a Boer War hero who found himself "out of his depth" by 1914, struggling with the war's scale and intensity. During the August 1914 retreat, French considered pulling the BEF out of the line due to immense losses and pressure, a move Kitchener personally intervened to prevent, ordering French to stay and fight. Frencheventually "breaks down" due to losses and pressure and is sent home at the end of 1915. Later Leadership and Strategy: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from late 1916) is credited as "the prime minister that wins the war" in Britain. He showed great energy in revitalizing British industry and re-equipping the army, despite having poor relations with his top generals. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig replaced French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig and Lloyd George had fundamentally different strategic outlooks, leading to "constant arguments and backstabbing". At the Battle of the Somme (1916), Haig favored a breakthrough strategy, aiming for maneuver and cavalry deployment to defeat the German army. However, his army commander, Rawlinson, advocated a "bite and hold" strategy, focusing on concentrated artillery to smash enemy lines, take ground, then consolidate before repeating, acknowledging that a grand breakthrough was not yet feasible for the largely "green" British army. German Strategy and Commanders Initial Invasion: The German invasion of France and Belgium in 1914 was based on the ambitious Schlieffen Plan, which aimed for a massive attack through Belgium to outflank French defenses and destroy their army in a grand battle of envelopment. Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (Chief of the General Staff) was under immense pressure and altered the Schlieffen Plan, weakening its critical right wing, and ultimately suffered a nervous breakdown by mid-September 1914. Moltke's controversial decision to order General Kluck's First Army to turn southeast instead of enveloping Paris contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, despite Kluck initially ignoring the order. Kaiser Wilhelm: His character was inconsistent, often described as a "weather vane," and he gradually became a less central figure as Hindenburg and Ludendorff gained influence from 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn (replaces Moltke in 1914) was the architect of the Verdun Offensive (1916). His vision was unique, aiming not for territorial gains but for attrition: to "kill Frenchmen" and exhaust them. Political Interference: Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg often opposed Falkenhayn's desire for unrestricted submarine warfare due to diplomatic concerns (e.g., fear of American entry), illustrating the German military's tendency to prioritize tactical effectiveness over political and strategic issues, which was ultimately "fatal". French Efforts and Leadership Joseph Joffre (Commander of French Forces): Described as a "great hero" of the French army, Joffrepossessed remarkable calmness and an ability to absorb punishment and react quickly. His leadership was crucial in defeating the Schlieffen Plan and counterattacking at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, preventing a German victory. Raymond Poincaré (President of the French Republic): A nationalist deeply involved in military analysis, Poincaré was central to the political efforts to reassert civilian primacy over the army and secure British manpower commitments. General Castelnau (Joffre's chief of staff): A deeply religious man who personally lost three sons in the war, Castelnau exemplifies the human cost and personal horror experienced by some senior commanders, helping to humanize these figures in Lloyd's narrative. Robert Nivelle: An artillery officer who rose rapidly due to his successes at Verdun, Nivelle replaced Joffrein December 1916. He attempted a decisive breakthrough in his Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 with a "formula" for success, but it failed catastrophically due to his being "out of his depth" at the command-in-chief level, leading to French army issues including mutiny. Philippe Pétain: Replaced Nivelle, Pétain became a "savior of France." He was renowned for his deep understanding of battlefield realities and a strong connection with his troops. At Verdun, he innovated by rotating divisions out of the line for rest and recuperation, contrasting with the German practice of fighting units "until basically there's not a lot left". Ferdinand Foch (Supreme Allied Commander from April 1918): Foch is widely regarded as one of the most important generals of the war. He was an energetic and charismatic leader who successfully coordinated the American, British, and French forces in 1918, leading them to victory in the multinational war. His reputation continues to strengthen over time. American Involvement Entry into War: The United States declared war on Germany and Austria in April 1917. General John J. Pershing arrived in Paris in June 1917 to lead the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), despite having only 113,000 men in the army at the time. Rejection of Amalgamation: Pershing steadfastly resisted French and British desires to "amalgamate" American manpower into their existing divisions, insisting that American soldiers fight as an independent army. He argued that the Allies had a poor record of "not killing your own troops". German Miscalculation: Germany severely underestimated how quickly the United States could build and deploy an army, believing it would take years. This misjudgment ultimately contributed to their defeat once the Americans demonstrated their seriousness in 1918. American involvement became "crucial" by 1917, changing the atmosphere. Evolution of Warfare on the Western Front From Movement to Stalemate: The initial German invasion failed to achieve a decisive victory, leading to the establishment of trench warfare after the Battle of the Marne. Realization of No Breakthrough: After the Second Battle of Champagne (1915), Allied and Germancommanders like Joffre and Falkenhayn began to recognize that a "grand shattering breakthrough" was not achievable in the foreseeable future. Constant Adaptation: This realization led to a continuous arms race. As Allied artillery and tactics improved, German defenses evolved from single lines to complex "zones of pill boxes," making progress difficult and bloody. The war became an intense exercise in violence where commanders constantly adapted to a "cauldron of war". Key Battles and Their Significance Battle of the Marne (September 1914): Joffre's successful counterattack forced the Germans to retreat, effectively ending the Schlieffen Plan and leading to the beginning of trench warfare. Second Battle of Champagne (September-October 1915): A major French offensive that, despite immense effort and casualties, failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, solidifying the understanding that trench deadlock could not be easily broken. Verdun (1916): Falkenhayn's attrition battle, designed to "kill Frenchmen," concentrated immense firepower in a small area, creating a "moonscape effect." While not decisive in destroying the French, it was a moment where "things start to go wrong for Germany," from which she never truly recovers. Somme (1916): A British and French offensive intended to relieve pressure on Verdun, but also driven by Haig's ambition for a breakthrough. The debate between breakthrough and Rawlinson's "bite and hold" strategy highlighted the dilemmas of Western Front warfare. Nivelle Offensive (April 1917): A disastrous French attempt at a breakthrough, which highlighted Nivelle'soverreach and led to significant disillusionment and mutiny within the French army. End of the War and its Legacy German Defeat: Lloyd's book argues that the German army was "falling apart" and "defeated rapidly in 1918" despite the persistent "stab in the back" myth that claimed they were betrayed at home. Armistice Decision: The decision by the Allies not to invade Germany was primarily political, as the British and French were "totally exhausted," while the Americans were "much fresher" and more keen to continue. Lloyd considers the armistice "fair on all sides". Lloyd's work underscores that the Western Front was a complex, multinational struggle marked by evolving strategies, immense pressures on commanders, and profound human costs, which ultimately determined the course of the Great War and cast a long shadow over the 20th century.

Nick Lloyd's "The Western Front: The History of the Great War, Volume 1" provides a comprehensive narrative of the Great War in Belgium and France from 1914 to 1918. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, this work aims to offer a nuanced understanding of this pivotal theater, moving beyond common myths and focusing on the operational perspective of senior commanders across all involved powers. 1914 HINDENBERG Here's a summary of the key aspects, figures, and events covered: Lloyd's Ambition and Approach Comprehensive Narrative: Lloyd, a reader in military and imperial history at King's College London, undertook this "big project" to create a grand narrative of the entire Western Front, encompassing the French sector, American sector, and the German story, alongside the often-emphasized British perspective. Focus on Senior Commanders: A primary goal was to view the war from the lens of senior commanders, challenging the traditional portrayal of them as "donkeys or butchers and bunglers." Lloyd aims to help readers appreciate the immense pressures and difficulties these individuals faced, offering a "cooler perspective" on their successes and errors. Trilogy: This book is the first of three volumes; future volumes will cover the Eastern Front and global warfare in the Middle East and Africa. Lloyd emphasizes that while other fronts are mentioned, the Western Front remained the decisive theater where Germany, France, Britain, and America determined the war's outcome. British Involvement and Leadership Initial Reluctance: Britain initially entered the conflict with a limited commitment, deploying only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division as the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), a "small army" compared to the French (80 divisions) and Germans (over 100 divisions). This reflected a desire for "limited liability" to the Western Front, contrasting sharply with French demands for more manpower. Early Leaders: H.H. Asquith (Prime Minister) was reportedly distracted by personal affairs at the war's outset. Lord Kitchener (Minister of War) was a professional soldier and hero of the empire, wary of deep British involvement but committed to supporting the French. Field Marshal Sir John French (Commander-in-Chief, BEF) was a Boer War hero who found himself "out of his depth" by 1914, struggling with the war's scale and intensity. During the August 1914 retreat, French considered pulling the BEF out of the line due to immense losses and pressure, a move Kitchener personally intervened to prevent, ordering French to stay and fight. Frencheventually "breaks down" due to losses and pressure and is sent home at the end of 1915. Later Leadership and Strategy: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from late 1916) is credited as "the prime minister that wins the war" in Britain. He showed great energy in revitalizing British industry and re-equipping the army, despite having poor relations with his top generals. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig replaced French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig and Lloyd George had fundamentally different strategic outlooks, leading to "constant arguments and backstabbing". At the Battle of the Somme (1916), Haig favored a breakthrough strategy, aiming for maneuver and cavalry deployment to defeat the German army. However, his army commander, Rawlinson, advocated a "bite and hold" strategy, focusing on concentrated artillery to smash enemy lines, take ground, then consolidate before repeating, acknowledging that a grand breakthrough was not yet feasible for the largely "green" British army. German Strategy and Commanders Initial Invasion: The German invasion of France and Belgium in 1914 was based on the ambitious Schlieffen Plan, which aimed for a massive attack through Belgium to outflank French defenses and destroy their army in a grand battle of envelopment. Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (Chief of the General Staff) was under immense pressure and altered the Schlieffen Plan, weakening its critical right wing, and ultimately suffered a nervous breakdown by mid-September 1914. Moltke's controversial decision to order General Kluck's First Army to turn southeast instead of enveloping Paris contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, despite Kluck initially ignoring the order. Kaiser Wilhelm: His character was inconsistent, often described as a "weather vane," and he gradually became a less central figure as Hindenburg and Ludendorff gained influence from 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn (replaces Moltke in 1914) was the architect of the Verdun Offensive (1916). His vision was unique, aiming not for territorial gains but for attrition: to "kill Frenchmen" and exhaust them. Political Interference: Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg often opposed Falkenhayn's desire for unrestricted submarine warfare due to diplomatic concerns (e.g., fear of American entry), illustrating the German military's tendency to prioritize tactical effectiveness over political and strategic issues, which was ultimately "fatal". French Efforts and Leadership Joseph Joffre (Commander of French Forces): Described as a "great hero" of the French army, Joffrepossessed remarkable calmness and an ability to absorb punishment and react quickly. His leadership was crucial in defeating the Schlieffen Plan and counterattacking at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, preventing a German victory. Raymond Poincaré (President of the French Republic): A nationalist deeply involved in military analysis, Poincaré was central to the political efforts to reassert civilian primacy over the army and secure British manpower commitments. General Castelnau (Joffre's chief of staff): A deeply religious man who personally lost three sons in the war, Castelnau exemplifies the human cost and personal horror experienced by some senior commanders, helping to humanize these figures in Lloyd's narrative. Robert Nivelle: An artillery officer who rose rapidly due to his successes at Verdun, Nivelle replaced Joffrein December 1916. He attempted a decisive breakthrough in his Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 with a "formula" for success, but it failed catastrophically due to his being "out of his depth" at the command-in-chief level, leading to French army issues including mutiny. Philippe Pétain: Replaced Nivelle, Pétain became a "savior of France." He was renowned for his deep understanding of battlefield realities and a strong connection with his troops. At Verdun, he innovated by rotating divisions out of the line for rest and recuperation, contrasting with the German practice of fighting units "until basically there's not a lot left". Ferdinand Foch (Supreme Allied Commander from April 1918): Foch is widely regarded as one of the most important generals of the war. He was an energetic and charismatic leader who successfully coordinated the American, British, and French forces in 1918, leading them to victory in the multinational war. His reputation continues to strengthen over time. American Involvement Entry into War: The United States declared war on Germany and Austria in April 1917. General John J. Pershing arrived in Paris in June 1917 to lead the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), despite having only 113,000 men in the army at the time. Rejection of Amalgamation: Pershing steadfastly resisted French and British desires to "amalgamate" American manpower into their existing divisions, insisting that American soldiers fight as an independent army. He argued that the Allies had a poor record of "not killing your own troops". German Miscalculation: Germany severely underestimated how quickly the United States could build and deploy an army, believing it would take years. This misjudgment ultimately contributed to their defeat once the Americans demonstrated their seriousness in 1918. American involvement became "crucial" by 1917, changing the atmosphere. Evolution of Warfare on the Western Front From Movement to Stalemate: The initial German invasion failed to achieve a decisive victory, leading to the establishment of trench warfare after the Battle of the Marne. Realization of No Breakthrough: After the Second Battle of Champagne (1915), Allied and Germancommanders like Joffre and Falkenhayn began to recognize that a "grand shattering breakthrough" was not achievable in the foreseeable future. Constant Adaptation: This realization led to a continuous arms race. As Allied artillery and tactics improved, German defenses evolved from single lines to complex "zones of pill boxes," making progress difficult and bloody. The war became an intense exercise in violence where commanders constantly adapted to a "cauldron of war". Key Battles and Their Significance Battle of the Marne (September 1914): Joffre's successful counterattack forced the Germans to retreat, effectively ending the Schlieffen Plan and leading to the beginning of trench warfare. Second Battle of Champagne (September-October 1915): A major French offensive that, despite immense effort and casualties, failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, solidifying the understanding that trench deadlock could not be easily broken. Verdun (1916): Falkenhayn's attrition battle, designed to "kill Frenchmen," concentrated immense firepower in a small area, creating a "moonscape effect." While not decisive in destroying the French, it was a moment where "things start to go wrong for Germany," from which she never truly recovers. Somme (1916): A British and French offensive intended to relieve pressure on Verdun, but also driven by Haig's ambition for a breakthrough. The debate between breakthrough and Rawlinson's "bite and hold" strategy highlighted the dilemmas of Western Front warfare. Nivelle Offensive (April 1917): A disastrous French attempt at a breakthrough, which highlighted Nivelle'soverreach and led to significant disillusionment and mutiny within the French army. End of the War and its Legacy German Defeat: Lloyd's book argues that the German army was "falling apart" and "defeated rapidly in 1918" despite the persistent "stab in the back" myth that claimed they were betrayed at home. Armistice Decision: The decision by the Allies not to invade Germany was primarily political, as the British and French were "totally exhausted," while the Americans were "much fresher" and more keen to continue. Lloyd considers the armistice "fair on all sides". Lloyd's work underscores that the Western Front was a complex, multinational struggle marked by evolving strategies, immense pressures on commanders, and profound human costs, which ultimately determined the course of the Great War and cast a long shadow over the 20th century.

