Podcasts about austria hungary

Gavin landed back in Australia just the day before recording, and he and Ken settle in for a full debrief on WDC 2026 in Athens. From the venues and the social activities to all four of Gavin's games and the top board, this one covers it all. Intro Ken sets up the episode – this one is going to be almost entirely about WDC 2026 Athens, because Gavin was there and has only just landed back in Australia (as at the time of recording) (15 secs) He notes the DBN coverage gave a strong account of the boards and Ed's player interviews, but plenty of the magic from Spyros Dovas and his organising team didn't make it to the stream (45 secs) Drinks are introduced: Ken is on one of his home-brew lagers with a kick, and Gavin is working through a leftover Sicilian Nero d'Avola that has turned a little sour – a fitting metaphor, he suggests, for how his first round went (1 min 45 secs) The tournament in aggregate Ken asks Gavin to give a broad overview – location, numbers, facilities, atmosphere (2 mins 45 secs) Around 106 players registered, though some didn't show due to last-minute issues. Approximately 5 Australian players couldn't attend because their original flights were routed through the Middle East (3 mins 30 secs) The geopolitical context: as of recording, the Middle East airspace situation was in week nine of its shutdown, forcing Australian travellers to reroute via Singapore, Hong Kong, or Malaysia. Some also baulked at the US transit option due to the documentation requirements (4 mins 30 secs) Despite the drop-outs, the turnout was excellent and genuinely representative – a heavy European component split between the UK and the rest of Europe, a strong French contingent, players from the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, and Norway, a good number of Americans and a couple of Canadians (including Chris Brand), around 10 Australians, and a couple of Kiwis (Dominick Stephens and Craig Purcell). The local Greek contingent, given the Athens club had only been running for about 18 months, was especially impressive (3 mins 30 secs) Tournament format: three regular rounds followed by a fourth round of tiered top boards. Rather than a single top board, the format featured seven simultaneous top boards – the top 7 players went to the premier board, players 8–14 played the second tier, 15–21 the third, and so on down through the field. Crucially, players who volunteered to sit out for round four to help with numbers kept their ranking position (7 mins) Ken and Gavin discuss how the tiered format means the fourth round is never a dead rubber – every board is still competing for something meaningful (8 mins 15 secs) Discussion of the central clock arrangement: effectively federation-based rather than a literal single clock, with the two main venues coordinating their start times by communication (9 mins 30 secs) The venues The main venue was the upstairs function space of a beachside restaurant operation – excellent location right on the waterfront, but somewhat cramped for negotiations once all the boards were in (9 mins 45 secs) As a result, boards were redistributed to the secondary venue: the Anchor bar, about 150–200 metres down the road. Gavin played two games in each location and considered the Anchor the better play space – more open, well ventilated, and with a large covered outdoor area next to a (drained) pool (11 mins) The colour-coded sash system made it easy to identify players by country but created the amusing challenge of locating your specific Italy in a room full of Italys from different boards (13 mins) The third venue – an outdoor shaded area – was reserved for the premier top board. Unlike Milan's car park, this one had good shade and plenty of room for spectators around the giant shadow board (13 mins 30 secs) Pre-tournament social activities Gavin outlines the structure: you could do as much or as little as you liked. He landed well due to a useful 5.5-hour Singapore layover that helped reset his body clock, and flew over on the same flight as tournament director Jamal Blakkarly (16 mins) They were met at Athens airport by Spyros, his wife, and daughter, who drove them to breakfast at a beautiful harbour-side restaurant in one of the small inlet bays east of Piraeus (18 mins 15 secs) Pre-tournament island stay: Gavin spent two days on Serifos, the island Spyros recommended and which has personal significance to his family (his grandfather was christened there). Spyros provided a detailed Google Map of the best spots. With the tourist season barely starting, Gavin got excellent last-minute accommodation at a family-run hotel and had the beaches almost entirely to himself (18 mins 45 secs) The island was so off-season that locals were literally still painting their furniture and kerbs in preparation. Gavin did the recommended hikes and swims, and the hotel gifted him a dry-bag left behind by a previous guest (20 mins 30 secs) Back in Athens overnight, Gavin caught up with a multinational squad of players including Shane, Brandon, Max, Zoe, Justin Law, Bradley Grace, and Karthik. They had dinner at an Italian restaurant with the Acropolis lit up above them (22 mins 30 secs) Hydra day trip (Wednesday): players caught the fast ferry from Piraeus out to Hydra (about 1.5 hrs). The island has a refined Venetian-Greek port feel, with rustic paths and rock beaches beyond. The group visited the Museum of the 1821 Greek Revolution, full of local history and artefacts. Gavin wore one of his Diplomacy shirts and ended up being an ambassador for the hobby to an American grandmother and her debate-champion granddaughter from North Carolina – and pointed them towards David Hood and the local hobby there (24 mins 15 secs) The water temperature at the beach was about 4–5 degrees colder than Australia, which meant the Europeans loved it and Gavin did not go in (26 mins 30 secs) Acropolis and Athens tour (Thursday): guided tour of the Acropolis by what Spyros described as the best guides operating there, followed by a walk through the Plaka and past the Panathenaic Stadium (venue of the first modern Olympics in 1896), then a seafood lunch at a beautiful harbourside restaurant (30 mins) Temple of Poseidon (Thursday evening): the most popular activity – the bus was packed. About halfway there, Spyros took everyone on an unannounced detour to a beach bar where they had the place to themselves, a wonderful surprise. The Temple itself sits on a peninsula with 270-degree sea views. Spyros told the story of how the Aegean got its name from that location, and a huge group photo was taken (31 mins 15 secs) Tournament production values Gavin describes the production as setting new high-water marks for tournament organisation – high enough that the Chicago 2027 organising team would be wondering how to match it. Every player had a colour-coded sash matching their country, a branded WDC Athens notepad in their country colour, and a matching pen for every round (33 mins) The awards were 3D-printed Greek god statues for the podium finishers, complemented by a full suite of themed awards for the top players in each country and for notable gameplay (34 min) Special awards included: the Ajax Award for 8th place overall (the brilliant fighter who just missed out); the Archimedes Award for the most innovative play; the Leonidas Award for the player who fought on against insurmountable odds; and professionally screen-printed awards for best performance as each of the seven Great Powers (35 mins 45 secs) Gavin's games Round 1 – France – Board: Agkystri (View game) Gavin introduces his first game and the board composition: he played France, with Danae Stamataki (Austria-Hungary, local Greek player who topped the board on 10 supply centres and won best Austria), Sabrina Ahuja "Sabi" as England, Brian Ecton as Germany, Jean-Louis Delattre as Italy, Teo Ananiadis as Russia, and Frank Oosterom from the Netherlands as Turkey (37 mins 15 secs) The plan was a Western Triple working with England and Germany, with the goal of neutralising a strong-looking Italy early. It didn't come together as intended (37 mins 45 secs) The infamous mis-order: Gavin had two builds and intended fleet Brest plus a second build. Instead he built fleet Brest and placed the build directly in MAO, effectively waiving his second build. The DBN commentators interpreted this as a genius strategic waive; Ken's interpretation was somewhat more grounded. Gavin confirms Ken was correct (39 mins) The other players on the board didn't share DBN's generous reading of the situation. Germany immediately moved into Burgundy and kept flipping between fronts as his position allowed. Italy kept pressing France throughout. Gavin found himself squeezed down to a single unit in the English Channel (40 mins 30 secs) Final turn plan: England agreed to convoy an army across to Picardy to support Gavin back into Brest. Instead, Sabi walked into an open Paris. Gavin ended the game with zero supply centres and was eliminated (42 mins 15 secs) Gavin notes he made his disappointment known professionally, and that he subsequently had a drink with Sabi – but not that night (44 mins 15 secs) Round 2 – England – Board: Lemnos Not covered by DBN. Gavin played England; the board included Dominick Stephens (New Zealand) as Germany, Chris Brand (Canada) as Russia, Ruben Sanchez as Italy, Roberto Perego (Italy) as France, Robert Schuppe as Turkey, and Anastasia "Nastja" Styles as Austria-Hungary (46 mins) The plan was a Northern Alliance of England, Germany, and Russia. It unravelled immediately when Chris opened Moscow to Livonia and Dominick interpreted it as aggressive – resulting in a Germany-Russia war from the outset (46 mins 15 secs) Gavin adapted: knowing Germany was occupied in the east, he gave Russia some space and opened into Belgium, with Dominick and Chris both honouring his request to take Norway unopposed via fleet (46 mins 45 secs) Dominick and Gavin worked to grind down Roberto Perego's France, who ground out a hard-fought game staying alive on 2 centres. Ruben Sanchez's Italy played a deft game, flipping between alliances with Turkey and Austria (49 mins 15 secs) Dominick topped the board on 10; Ruben came in at 9; Gavin finished at 7. The game was meant to run to 1909 but drew earlier when the position stabilised. Gavin reflects he may have drawn too early, with both Dominick and Ruben suggesting he had room to push for another two centres (50 mins) Round 3 – Germany – Board: Symi (View game) Gavin played Germany. The board included Shane Armstrong (Australia) as France, Mikalis Kamaritis as Italy, Alex Maslow (USA) as Russia, Steven Hogue (USA) as Austria, Alex Lebedev (Russia) as England, and Jack Johns as Turkey (51 mins 15 secs) The strategic context: only Mikalis Kamaritis and Alex Lebedev were realistically in contention for the top board from this game. Shane and Gavin identified this early and committed to supporting the player they believed deserved to be there (52 mins 45 secs) Shane and Gavin opened with a Sealion against England, while Gavin also walked a careful line with Alex Lebedev, who initially felt more threatened by France than Germany. Austria was eliminated in 1903, and England in 1904 (53 mins 45 secs) A notable moment: Gavin slipped an army from the North Sea into an unoccupied London – a move he acknowledged was unnecessary, created friction with Alex Lebedev, and which he would not make again. He apologised on the day (56 mins 15 secs) Mikalis told Gavin and Shane to wait until 1905 – and delivered. He launched from his eastern position, took two dots off Russia and one off Turkey in a single year, then steamrolled from there. Alex Maslow was a strong and enjoyable player who nearly flipped the alliance but ultimately couldn't (56 mins 15 secs) The game agreed to a draw of 10-10-14 (Shane-Gavin-Mikalis), which the three felt would get Mikalis comfortably onto the top board. In the final adjudication Mikalis took one extra dot away from Shane, making the final scores 15-10-9 (58 mins 15 secs) Round 4 – Austria – Board: Myconos (View game) Gavin made it onto the fourth round, placed into the 6th top board. The board featured Shane Armstrong again as Turkey, Emmett Wainwright as England, Patrick Jacobson as France, Nathan Lester as Germany, Cameron Taylor as Italy, and Richard Bolton as Russia (59 mins 30 secs) The standout introduction: Nathan Lester, son of Dan Lester (who Gavin played against at Bangkok WDC). Same voice, same playing style, same persuasive meta-game arguments – but with a mullet and dressed like he's in an 80s rock video, and without the beard-stroking (1 hr 0 mins 45 secs) Gavin and Shane, having just played together in Round 3, ended up as Austria and Turkey respectively – not a natural alliance. Gavin didn't trust it but it held. Italy and France both kept fighting hard throughout (59 mins 45 secs) The game drew in 1906, with Shane and Emmett both finishing on 8, Gavin on 6 as Austria. Everyone then rushed across the road to watch the top board (1 hr 3 mins 45 secs) The top board Ken asks about Mikalis's diplomatic style. Gavin: exceptional situational awareness, communicates clearly and directly, asked and answered the "what do you want from this game?" question in a way that built immediate trust, and was good to his word on timing (1 hr 4 mins) Gavin arrived at the top board mid-1906 (his own game had just drawn). The top board was played outdoors under a well-shaded tree with plenty of room for negotiations, guarded by two or three people ensuring other players and passing members of the public couldn't crowd the board (1 hr 5 mins) The giant shadow board: a massive life-size replica board was set up nearby so all spectators could follow the game without approaching the real board. Andrew Goff read out the orders and the shadow board was updated after each adjudication – the same setup used at Milan WDC (1 hr 7 mins 45 secs) When Gavin arrived, he felt Bradley Grace had the game. The shift came late – Mikalis made a decisive move in the endgame that separated him from a closely matched France/Germany contest (1 hr 9 mins) Congratulations to Mikalis Kamaritis – well deserved, Gavin says. And to Bradley Grace: so close, but it will happen (1 hr 9 mins) The awards ceremony included Mikalis receiving both the championship belt and a traditional olive laurel wreath – a detail that was not captured in the DBN stream. Ken flags this as something future broadcasts should consider covering (1 hr 11 mins 15 secs) A Best Shane Cubis Award was also created – won by a Greek player who loudly lobbied Spyros for an award on the basis of how much he'd helped out. An AI-generated image of Shane Cubis in 1901 attire featured on the award, to the complete bafflement of the European and American contingents (1 hr 12 mins 50 secs) Game hobby and future WDCs The Chicago Windy City Weasels delivered a presentation promoting WDC 2027, enthusiastically received by the assembled players (1 hr 13 mins 15 secs) The 2028 bid: Melbourne was the only bid, and it was unanimously approved. Andrew Goff (Goffy) presented it. WDC 2028 Melbourne will be held at the MCG – the Melbourne Cricket Ground – with the conference rooms used for regular play, and the premier top board played on the MCG wicket itself. The countdown timer will run on the MCG scoreboard. Notionally scheduled for the last weekend of February 2028 – the weekend after the Formula One Grand Prix and the weekend before the first AFL round (1 hr 14 mins 30 secs) For international context: roughly equivalent to playing at Yankee Stadium, Madison Square Garden, the Camp Nou, or Bayern Munich's Allianz Arena. English players will recognise the MCG as where English cricket hopes traditionally come to die (1 hr 15 mins 15 secs) Also at the game hobby: a unanimous vote to amend and modernise the WDC charter, which dates from around 2000–2001 and doesn't reflect current online play, email communication, or the organisational structures of the Asia-Pacific and European hobbies. Four representatives (from NADF, the Asia-Pacific Diplomacy Association, and the European and UK hobbies) will draft amendments to be presented at WDC 2027 Chicago, with ratification at WDC 2028 Melbourne (1 hr 18 mins) Wrap up Gavin acknowledges the full organising effort: approximately 10 people working behind the scenes alongside Spyros and Jamal to make everything run. The Greek hobby and Athens Diplomacy Club can be enormously proud (1 hr 20 mins 30 secs) The Armistice Party: held between rounds three and four in the venue near the pool area. A DJ with a custom app allowed all attending players to nominate up to 10 songs each, with the crowd then voting in real time from four options for what came next. Gavin describes it as stunningly well thought through (1 hr 22 mins) Ken summarises: meticulously planned, wonderful venue, brilliant location, great games, fantastic people. Gavin: you got it in one. Thank you to Spyros, Jamal, and everyone they played with (1 hr 23 mins) Addendum – recorded one week later Ken and Gavin explain the addendum: a few things were either forgotten or lost in the original recording, so they've caught up a week later to cover them (1 hr 25 mins 45 secs) The Cane Toad The Cane Toad tournament will not run in 2026 – Gavin has made the decision to rest it for the year and bring it back bigger and better in 2027 (1 hr 26 mins 30 secs) Reasons: Gavin no longer lives in Brisbane where the tournament has historically been based, and several attempts to get a local game going have been completely unsuccessful. He feels it would be unfair to interstate players to travel to Queensland only to play mostly other interstate players rather than a meaningful proportion of locals (1 hr 27 mins 30 secs) He also flags cost-of-living pressures and fuel costs as factors, noting that the fuel excise which had been removed is about to be reinstated (1 hr 28 mins 45 secs) Ken and Gavin have a brief riff on whether cane toads actually hibernate, and whether the tournament might one day move to a different Queensland location (1 hr 28 mins 45 secs) Gavin shares a long-held dream of running the Cane Toad on the beach under a sun-safe setup. Council regulations require public liability insurance – but the Asia Pacific Diplomacy Association is in the process of organising exactly that for tournament directors, which may open the door in future (1 hr 29 mins 15 secs) Tournament news The Sydney Cup is on the weekend of 4–5 July. Gavin would love to go but has used up his diplomacy credits between Greece and starting a new job – it'll have to stay in the bank for now (1 hr 30 mins 45 secs) A New Zealand tournament is being discussed for the week before WDC 2028 Melbourne (late February 2028). Three New Zealand players who attended WDC 2026 in Athens have flagged interest in hosting something, on the logic that if you're travelling all the way from Europe or the US, a short hop across the Tasman to New Zealand is well worth building into the itinerary (1 hr 32 mins) Ken enthusiastically endorses the idea and encourages anyone planning for WDC 2028 Melbourne to factor in a week in New Zealand beforehand (1 hr 33 mins 30 secs) Challenge for next episode Over his birthday lunch, Gavin's son surprised him with an accurate recall of his WDC result. This leads Gavin to issue a challenge for the next episode: both Ken and Gavin will do some homework and come back with three or four online diplomacy resources that people may not know about, to raise awareness of what the community has put together over the years (1 hr 34 mins 45 secs) Around the grounds VDiplomacy gets an introduction for any listeners who aren't familiar: a sibling platform to WebDiplomacy, it hosts classic games but is particularly known for its range of variants (1 hr 36 mins 30 secs) The Dionysus Reimagined game recap – the ancient Greece variant Ken and Gavin set up in the lead-up to WDC Athens. Ken soloed, eliminating Gavin in the final year. Gavin notes that technically his last dot was taken so late that his result registers as a survive rather than an elimination (1 hr 38 mins 45 secs) Gavin played Athens and found himself defending on all fronts from early on: Sparta (who built only armies and had nowhere to go but north), the Macedonians pressing from the north, Byzantium late in the game, and Rhodes. Ken played Byzantium and credits his early token luck as a key advantage, picking up all his bid supply centres including one he expected to bounce – giving him fleet dominance in the Aegean from the start (1 hr 40 mins) The bid mechanics are recapped for any listeners unfamiliar with the variant: each player has 4 tokens to bid on non-core supply centres; outbid or bounce and you don't get the build. Ken's fortunate opening bids gave him a decisive early position (1 hr 40 mins 30 secs) A practical tip for vDiplomacy players: always open the large map after adjudication. The small map can omit orders that didn't go through, making moves look different from what was actually played. Ken noted several instances in the Dionysus game where support orders that failed simply weren't visible on the small map (1 hr 45 mins 45 secs) Ken congratulates himself on the win and notes the ratings gap between the two has now closed to around 100 points (1 hr 47 mins 30 secs) New game announced: Gavin has set up a Pirates game titled Ahoy Mateys on vDiplomacy. Gunboat, 2-day 2-hour phase length. Ken explains the extra 2 hours: it gradually shifts the adjudication time back toward Australian time zones in games where everyone readies up early (1 hr 48 mins) Pirates variant overview: a 13-player variant set in the golden age of piracy in the Caribbean, created by Gavin in collaboration with Ollie (the vDiplomacy site administrator). The 13 players are broken into three factions (1 hr 51 mins 45 secs): Europeans – Spain, England, France, and Holland, who nominally control supply centres across the map but must capture them to make them count Pirates – five pirates, four historical (Montbas, Brasiliano, de la Cueva, and Johnson) and one fictitious: El Guapo, borrowed from the movie The Three Amigos Privateers – one per European power, operating as private navies with letters patent. They can attack anyone except their sponsoring power (and vice versa). The Dunkirkers serve Spain, Henry Morgan serves England, François Le Jones serves France, and the Rocherson serves Holland Unit rules: all units are fleets, but there are two types – Clippers (move up to two spaces, standard attack strength) and Frigates (move one space, attack at 1.5x strength). A single clipper cannot defend against an attacking frigate, but a clipper supported by another clipper can. Five marked spots on the board allow transformation between unit types (1 hr 57 mins 45 secs) Special rules: a voodoo witch's hut in Cuba allows a fleet on the north coast to teleport to the south coast and vice versa. And a 14th non-playing character – a Hurricane – spins up each storm season in a random sea territory, moves randomly in the fall turn, and destroys anything in its path with an effectively unstoppable attack strength, also resetting any supply centre it passes through to neutral (1 hr 59 mins) Ken commits to reading the full rules before play begins, notes Pirates has a genuine following on vDiplomacy with games regularly in progress, and suspects he may get slaughtered (2 hr 1 min 15 secs) Gavin and Ken wrap up the show (2 hr 2 mins 15 secs) Venue: At home Drinks for the interview: Ken: One of his home brews – a lager with a bit of a kick Gavin: A Baliamo Nero d'Avola from Sicily – opened two weeks prior, which he noted had become a little sour and bitter compared to its fresh opening, much like his first round at the tournament Just a reminder you can support the show by giving it 5 stars on iTunes or Stitcher. And don't forget if you want to help pay off the audio equipment… or get the guys more drunk, you can also donate at Patreon, plus you get extra podcast episodes! Lastly, don't forget to subscribe so you get the latest Diplomacy Games episodes straight to your phone. Thanks as always to Dr Dan aka "The General" for his rockin' intro tune.