Nick Lloyd's "The Western Front: The History of the Great War, Volume 1" provides a comprehensive narrative of the Great War in Belgium and France from 1914 to 1918. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, this work aims to offer a nuanced understanding of this pivotal theater, moving beyond common myths and focusing on the operational perspective of senior commanders across all involved powers. 1914-1918 US MERCHANT NAVY Here's a summary of the key aspects, figures, and events covered: Lloyd's Ambition and Approach Comprehensive Narrative: Lloyd, a reader in military and imperial history at King's College London, undertook this "big project" to create a grand narrative of the entire Western Front, encompassing the French sector, American sector, and the German story, alongside the often-emphasized British perspective. Focus on Senior Commanders: A primary goal was to view the war from the lens of senior commanders, challenging the traditional portrayal of them as "donkeys or butchers and bunglers." Lloyd aims to help readers appreciate the immense pressures and difficulties these individuals faced, offering a "cooler perspective" on their successes and errors. Trilogy: This book is the first of three volumes; future volumes will cover the Eastern Front and global warfare in the Middle East and Africa. Lloyd emphasizes that while other fronts are mentioned, the Western Front remained the decisive theater where Germany, France, Britain, and America determined the war's outcome. British Involvement and Leadership Initial Reluctance: Britain initially entered the conflict with a limited commitment, deploying only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division as the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), a "small army" compared to the French (80 divisions) and Germans (over 100 divisions). This reflected a desire for "limited liability" to the Western Front, contrasting sharply with French demands for more manpower. Early Leaders: H.H. Asquith (Prime Minister) was reportedly distracted by personal affairs at the war's outset. Lord Kitchener (Minister of War) was a professional soldier and hero of the empire, wary of deep British involvement but committed to supporting the French. Field Marshal Sir John French (Commander-in-Chief, BEF) was a Boer War hero who found himself "out of his depth" by 1914, struggling with the war's scale and intensity. During the August 1914 retreat, French considered pulling the BEF out of the line due to immense losses and pressure, a move Kitchener personally intervened to prevent, ordering French to stay and fight. Frencheventually "breaks down" due to losses and pressure and is sent home at the end of 1915. Later Leadership and Strategy: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from late 1916) is credited as "the prime minister that wins the war" in Britain. He showed great energy in revitalizing British industry and re-equipping the army, despite having poor relations with his top generals. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig replaced French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig and Lloyd George had fundamentally different strategic outlooks, leading to "constant arguments and backstabbing". At the Battle of the Somme (1916), Haig favored a breakthrough strategy, aiming for maneuver and cavalry deployment to defeat the German army. However, his army commander, Rawlinson, advocated a "bite and hold" strategy, focusing on concentrated artillery to smash enemy lines, take ground, then consolidate before repeating, acknowledging that a grand breakthrough was not yet feasible for the largely "green" British army. German Strategy and Commanders Initial Invasion: The German invasion of France and Belgium in 1914 was based on the ambitious Schlieffen Plan, which aimed for a massive attack through Belgium to outflank French defenses and destroy their army in a grand battle of envelopment. Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (Chief of the General Staff) was under immense pressure and altered the Schlieffen Plan, weakening its critical right wing, and ultimately suffered a nervous breakdown by mid-September 1914. Moltke's controversial decision to order General Kluck's First Army to turn southeast instead of enveloping Paris contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, despite Kluck initially ignoring the order. Kaiser Wilhelm: His character was inconsistent, often described as a "weather vane," and he gradually became a less central figure as Hindenburg and Ludendorff gained influence from 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn (replaces Moltke in 1914) was the architect of the Verdun Offensive (1916). His vision was unique, aiming not for territorial gains but for attrition: to "kill Frenchmen" and exhaust them. Political Interference: Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg often opposed Falkenhayn's desire for unrestricted submarine warfare due to diplomatic concerns (e.g., fear of American entry), illustrating the German military's tendency to prioritize tactical effectiveness over political and strategic issues, which was ultimately "fatal". French Efforts and Leadership Joseph Joffre (Commander of French Forces): Described as a "great hero" of the French army, Joffrepossessed remarkable calmness and an ability to absorb punishment and react quickly. His leadership was crucial in defeating the Schlieffen Plan and counterattacking at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, preventing a German victory. Raymond Poincaré (President of the French Republic): A nationalist deeply involved in military analysis, Poincaré was central to the political efforts to reassert civilian primacy over the army and secure British manpower commitments. General Castelnau (Joffre's chief of staff): A deeply religious man who personally lost three sons in the war, Castelnau exemplifies the human cost and personal horror experienced by some senior commanders, helping to humanize these figures in Lloyd's narrative. Robert Nivelle: An artillery officer who rose rapidly due to his successes at Verdun, Nivelle replaced Joffrein December 1916. He attempted a decisive breakthrough in his Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 with a "formula" for success, but it failed catastrophically due to his being "out of his depth" at the command-in-chief level, leading to French army issues including mutiny. Philippe Pétain: Replaced Nivelle, Pétain became a "savior of France." He was renowned for his deep understanding of battlefield realities and a strong connection with his troops. At Verdun, he innovated by rotating divisions out of the line for rest and recuperation, contrasting with the German practice of fighting units "until basically there's not a lot left". Ferdinand Foch (Supreme Allied Commander from April 1918): Foch is widely regarded as one of the most important generals of the war. He was an energetic and charismatic leader who successfully coordinated the American, British, and French forces in 1918, leading them to victory in the multinational war. His reputation continues to strengthen over time. American Involvement Entry into War: The United States declared war on Germany and Austria in April 1917. General John J. Pershing arrived in Paris in June 1917 to lead the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), despite having only 113,000 men in the army at the time. Rejection of Amalgamation: Pershing steadfastly resisted French and British desires to "amalgamate" American manpower into their existing divisions, insisting that American soldiers fight as an independent army. He argued that the Allies had a poor record of "not killing your own troops". German Miscalculation: Germany severely underestimated how quickly the United States could build and deploy an army, believing it would take years. This misjudgment ultimately contributed to their defeat once the Americans demonstrated their seriousness in 1918. American involvement became "crucial" by 1917, changing the atmosphere. Evolution of Warfare on the Western Front From Movement to Stalemate: The initial German invasion failed to achieve a decisive victory, leading to the establishment of trench warfare after the Battle of the Marne. Realization of No Breakthrough: After the Second Battle of Champagne (1915), Allied and Germancommanders like Joffre and Falkenhayn began to recognize that a "grand shattering breakthrough" was not achievable in the foreseeable future. Constant Adaptation: This realization led to a continuous arms race. As Allied artillery and tactics improved, German defenses evolved from single lines to complex "zones of pill boxes," making progress difficult and bloody. The war became an intense exercise in violence where commanders constantly adapted to a "cauldron of war". Key Battles and Their Significance Battle of the Marne (September 1914): Joffre's successful counterattack forced the Germans to retreat, effectively ending the Schlieffen Plan and leading to the beginning of trench warfare. Second Battle of Champagne (September-October 1915): A major French offensive that, despite immense effort and casualties, failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, solidifying the understanding that trench deadlock could not be easily broken. Verdun (1916): Falkenhayn's attrition battle, designed to "kill Frenchmen," concentrated immense firepower in a small area, creating a "moonscape effect." While not decisive in destroying the French, it was a moment where "things start to go wrong for Germany," from which she never truly recovers. Somme (1916): A British and French offensive intended to relieve pressure on Verdun, but also driven by Haig's ambition for a breakthrough. The debate between breakthrough and Rawlinson's "bite and hold" strategy highlighted the dilemmas of Western Front warfare. Nivelle Offensive (April 1917): A disastrous French attempt at a breakthrough, which highlighted Nivelle'soverreach and led to significant disillusionment and mutiny within the French army. End of the War and its Legacy German Defeat: Lloyd's book argues that the German army was "falling apart" and "defeated rapidly in 1918" despite the persistent "stab in the back" myth that claimed they were betrayed at home. Armistice Decision: The decision by the Allies not to invade Germany was primarily political, as the British and French were "totally exhausted," while the Americans were "much fresher" and more keen to continue. Lloyd considers the armistice "fair on all sides". Lloyd's work underscores that the Western Front was a complex, multinational struggle marked by evolving strategies, immense pressures on commanders, and profound human costs, which ultimately determined the course of the Great War and cast a long shadow over the 20th century.

Nick Lloyd's "The Western Front: The History of the Great War, Volume 1" provides a comprehensive narrative of the Great War in Belgium and France from 1914 to 1918. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, this work aims to offer a nuanced understanding of this pivotal theater, moving beyond common myths and focusing on the operational perspective of senior commanders across all involved powers. 1916 VERDUN Here's a summary of the key aspects, figures, and events covered: Lloyd's Ambition and Approach Comprehensive Narrative: Lloyd, a reader in military and imperial history at King's College London, undertook this "big project" to create a grand narrative of the entire Western Front, encompassing the French sector, American sector, and the German story, alongside the often-emphasized British perspective. Focus on Senior Commanders: A primary goal was to view the war from the lens of senior commanders, challenging the traditional portrayal of them as "donkeys or butchers and bunglers." Lloyd aims to help readers appreciate the immense pressures and difficulties these individuals faced, offering a "cooler perspective" on their successes and errors. Trilogy: This book is the first of three volumes; future volumes will cover the Eastern Front and global warfare in the Middle East and Africa. Lloyd emphasizes that while other fronts are mentioned, the Western Front remained the decisive theater where Germany, France, Britain, and America determined the war's outcome. British Involvement and Leadership Initial Reluctance: Britain initially entered the conflict with a limited commitment, deploying only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division as the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), a "small army" compared to the French (80 divisions) and Germans (over 100 divisions). This reflected a desire for "limited liability" to the Western Front, contrasting sharply with French demands for more manpower. Early Leaders: H.H. Asquith (Prime Minister) was reportedly distracted by personal affairs at the war's outset. Lord Kitchener (Minister of War) was a professional soldier and hero of the empire, wary of deep British involvement but committed to supporting the French. Field Marshal Sir John French (Commander-in-Chief, BEF) was a Boer War hero who found himself "out of his depth" by 1914, struggling with the war's scale and intensity. During the August 1914 retreat, French considered pulling the BEF out of the line due to immense losses and pressure, a move Kitchener personally intervened to prevent, ordering French to stay and fight. Frencheventually "breaks down" due to losses and pressure and is sent home at the end of 1915. Later Leadership and Strategy: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from late 1916) is credited as "the prime minister that wins the war" in Britain. He showed great energy in revitalizing British industry and re-equipping the army, despite having poor relations with his top generals. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig replaced French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig and Lloyd George had fundamentally different strategic outlooks, leading to "constant arguments and backstabbing". At the Battle of the Somme (1916), Haig favored a breakthrough strategy, aiming for maneuver and cavalry deployment to defeat the German army. However, his army commander, Rawlinson, advocated a "bite and hold" strategy, focusing on concentrated artillery to smash enemy lines, take ground, then consolidate before repeating, acknowledging that a grand breakthrough was not yet feasible for the largely "green" British army. German Strategy and Commanders Initial Invasion: The German invasion of France and Belgium in 1914 was based on the ambitious Schlieffen Plan, which aimed for a massive attack through Belgium to outflank French defenses and destroy their army in a grand battle of envelopment. Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (Chief of the General Staff) was under immense pressure and altered the Schlieffen Plan, weakening its critical right wing, and ultimately suffered a nervous breakdown by mid-September 1914. Moltke's controversial decision to order General Kluck's First Army to turn southeast instead of enveloping Paris contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, despite Kluck initially ignoring the order. Kaiser Wilhelm: His character was inconsistent, often described as a "weather vane," and he gradually became a less central figure as Hindenburg and Ludendorff gained influence from 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn (replaces Moltke in 1914) was the architect of the Verdun Offensive (1916). His vision was unique, aiming not for territorial gains but for attrition: to "kill Frenchmen" and exhaust them. Political Interference: Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg often opposed Falkenhayn's desire for unrestricted submarine warfare due to diplomatic concerns (e.g., fear of American entry), illustrating the German military's tendency to prioritize tactical effectiveness over political and strategic issues, which was ultimately "fatal". French Efforts and Leadership Joseph Joffre (Commander of French Forces): Described as a "great hero" of the French army, Joffrepossessed remarkable calmness and an ability to absorb punishment and react quickly. His leadership was crucial in defeating the Schlieffen Plan and counterattacking at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, preventing a German victory. Raymond Poincaré (President of the French Republic): A nationalist deeply involved in military analysis, Poincaré was central to the political efforts to reassert civilian primacy over the army and secure British manpower commitments. General Castelnau (Joffre's chief of staff): A deeply religious man who personally lost three sons in the war, Castelnau exemplifies the human cost and personal horror experienced by some senior commanders, helping to humanize these figures in Lloyd's narrative. Robert Nivelle: An artillery officer who rose rapidly due to his successes at Verdun, Nivelle replaced Joffrein December 1916. He attempted a decisive breakthrough in his Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 with a "formula" for success, but it failed catastrophically due to his being "out of his depth" at the command-in-chief level, leading to French army issues including mutiny. Philippe Pétain: Replaced Nivelle, Pétain became a "savior of France." He was renowned for his deep understanding of battlefield realities and a strong connection with his troops. At Verdun, he innovated by rotating divisions out of the line for rest and recuperation, contrasting with the German practice of fighting units "until basically there's not a lot left". Ferdinand Foch (Supreme Allied Commander from April 1918): Foch is widely regarded as one of the most important generals of the war. He was an energetic and charismatic leader who successfully coordinated the American, British, and French forces in 1918, leading them to victory in the multinational war. His reputation continues to strengthen over time. American Involvement Entry into War: The United States declared war on Germany and Austria in April 1917. General John J. Pershing arrived in Paris in June 1917 to lead the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), despite having only 113,000 men in the army at the time. Rejection of Amalgamation: Pershing steadfastly resisted French and British desires to "amalgamate" American manpower into their existing divisions, insisting that American soldiers fight as an independent army. He argued that the Allies had a poor record of "not killing your own troops". German Miscalculation: Germany severely underestimated how quickly the United States could build and deploy an army, believing it would take years. This misjudgment ultimately contributed to their defeat once the Americans demonstrated their seriousness in 1918. American involvement became "crucial" by 1917, changing the atmosphere. Evolution of Warfare on the Western Front From Movement to Stalemate: The initial German invasion failed to achieve a decisive victory, leading to the establishment of trench warfare after the Battle of the Marne. Realization of No Breakthrough: After the Second Battle of Champagne (1915), Allied and Germancommanders like Joffre and Falkenhayn began to recognize that a "grand shattering breakthrough" was not achievable in the foreseeable future. Constant Adaptation: This realization led to a continuous arms race. As Allied artillery and tactics improved, German defenses evolved from single lines to complex "zones of pill boxes," making progress difficult and bloody. The war became an intense exercise in violence where commanders constantly adapted to a "cauldron of war". Key Battles and Their Significance Battle of the Marne (September 1914): Joffre's successful counterattack forced the Germans to retreat, effectively ending the Schlieffen Plan and leading to the beginning of trench warfare. Second Battle of Champagne (September-October 1915): A major French offensive that, despite immense effort and casualties, failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, solidifying the understanding that trench deadlock could not be easily broken. Verdun (1916): Falkenhayn's attrition battle, designed to "kill Frenchmen," concentrated immense firepower in a small area, creating a "moonscape effect." While not decisive in destroying the French, it was a moment where "things start to go wrong for Germany," from which she never truly recovers. Somme (1916): A British and French offensive intended to relieve pressure on Verdun, but also driven by Haig's ambition for a breakthrough. The debate between breakthrough and Rawlinson's "bite and hold" strategy highlighted the dilemmas of Western Front warfare. Nivelle Offensive (April 1917): A disastrous French attempt at a breakthrough, which highlighted Nivelle'soverreach and led to significant disillusionment and mutiny within the French army. End of the War and its Legacy German Defeat: Lloyd's book argues that the German army was "falling apart" and "defeated rapidly in 1918" despite the persistent "stab in the back" myth that claimed they were betrayed at home. Armistice Decision: The decision by the Allies not to invade Germany was primarily political, as the British and French were "totally exhausted," while the Americans were "much fresher" and more keen to continue. Lloyd considers the armistice "fair on all sides". Lloyd's work underscores that the Western Front was a complex, multinational struggle marked by evolving strategies, immense pressures on commanders, and profound human costs, which ultimately determined the course of the Great War and cast a long shadow over the 20th century.

Nick Lloyd's "The Western Front: The History of the Great War, Volume 1" provides a comprehensive narrative of the Great War in Belgium and France from 1914 to 1918. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, this work aims to offer a nuanced understanding of this pivotal theater, moving beyond common myths and focusing on the operational perspective of senior commanders across all involved powers. Here's a summary of the key aspects, figures, and events covered: Lloyd's Ambition and Approach Comprehensive Narrative: Lloyd, a reader in military and imperial history at King's College London, undertook this "big project" to create a grand narrative of the entire Western Front, encompassing the French sector, American sector, and the German story, alongside the often-emphasized British perspective. Focus on Senior Commanders: A primary goal was to view the war from the lens of senior commanders, challenging the traditional portrayal of them as "donkeys or butchers and bunglers." Lloyd aims to help readers appreciate the immense pressures and difficulties these individuals faced, offering a "cooler perspective" on their successes and errors. Trilogy: This book is the first of three volumes; future volumes will cover the Eastern Front and global warfare in the Middle East and Africa. Lloyd emphasizes that while other fronts are mentioned, the Western Front remained the decisive theater where Germany, France, Britain, and America determined the war's outcome. British Involvement and Leadership Initial Reluctance: Britain initially entered the conflict with a limited commitment, deploying only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division as the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), a "small army" compared to the French (80 divisions) and Germans (over 100 divisions). This reflected a desire for "limited liability" to the Western Front, contrasting sharply with French demands for more manpower. Early Leaders: H.H. Asquith (Prime Minister) was reportedly distracted by personal affairs at the war's outset. Lord Kitchener (Minister of War) was a professional soldier and hero of the empire, wary of deep British involvement but committed to supporting the French. Field Marshal Sir John French (Commander-in-Chief, BEF) was a Boer War hero who found himself "out of his depth" by 1914, struggling with the war's scale and intensity. During the August 1914 retreat, French considered pulling the BEF out of the line due to immense losses and pressure, a move Kitchener personally intervened to prevent, ordering French to stay and fight. Frencheventually "breaks down" due to losses and pressure and is sent home at the end of 1915. Later Leadership and Strategy: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from late 1916) is credited as "the prime minister that wins the war" in Britain. He showed great energy in revitalizing British industry and re-equipping the army, despite having poor relations with his top generals. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig replaced French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig and Lloyd George had fundamentally different strategic outlooks, leading to "constant arguments and backstabbing". At the Battle of the Somme (1916), Haig favored a breakthrough strategy, aiming for maneuver and cavalry deployment to defeat the German army. However, his army commander, Rawlinson, advocated a "bite and hold" strategy, focusing on concentrated artillery to smash enemy lines, take ground, then consolidate before repeating, acknowledging that a grand breakthrough was not yet feasible for the largely "green" British army. German Strategy and Commanders Initial Invasion: The German invasion of France and Belgium in 1914 was based on the ambitious Schlieffen Plan, which aimed for a massive attack through Belgium to outflank French defenses and destroy their army in a grand battle of envelopment. Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (Chief of the General Staff) was under immense pressure and altered the Schlieffen Plan, weakening its critical right wing, and ultimately suffered a nervous breakdown by mid-September 1914. Moltke's controversial decision to order General Kluck's First Army to turn southeast instead of enveloping Paris contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, despite Kluck initially ignoring the order. Kaiser Wilhelm: His character was inconsistent, often described as a "weather vane," and he gradually became a less central figure as Hindenburg and Ludendorff gained influence from 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn (replaces Moltke in 1914) was the architect of the Verdun Offensive (1916). His vision was unique, aiming not for territorial gains but for attrition: to "kill Frenchmen" and exhaust them. Political Interference: Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg often opposed Falkenhayn's desire for unrestricted submarine warfare due to diplomatic concerns (e.g., fear of American entry), illustrating the German military's tendency to prioritize tactical effectiveness over political and strategic issues, which was ultimately "fatal". French Efforts and Leadership Joseph Joffre (Commander of French Forces): Described as a "great hero" of the French army, Joffrepossessed remarkable calmness and an ability to absorb punishment and react quickly. His leadership was crucial in defeating the Schlieffen Plan and counterattacking at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, preventing a German victory. Raymond Poincaré (President of the French Republic): A nationalist deeply involved in military analysis, Poincaré was central to the political efforts to reassert civilian primacy over the army and secure British manpower commitments. General Castelnau (Joffre's chief of staff): A deeply religious man who personally lost three sons in the war, Castelnau exemplifies the human cost and personal horror experienced by some senior commanders, helping to humanize these figures in Lloyd's narrative. Robert Nivelle: An artillery officer who rose rapidly due to his successes at Verdun, Nivelle replaced Joffrein December 1916. He attempted a decisive breakthrough in his Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 with a "formula" for success, but it failed catastrophically due to his being "out of his depth" at the command-in-chief level, leading to French army issues including mutiny. Philippe Pétain: Replaced Nivelle, Pétain became a "savior of France." He was renowned for his deep understanding of battlefield realities and a strong connection with his troops. At Verdun, he innovated by rotating divisions out of the line for rest and recuperation, contrasting with the German practice of fighting units "until basically there's not a lot left". Ferdinand Foch (Supreme Allied Commander from April 1918): Foch is widely regarded as one of the most important generals of the war. He was an energetic and charismatic leader who successfully coordinated the American, British, and French forces in 1918, leading them to victory in the multinational war. His reputation continues to strengthen over time. American Involvement Entry into War: The United States declared war on Germany and Austria in April 1917. General John J. Pershing arrived in Paris in June 1917 to lead the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), despite having only 113,000 men in the army at the time. Rejection of Amalgamation: Pershing steadfastly resisted French and British desires to "amalgamate" American manpower into their existing divisions, insisting that American soldiers fight as an independent army. He argued that the Allies had a poor record of "not killing your own troops". German Miscalculation: Germany severely underestimated how quickly the United States could build and deploy an army, believing it would take years. This misjudgment ultimately contributed to their defeat once the Americans demonstrated their seriousness in 1918. American involvement became "crucial" by 1917, changing the atmosphere. Evolution of Warfare on the Western Front From Movement to Stalemate: The initial German invasion failed to achieve a decisive victory, leading to the establishment of trench warfare after the Battle of the Marne. Realization of No Breakthrough: After the Second Battle of Champagne (1915), Allied and Germancommanders like Joffre and Falkenhayn began to recognize that a "grand shattering breakthrough" was not achievable in the foreseeable future. Constant Adaptation: This realization led to a continuous arms race. As Allied artillery and tactics improved, German defenses evolved from single lines to complex "zones of pill boxes," making progress difficult and bloody. The war became an intense exercise in violence where commanders constantly adapted to a "cauldron of war". Key Battles and Their Significance Battle of the Marne (September 1914): Joffre's successful counterattack forced the Germans to retreat, effectively ending the Schlieffen Plan and leading to the beginning of trench warfare. Second Battle of Champagne (September-October 1915): A major French offensive that, despite immense effort and casualties, failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, solidifying the understanding that trench deadlock could not be easily broken. Verdun (1916): Falkenhayn's attrition battle, designed to "kill Frenchmen," concentrated immense firepower in a small area, creating a "moonscape effect." While not decisive in destroying the French, it was a moment where "things start to go wrong for Germany," from which she never truly recovers. Somme (1916): A British and French offensive intended to relieve pressure on Verdun, but also driven by Haig's ambition for a breakthrough. The debate between breakthrough and Rawlinson's "bite and hold" strategy highlighted the dilemmas of Western Front warfare. Nivelle Offensive (April 1917): A disastrous French attempt at a breakthrough, which highlighted Nivelle'soverreach and led to significant disillusionment and mutiny within the French army. End of the War and its Legacy German Defeat: Lloyd's book argues that the German army was "falling apart" and "defeated rapidly in 1918" despite the persistent "stab in the back" myth that claimed they were betrayed at home. Armistice Decision: The decision by the Allies not to invade Germany was primarily political, as the British and French were "totally exhausted," while the Americans were "much fresher" and more keen to continue. Lloyd considers the armistice "fair on all sides". Lloyd's work underscores that the Western Front was a complex, multinational struggle marked by evolving strategies, immense pressures on commanders, and profound human costs, which ultimately determined the course of the Great War and cast a long shadow over the 20th century.