Original Release Date: Monday 8 June 2026    Description:   Phil was actually worried he and Dean wouldn't have enough to discuss to fill this week's show and wow was his worry unfounded! The gentlemen get the conversational ball rolling with the return of “What We're Reading” wherein four quite fascinating and quite disparate works get covered, leading to in-depth discussion about such topics as painting watercolors, epistolary novels, the comedic genius of Norm Macdonald, and life in Austria-Hungary of the early 1900s. All the major prizewinners at Cannes 2026 get discussed, and the early summer U.S. box office gets celebrated. Then, however, the tone turns darker, as the need for a full-on boycott of Paramount and its properties gets expressed, and the ramifications of waiting for the Warner Bros. merger to launch said boycott get explored. Dean saw The Sheep Detectives and shares his thoughts. Phil watched the classic 1945 film noir Detour and spills the dirt on its director's fall from grace, hails the film as a must-watch for aspiring filmmakers, and regales Dean with a delightful fact about the career of the film's lead actress, Ann Savage.

In this special edition of the podcast we explore a lesser-known theatre of conflict from the First World War in Northern Italy with historian Tom Isitt. Tom's new book - Thunder in the Mountains - follows a journey he made across those battlefields and with him we discover the unique challenges of mountain warfare, the diverse nations involved, and personal stories from the battlefield.We examine the Battlefields on the Izonzo, discuss some of the highest points of the Great War in the Dolomites and move to the involvement of German troops in Italy, including Erwin Rommel at Caporetto in 1917, and the arrival of British forces who fought here until the end of the war.You visit Tom Isitt's website and order the book here: Thunder in the Mountains.Sign up for the free podcast newsletter here: Old Front Line Bulletin. You can order Old Front Line Merch via The Old Front Line Shop.Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us Fan MailSupport the show

At the beginning of the 20th century, most of the territory that we call the Middle East- including Syria, Iraq, Israel and Turkey- were part of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman alliance w/ Germany and Austria-Hungary during World War I provided Britain and France w/ the opportunity to divide the once-great empire into many states based on European imperial ambitions. In this episode Bob and Ben speak w/ Eugene Rogan to learn more about why the Ottoman Empire was divided, how that process shaped the Middle East, and how this history helps us understand the world today. Dr. Eugene Rogan is a Professor of Modern Middle Eastern History at St Antony's College, University of Oxford. He is author of The Arabs: A History (Penguin, 2009, 3rd edition 2018), which has been translated in 18 languages and was named one of the best books of 2009 by The Economist, The Financial Times, and The Atlantic Monthly. His new book, The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, 1914-1920, was published in February 2015. We'd also like to say a special thanks to the family of Roscoe L. Strickland Jr. for providing the support that brought Dr. Rogan to MTSU as part of the Strickland Scholars Program. Additional thanks goes to Dr. Susan Myers-Shirk for her work in arranging for MTSU's Strickland Scholars to appear on our podcast. This is a rebroadcast of episode 112 which originally aired on November 19th, 2018. This rebroadcast was edited by Ben Sawyer.