Nick Lloyd's "The Western Front: The History of the Great War, Volume 1" provides a comprehensive narrative of the Great War in Belgium and France from 1914 to 1918. As the first volume of a planned trilogy, this work aims to offer a nuanced understanding of this pivotal theater, moving beyond common myths and focusing on the operational perspective of senior commanders across all involved powers. 1918 JOHN MONASH Here's a summary of the key aspects, figures, and events covered: Lloyd's Ambition and Approach Comprehensive Narrative: Lloyd, a reader in military and imperial history at King's College London, undertook this "big project" to create a grand narrative of the entire Western Front, encompassing the French sector, American sector, and the German story, alongside the often-emphasized British perspective. Focus on Senior Commanders: A primary goal was to view the war from the lens of senior commanders, challenging the traditional portrayal of them as "donkeys or butchers and bunglers." Lloyd aims to help readers appreciate the immense pressures and difficulties these individuals faced, offering a "cooler perspective" on their successes and errors. Trilogy: This book is the first of three volumes; future volumes will cover the Eastern Front and global warfare in the Middle East and Africa. Lloyd emphasizes that while other fronts are mentioned, the Western Front remained the decisive theater where Germany, France, Britain, and America determined the war's outcome. British Involvement and Leadership Initial Reluctance: Britain initially entered the conflict with a limited commitment, deploying only four infantry divisions and one cavalry division as the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), a "small army" compared to the French (80 divisions) and Germans (over 100 divisions). This reflected a desire for "limited liability" to the Western Front, contrasting sharply with French demands for more manpower. Early Leaders: H.H. Asquith (Prime Minister) was reportedly distracted by personal affairs at the war's outset. Lord Kitchener (Minister of War) was a professional soldier and hero of the empire, wary of deep British involvement but committed to supporting the French. Field Marshal Sir John French (Commander-in-Chief, BEF) was a Boer War hero who found himself "out of his depth" by 1914, struggling with the war's scale and intensity. During the August 1914 retreat, French considered pulling the BEF out of the line due to immense losses and pressure, a move Kitchener personally intervened to prevent, ordering French to stay and fight. Frencheventually "breaks down" due to losses and pressure and is sent home at the end of 1915. Later Leadership and Strategy: David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from late 1916) is credited as "the prime minister that wins the war" in Britain. He showed great energy in revitalizing British industry and re-equipping the army, despite having poor relations with his top generals. Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig replaced French as Commander-in-Chief of the BEF. Haig and Lloyd George had fundamentally different strategic outlooks, leading to "constant arguments and backstabbing". At the Battle of the Somme (1916), Haig favored a breakthrough strategy, aiming for maneuver and cavalry deployment to defeat the German army. However, his army commander, Rawlinson, advocated a "bite and hold" strategy, focusing on concentrated artillery to smash enemy lines, take ground, then consolidate before repeating, acknowledging that a grand breakthrough was not yet feasible for the largely "green" British army. German Strategy and Commanders Initial Invasion: The German invasion of France and Belgium in 1914 was based on the ambitious Schlieffen Plan, which aimed for a massive attack through Belgium to outflank French defenses and destroy their army in a grand battle of envelopment. Helmuth von Moltke the Younger (Chief of the General Staff) was under immense pressure and altered the Schlieffen Plan, weakening its critical right wing, and ultimately suffered a nervous breakdown by mid-September 1914. Moltke's controversial decision to order General Kluck's First Army to turn southeast instead of enveloping Paris contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, despite Kluck initially ignoring the order. Kaiser Wilhelm: His character was inconsistent, often described as a "weather vane," and he gradually became a less central figure as Hindenburg and Ludendorff gained influence from 1916. Erich von Falkenhayn (replaces Moltke in 1914) was the architect of the Verdun Offensive (1916). His vision was unique, aiming not for territorial gains but for attrition: to "kill Frenchmen" and exhaust them. Political Interference: Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg often opposed Falkenhayn's desire for unrestricted submarine warfare due to diplomatic concerns (e.g., fear of American entry), illustrating the German military's tendency to prioritize tactical effectiveness over political and strategic issues, which was ultimately "fatal". French Efforts and Leadership Joseph Joffre (Commander of French Forces): Described as a "great hero" of the French army, Joffrepossessed remarkable calmness and an ability to absorb punishment and react quickly. His leadership was crucial in defeating the Schlieffen Plan and counterattacking at the Battle of the Marne in September 1914, preventing a German victory. Raymond Poincaré (President of the French Republic): A nationalist deeply involved in military analysis, Poincaré was central to the political efforts to reassert civilian primacy over the army and secure British manpower commitments. General Castelnau (Joffre's chief of staff): A deeply religious man who personally lost three sons in the war, Castelnau exemplifies the human cost and personal horror experienced by some senior commanders, helping to humanize these figures in Lloyd's narrative. Robert Nivelle: An artillery officer who rose rapidly due to his successes at Verdun, Nivelle replaced Joffrein December 1916. He attempted a decisive breakthrough in his Nivelle Offensive in April 1917 with a "formula" for success, but it failed catastrophically due to his being "out of his depth" at the command-in-chief level, leading to French army issues including mutiny. Philippe Pétain: Replaced Nivelle, Pétain became a "savior of France." He was renowned for his deep understanding of battlefield realities and a strong connection with his troops. At Verdun, he innovated by rotating divisions out of the line for rest and recuperation, contrasting with the German practice of fighting units "until basically there's not a lot left". Ferdinand Foch (Supreme Allied Commander from April 1918): Foch is widely regarded as one of the most important generals of the war. He was an energetic and charismatic leader who successfully coordinated the American, British, and French forces in 1918, leading them to victory in the multinational war. His reputation continues to strengthen over time. American Involvement Entry into War: The United States declared war on Germany and Austria in April 1917. General John J. Pershing arrived in Paris in June 1917 to lead the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), despite having only 113,000 men in the army at the time. Rejection of Amalgamation: Pershing steadfastly resisted French and British desires to "amalgamate" American manpower into their existing divisions, insisting that American soldiers fight as an independent army. He argued that the Allies had a poor record of "not killing your own troops". German Miscalculation: Germany severely underestimated how quickly the United States could build and deploy an army, believing it would take years. This misjudgment ultimately contributed to their defeat once the Americans demonstrated their seriousness in 1918. American involvement became "crucial" by 1917, changing the atmosphere. Evolution of Warfare on the Western Front From Movement to Stalemate: The initial German invasion failed to achieve a decisive victory, leading to the establishment of trench warfare after the Battle of the Marne. Realization of No Breakthrough: After the Second Battle of Champagne (1915), Allied and Germancommanders like Joffre and Falkenhayn began to recognize that a "grand shattering breakthrough" was not achievable in the foreseeable future. Constant Adaptation: This realization led to a continuous arms race. As Allied artillery and tactics improved, German defenses evolved from single lines to complex "zones of pill boxes," making progress difficult and bloody. The war became an intense exercise in violence where commanders constantly adapted to a "cauldron of war". Key Battles and Their Significance Battle of the Marne (September 1914): Joffre's successful counterattack forced the Germans to retreat, effectively ending the Schlieffen Plan and leading to the beginning of trench warfare. Second Battle of Champagne (September-October 1915): A major French offensive that, despite immense effort and casualties, failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, solidifying the understanding that trench deadlock could not be easily broken. Verdun (1916): Falkenhayn's attrition battle, designed to "kill Frenchmen," concentrated immense firepower in a small area, creating a "moonscape effect." While not decisive in destroying the French, it was a moment where "things start to go wrong for Germany," from which she never truly recovers. Somme (1916): A British and French offensive intended to relieve pressure on Verdun, but also driven by Haig's ambition for a breakthrough. The debate between breakthrough and Rawlinson's "bite and hold" strategy highlighted the dilemmas of Western Front warfare. Nivelle Offensive (April 1917): A disastrous French attempt at a breakthrough, which highlighted Nivelle'soverreach and led to significant disillusionment and mutiny within the French army. End of the War and its Legacy German Defeat: Lloyd's book argues that the German army was "falling apart" and "defeated rapidly in 1918" despite the persistent "stab in the back" myth that claimed they were betrayed at home. Armistice Decision: The decision by the Allies not to invade Germany was primarily political, as the British and French were "totally exhausted," while the Americans were "much fresher" and more keen to continue. Lloyd considers the armistice "fair on all sides". Lloyd's work underscores that the Western Front was a complex, multinational struggle marked by evolving strategies, immense pressures on commanders, and profound human costs, which ultimately determined the course of the Great War and cast a long shadow over the 20th century.

During the summer break, the 15-Minute History podcast team are republishing some of their favorite episodes. This episode originally aired on June 12, 2023.___The dull hum of aircraft filled the morning air. German soldiers looked up from the French town of St. Lô, expecting to see a few enemy fighters bearing down on them. Their hearts froze in their chests as nearly a thousand bombers emerged from the clouds. They had heard of the devastation wrought by their enemy on the Fatherland's cities, but St. Lô was only a tiny provincial settlement far from the Paris metropolis. In minutes, their world was aflame as Allied bombs exploded around them and tore flesh and metal apart in equal measure. The panzer division holding St. Lô was nearly annihilated in the first of three waves, and little was left as the sun reached its noon height. Then, the survivors heard engines approaching from the north and east in the direction of the Normandy beaches. Tanks and half-tracks bearing white stars swarmed through the town, finishing off the defenders and ripping open the Nazi left flank that had held the Allies back for over a month.The Third United States Army is one of the best-known units of the Second World War. From the opening move on St. Lô in August 1944 to the war's end nine months later, it liberated an area of Nazi-occupied Europe roughly the size of Afghanistan. Its soldiers were the best-trained men in the US Army, its officers and NCOs among the most professional in American military history, and its record of battle remains unsurpassed in enemy casualties inflicted and land covered. Most of the credit is due, of course, to the soldiers in tanks and trucks, but even the proudest of these would point to their commander as the man who made the Third Army such a terrifying weapon of war: General George S. Patton, Jr.Join us for this special, double-length episode of 15-Minute History as we teach you about General George Patton, his life, leadership, heroism, and his effect on the world we know today.