This week we talk about Orbán, Hungary, and reformers.We also discuss Fidesz, Tisza, and illiberalism.Recommended Book: I'm Starting to Worry About This Black Box of Doom by Jason ParginTranscriptHungary is a Central European country that was formed in the aftermath of WWI as part of the Treaty of Trianon, which—due to it having fought on the losing side of that conflict—resulted in the loss of more than 70% of its former territory, most of its economy, nearly 60% of its population, and about 32% of ethnic Hungarians who were left scattered across land that was given to neighboring countries when what was then Austria-Hungary was broken apart, initially by Hungary declaring independence from Austria, and then by those neighbors carving it up, grabbing land at the end of and just after the war, all of them pretty pissed at Hungary for being part of the Central Powers, quadruple alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Bulgaria.Today, Hungary is surrounded on all sides by other nations, including those who gobbled up some of their territory, back in the day. They've got Slovakia to their north, Ukraine to their northeast, Romania is to the east, and Serbia is to the south. Croatia and Slovenia are to their southwest, and Austria, which used to be part of the same nation as Hungary, is to their west.In 2026, Hungary has a population of a little over 9.5 million people, and the vast majority of those people, around 97.7%, are ethnic Hungarians, the next-largest ethnic group is Romani, weighing in at just 2.4%.During WWII, Hungary was on the Axis side of the conflict, once again ending up on the losing side of a world war, and was eventually occupied by the Soviet Union, which converted the nation into a satellite state called the Hungarian People's Republic. Hungarians tried to revolt their way out of the Soviet Union's grip in 1956, but it didn't work. In 1989, though, during the wave of other regional revolutions that tore the Soviet Union apart, Hungary peacefully transitioned into a parliamentary democracy, and it joined the EU in 2004.What I'd like to talk about today is post-Soviet, Third Republic Hungary, the country's conversion into an ultra-conservative, ultra-corrupt state, and how a decade and a half of democratic backsliding might be eased, at least somewhat, by new leadership that just won an overwhelming majority in Hungary's recent elections.—In the 1990s, Hungary began its transition from state-run authoritarianism under the Soviets into the type of capitalism-centered democracy that was being spread by the US and its allies during the Cold War.In Hungary, like many other post-Soviet nations, this transition wasn't smooth, and the country experienced a severe economic recession that sparked all manner of social upsets, as well.Hungary's Socialist Party did really well in elections for a while, in large part because of how badly capitalism seemed to doing, and all the downsides locals now associated with it, but the Socialists went back and forth with other governments, especially the liberal conservative Fidesz (FEE-dez) party, each government taking the reins for four years before being voted out, replaced by the opposition, which was then voted out four years later and replaced by their opposition.In 2006, there was a big to-do about a report that the then-Prime Minister, in charge of the Socialist Party, had admitted behind closed doors to having lied to win the last election. “We lied in the morning, we lied in the evening, and we lied at night,” he said during that closed-doors speech, and the divulgence of this led to nationwide protests and a period, which continues today, in which no left-wing party could attain power, only conservative governments standing a chance of running things in Hungary.In 2010, the Fidesz party, led by Viktor Orbán, won a supermajority in parliament, and the following year, parliament approved a new constitution that brought a huge number of significant changes to the government and the nation's laws. This adoption was criticized for basically being a nation-defining document that enshrines the party's Conservative Christian ideology into law, permanently, despite that ideology not reflecting the views of the country at large; just over 40% of Hungary identifies as Christian. This new constitution also significantly cut or curtailed the rights of formerly independent institutions, removing basically all checks on the government's power, and making it nearly impossible to push back against anything they might want to do, moving forward.Under Orbán, Hungary saw significant democratic backsliding, meaning the country was converted from a functioning democracy into something that looked like a democracy from the outside, with elections and a press and such, but with actual functionality closer to that of Russia, which also holds elections, but those elections are tightly controlled by the government, the outcomes preordained by locking up those who challenge the existing power structure and falsifying votes when necessary. The press, too, in Russia and Hungary, is severely limited in what it can report, those who fail to toe the party line locked up or otherwise punished, and most of these formerly and supposedly journalistic entities owned by close friends of the country's leader.This sort of setup is often called a kleptocracy or mafia-state, that hides behind the veil of democracy, because the people up top basically just do whatever they want, perpetually enriching themselves at the expense of their countrymen, and they get away with it because all the forces of government and opposition that might stand in their way are systematically removed, all while they continue to pretend that this is what the people want.Both Hungary and Russia also publicly embrace illiberal governance, at least to some degree, meaning they loudly promote top-down systems of governance, and both of their top-down systems are vehemently anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT rights, anti-women's rights, and pro-fellow illiberal states—which in this case means Hungary and Orbán tend to be close buddies with other oppressive nations, like Russia, like Iran, and like China.Orbán has thus overseen the transition of Hungary from a liberalizing, open, post-Soviet nation into a different sort of totalitarian state, his version wearing the guise of western democracy instead of Stalinesque communism, but actually functioning as a private kingdom of sorts for Orbán and his friends, all of whom became wealthy by carving up state assets and making deals that favor them, just that group of oligarchs, and all of this happening at the expense of the Hungarian people and its institutions and resources.That context established, let's talk about what happened recently, during the 2026 Hungarian parliamentary elections.On April 12, 2026, Hungary held elections to fill all 199 seats in the country's parliament. 100 seats are necessary to achieve a majority, and thus to form a government and run things.Orbán's party, Fidesz, was seeking a fifth consecutive term, partnering with the Christian Democratic People's Party in the hopes of elbowing out a newer competitor, the conservative, center-right Tisza (TEE-sah) party.This election had been promoted as the most important in EU history, as while he was in control of Hungary, Orbán had been pushing the nation further and further into Russia's orbit, allegedly even sharing classified information from private EU meetings with Russia's government. He consistently also stood in the way of EU efforts to help support Ukraine, blocking billions of dollars of funding for Ukraine's defensive efforts against Russia's continuing invasion of its neighbor; if one EU member country says no, some bloc-wide efforts can be shut-down in perpetuity. And Orbán was a consistent ‘no' for anything that was bad for Russia, or anything that was good for the EU, in the liberal democracy sense of good. He also regularly demanded what amounted to bribes to get his vote for just about anything, and was thus a consistent obstructionist for even normal government business within the bloc.This new Tisza party, which is a Hungarian abbreviation for what translates as the Respect and Freedom Party, was established in 2020, then rose to prominence when a former Orbán ally and Fidesz member, Péter Magyar left Fidesz and joined with Tisza.Tisza ran on populist principles and the overthrow of Orbán, who has been increasingly unpopular as he's continued to heavy-handedly reinforce his own hold on power, rigging election maps so that nothing but the most overwhelming imbalance in votes against him would ever lead to a loss.Unfortunately for him, that's exactly what happened in this 2026 election: nearly 80% of potential voters turned out to vote, which is the highest since 1989, when communism originally collapsed throughout Europe. And Tisza, the new opposition party led by a former Orbán loyalist, who left Fidesz during a scandal during which the government oversaw the pardoning of people responsible for covering up child sexual abuse, Tisza took 141 of 199 seats, giving them the supermajority they need to not just form a government, but to change the constitution.This is being seen as a massive victory for the EU, and a serious defeat for Russian President Putin, who will likely be losing a lot of influence in the region, but also his proxy within the EU, which allowed him to forestall and halt all sorts of anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian efforts.It's also being seen as a possible shot across the bow of illiberal and illiberalizing governments around the world, including others within Europe, but also that of the United States, which has seem similar democratic backsliding under two non-consecutive Trump administrations. The same forces that led to Orbán's loss, like a successful anti-corruption message communicated by his opposition, collapsing on-the-ground economic realities for the majority of Hungarian citizens, and a wave of support for the opposition, especially amongst young people, could lead to more toppled governments and strongman leaders in the coming years.There are still quite a few unknowns and potential pitfalls here, though.Magyar, though now the leader of a different party, was formerly in Orbán's camp; this could represent a changing of the guard up top, someone else holding the reins and enriching himself and a different group of friends, rather than a wholesale change that serves those at the bottom. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen an authoritarian replaced by a seeming freedom-fighter who then became an authoritarian, because all those former incentives remained in place when they stepped into office.It's also been posited that Putin might lean more heavily on Bulgaria as Hungary steps out of his sphere of influence; one pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian, anti-EU European Union nation replaced by another, the obstructionism continuing, but with different people on the Russian payroll.As I'm recording this, polls from elections in Bulgaria that happened this past weekend seem to favor Bulgaria's former president, who is pro-Russian and anti-Ukraine, though his administration seems to be filled with pro-EU representatives. It could be that he plays nice with the West while still opposing support for Ukraine, or it could be he waits to see which way the large-scale winds blow before deciding how to lean; he's been pretty vague about how he'll govern, and the people of Bulgaria seem like they'll be happy just to have a functioning government after a long period without. So this guy could represent a foot in the door for Putin, but he could also be a reformer; he could also be a bit of both.It's also possible Orbán, who admitted defeat in the face of his opponent's overwhelming parliamentary victory, will try some kind of last minute maneuver to stay in power, claiming that the vote was rigged against in him some way, for instance—a classic authoritarian move that has been repeated by these sorts governments over and over, including in modern history, and at times, unfortunately, successfully.Show Noteshttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/15/hungarys-magyar-urges-president-to-quit-vows-to-overhaul-state-mediahttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g40npz37lohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/04/18/bulgaria-election-radev-russia-orban/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-18/hungary-s-tisza-party-widens-election-majority-in-fresh-tallyhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/18/opinion/hungary-election-orban-loses-trump-maga.htmlhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/18/hungary-peter-magyar-donald-tusk-poland-europehttps://apnews.com/article/hungary-eu-unlock-funds-orban-5a208f4094d4d66a47de9fc10b9d194fhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hungary-putin-orban-russia-ukraine-b2959920.htmlhttps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/04/hungary-orban-loss/686832/https://www.npr.org/2026/04/16/nx-s1-5784063/hungarian-americans-orban-defeat-trump-authoritarianism-democrats-republicanshttps://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2026/04/hungarys-election-significance-and-implications/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/17/eu-officials-hungary-talks-peter-magyar-governmenthttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-hungarys-vote-to-oust-viktor-orban-could-have-global-implicationshttps://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/hungary-just-voted-out-viktor-orban-heres-what-to-expect-in-europe-and-beyond/https://geopoliticalfutures.com/hungarys-landmark-election/https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/could-bulgaria-replace-hungary-as-putins-proxy-inside-the-eu/https://ecfr.eu/article/four-principles-for-an-eu-hungary-reset/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/13/world/europe/hungary-election-results-orban-magyar.htmlhttps://apnews.com/article/hungary-election-orban-magyar-trump-1a4eb0ba6b94e0c80c3cd18bd36254abhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_diasporahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungaryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Law_of_Hungaryhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/19/world/europe/bulgaria-elections-what-to-know.html This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

This week Andy Hamilton, Colin Shindler and Jon Holmes discuss turning points in football history.  The historian A.J.P. Taylor, a name that has never graced a football podcast previously famously described the 1848 revolutions, particularly in Germany, as a "turning point in history that failed to turn".  Well the panel now discuss those moments in football history which were significant turning points in the evolution of the game we see today.  Our first turning point deals with the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary but some time after its collapse.  On a murky afternoon in November 1953 the Hungarian football team came to Wembley and shocked the world by defeating England in its fortress – and not just defeating them, they wiped the floor with us.  But was this really a turning point in British football?  After all, the old WM formation carried on for many years after Hidegkuti had demonstrated the value of a new fashioned number 9 and you could argue that it took a further 13 years until 1966 when England finally emerged from the 1953 induced nightmare. Are the panel's turning points the same as yours? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In 1914, Europe was dominated by four great empires — the British, the French, the Russian, and the vast, uneasy realm of Austria-Hungary, stretching from the Alps to the Balkans. While international treaties bound the continent together under a veneer of peace, beneath the surface, the balance was increasingly fragile. As this tension bubbled, the visit of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his beloved wife Sophie to Sarajevo was meant to assert imperial authority. But waiting in the shadows, a group of young conspirators, inspired by Serbian nationalism, were convinced that killing the Archduke could free their people from his empire. What followed took only moments, but the consequences echo throughout history.   So who were the handful of young nationalists who sparked war in Europe? How did the deaths of one loving couple come to carry such enormous weight? And why, in 1914, was Europe so fragile that a single shooting could tear it apart? This is a Short History Of the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. A Noiser podcast production. Hosted by John Hopkins. With thanks to Sue Woolmans, royal historian, writer, and co-author of The Assassination of the Archduke. Written by Sean Coleman | Produced by Kate Simants | Production Assistant: Chris McDonald | Exec produced by Katrina Hughes | Sound supervisor: Tom Pink | Sound design by Oliver Sanders | Assembly edit by Anisha Deva | Compositions by Oliver Baines, Dorry Macaulay, Tom Pink | Mix & mastering: Cody Reynolds-Shaw Go to https://surfshark.com/shorthistory or use code SHORTHISTORY at checkout to get 4 extra months of Surfshark VPN! Unlock the next two episodes of Short History Of… right now by subscribing to Noiser+. You'll also get ad-free listening and early access to shows across the Noiser podcast network, including Real Survival Stories and Sherlock Holmes Short Stories. Just click the subscription banner at the top of the feed, or head to www.noiser.com/subscriptions to get started. ⁠A Short History of Ancient Rome⁠ - the debut book from the Noiser Network is out now! Discover the epic rise and fall of Rome like never before. Pick up your copy now at your local bookstore or visit ⁠⁠noiser.com/books⁠⁠ to learn more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we turn our attention away from the Western Front and towards a often-neglected combatant of the First World War: the Austro-Hungarian Empire.When we think of military incompetence in the Great War, our minds typically turn to the Western Front—to Haig, to Passchendaele, to the "lions led by donkeys" thesis. But the Habsburg army, which fought the Russians and the Italians across vast and challenging theaters, offers an even starker case study in structural weakness and strategic fantasy.Drawing on Alexander Watson's superb *Ring of Steel*, we examine the multiple deficiencies that plagued the Dual Monarchy's forces in July 1914. The problems began with manpower. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a patchwork of nations and ethnicities, and loyalty to the Habsburg crown varied dramatically. In the German-speaking west, draft evasion stood at just 3%. In the Czech lands, it rose to 6-7.3%. Among Hungarians—still nursing grievances from 1848—over a quarter ignored their summons. And in Galicia and the South Slav lands, where illiteracy was high and irredentist movements simmered, more than one third of men failed to present themselves for service. Many had simply emigrated to America.But the deficiencies went far deeper than manpower. The army was desperately short of modern artillery. Its divisions had fewer guns than their Russian counterparts, and two-thirds of those were obsolete—bronze-barrelled pieces without recoil mechanisms or protective shields. Ammunition stocks were around half those of other great powers. The logistical infrastructure—barracks, depots, railways—was wholly inadequate for the expansion war would require.Perhaps most fatally, the army's tactical doctrine was frozen in the nineteenth century. The Chief of Staff, Conrad von Hötzendorf, was regarded as a genius within the officer corps. His 1890 manual on tactics remained gospel a quarter of a century later. He believed that "energy, decisiveness and action" could overcome firepower, that infantry could win "even without support from other weapons" through "unbendable steadfastness of will." Foreign observers watching pre-war manoeuvres were appalled: officers standing upright behind firing lines, troops advancing in close formations, a complete obliviousness to terrain. The German military attaché's verdict was damning: mere cannon fodder.The Central Powers' war plan demanded the impossible of both Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Germans were asked to defeat France in six weeks. The Austro-Hungarians were asked to hold the Russian army while simultaneously invading Serbia. Neither task was remotely achievable with the forces and doctrine available.**Topics covered:**- The multi-ethnic challenge of Habsburg recruitment- Draft evasion rates across the empire- Emigration and the loss of potential soldiers- Material shortages: artillery, ammunition, infrastructure- Conrad's tactical doctrine and the cult of the offensive- Comparisons with Russian military incompetence- The gap between strategic ambition and operational realityExplaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“If we let things continue in the direction that they are taking now, I think it is more likely than not that we will end up in some kind of Great Power war within the foreseeable future.” — Arne WestadThis conversation was recorded before the invasion of Iran, which makes what you are about to hear even more chilling. In his new book, The Coming Storm: Power, Conflict, and Warnings from History, Yale historian Arne Westad warns that the structural parallels between our multipolar 2020s and the world before the First World War are too striking to ignore—and he names the Middle East as one of the flashpoints that could spark a much broader conflagration.Westad argues that the structural parallels between our multipolar 2020s and the world before the First World War are “striking.” A dominant power (USA) withdrawing from the international system it created. Rising inequality and globalization backlash. New technologies that speed up time and shrink the window for decision-making. A rising Great Power—China—that, like Wilhelmine Germany, simply cannot stop growing. And a declining empire—Russia—that, like Austria-Hungary, has quarrels on every border and an alliance with the rising power next door.The cast of characters, Westad warns, is also uncomfortably familiar. Trump is Joseph Chamberlain—the British conservative who turned his party against the free trade system it had championed. Putin's Russia is Austria-Hungary: an empire in long-term decline that acted in 1914 because it believed Germany would back it up. And nuclear weapons? Before 1914, people wrote long books about how new military technologies made war unthinkable. We are taking refuge in that same bad logic today.The difference, Westad insists, is that we know how 1914 ended. We have international institutions built to prevent it. And we still have time—but not much, he warns—to forge the kind of Great Power compromise that could pull us back from the brink. Whether we will is another question entirely. Especially given our current historical amnesia. So might Archduke Ferdinand be Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this time around? Stay tuned. It's squeaky bum time once again in world history. Five Takeaways•       We're Living in a Pre-1914 Moment: A multipolar world. Rising inequality. Globalization backlash. New technologies that speed up time and reduce the window for decision-making. A dominant power withdrawing from the international system it created. The structural parallels between the early 20th century and the 2020s are, in Westad's word, “striking.”•       China Is the New Germany: A rapidly rising Great Power that can't stop growing, generating dissonance in an established international system. As the British told the Germans: “If you could just stop growing, little Hans, all would be fine and dandy.” That's exactly what China cannot do. And it takes two to tango on compromise.•       Russia Is the New Austria-Hungary: An empire in long-term decline with quarrels on every border, allied to the most rapidly rising Great Power next to it. Austria acted in 1914 because they believed Germany would back them up. The parallel to the China-Russia relationship today is uncomfortably close.•       Trump Is Joseph Chamberlain: The British conservative who turned his party against the free trade system it had championed. Chamberlain never made it to prime minister, but he came close and reshaped his party in ways no one foresaw—exactly what Trump has done to the Republicans.•       Nuclear Weapons May Not Save Us: Before 1914, people wrote long books about how new military technologies—poison gas, battleships, aerial bombardment—made war unthinkable. We are taking refuge in the same logic today. Westad is not so sure the deterrent fully holds anymore. About the GuestOdd Arne Westad is the Elihu Professor of History and Global Affairs at Yale University. He is the author of The Coming Storm: Power, Conflict, and Warnings from History as well as The Cold War: A World History, The Global Cold War (winner of the Bancroft Prize), and Restless Empire (winner of the Asia Society Book Award).ReferencesBooks and authors mentioned:•       Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers, on how Europe stumbled into the First World War (previous Keen On guest)•       Philipp Blom, The Vertigo Years: Europe 1900–1914, on technology and cultural disruption before the war•       Paul Kennedy, on the rise of British-German antagonism and Great Power rivalry•       Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale (referenced in the Sutton episode the previous day)About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters: 

The empire was reorganised into two legally distinct states governed from Vienna and Budapest. Each possessed its own parliament and domestic administration, but they shared a single monarch who ruled as Emperor of Austria and King of ...

In this episode, Sean and James explore how World War I spread beyond the Western Front into a truly global conflict. They trace massive campaigns across Eastern Europe, where Germany and Austria-Hungary drove deep into Russian territory, and in the West, where repeated Allied offensives in Artois, Champagne, and Ypres failed to break the stalemate. The episode also covers the fall of Serbia, the opening of the Salonika Front, Italy’s entry into the war, and the British advance up the Tigris that led to the siege of Kut-al-Amara. By the end of 1915, millions were dead or displaced, and it had become clear that the war would be long, brutal, and worldwide in scale.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While the Western Front quickly descended into trench warfare, the fighting in the East remained highly mobile, spanning vast distances across Eastern Europe. In this episode, Sean and James discuss Austria-Hungary’s failed invasions of Serbia, Russia’s disastrous defeats at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes, and the massive but costly Russian victory over Austria at Galicia. Listeners will learn how poor leadership, logistical chaos, and ethnic divisions crippled the Austro-Hungarian and Russian armies alike. By year’s end, both sides were bloodied and exhausted, setting the stage for a long and brutal struggle in the East.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Summary:In this episode of Explaining History, Nick moves beyond the familiar trenches of the Western Front to explore the terrifying reality of the Eastern Front in 1914. Drawing from Alexander Watson's masterful book Ring of Steel, we examine how the German and Austro-Hungarian empires experienced the outbreak of World War I not just as a military conflict, but as a fight for survival against a "despotic" Russian invader.We delve into the panic that gripped the border city of Allenstein (now Olsztyn, Poland) as Tsarist troops advanced, bringing with them rumors of Cossack atrocities and a "jarringly modern ambition" to racially remap the region. Why was the fear of Russian invasion so potent in the German psyche? And how did these early experiences of occupation and ethnic cleansing shape the brutal politics of the interwar period and the rise of Nazism?Plus: Stay tuned for an announcement about an upcoming live masterclass on Russian History for A-Level students!Key Topics:The Russian Steamroller: The massive Tsarist offensives into East Prussia and Galicia.Civilian Panic: The refugee crisis and the psychological trauma of invasion.Ethnic Cleansing in 1914: How Russian plans for "racial unity" foreshadowed the horrors of WWII.The Siege of Allenstein: A case study of a German city on the brink of occupation.Books Mentioned:Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary at War, 1914–1918 by Alexander WatsonYou can read the full article at www.explaininghistory.orgExplaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last time we spoke about the Changsha fire. Chiang Kai-shek faced a brutal choice: defend Wuhan to the last man or flood the land to slow the invaders. He chose both, pushing rivers and rallying a fractured army as Japanese forces pressed along the Yangtze. Fortresses at Madang held long, but the cost was high—troops lost, civilians displaced, a city's heart burning in the night. Wuhan fell after months of brutal fighting, yet the battle did not break China's will. Mao Zedong urged strategy over martyrdom, preferring to drain the enemy and buy time for a broader struggle. The Japanese, though victorious tactically, found their strength ebbing, resource strains, supply gaps, and a war that felt endless. In the wake of Wuhan, Changsha stood next in the Japanese crosshairs, its evacuation and a devastating fire leaving ash and memory in its wake. Behind these prices, political currents swirled. Wang Jingwei defected again, seeking power beyond Chiang's grasp, while Chongqing rose as a western bastion of resistance. The war hardened into a protracted stalemate, turning Japan from an aggressive assailant into a wary occupier, and leaving China to endure, persist, and fight on.   #175  The Soviet-Japanese Border Conflicts Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. So based on the title of this one, you probably can see we are taking a bit of a detour. For quite some time we have focused on the Japanese campaigns into China proper 1937-1938. Now the way the second sino-japanese war is traditionally broken down is in phases. 1937-1938, 1939-1942 and 1942-1945. However there is actually even more going on in China aside from the war with Japan. In Xinjiang province a large full blown Islamic revolution breaks out in 1937. We will be covering that story at a later date, but another significant event is escalating border skirmishes in Manchukuo. Now these border skirmishes had been raging ever since the USSR consolidated its hold over the far east. We talked about some of those skirmishes prior to the Sino-Soviet war in 1929. However when Japan created the puppet government of Manchukuo, this was a significant escalation in tensions with the reds. Today we are going to talk about the escalating border conflicts between the Soviets and Japan. A tongue of poorly demarcated land extends southeast from Hunchun, hugging the east bank of the Tumen River between Lake Khasan to the east and Korea to the west. Within this tongue stands Changkufeng Hill, one of a long chain of highlands sweeping from upstream along the rivers and moors toward the sea. The twin-peaked hill sits at the confluence area several miles northwest of the point where Manchuria, Korea, and the Russian Far East meet. The hill's shape reminded Koreans of their changgo, which is a long snare drum constricted at the center and tapped with the hands at each end. When the Manchus came to the Tumen, they rendered the phonetic sounds into three ideographic characters meaning "taut drum peaks" or Chang-ku-feng. The Japanese admired the imagery and preserved the Chinese readings, which they pronounce Cho-ko-ho. From their eastern vantage, the Russians called it Zaozernaya, "hill behind the lake." Soviet troops referred to it as a sugar-loaf hill. For many years, natives and a handful of officials in the region cultivated a relaxed attitude toward borders and sovereignty. Even after the Japanese seized Manchuria in 1931, the issue did not immediately come to a head. With the expansion of Manchukuo and the Soviet Far East under Stalin's Five-Year plans, both sides began to attend more closely to frontier delimitation. Whenever either party acted aggressively, force majeure was invoked to justify the unexpected and disruptive events recognized in international law. Most often, these incidents erupted along the eastern Manchurian borders with the USSR or along the 350-mile frontier south of Lake Khanka, each skirmish carrying the seeds of all-out warfare. Now we need to talk a little bit about border history. The borders in question essentially dated to pacts concluded by the Qing dynasty and the Tsardom. Between the first Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689 and the Mukden Agreement of 1924, there were over a dozen accords governing the borders. Relevant to Changkufeng were the basic 15-article Convention of Peking, supplementing the Tientsin Treaties of November 1860, some maps made in 1861, and the eight-article Hunchun Border Protocol of 1886. By the 1860 treaty, the Qing ceded to Tsarist Russia the entire maritime province of Siberia, but the meaning of "lands south of Lake Khanka" remained rather vague. Consequently, a further border agreement was negotiated in June 1861 known as "the Lake Khanka Border Pact", by which demarcations were drawn on maps and eight wooden markers erected. The border was to run from Khanka along ridgelines between the Hunchun River and the sea, past Suifenho and Tungning, terminating about 6 miles from the mouth of the Tumen. Then a Russo-Chinese commission established in 1886 drew up the Hunchun Border Pact, proposing new or modified markers along the 1860–1861 lines and arranging a Russian resurvey. However, for the Japanese, in 1938, the Chinese or Manchu texts of the 1886 Hunchun agreement were considered controlling. The Soviets argued the border ran along every summit west of Khasan, thereby granting them jurisdiction over at least the eastern slopes of all elevations, including Changkufeng and Shachaofeng.  Since the Qing dynasty and the house of Romanov were already defunct, the new sovereignties publicly appealed to opposing texts, and the Soviet side would not concede that the Russian-language version had never been deemed binding by the Qing commissioners. Yet, even in 1938, the Japanese knew that only the Chinese text had survived or could be located.    Now both the Chinese and Russian military maps generally drew the frontier along the watershed east of Khasan; this aligned with the 1861 readings based on the Khanka agreement. The Chinese Republican Army conducted new surveys sometime between 1915 and 1920. The latest Chinese military map of the Changkufeng area drew the border considerably closer to the old "red line" of 1886, running west of Khasan but near the shore rather than traversing the highland crests. None of the military delimitations of the border was sanctified by an official agreement. Hence, the Hunchun Protocol, whether well known or not, invaluable or worthless, remained the only government-to-government pact dealing with the frontiers.  Before we jump into it, how about a little summary of what became known as the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts. The first major conflict would obviously be the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. Following years of conflict between the Russian Empire and Japan culminating in the costly Battle of Tsushima, Tsar Nicholas II's government sought peace, recognizing Japan's claims to Korea and agreeing to evacuate Manchuria.  From 1918 to 1920, the Imperial Japanese Army, under Emperor Taishō after the death of Meiji, assisted the White Army and Alexander Kerensky against the Bolshevik Red Army. They also aided the Czechoslovak Legion in Siberia to facilitate its return to Europe after an Austrian-Hungarian armoured train purportedly went astray. By 1920, with Austria-Hungary dissolved and Czechoslovakia established two years earlier, the Czechoslovak Legion reached Europe. Japan withdrew from the Russian Revolution and the Civil War in 1922. Following Japan's 1919-1920 occupations and the Soviet intervention in Mongolia in 1921, the Republic of China also withdrew from Outer Mongolia in 1921. In 1922, after capturing Vladivostok in 1918 to halt Bolshevik advances, Japanese forces retreated to Japan as Bolshevik power grew and the postwar fatigue among combatants increased. After Hirohito's invasion of Manchuria in 1931–1932, following Taishō's death in 1926, border disputes between Manchukuo, the Mongolian People's Republic, and the Soviet Union increased. Many clashes stemmed from poorly defined borders, though some involved espionage. Between 1932 and 1934, the Imperial Japanese Army reported 152 border disputes, largely tied to Soviet intelligence activity in Manchuria, while the Soviets accused Japan of 15 border violations, six air intrusions, and 20 cases of "spy smuggling" in 1933 alone. Numerous additional violations followed in the ensuing years. By the mid-1930s, Soviet-Japanese diplomacy and trust had deteriorated further, with the Japanese being openly labeled "fascist enemies" at the Seventh Comintern Congress in July 1935. Beginning in 1935, conflicts significantly escalated. On 8 January 1935, the first armed clash, known as the Halhamiao incident, took place on the border between Mongolia and Manchukuo. Several dozen cavalrymen of the Mongolian People's Army crossed into Manchuria near disputed fishing grounds and engaged an 11‑man Manchukuo Imperial Army patrol near the Buddhist temple at Halhamiao, led by a Japanese military advisor. The Manchukuo Army sustained 6 wounded and 2 dead, including the Japanese officer; the Mongols suffered no casualties and withdrew after the Japanese sent a punitive expedition to reclaim the area. Two motorized cavalry companies, a machine‑gun company, and a tankette platoon occupied the position for three weeks without resistance. In June 1935, the first direct exchange of fire between the Japanese and Soviets occurred when an 11‑man Japanese patrol west of Lake Khanka was attacked by six Soviet horsemen, reportedly inside Manchukuo territory. In the firefight, one Soviet soldier was killed and two horses were captured. The Japanese requested a joint investigation, but the Soviets rejected the proposal. In October 1935, nine Japanese and 32 Manchukuoan border guards were establishing a post about 20 kilometers north of Suifenho when they were attacked by 50 Soviet soldiers. The Soviets opened fire with rifles and five heavy machine guns. Two Japanese and four Manchukuoan soldiers were killed, and another five were wounded. The Manchukuoan foreign affairs representative lodged a verbal protest with the Soviet consul at Suifenho. The Kwantung Army of Japan also sent an intelligence officer to investigate the clash. On 19 December 1935, a Manchukuoan unit reconnoitering southwest of Buir Lake clashed with a Mongolian party, reportedly capturing 10 soldiers. Five days later, 60 truck‑borne Mongolian troops assaulted the Manchukuoans and were repulsed, at the cost of three Manchukuoan dead. On the same day, at Brunders, Mongolian forces attempted three times to drive out Manchukuoan outposts, and again at night, but all attempts failed. Further small attempts occurred in January, with Mongolians using airplanes for reconnaissance. The arrival of a small Japanese force in three trucks helped foil these attempts; casualties occurred on both sides, though Mongolian casualties are unknown aside from 10 prisoners taken. In February 1936, Lieutenant-Colonel Sugimoto Yasuo was ordered to form a detachment from the 14th Cavalry Regiment to "drive the Outer Mongol intruders from the Olankhuduk region," a directive attributed to Lieutenant-General Kasai Heijuro. Sugimoto's detachment included cavalry guns, heavy machine guns, and tankettes. They faced a force of about 140 Mongolians equipped with heavy machine guns and light artillery. On February 12, Sugimoto's men drove the Mongolians south, at the cost of eight Japanese killed, four wounded, and one tankette destroyed. The Japanese began to withdraw, but were attacked by 5–6 Mongolian armored cars and two bombers, which briefly disrupted the column. The situation was stabilized when the Japanese unit received artillery support, allowing them to destroy or repel the armored cars. In March 1936, the Tauran incident occurred. In this clash, both the Japanese Army and the Mongolian Army deployed a small number of armored fighting vehicles and aircraft. The incident began when 100 Mongolian and six Soviet troops attacked and occupied the disputed village of Tauran, Mongolia, driving off the small Manchurian garrison. They were supported by light bombers and armored cars, though the bombing sorties failed to inflict damage on the Japanese, and three bombers were shot down by Japanese heavy machine guns. Local Japanese forces counter-attacked, conducting dozens of bombing sorties and finally assaulting Tauran with 400 men and 10 tankettes. The result was a Mongolian rout, with 56 Mongolian soldiers killed, including three Soviet advisors, and an unknown number wounded. Japanese losses were 27 killed and 9 wounded. Later in March 1936, another border clash occurred between Japanese and Soviet forces. Reports of border violations prompted the Japanese Korean Army to send ten men by truck to investigate, but the patrol was ambushed by 20 Soviet NKVD soldiers deployed about 300 meters inside territory claimed by Japan. After suffering several casualties, the Japanese patrol withdrew and was reinforced with 100 men, who then drove off the Soviets. Fighting resumed later that day when the NKVD brought reinforcements. By nightfall, the fighting had ceased and both sides had pulled back. The Soviets agreed to return the bodies of two Japanese soldiers who had died in the fighting, a development viewed by the Japanese government as encouraging. In early April 1936, three Japanese soldiers were killed near Suifenho in another minor affray. This incident was notable because the Soviets again returned the bodies of the fallen servicemen. In June 1937, the Kanchazu Island incident occurred on the Amur River along the Soviet–Manchukuo border. Three Soviet gunboats crossed the river's center line, disembarked troops, and occupied Kanchazu Island. Japanese forces from the IJA 1st Division, equipped with two horse-drawn 37 mm artillery pieces, quickly established improvised firing positions and loaded their guns with both high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. They shelled the Soviet vessels, sinking the lead gunboat, crippling the second, and driving off the third. Japanese troops subsequently fired on the swimming crewmen from the sunken ships using machine guns. Thirty-seven Soviet soldiers were killed, while Japanese casualties were zero. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs protested and demanded the Soviet forces withdraw from the island. The Soviet leadership, apparently shocked by the incident and reluctant to escalate, agreed to evacuate their troops. By 1938 the border situation had deteriorated. The tangled terrain features, mountain, bog, stream, forest, and valley, would have complicated even careful observers' discernment of the old red line drawn in 1886. Fifty years later, the markers themselves had undergone a metamorphosis. Japanese investigators could find, at most, only 14 to 17 markers standing fairly intact between the Tumen estuary and Khanka—roughly one every 25 miles at best. The remainder were missing or ruined; five were found in new locations. Marker "K," for example, was 40 meters deeper inside Manchuria, away from Khanka. Japanese military experts noted that of the 20 markers originally set along the boundaries of Hunchun Prefecture alone, only four could be found by the summer of 1938. The rest had either been wrecked or arbitrarily moved and discarded by Russian or Chinese officials and inhabitants. It is even said that one missing marker could be seen on display in Khabarovsk. The Chinese had generally interpreted the boundary as the road line just west of Khasan, at least in practice. Free road movement, however, had become a problem even 20 years before the Japanese overran Manchuria in 1931–1932 during the so-called Manchurian Incident. The Japanese adopted, or inherited, the Chinese interpretation, which was based on the 1886 agreement on border roads; the key clause held that the frontier west of Khasan would be the road along the lake. Japanese sources emphasize that local residents' anger toward gradual Soviet oppression and penetrations westward into Manchurian territory fueled the conflict. Many natives believed the original boundaries lay east of the lake, but the Soviets adjusted the situation to suit their own convenience. In practice, the Russians were restricting road use just west of Khasan by Manchurian and Korean residents. There was speculation that this was a prelude to taking over the ridgelines, depending on the reaction of the Manchukuoan–Japanese side. Villagers who went to streams or the lake to launder clothing found themselves subjected to sniper fire. Along a 25-mile stretch of road near Shachaofeng, farmers reported coming under fire from new Soviet positions as early as November 1935. Nevertheless, Japanese and Koreans familiar with the Tumen area noted agrarian, seasonal Korean religious rites atop Changkufeng Hill, including fattened pigs sacrificed and changgo drums beaten. Village elders told Japanese visitors in 1938 that, until early the preceding year, no Russians had come as far as Changkufeng Hill. Looking only at the border sector around Changkufeng, the easy days were clearly behind us. In the summer of 1938, Gaimusho "Foreign Ministry" observers described the explosive situation along the Korea–Manchuria–USSR borders as a matter of de facto frontiers. Both sides pressed against each other, and their trigger-happy posture was summed up in the colloquial refrain: "Take another step and we'll let you have it." Near dawn on 13 June 1938, a Manchurian patrol detected a suspicious figure in the fog swirling over Changlingtzu Hill on the Siberian–Manchurian frontier. Challenged at 15 feet, the suspect hurled two pistols to the ground and raised his hands in surrender. At headquarters, the police soon realized this was no routine border-trespassing case. The man was a defector and he was a Russian general, in fact he was the director of all NKVD forces in the Soviet Far East. Beneath a mufti of spring coat and hunting cap, he wore a full uniform with medals. His identification card No. 83 designated him as G. S. Lyushkov, Commissar 3rd Class, countersigned by Nikolai Yezhov, NKVD head in Moscow. Lyushkov was promptly turned over to the Japanese military authorities, who transferred him to Seoul and then to Tokyo under close escort. On 1 July, the Japanese press was permitted to disclose that Lyushkov had sought refuge in Japan. Ten days later, to capitalize on the commissar's notoriety and to confound skeptics, the Japanese produced Lyushkov at a press conference in Tokyo. For the Japanese and foreign correspondents, who met separately with him, Lyushkov described Soviet Far East strength and the turmoil wracking the USSR, because for those of you unfamiliar this was during the Stalinist purges. Clearly, the Japanese had gained a unique reservoir of high-level intelligence and a wealth of materials, including notes scratched in blood by suspects incarcerated at Khabarovsk. A general tightening of Russian frontier security had recently been reported. Natives of Fangchuanting asserted that a Soviet cavalry patrol appeared in June, seemingly for the first time. Contact with Yangkuanping, northwest of Khasan, was severed. More importantly, Japanese Army Signal Corps intelligence detected a surge of Soviet message traffic from the Posyet Bay district. After Lyushkov's defection, a drastic reshuffle in the local Russian command apparently occurred, and responsibility for border surveillance seems to have been reallocated. Japanese records indicate that the Novokievsk security force commander was relieved and the sector garrison replaced by troops from Vladivostok. Gaimusho intelligence also received reports that a border garrison unit had been transferred from Khabarovsk or Chita to the Tumen sector. The Kwantung Army signal monitors also intercepted two significant frontline messages on 6 July from the new Russian local commander in the Posyet region, addressed to Lieutenant General Sokolov in Khabarovsk. Decoded, the messages suggested (1) that ammunition for infantry mortars amounted to less than half the required supply; and  (2) a recommendation that higher headquarters authorize Russian elements to secure certain unoccupied high ground west of Khasan.  