CONTINUED David Pietrusza's book, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR's 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, chronicles Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pivotal re-election campaign in 1936, a moment that fundamentally reshaped American political demographics and solidified the New Deal as a national agenda. The campaign began under the shadow of the death of Louis Howe in April 1936, FDR's closest political strategist and confidant since 1912. Howe, despite his "unpleasant acerbic" nature and poor health, was an invaluable aide, worshiping FDR and actively pushing Eleanor Roosevelt into political activism following FDR's 1917 affair. His passing left Roosevelt to navigate a complex political landscape on his own. Roosevelt faced significant opposition from both the political right and left. On the right, Al Smith, former Governor of New York and FDR's erstwhile mentor, emerged as a fierce critic. Disaffected since FDR's governorship, Smith believed Roosevelt's "forgotten man" speech and New Deal policies constituted "class warfare." Allied with wealthy individuals like the DuPonts and E.F. Hutton, Smith co-founded the American Liberty League, which lambasted the New Deal as unconstitutional and socialist, compelling Roosevelt to wage his own campaign of "class warfare" against these "rich guys in the Silk Hats." From the populist left, FDR contended with the legacy of Huey Long, the charismatic Louisiana senator assassinated in September 1935. Long's radical "Share Our Wealth" program, advocating for massive wealth redistribution and government provision of cars and radios to every family, garnered millions of followers and represented "the greatest force of the populist left." His strategy was to siphon votes in 1936 to ensure a Republican victory, creating a worse economic situation that would pave his way to the presidency in 1940. In Georgia, conservative populist Eugene Talmadge, while ideologically different from Long (being a "Jeffersonian conservative" who refused to fund welfare), also vigorously opposed the New Deal through "race baiting" and accusations of "communist influence," drawing some of Long's former supporters. A significant third-party challenge coalesced around Dr. Francis Everett Townsend, an elderly physician whose Townsend Plan proposed giving $200 a month to every person over 60, requiring them to spend it within 30 days to stimulate the economy. Though Roosevelt personally disliked "the dole," the plan's immense popularity and the formation of millions of Townsend clubs pushed FDR to swiftly introduce Social Security. Townsend later joined forces with Father Charles Edward Coughlin, an influential "radio priest" who initially supported FDR but turned against him over monetary policy, and Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a fiery orator akin to Long, along with Congressman William Lemke. This "amateur" coalition, however, failed to gain significant electoral traction, securing only 1.2% of the vote due to ballot access issues in major states and a lack of experienced political leadership. Coughlin, notably, was a more prominent radio figure than FDR for a period, influencing millions through his syndicated broadcasts. FDR's secret meeting with Coughlin at Hyde Park, orchestrated by Joseph Patrick Kennedy, famously ended in a rupture, leading to open political warfare. Ideological parties also presented concerns. The Socialist Party, led by Norman Thomas, consistently polled hundreds of thousands of votes, particularly in urban centers like New York City. The Communist Party USA, under Earl Browder (chosen by Stalin for his pliability and non-Jewish background), initially condemned the New Deal as "fascist." However, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the global shift to a "popular front" strategy, the Communist Party covertly supported FDR to keep him in power against the looming international threats, while running their own candidate to avoid the "kiss of death" of an overt endorsement. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst, who controlled a vast empire of 28 newspapers and eight radio stations, also became a powerful opponent. Despite initially supporting FDR in 1932, Hearst grew increasingly disaffected by the New Deal's progressive policies and taxes on the wealthy, leading to a "long bumpy involved breakup." FDR even considered "throwing 46 men who make a million dollars a year to the wolves," a direct reference to Hearst and his wealthy allies. The Republican Party ultimately nominated Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas, a "complete surprise" and "least interesting character." Landon, a progressive Republican favored by Hearst, was known for balancing Kansas's budget but was widely regarded as uncharismatic and a poor public speaker, especially on radio, a crucial medium of the era. His campaign message, promising only a more efficient implementation of New Deal programs he had largely supported, failed to energize the electorate. Earlier potential nominees included Herbert Hoover, William Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg. Roosevelt's campaign, in stark contrast, was dynamic. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt played an indispensable role, defying initial party reluctance to campaign vigorously. She became a crucial link to the African-American vote in Northern cities, even though FDR, for political reasons, declined to support an anti-lynching law favored by Eleanor and the NAACP. Roosevelt himself delivered powerful, "frenzied and irate" speeches, most notably his Madison Square Garden address on Halloween night, where he famously embraced the "hatred" of "economic royalists" and promised accountability, a compelling message of "class warfare" that galvanized the electorate despite his own staff's initial horror at its perceived demagoguery. Despite initial polls, like the Literary Digest (which had predicted a Landon victory), suggesting a close race, Rooseveltachieved an unprecedented landslide. He won 46 of 48 states, secured overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (74 senators, 334 representatives), and claimed 38 governorships. Crucially, FDR carried 104 of 106 major cities, solidifying the Democratic Party's urban strength and marking a profound political realignment in American history. This decisive victory was a clear mandate for the New Deal and established the foundation of the modern Democratic Party.

CONTINUED David Pietrusza's book, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR's 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, chronicles Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pivotal re-election campaign in 1936, a moment that fundamentally reshaped American political demographics and solidified the New Deal as a national agenda. The campaign began under the shadow of the death of Louis Howe in April 1936, FDR's closest political strategist and confidant since 1912. Howe, despite his "unpleasant acerbic" nature and poor health, was an invaluable aide, worshiping FDR and actively pushing Eleanor Roosevelt into political activism following FDR's 1917 affair. His passing left Roosevelt to navigate a complex political landscape on his own. Roosevelt faced significant opposition from both the political right and left. On the right, Al Smith, former Governor of New York and FDR's erstwhile mentor, emerged as a fierce critic. Disaffected since FDR's governorship, Smith believed Roosevelt's "forgotten man" speech and New Deal policies constituted "class warfare." Allied with wealthy individuals like the DuPonts and E.F. Hutton, Smith co-founded the American Liberty League, which lambasted the New Deal as unconstitutional and socialist, compelling Roosevelt to wage his own campaign of "class warfare" against these "rich guys in the Silk Hats." From the populist left, FDR contended with the legacy of Huey Long, the charismatic Louisiana senator assassinated in September 1935. Long's radical "Share Our Wealth" program, advocating for massive wealth redistribution and government provision of cars and radios to every family, garnered millions of followers and represented "the greatest force of the populist left." His strategy was to siphon votes in 1936 to ensure a Republican victory, creating a worse economic situation that would pave his way to the presidency in 1940. In Georgia, conservative populist Eugene Talmadge, while ideologically different from Long (being a "Jeffersonian conservative" who refused to fund welfare), also vigorously opposed the New Deal through "race baiting" and accusations of "communist influence," drawing some of Long's former supporters. A significant third-party challenge coalesced around Dr. Francis Everett Townsend, an elderly physician whose Townsend Plan proposed giving $200 a month to every person over 60, requiring them to spend it within 30 days to stimulate the economy. Though Roosevelt personally disliked "the dole," the plan's immense popularity and the formation of millions of Townsend clubs pushed FDR to swiftly introduce Social Security. Townsend later joined forces with Father Charles Edward Coughlin, an influential "radio priest" who initially supported FDR but turned against him over monetary policy, and Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a fiery orator akin to Long, along with Congressman William Lemke. This "amateur" coalition, however, failed to gain significant electoral traction, securing only 1.2% of the vote due to ballot access issues in major states and a lack of experienced political leadership. Coughlin, notably, was a more prominent radio figure than FDR for a period, influencing millions through his syndicated broadcasts. FDR's secret meeting with Coughlin at Hyde Park, orchestrated by Joseph Patrick Kennedy, famously ended in a rupture, leading to open political warfare. Ideological parties also presented concerns. The Socialist Party, led by Norman Thomas, consistently polled hundreds of thousands of votes, particularly in urban centers like New York City. The Communist Party USA, under Earl Browder (chosen by Stalin for his pliability and non-Jewish background), initially condemned the New Deal as "fascist." However, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the global shift to a "popular front" strategy, the Communist Party covertly supported FDR to keep him in power against the looming international threats, while running their own candidate to avoid the "kiss of death" of an overt endorsement. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst, who controlled a vast empire of 28 newspapers and eight radio stations, also became a powerful opponent. Despite initially supporting FDR in 1932, Hearst grew increasingly disaffected by the New Deal's progressive policies and taxes on the wealthy, leading to a "long bumpy involved breakup." FDR even considered "throwing 46 men who make a million dollars a year to the wolves," a direct reference to Hearst and his wealthy allies. The Republican Party ultimately nominated Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas, a "complete surprise" and "least interesting character." Landon, a progressive Republican favored by Hearst, was known for balancing Kansas's budget but was widely regarded as uncharismatic and a poor public speaker, especially on radio, a crucial medium of the era. His campaign message, promising only a more efficient implementation of New Deal programs he had largely supported, failed to energize the electorate. Earlier potential nominees included Herbert Hoover, William Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg. Roosevelt's campaign, in stark contrast, was dynamic. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt played an indispensable role, defying initial party reluctance to campaign vigorously. She became a crucial link to the African-American vote in Northern cities, even though FDR, for political reasons, declined to support an anti-lynching law favored by Eleanor and the NAACP. Roosevelt himself delivered powerful, "frenzied and irate" speeches, most notably his Madison Square Garden address on Halloween night, where he famously embraced the "hatred" of "economic royalists" and promised accountability, a compelling message of "class warfare" that galvanized the electorate despite his own staff's initial horror at its perceived demagoguery. Despite initial polls, like the Literary Digest (which had predicted a Landon victory), suggesting a close race, Rooseveltachieved an unprecedented landslide. He won 46 of 48 states, secured overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (74 senators, 334 representatives), and claimed 38 governorships. Crucially, FDR carried 104 of 106 major cities, solidifying the Democratic Party's urban strength and marking a profound political realignment in American history. This decisive victory was a clear mandate for the New Deal and established the foundation of the modern Democratic Party.

CONTINUED David Pietrusza's book, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR's 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, chronicles Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pivotal re-election campaign in 1936, a moment that fundamentally reshaped American political demographics and solidified the New Deal as a national agenda. The campaign began under the shadow of the death of Louis Howe in April 1936, FDR's closest political strategist and confidant since 1912. Howe, despite his "unpleasant acerbic" nature and poor health, was an invaluable aide, worshiping FDR and actively pushing Eleanor Roosevelt into political activism following FDR's 1917 affair. His passing left Roosevelt to navigate a complex political landscape on his own. Roosevelt faced significant opposition from both the political right and left. On the right, Al Smith, former Governor of New York and FDR's erstwhile mentor, emerged as a fierce critic. Disaffected since FDR's governorship, Smith believed Roosevelt's "forgotten man" speech and New Deal policies constituted "class warfare." Allied with wealthy individuals like the DuPonts and E.F. Hutton, Smith co-founded the American Liberty League, which lambasted the New Deal as unconstitutional and socialist, compelling Roosevelt to wage his own campaign of "class warfare" against these "rich guys in the Silk Hats." From the populist left, FDR contended with the legacy of Huey Long, the charismatic Louisiana senator assassinated in September 1935. Long's radical "Share Our Wealth" program, advocating for massive wealth redistribution and government provision of cars and radios to every family, garnered millions of followers and represented "the greatest force of the populist left." His strategy was to siphon votes in 1936 to ensure a Republican victory, creating a worse economic situation that would pave his way to the presidency in 1940. In Georgia, conservative populist Eugene Talmadge, while ideologically different from Long (being a "Jeffersonian conservative" who refused to fund welfare), also vigorously opposed the New Deal through "race baiting" and accusations of "communist influence," drawing some of Long's former supporters. A significant third-party challenge coalesced around Dr. Francis Everett Townsend, an elderly physician whose Townsend Plan proposed giving $200 a month to every person over 60, requiring them to spend it within 30 days to stimulate the economy. Though Roosevelt personally disliked "the dole," the plan's immense popularity and the formation of millions of Townsend clubs pushed FDR to swiftly introduce Social Security. Townsend later joined forces with Father Charles Edward Coughlin, an influential "radio priest" who initially supported FDR but turned against him over monetary policy, and Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a fiery orator akin to Long, along with Congressman William Lemke. This "amateur" coalition, however, failed to gain significant electoral traction, securing only 1.2% of the vote due to ballot access issues in major states and a lack of experienced political leadership. Coughlin, notably, was a more prominent radio figure than FDR for a period, influencing millions through his syndicated broadcasts. FDR's secret meeting with Coughlin at Hyde Park, orchestrated by Joseph Patrick Kennedy, famously ended in a rupture, leading to open political warfare. Ideological parties also presented concerns. The Socialist Party, led by Norman Thomas, consistently polled hundreds of thousands of votes, particularly in urban centers like New York City. The Communist Party USA, under Earl Browder (chosen by Stalin for his pliability and non-Jewish background), initially condemned the New Deal as "fascist." However, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the global shift to a "popular front" strategy, the Communist Party covertly supported FDR to keep him in power against the looming international threats, while running their own candidate to avoid the "kiss of death" of an overt endorsement. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst, who controlled a vast empire of 28 newspapers and eight radio stations, also became a powerful opponent. Despite initially supporting FDR in 1932, Hearst grew increasingly disaffected by the New Deal's progressive policies and taxes on the wealthy, leading to a "long bumpy involved breakup." FDR even considered "throwing 46 men who make a million dollars a year to the wolves," a direct reference to Hearst and his wealthy allies. The Republican Party ultimately nominated Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas, a "complete surprise" and "least interesting character." Landon, a progressive Republican favored by Hearst, was known for balancing Kansas's budget but was widely regarded as uncharismatic and a poor public speaker, especially on radio, a crucial medium of the era. His campaign message, promising only a more efficient implementation of New Deal programs he had largely supported, failed to energize the electorate. Earlier potential nominees included Herbert Hoover, William Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg. Roosevelt's campaign, in stark contrast, was dynamic. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt played an indispensable role, defying initial party reluctance to campaign vigorously. She became a crucial link to the African-American vote in Northern cities, even though FDR, for political reasons, declined to support an anti-lynching law favored by Eleanor and the NAACP. Roosevelt himself delivered powerful, "frenzied and irate" speeches, most notably his Madison Square Garden address on Halloween night, where he famously embraced the "hatred" of "economic royalists" and promised accountability, a compelling message of "class warfare" that galvanized the electorate despite his own staff's initial horror at its perceived demagoguery. Despite initial polls, like the Literary Digest (which had predicted a Landon victory), suggesting a close race, Rooseveltachieved an unprecedented landslide. He won 46 of 48 states, secured overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (74 senators, 334 representatives), and claimed 38 governorships. Crucially, FDR carried 104 of 106 major cities, solidifying the Democratic Party's urban strength and marking a profound political realignment in American history. This decisive victory was a clear mandate for the New Deal and established the foundation of the modern Democratic Party.

CONTINUED David Pietrusza's book, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR's 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, chronicles Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pivotal re-election campaign in 1936, a moment that fundamentally reshaped American political demographics and solidified the New Deal as a national agenda. The campaign began under the shadow of the death of Louis Howe in April 1936, FDR's closest political strategist and confidant since 1912. Howe, despite his "unpleasant acerbic" nature and poor health, was an invaluable aide, worshiping FDR and actively pushing Eleanor Roosevelt into political activism following FDR's 1917 affair. His passing left Roosevelt to navigate a complex political landscape on his own. Roosevelt faced significant opposition from both the political right and left. On the right, Al Smith, former Governor of New York and FDR's erstwhile mentor, emerged as a fierce critic. Disaffected since FDR's governorship, Smith believed Roosevelt's "forgotten man" speech and New Deal policies constituted "class warfare." Allied with wealthy individuals like the DuPonts and E.F. Hutton, Smith co-founded the American Liberty League, which lambasted the New Deal as unconstitutional and socialist, compelling Roosevelt to wage his own campaign of "class warfare" against these "rich guys in the Silk Hats." From the populist left, FDR contended with the legacy of Huey Long, the charismatic Louisiana senator assassinated in September 1935. Long's radical "Share Our Wealth" program, advocating for massive wealth redistribution and government provision of cars and radios to every family, garnered millions of followers and represented "the greatest force of the populist left." His strategy was to siphon votes in 1936 to ensure a Republican victory, creating a worse economic situation that would pave his way to the presidency in 1940. In Georgia, conservative populist Eugene Talmadge, while ideologically different from Long (being a "Jeffersonian conservative" who refused to fund welfare), also vigorously opposed the New Deal through "race baiting" and accusations of "communist influence," drawing some of Long's former supporters. A significant third-party challenge coalesced around Dr. Francis Everett Townsend, an elderly physician whose Townsend Plan proposed giving $200 a month to every person over 60, requiring them to spend it within 30 days to stimulate the economy. Though Roosevelt personally disliked "the dole," the plan's immense popularity and the formation of millions of Townsend clubs pushed FDR to swiftly introduce Social Security. Townsend later joined forces with Father Charles Edward Coughlin, an influential "radio priest" who initially supported FDR but turned against him over monetary policy, and Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a fiery orator akin to Long, along with Congressman William Lemke. This "amateur" coalition, however, failed to gain significant electoral traction, securing only 1.2% of the vote due to ballot access issues in major states and a lack of experienced political leadership. Coughlin, notably, was a more prominent radio figure than FDR for a period, influencing millions through his syndicated broadcasts. FDR's secret meeting with Coughlin at Hyde Park, orchestrated by Joseph Patrick Kennedy, famously ended in a rupture, leading to open political warfare. Ideological parties also presented concerns. The Socialist Party, led by Norman Thomas, consistently polled hundreds of thousands of votes, particularly in urban centers like New York City. The Communist Party USA, under Earl Browder (chosen by Stalin for his pliability and non-Jewish background), initially condemned the New Deal as "fascist." However, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the global shift to a "popular front" strategy, the Communist Party covertly supported FDR to keep him in power against the looming international threats, while running their own candidate to avoid the "kiss of death" of an overt endorsement. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst, who controlled a vast empire of 28 newspapers and eight radio stations, also became a powerful opponent. Despite initially supporting FDR in 1932, Hearst grew increasingly disaffected by the New Deal's progressive policies and taxes on the wealthy, leading to a "long bumpy involved breakup." FDR even considered "throwing 46 men who make a million dollars a year to the wolves," a direct reference to Hearst and his wealthy allies. The Republican Party ultimately nominated Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas, a "complete surprise" and "least interesting character." Landon, a progressive Republican favored by Hearst, was known for balancing Kansas's budget but was widely regarded as uncharismatic and a poor public speaker, especially on radio, a crucial medium of the era. His campaign message, promising only a more efficient implementation of New Deal programs he had largely supported, failed to energize the electorate. Earlier potential nominees included Herbert Hoover, William Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg. Roosevelt's campaign, in stark contrast, was dynamic. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt played an indispensable role, defying initial party reluctance to campaign vigorously. She became a crucial link to the African-American vote in Northern cities, even though FDR, for political reasons, declined to support an anti-lynching law favored by Eleanor and the NAACP. Roosevelt himself delivered powerful, "frenzied and irate" speeches, most notably his Madison Square Garden address on Halloween night, where he famously embraced the "hatred" of "economic royalists" and promised accountability, a compelling message of "class warfare" that galvanized the electorate despite his own staff's initial horror at its perceived demagoguery. Despite initial polls, like the Literary Digest (which had predicted a Landon victory), suggesting a close race, Rooseveltachieved an unprecedented landslide. He won 46 of 48 states, secured overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (74 senators, 334 representatives), and claimed 38 governorships. Crucially, FDR carried 104 of 106 major cities, solidifying the Democratic Party's urban strength and marking a profound political realignment in American history. This decisive victory was a clear mandate for the New Deal and established the foundation of the modern Democratic Party.

David Pietrusza's book, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR's 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, chronicles Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pivotal re-election campaign in 1936, a moment that fundamentally reshaped American political demographics and solidified the New Deal as a national agenda. The campaign began under the shadow of the death of Louis Howe in April 1936, FDR's closest political strategist and confidant since 1912. Howe, despite his "unpleasant acerbic" nature and poor health, was an invaluable aide, worshiping FDR and actively pushing Eleanor Roosevelt into political activism following FDR's 1917 affair. His passing left Roosevelt to navigate a complex political landscape on his own. 1936LOWELL THOMAS & FDR Roosevelt faced significant opposition from both the political right and left. On the right, Al Smith, former Governor of New York and FDR's erstwhile mentor, emerged as a fierce critic. Disaffected since FDR's governorship, Smith believed Roosevelt's "forgotten man" speech and New Deal policies constituted "class warfare." Allied with wealthy individuals like the DuPonts and E.F. Hutton, Smith co-founded the American Liberty League, which lambasted the New Deal as unconstitutional and socialist, compelling Roosevelt to wage his own campaign of "class warfare" against these "rich guys in the Silk Hats." From the populist left, FDR contended with the legacy of Huey Long, the charismatic Louisiana senator assassinated in September 1935. Long's radical "Share Our Wealth" program, advocating for massive wealth redistribution and government provision of cars and radios to every family, garnered millions of followers and represented "the greatest force of the populist left." His strategy was to siphon votes in 1936 to ensure a Republican victory, creating a worse economic situation that would pave his way to the presidency in 1940. In Georgia, conservative populist Eugene Talmadge, while ideologically different from Long (being a "Jeffersonian conservative" who refused to fund welfare), also vigorously opposed the New Deal through "race baiting" and accusations of "communist influence," drawing some of Long's former supporters. A significant third-party challenge coalesced around Dr. Francis Everett Townsend, an elderly physician whose Townsend Plan proposed giving $200 a month to every person over 60, requiring them to spend it within 30 days to stimulate the economy. Though Roosevelt personally disliked "the dole," the plan's immense popularity and the formation of millions of Townsend clubs pushed FDR to swiftly introduce Social Security. Townsend later joined forces with Father Charles Edward Coughlin, an influential "radio priest" who initially supported FDR but turned against him over monetary policy, and Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a fiery orator akin to Long, along with Congressman William Lemke. This "amateur" coalition, however, failed to gain significant electoral traction, securing only 1.2% of the vote due to ballot access issues in major states and a lack of experienced political leadership. Coughlin, notably, was a more prominent radio figure than FDR for a period, influencing millions through his syndicated broadcasts. FDR's secret meeting with Coughlin at Hyde Park, orchestrated by Joseph Patrick Kennedy, famously ended in a rupture, leading to open political warfare. Ideological parties also presented concerns. The Socialist Party, led by Norman Thomas, consistently polled hundreds of thousands of votes, particularly in urban centers like New York City. The Communist Party USA, under Earl Browder (chosen by Stalin for his pliability and non-Jewish background), initially condemned the New Deal as "fascist." However, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the global shift to a "popular front" strategy, the Communist Party covertly supported FDR to keep him in power against the looming international threats, while running their own candidate to avoid the "kiss of death" of an overt endorsement. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst, who controlled a vast empire of 28 newspapers and eight radio stations, also became a powerful opponent. Despite initially supporting FDR in 1932, Hearst grew increasingly disaffected by the New Deal's progressive policies and taxes on the wealthy, leading to a "long bumpy involved breakup." FDR even considered "throwing 46 men who make a million dollars a year to the wolves," a direct reference to Hearst and his wealthy allies. The Republican Party ultimately nominated Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas, a "complete surprise" and "least interesting character." Landon, a progressive Republican favored by Hearst, was known for balancing Kansas's budget but was widely regarded as uncharismatic and a poor public speaker, especially on radio, a crucial medium of the era. His campaign message, promising only a more efficient implementation of New Deal programs he had largely supported, failed to energize the electorate. Earlier potential nominees included Herbert Hoover, William Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg. Roosevelt's campaign, in stark contrast, was dynamic. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt played an indispensable role, defying initial party reluctance to campaign vigorously. She became a crucial link to the African-American vote in Northern cities, even though FDR, for political reasons, declined to support an anti-lynching law favored by Eleanor and the NAACP. Roosevelt himself delivered powerful, "frenzied and irate" speeches, most notably his Madison Square Garden address on Halloween night, where he famously embraced the "hatred" of "economic royalists" and promised accountability, a compelling message of "class warfare" that galvanized the electorate despite his own staff's initial horror at its perceived demagoguery. Despite initial polls, like the Literary Digest (which had predicted a Landon victory), suggesting a close race, Rooseveltachieved an unprecedented landslide. He won 46 of 48 states, secured overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (74 senators, 334 representatives), and claimed 38 governorships. Crucially, FDR carried 104 of 106 major cities, solidifying the Democratic Party's urban strength and marking a profound political realignment in American history. This decisive victory was a clear mandate for the New Deal and established the foundation of the modern Democratic Party.