The commander noted terrain advantages and the contemplated construction of emplacements that would command Najin and the Korean railway. As a start, at least one Russian platoon should be authorized to dig in on the highest ground (presumably Changkufeng) and deploy four tons of entanglements to stake out the Soviet claim. Korea Army Headquarters received a telegram from the Kwantung Army on 7 July conveying the deciphered messages. On the same day, the 19th Division in North Korea telephoned Seoul that, on 6 July, three or four Soviet horsemen had been observed reconnoitering Manchurian territory from atop a hill called Changkufeng. The alarming intelligence from the Kwantung Army and the front warranted immediate attention by the Korea Army. Some Kwantung Army officers doubted the significance of the developments, with one intelligence official even suggesting the Russian messages might be a deliberate ploy designed to entrap the Japanese at Changkufeng. On 7–8 July, all staff officers in Seoul convened at army headquarters. The name of Changkufeng Hill was not well known, but maps and other data suggested that neither the Japanese nor the Russians had previously stationed border units in the ridge complex west of Khasan. As early as March 1936, Army Commander Koiso Kuniaki had distributed maps to subordinate units, indicating which sectors were in dispute. No patrol was to enter zones lacking definitive demarcation. Until then, the only Japanese element east of the Tumen was a Manchurian policeman at Fangchuanting. Ownership of the high ground emerged as an early issue. A number of other points were raised by  the Kwantung Army: At present, Soviet elements in the area were negligible. The intrusion must not be overlooked. The Russians could be expected to exploit any weakness, and half-measures would not suffice, especially regarding the Japanese defense mission along a 125-mile frontier. In Japanese hands, Changkufeng Hill would be useful, but two excellent observation posts already existed in the neighboring sector of the Manchurian tongue. With dissidence and purges underway, the Russians may have judged it necessary to seal border gaps, particularly after Lyushkov's defection. They may also have sought to control Changkufeng to offset Japanese dominance of the high ground to the north. Soviet seizure of Changkufeng would upset the delicate status quo and could provoke a contest for equivalent observation posts. In broader terms, it mattered little whether the Russians sought a permanent observation post on Changkufeng Hill, which was of relatively minor strategic value. Japan's primary concern lay in the China theater; Changkufeng was peripheral. The Japanese should not expend limited resources or become distracted. The matter required consultation with the high command in Tokyo. In the absence of more comprehensive intelligence, the assembled staff officers concluded that the Korea Army should, at a minimum, ignore or disregard Soviet actions for the time being, while maintaining vigilant observation of the area. The consensus was communicated to Major General Kitano Kenzo, the Korea Army chief of staff, who concurred, and to Koiso. Upon learning that the recommendation advocated a low posture, Koiso inquired only whether the opinion reflected the unanimous view of the staff. Having been assured that it did, he approved the policy. Koiso, then 58, was at the threshold of the routine personnel changes occurring around 15 July. He had just been informed that he would retire and that General Nakamura Kotaro would succeed him. Those acquainted with Koiso perceived him as treating the border difficulties as a minor anticlimax in the course of his command tour. He appeared unemphatic or relaxed as he prepared to depart from a post he had held for twenty-one years. Although neither Koiso nor his staff welcomed the Soviet activities that appeared under way, his reaction likely reflected a reluctance to make decisions that could constrain his soon-to-arrive successor. On 8 July Koiso authorized the dispatch of warnings to the 19th Division at Nanam, to the Hunchun garrison, and to the intelligence branch at Hunchun. These units were instructed to exercise maximum precautions and to tighten frontier security north of Shuiliufeng. In response to the initial appearance of Soviet horsemen at Changkufeng, the Kucheng Border Garrison Unit of the 76th Infantry Regiment maintained close surveillance across the Tumen. By about noon on 9 July, patrols detected approximately a dozen Russian troops commencing construction atop Changkufeng. Between 11 and 13 July, the number of soldiers on the slopes increased to forty; there were also thirty horses and eleven camouflaged tents. Operating in shifts on the western side, thirty meters from the crest, the Russians erected barbed wire and firing trenches; fifty meters forward, they excavated observation trenches. In addition to existing telephone lines between Changkufeng, Lake Khasan, and Kozando, the Russians installed a portable telephone net. Logistical support was provided by three boats on the lake. Approximately twenty kilometers to the east, well within Soviet territory, large forces were being mobilized, and steamship traffic into Posyet Bay intensified. Upon learning of the "intrusion" at Changkufeng on 9 July, Lt. General Suetaka Kamezo, the commander of the 19th Division, dispatched staff officers to the front and prepared to send elements to reinforce border units.  The special significance of Suetaka and his division stemmed from a series of unusual circumstances. Chientao Province, the same zone into which Lyushkov had fled and the sector where Soviet horsemen had appeared, fell within Manchukuo geographically and administratively. Yet, in terms of defense, the configuration of the frontier, the terrain, and the transportation network more closely connected the region with North Korea than with southeastern Manchuria. Approximately 80% of the population was of Korean origin, which implied Japanese rather than Manchukuoan allegiance. Consequently, the Korea Army had been made operationally responsible for the defense of Chientao and controlled not only the three-battalion garrison at Hunchun but also the intelligence detachment located there. In the event of war, the Korea Army's mission was defined as mobilization and execution of subsidiary operational tasks against the USSR, under the control and in support of the Kwantung Army.  The Korea Army ordinarily possessed two infantry divisions, the 19th in North Korea and the 20th stationed at Seoul, but the 20th Division had already departed for China, leaving only the 20th Depot Division in the capital. Beyond sparse ground units, devoid of armor and with weak heavy artillery, there were only two air regiments in Korea, the nearest being the unit at Hoeryong. The Korea Army was designed to maintain public security within Korea as well as fulfill minimal defensive responsibilities. Such an army did not require a full-time operations officer, and none was maintained. When needed, as in mid-1938, the task fell to the senior staff officer, in this case Colonel Iwasaki Tamio. In peacetime, training constituted the primary focus.  Thus, the 19th Division was entrusted with defending northeastern Korea. Its commander, Suetaka, a seasoned infantryman, resented the fact that his elite force had never engaged in combat in China. He intensified training with zeal, emphasizing strict discipline, bravery, aggressiveness, and thorough preparation. Japanese veterans characterized him as severe, bullish, short-tempered, hot-blooded, highly strung, unbending, and stubborn. Nonetheless, there was widespread respect for his realistic training program, maintained under firm, even violent, personal supervision. His men regarded Suetaka as a professional, a modern samurai who forged the division into superb condition. Privately, he was reputed for sensitivity and warmth; a Japanese phrase "yakamashii oyaji" captures the dual sense of stern father and martinet in his character. At the outset, however, Suetaka displayed little aggression. Although not widely known, he did not welcome the orders from army headquarters to deploy to the Tumen. Until late July, he remained somewhat opposed to the notion of dislodging the Soviets from the crest, a proposition arising from neither the division staff nor, initially, Suetaka himself. Colonel Sato noted that, for a week after reports of Soviet excavation at Changkufeng, the division's response was limited to preparations for a possible emergency, as they perceived the matter as a local issue best settled through diplomacy. Korea Army officers acknowledged that, around the time the Soviets consolidated their outpost strength at Changkufeng, an informal and personal telegram arrived in Seoul from a Kwantung Army Intelligence field-grade officer who specialized in Soviet affairs. If the Korea Army hesitated, the Kwantung Army would be obliged to eject the Russians; the matter could not be ignored. While the telegram did not demand a reply and struck several officers as presumptuous and implausible, the message was promptly shown to Koiso. Koiso was driven to immediate action, he wired Tokyo asserting that only the Korea Army could and would handle the incident. One staff officer recalled "We felt we had to act, out of a sense of responsibility. But we resented the Kwantung Army's interference." The Korea Army staff convened shortly after receipt of the unofficial telegram from Hsinking. Based on the latest intelligence from the division dated 13 July, the officers prepared an assessment for submission to the army commander. The hypotheses were distilled into three scenarios: The USSR, or the Far East authorities, desires hostilities. Conclusion: Slightly possible. The USSR seeks to restrain Japan on the eve of the pivotal operations in China: the major Japanese offensive to seize Hankow. Conclusion: Highly probable. The Posyet district commander is new in his post; by occupying the Changkufeng ridges, he would demonstrate loyalty, impress superiors, and seek glory. Conclusion: Possible. Late on 13 July or early on 14 July, Koiso approved the dispatch of a message to the vice minister of war, and the Kwantung Army chief of staff:  "Lake Khasan area lies in troublesome sector USSR has been claiming . . . in accordance with treaties [said Secret Message No. 913], but we interpret it to be Manchukuoan territory, evident even from maps published by Soviet side. Russian actions are patently illegal, but, considering that area does not exert major or immediate influence on operations [Japan] is intending and that China Incident is in full swing, we are not going to conduct counterattack measures immediately. This army is thinking of reasoning with Soviets and requesting pullback, directly on spot. . . . In case Russians do not accede in long run, we have intention to drive Soviet soldiers out of area east of Khasan firmly by use of force."  The message concluded with a request that the Tokyo authorities lodge a formal protest with the USSR, on behalf of Manchukuo and Japan, and guide matters so that the Russians would withdraw quickly. Dominant in Japanese high command thinking in 1938 was the China theater; the Changkufeng episode constituted a mere digression. A sequence of Japanese tactical victories had preceded the summer: Tsingtao fell in January; the Yellow River was reached in March; a "reformed government of the Republic of China" was installed at Nanking several weeks later; Amoy fell in early May; Suchow fell on the 20th. With these gains, northern and central fronts could be linked by the Japanese. Yet Chinese resistance persisted, and while public statements anticipated imminent Chinese dissension, private admissions acknowledged that the partial effects of Suchow's fall were ominous: control might pass from Chiang Kai-shek to the Communists, Chinese defiance might intensify, and Soviet involvement could ensue. A Hankow drive appeared desirable to symbolize the conclusion of the military phase of hostilities. The Japanese and their adversaries were in accord regarding the importance of the summer and autumn campaigns. Even after Suchow's fall, the government discouraged public insinuations that enemy resistance was collapsing; when Chiang addressed the nation on the first anniversary of hostilities, Premier Konoe prophetically proclaimed, "The war has just begun." Colonel Inada Masazum served as the Army General Staff's principal figure for the Changkufeng affair, occupying the position of chief of the 2nd Operations Section within the Operations Bureau in March 1938. A distinguished graduate of the Military Academy, Inada completed the War College program and held a combination of line, instructional, and staff assignments at the War College, the Army General Staff, and the War Ministry. He was recognized as a sharp, highly capable, and driveful personality, though some regarded him as enigmatic. Following the capture of Suchow, Imperial General Headquarters on 18 June ordered field forces to undertake operational preparations for a drive to seize the Wuhan complex. Inada favored a decisive move aimed at achieving a rapid political settlement. He acknowledged that Soviet intervention in 1938, during Japan's involvement in China, would have been critical. Although Japanese forces could still defeat the Chinese, an overextended Japanese Army might be fatally compromised against the Russians. Soviet assistance to China was already pronouncedly unwelcome. The Soviets were reported to possess roughly 20 rifle divisions, four to five cavalry divisions, 1,500 tanks, and 1,560 aircraft, including 300 bombers with a range of approximately 3,000 kilometers, enabling reach from Vladivostok to Tokyo. Soviet manpower in Siberia was likely near 370,000. In response, Japanese central authorities stressed a no-trouble policy toward the USSR while seeking to "wall off" the border and bolster the Kwantung Army as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the envisaged correction of the strategic imbalance could not occur before 1943, given shortages in ammunition, manpower, and materiel across existing theaters in China. By the end of 1937 Japan had committed 16 of its 24 divisions to China, bringing the standing force to roughly 700,000. Army General Staff planners reallocated three ground divisions, intended for a northern contingency, from north to central China, even as the Kwantung Army operated from a less favorable posture. Attitudes toward the northern problem varied within senior military circles. While concern persisted, it was not universal. As campaigns in China widened, planning at the high command level deteriorated, propagating confusion and anxiety to field armies in China. The Japanese Navy suspected that the Army general staff was invoking the USSR as a pretext for broader strategic aims—namely, to provoke a more consequential confrontation with the USSR while the Navy contended with its own strategic rivalries with the Army, centered on the United States and Britain. Army leaders, however, denied aggressive intent against the USSR at that time. The Hankow plan encountered substantial internal opposition at high levels. Private assessments among army planners suggested that a two-front war would be premature given operational readiness and troop strength. Not only were new War Ministry officials cautious, but many high-ranking Army general staff officers and court circles shared doubts.  Aggressive tendencies, influenced by subordinates and the Kwantung Army, were evident in Inada, who repeatedly pressed Tada Shun, the deputy army chief of staff, to endorse the Wuhan drive as both necessary and feasible, arguing that the USSR would gain from Japan's weakening without incurring substantial losses. Inada contended that Stalin was rational and that time favored the USSR in the Far East, where industrial buildup and military modernization were ongoing. He argued that the Soviet purges impeded opportunistic ventures with Japan. He posited that Nazi Germany posed a growing threat on the western front, and thus the USSR should be avoided by both Japan, due to China and Russia, due to Germany. While most of the army remained engaged in China, Tada did not initially share Inada's views; only after inspecting the Manchurian borders in April 1938 did he finally align with Inada's broader vision, which encompassed both northern and Chinese considerations. During this period, Inada studied daily intelligence from the Kwantung Army, and after Lyushkov's defection in June, reports suggested the Soviets were following their sector commander's recommendations. Russian troops appeared at Changkufeng, seemingly prepared to dig in. Inada recollects his reaction: "That's nice, my chance has come." I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The simmering Soviet–Japanese border clashes centered on Changkufeng Hill near Lake Khanka, set within a broader history of contested frontiers dating to Qing and Tsarist treaties. Japan, prioritizing China, considered Changkufeng peripheral but ready to confront Soviet encroachment; Moscow aimed to consolidate border gains, with high-level war planning overlaying regional skirmishes. Conflict loomed over Manchuria.