CONTINUED David Pietrusza's book, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR's 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, chronicles Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pivotal re-election campaign in 1936, a moment that fundamentally reshaped American political demographics and solidified the New Deal as a national agenda. The campaign began under the shadow of the death of Louis Howe in April 1936, FDR's closest political strategist and confidant since 1912. Howe, despite his "unpleasant acerbic" nature and poor health, was an invaluable aide, worshiping FDR and actively pushing Eleanor Roosevelt into political activism following FDR's 1917 affair. His passing left Roosevelt to navigate a complex political landscape on his own. Roosevelt faced significant opposition from both the political right and left. On the right, Al Smith, former Governor of New York and FDR's erstwhile mentor, emerged as a fierce critic. Disaffected since FDR's governorship, Smith believed Roosevelt's "forgotten man" speech and New Deal policies constituted "class warfare." Allied with wealthy individuals like the DuPonts and E.F. Hutton, Smith co-founded the American Liberty League, which lambasted the New Deal as unconstitutional and socialist, compelling Roosevelt to wage his own campaign of "class warfare" against these "rich guys in the Silk Hats." From the populist left, FDR contended with the legacy of Huey Long, the charismatic Louisiana senator assassinated in September 1935. Long's radical "Share Our Wealth" program, advocating for massive wealth redistribution and government provision of cars and radios to every family, garnered millions of followers and represented "the greatest force of the populist left." His strategy was to siphon votes in 1936 to ensure a Republican victory, creating a worse economic situation that would pave his way to the presidency in 1940. In Georgia, conservative populist Eugene Talmadge, while ideologically different from Long (being a "Jeffersonian conservative" who refused to fund welfare), also vigorously opposed the New Deal through "race baiting" and accusations of "communist influence," drawing some of Long's former supporters. A significant third-party challenge coalesced around Dr. Francis Everett Townsend, an elderly physician whose Townsend Plan proposed giving $200 a month to every person over 60, requiring them to spend it within 30 days to stimulate the economy. Though Roosevelt personally disliked "the dole," the plan's immense popularity and the formation of millions of Townsend clubs pushed FDR to swiftly introduce Social Security. Townsend later joined forces with Father Charles Edward Coughlin, an influential "radio priest" who initially supported FDR but turned against him over monetary policy, and Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a fiery orator akin to Long, along with Congressman William Lemke. This "amateur" coalition, however, failed to gain significant electoral traction, securing only 1.2% of the vote due to ballot access issues in major states and a lack of experienced political leadership. Coughlin, notably, was a more prominent radio figure than FDR for a period, influencing millions through his syndicated broadcasts. FDR's secret meeting with Coughlin at Hyde Park, orchestrated by Joseph Patrick Kennedy, famously ended in a rupture, leading to open political warfare. Ideological parties also presented concerns. The Socialist Party, led by Norman Thomas, consistently polled hundreds of thousands of votes, particularly in urban centers like New York City. The Communist Party USA, under Earl Browder (chosen by Stalin for his pliability and non-Jewish background), initially condemned the New Deal as "fascist." However, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the global shift to a "popular front" strategy, the Communist Party covertly supported FDR to keep him in power against the looming international threats, while running their own candidate to avoid the "kiss of death" of an overt endorsement. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst, who controlled a vast empire of 28 newspapers and eight radio stations, also became a powerful opponent. Despite initially supporting FDR in 1932, Hearst grew increasingly disaffected by the New Deal's progressive policies and taxes on the wealthy, leading to a "long bumpy involved breakup." FDR even considered "throwing 46 men who make a million dollars a year to the wolves," a direct reference to Hearst and his wealthy allies. The Republican Party ultimately nominated Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas, a "complete surprise" and "least interesting character." Landon, a progressive Republican favored by Hearst, was known for balancing Kansas's budget but was widely regarded as uncharismatic and a poor public speaker, especially on radio, a crucial medium of the era. His campaign message, promising only a more efficient implementation of New Deal programs he had largely supported, failed to energize the electorate. Earlier potential nominees included Herbert Hoover, William Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg. Roosevelt's campaign, in stark contrast, was dynamic. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt played an indispensable role, defying initial party reluctance to campaign vigorously. She became a crucial link to the African-American vote in Northern cities, even though FDR, for political reasons, declined to support an anti-lynching law favored by Eleanor and the NAACP. Roosevelt himself delivered powerful, "frenzied and irate" speeches, most notably his Madison Square Garden address on Halloween night, where he famously embraced the "hatred" of "economic royalists" and promised accountability, a compelling message of "class warfare" that galvanized the electorate despite his own staff's initial horror at its perceived demagoguery. Despite initial polls, like the Literary Digest (which had predicted a Landon victory), suggesting a close race, Rooseveltachieved an unprecedented landslide. He won 46 of 48 states, secured overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (74 senators, 334 representatives), and claimed 38 governorships. Crucially, FDR carried 104 of 106 major cities, solidifying the Democratic Party's urban strength and marking a profound political realignment in American history. This decisive victory was a clear mandate for the New Deal and established the foundation of the modern Democratic Party.

CONTINUED David Pietrusza's book, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR's 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, chronicles Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pivotal re-election campaign in 1936, a moment that fundamentally reshaped American political demographics and solidified the New Deal as a national agenda. The campaign began under the shadow of the death of Louis Howe in April 1936, FDR's closest political strategist and confidant since 1912. Howe, despite his "unpleasant acerbic" nature and poor health, was an invaluable aide, worshiping FDR and actively pushing Eleanor Roosevelt into political activism following FDR's 1917 affair. His passing left Roosevelt to navigate a complex political landscape on his own. Roosevelt faced significant opposition from both the political right and left. On the right, Al Smith, former Governor of New York and FDR's erstwhile mentor, emerged as a fierce critic. Disaffected since FDR's governorship, Smith believed Roosevelt's "forgotten man" speech and New Deal policies constituted "class warfare." Allied with wealthy individuals like the DuPonts and E.F. Hutton, Smith co-founded the American Liberty League, which lambasted the New Deal as unconstitutional and socialist, compelling Roosevelt to wage his own campaign of "class warfare" against these "rich guys in the Silk Hats." From the populist left, FDR contended with the legacy of Huey Long, the charismatic Louisiana senator assassinated in September 1935. Long's radical "Share Our Wealth" program, advocating for massive wealth redistribution and government provision of cars and radios to every family, garnered millions of followers and represented "the greatest force of the populist left." His strategy was to siphon votes in 1936 to ensure a Republican victory, creating a worse economic situation that would pave his way to the presidency in 1940. In Georgia, conservative populist Eugene Talmadge, while ideologically different from Long (being a "Jeffersonian conservative" who refused to fund welfare), also vigorously opposed the New Deal through "race baiting" and accusations of "communist influence," drawing some of Long's former supporters. A significant third-party challenge coalesced around Dr. Francis Everett Townsend, an elderly physician whose Townsend Plan proposed giving $200 a month to every person over 60, requiring them to spend it within 30 days to stimulate the economy. Though Roosevelt personally disliked "the dole," the plan's immense popularity and the formation of millions of Townsend clubs pushed FDR to swiftly introduce Social Security. Townsend later joined forces with Father Charles Edward Coughlin, an influential "radio priest" who initially supported FDR but turned against him over monetary policy, and Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a fiery orator akin to Long, along with Congressman William Lemke. This "amateur" coalition, however, failed to gain significant electoral traction, securing only 1.2% of the vote due to ballot access issues in major states and a lack of experienced political leadership. Coughlin, notably, was a more prominent radio figure than FDR for a period, influencing millions through his syndicated broadcasts. FDR's secret meeting with Coughlin at Hyde Park, orchestrated by Joseph Patrick Kennedy, famously ended in a rupture, leading to open political warfare. Ideological parties also presented concerns. The Socialist Party, led by Norman Thomas, consistently polled hundreds of thousands of votes, particularly in urban centers like New York City. The Communist Party USA, under Earl Browder (chosen by Stalin for his pliability and non-Jewish background), initially condemned the New Deal as "fascist." However, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the global shift to a "popular front" strategy, the Communist Party covertly supported FDR to keep him in power against the looming international threats, while running their own candidate to avoid the "kiss of death" of an overt endorsement. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst, who controlled a vast empire of 28 newspapers and eight radio stations, also became a powerful opponent. Despite initially supporting FDR in 1932, Hearst grew increasingly disaffected by the New Deal's progressive policies and taxes on the wealthy, leading to a "long bumpy involved breakup." FDR even considered "throwing 46 men who make a million dollars a year to the wolves," a direct reference to Hearst and his wealthy allies. The Republican Party ultimately nominated Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas, a "complete surprise" and "least interesting character." Landon, a progressive Republican favored by Hearst, was known for balancing Kansas's budget but was widely regarded as uncharismatic and a poor public speaker, especially on radio, a crucial medium of the era. His campaign message, promising only a more efficient implementation of New Deal programs he had largely supported, failed to energize the electorate. Earlier potential nominees included Herbert Hoover, William Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg. Roosevelt's campaign, in stark contrast, was dynamic. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt played an indispensable role, defying initial party reluctance to campaign vigorously. She became a crucial link to the African-American vote in Northern cities, even though FDR, for political reasons, declined to support an anti-lynching law favored by Eleanor and the NAACP. Roosevelt himself delivered powerful, "frenzied and irate" speeches, most notably his Madison Square Garden address on Halloween night, where he famously embraced the "hatred" of "economic royalists" and promised accountability, a compelling message of "class warfare" that galvanized the electorate despite his own staff's initial horror at its perceived demagoguery. Despite initial polls, like the Literary Digest (which had predicted a Landon victory), suggesting a close race, Rooseveltachieved an unprecedented landslide. He won 46 of 48 states, secured overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (74 senators, 334 representatives), and claimed 38 governorships. Crucially, FDR carried 104 of 106 major cities, solidifying the Democratic Party's urban strength and marking a profound political realignment in American history. This decisive victory was a clear mandate for the New Deal and established the foundation of the modern Democratic Party.

CONTINUED David Pietrusza's book, Roosevelt Sweeps Nation: FDR's 1936 Landslide and the Triumph of the Liberal Ideal, chronicles Franklin Delano Roosevelt's pivotal re-election campaign in 1936, a moment that fundamentally reshaped American political demographics and solidified the New Deal as a national agenda. The campaign began under the shadow of the death of Louis Howe in April 1936, FDR's closest political strategist and confidant since 1912. Howe, despite his "unpleasant acerbic" nature and poor health, was an invaluable aide, worshiping FDR and actively pushing Eleanor Roosevelt into political activism following FDR's 1917 affair. His passing left Roosevelt to navigate a complex political landscape on his own. 1944 FALAH Roosevelt faced significant orpposition from both the political right and left. On the right, Al Smith, former Governor of New York and FDR's erstwhile mentor, emerged as a fierce critic. Disaffected since FDR's governorship, Smith believed Roosevelt's "forgotten man" speech and New Deal policies constituted "class warfare." Allied with wealthy individuals like the DuPonts and E.F. Hutton, Smith co-founded the American Liberty League, which lambasted the New Deal as unconstitutional and socialist, compelling Roosevelt to wage his own campaign of "class warfare" against these "rich guys in the Silk Hats." From the populist left, FDR contended with the legacy of Huey Long, the charismatic Louisiana senator assassinated in September 1935. Long's radical "Share Our Wealth" program, advocating for massive wealth redistribution and government provision of cars and radios to every family, garnered millions of followers and represented "the greatest force of the populist left." His strategy was to siphon votes in 1936 to ensure a Republican victory, creating a worse economic situation that would pave his way to the presidency in 1940. In Georgia, conservative populist Eugene Talmadge, while ideologically different from Long (being a "Jeffersonian conservative" who refused to fund welfare), also vigorously opposed the New Deal through "race baiting" and accusations of "communist influence," drawing some of Long's former supporters. A significant third-party challenge coalesced around Dr. Francis Everett Townsend, an elderly physician whose Townsend Plan proposed giving $200 a month to every person over 60, requiring them to spend it within 30 days to stimulate the economy. Though Roosevelt personally disliked "the dole," the plan's immense popularity and the formation of millions of Townsend clubs pushed FDR to swiftly introduce Social Security. Townsend later joined forces with Father Charles Edward Coughlin, an influential "radio priest" who initially supported FDR but turned against him over monetary policy, and Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, a fiery orator akin to Long, along with Congressman William Lemke. This "amateur" coalition, however, failed to gain significant electoral traction, securing only 1.2% of the vote due to ballot access issues in major states and a lack of experienced political leadership. Coughlin, notably, was a more prominent radio figure than FDR for a period, influencing millions through his syndicated broadcasts. FDR's secret meeting with Coughlin at Hyde Park, orchestrated by Joseph Patrick Kennedy, famously ended in a rupture, leading to open political warfare. Ideological parties also presented concerns. The Socialist Party, led by Norman Thomas, consistently polled hundreds of thousands of votes, particularly in urban centers like New York City. The Communist Party USA, under Earl Browder (chosen by Stalin for his pliability and non-Jewish background), initially condemned the New Deal as "fascist." However, with the rise of Adolf Hitler and the global shift to a "popular front" strategy, the Communist Party covertly supported FDR to keep him in power against the looming international threats, while running their own candidate to avoid the "kiss of death" of an overt endorsement. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst, who controlled a vast empire of 28 newspapers and eight radio stations, also became a powerful opponent. Despite initially supporting FDR in 1932, Hearst grew increasingly disaffected by the New Deal's progressive policies and taxes on the wealthy, leading to a "long bumpy involved breakup." FDR even considered "throwing 46 men who make a million dollars a year to the wolves," a direct reference to Hearst and his wealthy allies. The Republican Party ultimately nominated Alf Landon, the Governor of Kansas, a "complete surprise" and "least interesting character." Landon, a progressive Republican favored by Hearst, was known for balancing Kansas's budget but was widely regarded as uncharismatic and a poor public speaker, especially on radio, a crucial medium of the era. His campaign message, promising only a more efficient implementation of New Deal programs he had largely supported, failed to energize the electorate. Earlier potential nominees included Herbert Hoover, William Borah, Frank Knox, and Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg. Roosevelt's campaign, in stark contrast, was dynamic. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt played an indispensable role, defying initial party reluctance to campaign vigorously. She became a crucial link to the African-American vote in Northern cities, even though FDR, for political reasons, declined to support an anti-lynching law favored by Eleanor and the NAACP. Roosevelt himself delivered powerful, "frenzied and irate" speeches, most notably his Madison Square Garden address on Halloween night, where he famously embraced the "hatred" of "economic royalists" and promised accountability, a compelling message of "class warfare" that galvanized the electorate despite his own staff's initial horror at its perceived demagoguery. Despite initial polls, like the Literary Digest (which had predicted a Landon victory), suggesting a close race, Rooseveltachieved an unprecedented landslide. He won 46 of 48 states, secured overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (74 senators, 334 representatives), and claimed 38 governorships. Crucially, FDR carried 104 of 106 major cities, solidifying the Democratic Party's urban strength and marking a profound political realignment in American history. This decisive victory was a clear mandate for the New Deal and established the foundation of the modern Democratic Party.

In this episode, Sean and James discuss the crucial but often overlooked role that the U.S. and Allied navies and the U.S. Coast Guard played in the Vietnam War. Your lovable hosts show how naval power shaped strategy, logistics, and combat operations throughout the conflict.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Did the US Allow Israel to Strike an Allied Country That Hosts the Biggest US Base in the ME? by Ian Masters

The German 10th Panzer Division attacks the Allied forces threatening Tunis. Falling for an old trick, the Allies are carved up and pushed back, thus Tunis is safe. Meanwhile, the Axis forces in Tunisia are getting reinforcements and a new commander. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 5.mp3 Guests: Gordon Chang and General Blaine Holt, US Air Force General, retired. China's Historical Revisionism and Autocratic Alliances Gordon Chang and General Blaine Holtdiscuss China's military parade, led by Xi Jinping, which falsely claims Chinese victory over Japan in WWII, omitting the US and Allied contributions. Holt views the parade as theater for a crumbling Belt and Road Initiative, not a united front. They note India's absence from the parade due to animosity with China. Despite appearances, Putin and Kim Jong-un also have underlying animosity towards Xi Jinping, making their alliance one of expediency, not unity. 1906 

SHOW SCHEDULE  9-3-25 CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR GOOD EVENING: The show begins in Beijing, watching the trio of Xi, Putin and Kim review the display of offensive weapons and offensive battalions. FIRST HOUR 9-915 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 1.mp3 Guest: Colonel Jeff McCausland, United States Army retired artilleryman, CBS News, Dickinson College visiting professor, and Diamond 6 Leadership and Strategy CEO. Global Geopolitics and Military Displays Colonel Jeff McCausland discusses a Beijing military parade featuring Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, and Vladimir Putin, interpreting it as a message of strength and innovation, not peace, while downplaying the US role in WWII. He also covers the static battle lines in Ukraine, European proposals for a military force, and US involvement in Middle East conflicts in Yemen and Gaza, noting a tactical agreement with the Houthis. 915-930 : John Batchelor 09-03 segment 2.mp3 Guest: Colonel Jeff McCausland, United States Army retired artilleryman, CBS News, Dickinson College visiting professor, and Diamond 6 Leadership and Strategy CEO. Pentagon's Evolving Mission and Global Order Colonel Jeff McCausland discusses the new national military strategy emphasizing homeland defense as the primary mission for the Department of Defense, shifting from an international "cop on the beat" role to a domestic one. This is reflected in increased border forces and Caribbean operations. McCausland also touches on China's ambition to establish a new global order, returning to its perceived historical position as a superpower, utilizing organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.930-945 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 3.mp3 Guest: John Cochrane at the Hoover Institution. Federal Reserve Independence and Financial Regulation John Cochrane explores the complex debate on whether financial regulation should be integrated with or separated from monetary policy and less independent of Congress. He raises concerns about the Fed's independence, its failure to foresee the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, and the "too big to fail" phenomenon. Cochrane also discusses the risks of the Fed monetizing debt, its stance on stablecoins, and how its actions influence fiscal policy. 945-1000 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 4.mp3 Guest: John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution. Reforming the Federal Reserve's Role John Cochrane addresses proposals to reorganize the Federal Reserve, questioning whether it should become more political or have its scope narrowed to monetary policy, his preferred option. He criticizes the Fed'spandemic response, specifically its decision to print trillions of dollars for deficits, which he argues was a choice leading to the 2022 inflation. Cochrane also examines the wisdom of Quantitative Easing (QE), suggesting it had limited economic impact but expanded the Fed's political influence. SECOND HOUR 10-1015 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 5.mp3 Guests: Gordon Chang and General Blaine Holt, US Air Force General, retired. China's Historical Revisionism and Autocratic Alliances Gordon Chang and General Blaine Holtdiscuss China's military parade, led by Xi Jinping, which falsely claims Chinese victory over Japan in WWII, omitting the US and Allied contributions. Holt views the parade as theater for a crumbling Belt and Road Initiative, not a united front. They note India's absence from the parade due to animosity with China. Despite appearances, Putin and Kim Jong-un also have underlying animosity towards Xi Jinping, making their alliance one of expediency, not unity.1015-1030 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 6.mp3 Guests: Gordon Chang and Peter Huessy, President of Geostrategic Analysis, a fellow at the National Institute for Deterrent Studies. China's Nuclear Ambitions and Arms Control Challenges Peter Huessy describes China's nuclear weapons as tools for coercion and hegemonic goals, a stark contrast to the US view of deterrence. He notes China's rapid nuclear buildup, exceeding Soviet Union rates during the Cold War. Huessy and Gordon Chang discuss the imminent expiration of the New Start treaty with Russia and the absence of arms control talks with China, which has historically aided proliferation. This signals a "brave new world" with zero legal restraint on nuclear weapons.1030-1045 : John Batchelor 09-03 segment 7.mp3 Guests: Gordon Chang and Captain James Fanell, United States Navy retired, intelligence officer for the Seventh Fleet and for the Indo-Pacific Theater. Pacific Tensions: Philippines, China, and US Naval Strategy Captain James Fanell and Gordon Chang analyze China's strategic ambition to subjugate the Philippines, building militarized islands in the South China Sea. Fanell highlights Scarborough Shoal as a critical "cork in the bottle," potentially used by China as a military base. He notes the Philippines' new forward operating base with anti-ship missiles in the Bashi Channel as a counter. Fanell suggests a reinvigorated US Navymorale and a shift in the Pentagon's approach to deter China.1045-1100 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 8.mp3 Guests: Gordon Chang and Rebecca Grant, Vice President of the Lexington Institute. Venezuela, Guyana, and US Deterrence in the Caribbean Rebecca Grant discusses Guyana'sburgeoning oil wealth and Venezuela's threatening territorial claims under Maduro, who also opposes democracy. She and Gordon Chang analyze a significant US Navy presence off Venezuela's coast, including destroyers and a Marine Expeditionary Unit, as a strong deterrent against Maduro's actions and his alliances with Russia and China. Grantindicates improving morale and combat readiness within the US Navy, emphasizing its vital role in global operations. THIRD HOUR John Batchelor 09-03 segment 9.mp3 Guest: Brett Arends of Market Watch (Return on Investment). Bond Market Anxiety and Federal Reserve Pressures Brett Arends explains the bond market's current unhappiness stems from unsustainable national debt and uncertainty surrounding President Trump's tariffs. He clarifies that the Fedcontrols short-term rates, while the bond market sets long-term rates. Arends warns that Trump's pressure on the Fed to cut short-term rates could paradoxically cause long-term rates, including mortgage rates, to rise, hurting the economy and exacerbating market nervousness. He emphasizes the need for fiscal sustainability. 1100-1115 : John Batchelor 09-03 segment 9.mp3 Guest: Brett Arends of Market Watch (Return on Investment). Bond Market Anxiety and Federal Reserve Pressures Brett Arends explains the bond market's current unhappiness stems from unsustainable national debt and uncertainty surrounding President Trump's tariffs. He clarifies that the Fedcontrols short-term rates, while the bond market sets long-term rates. Arends warns that Trump's pressure on the Fed to cut short-term rates could paradoxically cause long-term rates, including mortgage rates, to rise, hurting the economy and exacerbating market nervousness. He emphasizes the need for fiscal sustainability. 1115-1130 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 10.mp3 Guest: Brett Arends of Market Watch. Addressing Bond Market Turmoil Brett Arends explains that the troubled bond market stems from unsustainable national debt and recent court rulings questioning President Trump's tariffs. He advises Donald Trump to support Federal Reserve independence, abandon attacks on Jerome Powell and Lisa Cook, and work with Congress on tariffs to ensure fiscal sustainability and calm market anxieties. Arends notes that gold's all-time high reflects a lack of market confidence.1130-1145 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 11.mp3 Guest: Bob Zimmerman who keeps the website Behind the Black. New Discoveries in Space and Planetary Science Bob Zimmerman highlights new solar research using the European Space Agency's Solar Orbiter probe, improving predictions of solar events that impact Earth's technology. He discusses the uniqueness of stars, Juice's Venus flyby en route to Jupiter, and Mars' chaotic mantle structure. Zimmermanemphasizes Mars' ample near-surface ice, making it attractive for colonization, and presents an exoplanet found in an accretion disc, challenging planetary formation theories.1145-1200 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 12.mp3 Guest: Bob Zimmerman who keeps the website Behind the Black. NASA Unionization and SpaceX Milestones Bob Zimmerman addresses the recent executive order by President Trumpeliminating unions at NASA and other agencies, arguing that government unions are inefficient and costly. He then praises SpaceX's achievements, including a Falcon 9 first stage completing its 30th flight—a new reuse record. Zimmerman notes SpaceX is significantly reducing launch costs and enabling new space technologies like Starlink, also mentioning the reuse of a Starship super heavy booster. FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 13.mp3 Guest: Simon Constable writing for The Wall Street Journal and other distinguished publications. European Politics, Commodities, and Digital Identity Debates Simon Constable reports on pleasant weather in the South of France and seasonal produce. He reviews commodity prices, noting gold's all-time high, coffee's surge, and orange juice's decline. Constable discusses political crises in France, with President Macronfacing a no-confidence vote, and the UK, where Keir Starmer struggles with spending cuts and migration. He advocates for digital national ID cards as the only reasonable solution to migration.1215-1230 : John Batchelor 09-03 segment 14.mp3 Guest: Simon Constable writing for The Wall Street Journal and other distinguished publications. The Rise of AI in Romance Simon Constable shares surprising polling data from the Kinsey Institute on romantic engagement with AI. He reveals that 16% of single adult Americans romantically interact with AI, with Gen Z being the most likely cohort at 33%. Furthermore, 44% of single Americans dating AI believe emotional support from an AI partner is superior to human support, highlighting a stark generational shift in romantic relationships.1230-1245 John Batchelor 09-03 segment 15.mp3 Guest: Janatyn Sayeh from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Iran's Nuclear Dilemma and Regional Threats Janatyn Sayeh discusses the looming snapback mechanism of the 2015 JCPOA, which could reinstate UN sanctions on Iran if it fails to comply with demands. Iran's non-compliance has its currency hitting new lows, yet Tehran threatens regional war and exiting the NPT if sanctions return. Sayeh notes Iran seeks rearmament, primarily from China, with Belarus and North Korea acting as potential intermediaries for Russian weapons.1245-100 AM John Batchelor 09-03 segment 16.mp3 Guest: Ivana Stradner from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Autocracy and Protests in the Western Balkans Ivana Stradner reports on mass protests in Belgrade demanding snap elections following a fatal accident and criticizing President Alexander Vučić's autocratic regime, which she likens to "Belarus 2.0". Vučić is accused of corruption and suppressing free media, while fostering close military and economic ties with China and Russia to maintain power and "blackmail" the West. Stradner expresses concern over the repression against Serbian people.