SUPPORT THE SHOW ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/lionsledbydonkeys In the opening stages of WWI, an Army of 40 year old reservists from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, armed with decades-old weapons and no food, and largely unable to even speak to one another, attempt to hold off the Russian Imperial Army in what became known as "Austria-Hungary's Stalingrad" Sources: Graydon Tunstall. Written in Blood: The Battles For Fortress Przemysl in WWI. Dr. Alexander Watson. The Fortress: The Siege of Przemsysl and the Making of Europe's Bloodlands. Christopher Miskimon. The Siege of Przemysl. Military Heritage. Jan 2016. Volume 17, No 4.

fWotD Episode 3085: Jozo Tomasevich Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Wednesday, 15 October 2025, is Jozo Tomasevich.Josip "Jozo" Tomasevich (1908 – October 15, 1994; Serbo-Croatian: Josip Tomašević) was an American economist and historian whose speciality was the economic and social history of Yugoslavia. Tomasevich was born in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, then part of Austria-Hungary, and after completing high school and attending a commercial academy, he earned a doctorate in economics from the University of Basel in Switzerland. In the mid-1930s, he worked at the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade and published three well-received books on Yugoslavia's national debt, fiscal policy, and money and credit respectively.In 1938, he moved to the United States as the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and conducted research at Harvard University before joining the academic staff of Stanford University. During World War II, Tomasevich worked for the Board of Economic Warfare and the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, and post-war he joined the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. In 1948, he joined the staff at San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University). He combined research and teaching there for twenty-five years until his retirement in 1973, which was broken by a year of teaching at Columbia University in 1954. Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two positively reviewed books on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia.Tomasevich then embarked on an extensive research and writing project on Yugoslavia in World War II – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945 – which was planned to consist of three volumes. Supported by grants and fellowships, he published the first volume titled The Chetniks in 1975, which explored the development and fate of the Chetnik movement during the war. The book was well received, and twenty-five years later was described by the Yugoslav and Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein as still the "most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia". After his retirement he was appointed professor emeritus of economics at San Francisco State University, and he died in California in 1994.His final book was the second volume of the series – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – which was edited by his daughter Neda Tomasevich then published posthumously in 2001. It focused on collaboration and the quisling governments in Yugoslavia during the war with a strong emphasis on the Independent State of Croatia, an Axis puppet state. The book was highly praised by historians. The third volume on the Yugoslav Partisans remains unpublished despite being 75 per cent complete at his death. The scholarly standard Tomasevich achieved with the first two volumes in the series made his death before completing the series "a tragedy keenly felt even by those who never knew him", according to Klaus Schmider, a Royal Military Academy Sandhurst lecturer and German historian. In his obituary by Alexander Vucinich in the Slavic Review, Tomasevich was described as "a master of scholarly skills, a person of bountiful erudition, wit and human dignity".This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:48 UTC on Wednesday, 15 October 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Jozo Tomasevich on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Aditi.

In an extended version of the programme that was broadcast, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the influential book John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1919 after he resigned in protest from his role at the Paris Peace Conference. There the victors of World War One were deciding the fate of the defeated, especially Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Keynes wanted the world to know his view that the economic consequences would be disastrous for all. Soon Germany used his book to support their claim that the Treaty was grossly unfair, a sentiment that fed into British appeasement in the 1930s and has since prompted debate over whether Keynes had only warned of disaster or somehow contributed to it. With Margaret MacMillan Emeritus Professor of International History at the University of Oxford Michael Cox Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Founding Director of LSE IDEAS And Patricia Clavin Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman and Elisabeth Glaser (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998) Zachary D. Carter, The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes (Random House, 2020) Peter Clarke, Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist (Bloomsbury, 2009) Patricia Clavin et al (eds.), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace after 100 Years: Polemics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Patricia Clavin, ‘Britain and the Making of Global Order after 1919: The Ben Pimlott Memorial Lecture' (Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 31:3, 2020) Richard Davenport-Hines, Universal Man; The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes (William Collins, 2015) R. F. Harrod, John Maynard Keynes (first published 1951; Pelican, 1972) Jens Holscher and Matthias Klaes (eds), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace: A Reappraisal (Pickering & Chatto, 2014) John Maynard Keynes (with an introduction by Michael Cox), The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (John Murray Publishers, 2001) Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford University Press, 1946) D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (Routledge, 1992) Alan Sharp, Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective (Haus Publishing Ltd, 2018) Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946 (Pan Macmillan, 2004) Jürgen Tampke, A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis (Scribe UK, 2017) Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 (Penguin Books, 2015) Spanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time from BBC Radio 4 is essential listening for the intellectually curious. In each episode, host Melvyn Bragg and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.

On July 28, 1914, the Great War began when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand a month earlier. On this week's “Leaders and Legends” podcast, we discuss the beginning of the war and the march of folly in Russia, the Balkans, and beyond with Professor Nick Lloyd, author of “The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918"About Veteran Strategies‘Leaders and Legends' is brought to you by Veteran Strategies—your local veteran business enterprise specializing in media relations, crisis communications, public outreach, and digital photography.Learn more at www.veteranstrategies.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of the US Navy History Podcast, hosts Dale and Christophe delve into Italy's involvement in World War I, covering their initial alliance with the Central Powers, their subsequent switch to the Allies through the Treaty of London, and the arduous battles that ensued. They discuss the Italian fronts, including the Eastern, Western, and the crucial role played by geographic challenges such as the Alps. The episode also highlights the Italian military's struggles with supply lines, training, and morale, as well as the broader geopolitical contexts and ramifications. Furthermore, the discussion touches on contributions from other nations, strategic movements, and pivotal battles, culminating in Austria-Hungary's eventual surrender and the armistice. Additionally, the hosts provide a touching tribute to Specialist Christopher D. Horton, celebrating his life and dedication.Link to my new book!https://a.co/d/36ZbZFo

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comTara Zahra is a writer and academic. She's currently the Hanna Holborn Gray Professor of East European History at the University of Chicago. This week we discuss her latest book, Against the World: Anti-Globalism and Mass Politics Between the World Wars.For two clips of our convo — on the starving of Germany during and after WWI, and what Henry Ford and Trump have in common — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in the Poconos; her parents' butcher shop; ballet her first career goal; her undergrad course on fascism that inspired grad school; how the Habsburg Dynasty was the EU before the EU; the golden age of internationalism; cutting off trade and migration during WWI; the Spanish flu; the Russian Revolution; pogroms across Europe; scapegoating Jews over globalization and finance; the humiliation at Versailles; Austria-Hungary chopped up and balkanized; Ellis Island as a detention center; massive inflation after the war; the Klan in the 1920s; Keynes; the Great Depression and rise of fascism; mass deportations in the US; autarky; Hitler linking that self-reliance to political freedom; Lebensraum; anti-Semitism; the Red Scare; the WTO and China; the 2008 crash; Trump's tariff threats; rare earths; reshoring; fracking and energy independence; MAHA; Elon Musk and Henry Ford; Mars as Musk's Lebensraum; and the longing for national identity.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: trans activist Shannon Minter debating trans issues, Scott Anderson on the Iranian Revolution, and Johann Hari turning the tables to interview me. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the life and role of one of the most significant figures in early 20th Century German history. Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934) had been famous since 1914 as the victorious commander at the Battle of Tannenberg against Russian invaders, soon burnishing this fame on the Western Front and Hindenburg was to claim he would have won there too, if enemies at home had not 'stabbed Germany in the back'. He won Germany's Presidential election twice during the Weimar Republic, as a candidate of national unity and, while he gained his second term as a ‘stop Hitler' candidate, President Hindenburg was to appoint Hitler as Chancellor and transfer some of his charisma onto him – a move so disastrous that Germans were later to ask if the myth of Hindenburg had always been an illusion. WithAnna von der Goltz Professor of History at Georgetown University, Washington DCChris Clark Regius Professor of History at the University of CambridgeAndColin Storer Associate Professor in Modern European History at the University of WarwickProducer: Simon TillotsonReading list:William J. Astore and Dennis E. Showalter, Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism (Potomac Books, 2005)Benjamin Carter Hett, The Death of Democracy: Hitler's Rise to Power (William Heinemann, 2018) Andreas Dorpalen, Hindenburg and the Weimar Republic (first published 1964; Princeton University Press, 2016)Jürgen W. Falter, 'The Two Hindenburg Elections of 1925 and 1932: A Total Reversal of Voter Coalitions' (Central European History, 32/2, 1990)Peter Fritzsche, 'Presidential Victory and Popular Festivity in Weimar Germany: Hindenburg's 1925 Election' (Central European History, 32/2, 1990) Larry Eugene Jones, Hitler Versus Hindenburg: The 1932 Presidential Elections and the End of the Weimar Republic (Cambridge University Press, 2016) Martin Kitchen, The Silent Dictatorship: The Politics of the German High Command under Hindenburg and Ludendorff, 1916-1918 (first published 1976; Routledge, 2021) John Lee, The Warlords: Hindenburg and Ludendorff (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005) Frank McDonough, The Weimar Years: Rise and Fall, 1918-1933 (Apollo, 2023) Nadine Rossol and Benjamin Ziemann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Weimar Republic (Oxford University Press, 2022)Richard Scully, 'Hindenburg: The Cartoon Titan of the Weimar Republic, 1918-1934' (German Studies Review, 35/3, 2012)Colin Storer, A Short History of the Weimar Republic (Revised Edition, Bloomsbury, 2024)Anna von der Goltz, Hindenburg: Power, Myth and the Rise of the Nazis (Oxford University Press, 2009) Alexander Watson, Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary at War, 1914-1918 (Penguin, 2015)J. W. Wheeler-Bennett, Hindenburg: The Wooden Titan (first published 1936; Macmillan, 1967)In Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio Production

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the life and role of one of the most significant figures in early 20th Century German history. Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934) had been famous since 1914 as the victorious commander at the Battle of Tannenberg against Russian invaders, soon burnishing this fame on the Western Front and Hindenburg was to claim he would have won there too, if enemies at home had not 'stabbed Germany in the back'. He won Germany's Presidential election twice during the Weimar Republic, as a candidate of national unity and, while he gained his second term as a ‘stop Hitler' candidate, President Hindenburg was to appoint Hitler as Chancellor and transfer some of his charisma onto him – a move so disastrous that Germans were later to ask if the myth of Hindenburg had always been an illusion. WithAnna von der Goltz Professor of History at Georgetown University, Washington DCChris Clark Regius Professor of History at the University of CambridgeAndColin Storer Associate Professor in Modern European History at the University of WarwickProducer: Simon TillotsonReading list:William J. Astore and Dennis E. Showalter, Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism (Potomac Books, 2005)Benjamin Carter Hett, The Death of Democracy: Hitler's Rise to Power (William Heinemann, 2018) Andreas Dorpalen, Hindenburg and the Weimar Republic (first published 1964; Princeton University Press, 2016)Jürgen W. Falter, 'The Two Hindenburg Elections of 1925 and 1932: A Total Reversal of Voter Coalitions' (Central European History, 32/2, 1990)Peter Fritzsche, 'Presidential Victory and Popular Festivity in Weimar Germany: Hindenburg's 1925 Election' (Central European History, 32/2, 1990) Larry Eugene Jones, Hitler Versus Hindenburg: The 1932 Presidential Elections and the End of the Weimar Republic (Cambridge University Press, 2016) Martin Kitchen, The Silent Dictatorship: The Politics of the German High Command under Hindenburg and Ludendorff, 1916-1918 (first published 1976; Routledge, 2021) John Lee, The Warlords: Hindenburg and Ludendorff (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2005) Frank McDonough, The Weimar Years: Rise and Fall, 1918-1933 (Apollo, 2023) Nadine Rossol and Benjamin Ziemann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Weimar Republic (Oxford University Press, 2022)Richard Scully, 'Hindenburg: The Cartoon Titan of the Weimar Republic, 1918-1934' (German Studies Review, 35/3, 2012)Colin Storer, A Short History of the Weimar Republic (Revised Edition, Bloomsbury, 2024)Anna von der Goltz, Hindenburg: Power, Myth and the Rise of the Nazis (Oxford University Press, 2009) Alexander Watson, Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary at War, 1914-1918 (Penguin, 2015)J. W. Wheeler-Bennett, Hindenburg: The Wooden Titan (first published 1936; Macmillan, 1967)In Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio Production

The gang takes on the first half of Chapter 7 of Bauer's analysis of the concept of the nation...Follow Along Here:https://libcom.org/article/question-nationalities-and-social-democracy-otto-bauer Send us a message (sorry we can't respond on here). Support the show

fWotD Episode 2830: James Joyce Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Sunday, 2 February 2025 is James Joyce.James Augustine Aloysius Joyce (2 February 1882 – 13 January 1941) was an Irish novelist, poet and literary critic. He contributed to the modernist avant-garde movement and is regarded as one of the most influential and important writers of the 20th century. Joyce's novel Ulysses (1922) is a landmark in which the episodes of Homer's Odyssey are paralleled in a variety of literary styles, particularly stream of consciousness. Other well-known works are the short-story collection Dubliners (1914), and the novels A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916) and Finnegans Wake (1939). His other writings include three books of poetry, a play, letters, and occasional journalism.Joyce was born in Dublin into a middle-class family. He attended the Jesuit Clongowes Wood College in County Kildare, then, briefly, the Christian Brothers–run O'Connell School. Despite the chaotic family life imposed by his father's unpredictable finances, he excelled at the Jesuit Belvedere College and graduated from University College Dublin in 1902. In 1904, he met his future wife, Nora Barnacle, and they moved to mainland Europe. He briefly worked in Pula and then moved to Trieste in Austria-Hungary, working as an English instructor. Except for an eight-month stay in Rome working as a correspondence clerk and three visits to Dublin, Joyce resided there until 1915. In Trieste, he published his book of poems Chamber Music and his short story collection Dubliners, and he began serially publishing A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man in the English magazine The Egoist. During most of World War I, Joyce lived in Zürich, Switzerland, and worked on Ulysses. After the war, he briefly returned to Trieste and then moved to Paris in 1920, which became his primary residence until 1940.Ulysses was first published in Paris in 1922, but its publication in the United Kingdom and the United States was prohibited because of its perceived obscenity. Copies were smuggled into both countries and pirated versions were printed until the mid-1930s, when publication finally became legal. Joyce started his next major work, Finnegans Wake, in 1923, publishing it sixteen years later in 1939. Between these years, Joyce travelled widely. He and Nora were married in a civil ceremony in London in 1931. He made a number of trips to Switzerland, frequently seeking treatment for his increasingly severe eye problems and psychological help for his daughter, Lucia. When France was occupied by Germany during World War II, Joyce moved back to Zürich in 1940. He died there in 1941 after surgery for a perforated ulcer, at age 58.Ulysses frequently ranks high in lists of great books, and the academic literature analysing his work is extensive and ongoing. Many writers, film-makers, and other artists have been influenced by his stylistic innovations, such as his meticulous attention to detail, use of interior monologue, wordplay, and the radical transformation of traditional plot and character development. Though most of his adult life was spent abroad, his fictional universe centres on Dublin and is largely populated by characters who closely resemble family members, enemies and friends from his time there. Ulysses in particular is set in the streets and alleyways of the city. Joyce is quoted as saying, "For myself, I always write about Dublin, because if I can get to the heart of Dublin I can get to the heart of all the cities of the world. In the particular is contained the universal."This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:49 UTC on Sunday, 2 February 2025.For the full current version of the article, see James Joyce on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Niamh.

The President of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, visited Slovakia and spoke about the idea of holding the Olympic Games in three neighbouring countries - Austria, Hungary and Slovakia. The newly appointed executive director of the International Visegrad Fund, Linda Kapustova Helbichova, presents her plans for the next three years. Culture news also about the latest meeting of the Slovak Arts Council Board.

How did the Hapsburgs form a massive, multiethnic empire out of some disorganized principalities? Why was Austria-Hungary a thing? Did the Habsburg Empire really collapse because it was an anachronistic "empire of nations?" And is the Habsburg Empire coming back through a dynastic marriage with future "American Caesar," Barron Trump? To get answers to these pressing questions, we speak with Natasha Wheatley of Princeton University about her book The Life and Death of States: Central Europe and the Transformation of Modern Sovereignty. Ted and Natasha discuss the early history of the empire, the pressures of the 1848 revolutions, and legal innovations of the empire, and speculate as to why people are still compelled by monarchical structures. Buy the book here: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691244075/the-life-and-death-of-states Read her Dial piece here: https://www.thedial.world/articles/news/issue-20/eduard-habsburg-the-habsburg-way-review See the insane Twitter thread about Barron's potential princess wives here: https://x.com/Shahenshah_Chud/status/1789716792325062871 Follow Eduard here: https://x.com/EduardHabsburg and (preferably) Natasha here: https://x.com/natasha_wheatl Thanks so much to everyone who listened to Spaßbremse in 2024! Wishing you a Happy New Year and looking forward to a great 2025 (for the podcast and its listeners at least, if not the world at large). ***** Follow Spaßbremse on Twitter (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@spassbremse_pod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). Music by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lee Rosevere⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Art by Franziska Schneider. Support us on Patreon here ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/spassbremse

How did the Hapsburgs form a massive, multiethnic empire out of some disorganized principalities? Why was Austria-Hungary a thing? Did the Habsburg Empire really collapse because it was an anachronistic "empire of nations?" And is the Habsburg Empire coming back through a dynastic marriage with future "American Caesar," Barron Trump? To get answers to these pressing questions, we speak with Natasha Wheatley of Princeton University about her book The Life and Death of States: Central Europe and the Transformation of Modern Sovereignty. Ted and Natasha discuss the early history of the empire, the pressures of the 1848 revolutions, and legal innovations of the empire, and speculate as to why people are still compelled by monarchical structures. Buy the book here: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691244075/the-life-and-death-of-states Read her Dial piece here: https://www.thedial.world/articles/news/issue-20/eduard-habsburg-the-habsburg-way-review See the insane Twitter thread about Barron's potential princess wives here: https://x.com/Shahenshah_Chud/status/1789716792325062871 Follow Eduard here: https://x.com/EduardHabsburg and (preferably) Natasha here: https://x.com/natasha_wheatl Thanks so much to everyone who listened to Spaßbremse in 2024! Wishing you a Happy New Year and looking forward to a great 2025 (for the podcast and its listeners at least, if not the world at large). ***** Follow Spaßbremse on Twitter (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@spassbremse_pod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). Music by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lee Rosevere⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Art by Franziska Schneider. Support us on Patreon here ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/spassbremse

Brokered by Czech and Slovak independence leaders, the Legion was formed by the Russian military during WWI to fight Austria-Hungary. After the Revolution, the Legion became entangled in the Civil War and Allied anti-Bolshevik schemes, while its officers meddled in local Russian politics. The Legion took control of the Trans-Siberian Railroad and aligned with the White Armies. After two years of fighting its way through Siberia, the Legion signed a truce with the Bolsheviks, gaining safe passage to Vladivostok, where it was evacuated on Allied ships.  Travel to Turkey with me here Check out our sister podcast the Mystery of Everything Coffee Collab With The Lore Lodge COFFEE Bonus episodes as well as ad-free episodes on Patreon. Find us on Instagram. Join us on Discord. Submit your relatives on our website Podcast Youtube Channel Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Preview: The Great War, 1914-1918: In coming weeks, conversation with Professor Nick Lloyd about his new comprehensive work, "The Eastern Front." Here, a comment on the commander of the Austria-Hungary Army, Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, and his inflexible confidence in his battle plans -- to nought. 1914 Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf

Writing in the 1920s, Winston Churchill argued that the First World War on the Eastern Front was "incomparably the greatest war in history. In its scale, in its slaughter, in the exertions of the combatants, in its military kaleidoscope, it far surpasses by magnitude and intensity all similar human episodes." It was, he concluded, "the most frightful misfortune" to fall upon mankind "since the collapse of the Roman Empire before the Barbarians." Yet Churchill was an exception, and the war in the east has long been seen as a sideshow to the brutal combat on the Western Front. Finally, with The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918 (Norton, 2024)--the first major history of that arena in fifty years--the acclaimed historian Nick Lloyd corrects the record. Drawing on the latest scholarship as well as eyewitness reports, diary entries, and memoirs, Lloyd moves from the great battles of 1914 to the final collapse of the Central Powers in 1918, showing how a local struggle between Austria-Hungary and Serbia spiraled into a massive conflagration that pulled in Germany, Russia, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Eastern Front was a vast theater of war that brought about the collapse of three empires and produced almost endless suffering. As many as sixteen million soldiers and two million civilians were killed or wounded in enormous battles that took place across as much as one hundred kilometers. Unlike in the west, where stalemate ruled the day, the war in the east was fluid, with armies embarking on penetrating advances. Lloyd narrates the repeated invasions of Serbia as well as the great battles between Russian, German, and Austrian forces at Tannenberg, Komarów, Gorlice-Tarnów, and the Masurian Lakes. All along, he takes us into the strategy of the generals who decided the war's course, from the Germans Ludendorff and Hindenburg to the Austro-Hungarian chief, Conrad von Hötzendorf, to the brilliant Russian Brusilov. Perhaps the most radical aspect of the struggle in the east was that the violence was not confined to combatants. The Eastern Front witnessed calculated attacks against civilians that ripped the ethnic and religious fabric of numerous societies, paving the way for the horrors of the Holocaust. Lloyd's magisterial, definitive account of the war in the east will fundamentally alter our understanding of the cataclysmic events that reshaped Europe and the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Writing in the 1920s, Winston Churchill argued that the First World War on the Eastern Front was "incomparably the greatest war in history. In its scale, in its slaughter, in the exertions of the combatants, in its military kaleidoscope, it far surpasses by magnitude and intensity all similar human episodes." It was, he concluded, "the most frightful misfortune" to fall upon mankind "since the collapse of the Roman Empire before the Barbarians." Yet Churchill was an exception, and the war in the east has long been seen as a sideshow to the brutal combat on the Western Front. Finally, with The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918 (Norton, 2024)--the first major history of that arena in fifty years--the acclaimed historian Nick Lloyd corrects the record. Drawing on the latest scholarship as well as eyewitness reports, diary entries, and memoirs, Lloyd moves from the great battles of 1914 to the final collapse of the Central Powers in 1918, showing how a local struggle between Austria-Hungary and Serbia spiraled into a massive conflagration that pulled in Germany, Russia, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Eastern Front was a vast theater of war that brought about the collapse of three empires and produced almost endless suffering. As many as sixteen million soldiers and two million civilians were killed or wounded in enormous battles that took place across as much as one hundred kilometers. Unlike in the west, where stalemate ruled the day, the war in the east was fluid, with armies embarking on penetrating advances. Lloyd narrates the repeated invasions of Serbia as well as the great battles between Russian, German, and Austrian forces at Tannenberg, Komarów, Gorlice-Tarnów, and the Masurian Lakes. All along, he takes us into the strategy of the generals who decided the war's course, from the Germans Ludendorff and Hindenburg to the Austro-Hungarian chief, Conrad von Hötzendorf, to the brilliant Russian Brusilov. Perhaps the most radical aspect of the struggle in the east was that the violence was not confined to combatants. The Eastern Front witnessed calculated attacks against civilians that ripped the ethnic and religious fabric of numerous societies, paving the way for the horrors of the Holocaust. Lloyd's magisterial, definitive account of the war in the east will fundamentally alter our understanding of the cataclysmic events that reshaped Europe and the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Writing in the 1920s, Winston Churchill argued that the First World War on the Eastern Front was "incomparably the greatest war in history. In its scale, in its slaughter, in the exertions of the combatants, in its military kaleidoscope, it far surpasses by magnitude and intensity all similar human episodes." It was, he concluded, "the most frightful misfortune" to fall upon mankind "since the collapse of the Roman Empire before the Barbarians." Yet Churchill was an exception, and the war in the east has long been seen as a sideshow to the brutal combat on the Western Front. Finally, with The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918 (Norton, 2024)--the first major history of that arena in fifty years--the acclaimed historian Nick Lloyd corrects the record. Drawing on the latest scholarship as well as eyewitness reports, diary entries, and memoirs, Lloyd moves from the great battles of 1914 to the final collapse of the Central Powers in 1918, showing how a local struggle between Austria-Hungary and Serbia spiraled into a massive conflagration that pulled in Germany, Russia, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Eastern Front was a vast theater of war that brought about the collapse of three empires and produced almost endless suffering. As many as sixteen million soldiers and two million civilians were killed or wounded in enormous battles that took place across as much as one hundred kilometers. Unlike in the west, where stalemate ruled the day, the war in the east was fluid, with armies embarking on penetrating advances. Lloyd narrates the repeated invasions of Serbia as well as the great battles between Russian, German, and Austrian forces at Tannenberg, Komarów, Gorlice-Tarnów, and the Masurian Lakes. All along, he takes us into the strategy of the generals who decided the war's course, from the Germans Ludendorff and Hindenburg to the Austro-Hungarian chief, Conrad von Hötzendorf, to the brilliant Russian Brusilov. Perhaps the most radical aspect of the struggle in the east was that the violence was not confined to combatants. The Eastern Front witnessed calculated attacks against civilians that ripped the ethnic and religious fabric of numerous societies, paving the way for the horrors of the Holocaust. Lloyd's magisterial, definitive account of the war in the east will fundamentally alter our understanding of the cataclysmic events that reshaped Europe and the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

Writing in the 1920s, Winston Churchill argued that the First World War on the Eastern Front was "incomparably the greatest war in history. In its scale, in its slaughter, in the exertions of the combatants, in its military kaleidoscope, it far surpasses by magnitude and intensity all similar human episodes." It was, he concluded, "the most frightful misfortune" to fall upon mankind "since the collapse of the Roman Empire before the Barbarians." Yet Churchill was an exception, and the war in the east has long been seen as a sideshow to the brutal combat on the Western Front. Finally, with The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918 (Norton, 2024)--the first major history of that arena in fifty years--the acclaimed historian Nick Lloyd corrects the record. Drawing on the latest scholarship as well as eyewitness reports, diary entries, and memoirs, Lloyd moves from the great battles of 1914 to the final collapse of the Central Powers in 1918, showing how a local struggle between Austria-Hungary and Serbia spiraled into a massive conflagration that pulled in Germany, Russia, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Eastern Front was a vast theater of war that brought about the collapse of three empires and produced almost endless suffering. As many as sixteen million soldiers and two million civilians were killed or wounded in enormous battles that took place across as much as one hundred kilometers. Unlike in the west, where stalemate ruled the day, the war in the east was fluid, with armies embarking on penetrating advances. Lloyd narrates the repeated invasions of Serbia as well as the great battles between Russian, German, and Austrian forces at Tannenberg, Komarów, Gorlice-Tarnów, and the Masurian Lakes. All along, he takes us into the strategy of the generals who decided the war's course, from the Germans Ludendorff and Hindenburg to the Austro-Hungarian chief, Conrad von Hötzendorf, to the brilliant Russian Brusilov. Perhaps the most radical aspect of the struggle in the east was that the violence was not confined to combatants. The Eastern Front witnessed calculated attacks against civilians that ripped the ethnic and religious fabric of numerous societies, paving the way for the horrors of the Holocaust. Lloyd's magisterial, definitive account of the war in the east will fundamentally alter our understanding of the cataclysmic events that reshaped Europe and the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

Writing in the 1920s, Winston Churchill argued that the First World War on the Eastern Front was "incomparably the greatest war in history. In its scale, in its slaughter, in the exertions of the combatants, in its military kaleidoscope, it far surpasses by magnitude and intensity all similar human episodes." It was, he concluded, "the most frightful misfortune" to fall upon mankind "since the collapse of the Roman Empire before the Barbarians." Yet Churchill was an exception, and the war in the east has long been seen as a sideshow to the brutal combat on the Western Front. Finally, with The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918 (Norton, 2024)--the first major history of that arena in fifty years--the acclaimed historian Nick Lloyd corrects the record. Drawing on the latest scholarship as well as eyewitness reports, diary entries, and memoirs, Lloyd moves from the great battles of 1914 to the final collapse of the Central Powers in 1918, showing how a local struggle between Austria-Hungary and Serbia spiraled into a massive conflagration that pulled in Germany, Russia, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Eastern Front was a vast theater of war that brought about the collapse of three empires and produced almost endless suffering. As many as sixteen million soldiers and two million civilians were killed or wounded in enormous battles that took place across as much as one hundred kilometers. Unlike in the west, where stalemate ruled the day, the war in the east was fluid, with armies embarking on penetrating advances. Lloyd narrates the repeated invasions of Serbia as well as the great battles between Russian, German, and Austrian forces at Tannenberg, Komarów, Gorlice-Tarnów, and the Masurian Lakes. All along, he takes us into the strategy of the generals who decided the war's course, from the Germans Ludendorff and Hindenburg to the Austro-Hungarian chief, Conrad von Hötzendorf, to the brilliant Russian Brusilov. Perhaps the most radical aspect of the struggle in the east was that the violence was not confined to combatants. The Eastern Front witnessed calculated attacks against civilians that ripped the ethnic and religious fabric of numerous societies, paving the way for the horrors of the Holocaust. Lloyd's magisterial, definitive account of the war in the east will fundamentally alter our understanding of the cataclysmic events that reshaped Europe and the world. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

“It's quite clear to me that he was trying to recreate the hillside of Haifa with the gardens... It comes from somebody being ripped out from their home.” Syrian Jewish Playwright Oren Safdie, son of world-renowned architect Moshe Safdie, who designed Habitat 67 along with much of modern Jerusalem, knows loss, regret, and longing. Oren and his father explore their Syrian heritage and their connection to the Jewish state that has developed since Moshe's father left Aleppo, Syria and moved, in the mid-20th century, to what is modern-day Israel. Oren also knows that being Jewish is about stepping up. Describing his frustrations with modern anti-Israel sentiments and protests that harken back to 1943, Oren is passionately combating anti-Israel propaganda in theater and academia.  Abraham Marcus, Associate Professor Emeritus at University of Texas at Austin, joins the conversation with historical insights into Jewish life in Syria dating back to Roman times. —- Show notes: Sign up to receive podcast updates here. Learn more about the series here. Song credits:  Al Fadimem, Bir Demet Yasemen, Fidayda; all by Turku, Nomads of the Silk Road Aleppo Bakkashah  Pond5:  “Desert Caravans”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Tiemur Zarobov (BMI), IPI#1098108837 “Oud Nation”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: Haygaz Yossoulkanian (BMI), IPI#1001905418 “Arabic (Middle Eastern Music)”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI), Composer: Andrei Skliarov, Item ID #152407112 “Fields Of Elysium”; Publisher: Mysterylab Music; Composer: Mott Jordan; ID#79549862 “Middle Eastern Dawn”: Publisher: Victor Romanov, Composer: Victor Romanov; Item ID #202256497 “Ney Flute Melody 01”: Publisher: Ramazan Yuksel; Composer: Ramazan Yuksel; P.R.O. Track: BMI 00712367557 “Uruk”: Publisher: Pond5 Publishing Beta (BMI); Composer: Marcus Bressler; Item ID: 45886699 “Suspense Middle East” Publisher: Victor Romanov, Composer: Victor Romanov; Item ID: 196056047 ___ Episode Transcript: OREN SAFDIE:  I've sort of wanted to shine a light on North American Jews being hypercritical of Israel. Because I've spent a lot of time in Israel. And I know what it is. It's not a simple thing. And I think it's very easy for Americans in the comfort of their little brownstones in Brooklyn, and houses in Cambridge to criticize, but these people that live in Israel are really standing the line for them. MANYA BRACHEAR PASHMAN: The world has overlooked an important episode in modern history: the 800,000 Jews who left or were driven from their homes in the Middle East and North Africa in the mid-20th century. Welcome to the second season of The Forgotten Exodus, brought to you by American Jewish Committee. This series explores that pivotal moment in history and the little-known Jewish heritage of Iran and Arab nations. As Jews around the world confront violent antisemitism and Israelis face daily attacks by terrorists on multiple fronts, our second season explores how Jews have lived throughout the region for generations despite hardship, hostility, and hatred, then sought safety and new possibilities in their ancestral homeland. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Join us as we explore untold family histories and personal stories of courage, perseverance, and resilience from this transformative and tumultuous period of history for the Jewish people and the Middle East.  The world has ignored these voices. We will not.  This is The Forgotten Exodus. Today's episode: leaving Aleppo. MANYA: Playwright and screenwriter Oren Safdie has had just about enough of the anti-Israel sentiments on stage and screen. And what irks him the most is when it comes from Jewish artists and celebrities who have never spent time in the Middle East's one and only democracy. Remember film director Jonathan Glazer's speech at the 2024 Academy Awards? JONATHAN GLAZER: Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October the … [APPLAUSE] MANYA: Yeah, Oren didn't much appreciate his own Jewishness being hijacked in that moment. Drawing a moral equivalence between the Nazi regime and Israel never really sits well with him. OREN: I do feel like they're very selective in their criticism of Israel. You know, it's very easy to say, ‘Oh, well, they didn't do that. They don't do this.' But it's a complicated situation. And to simplify it, is just to me beyond, especially if you're not somebody who has spent a lot of time in Israel. MANYA: Oren Safdie has penned more than two dozen scripts for stages and screens around the world. His latest film, Lunch Hour, starring Alan Cumming, is filming in Minnesota.  Meanwhile, The Man Who Saved the Internet with A Sunflower, another script he co-wrote, is on the festival circuit. And his latest play Survival of the Unfit, made its North American debut in the Berkshires this summer, is headed to Broadway. And by the way, since an early age, Oren Safdie has spent quite a bit of time in Israel. His father Moshe Safdie is the legendary architect behind much of modern Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion International Airport, and the Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum.  Oren's grandfather, Leon, emigrated from Syria. OREN: I'm sort of a synthesis of the two main parts that established Israel because my mother came from Poland, escaped the Holocaust. And my father's family came from Syria. So, I'm a half breed.  I've never been asked about my Sephardic side, even though that was really the dominant side that I grew up with. Because my mother's family was quite small. I grew up in Montreal, it was much more in the Syrian tradition for holidays, food, everything like that. My grandfather was from Aleppo, Syria, and my grandmother was from Manchester, England, but originally from Aleppo. Her family came to Manchester, but two generations before, had been from Aleppo. So, they're both Halabi Jews.  MANYA: Halabi refers to a diverse group of Jews from Aleppo, one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world that has gone by several names. The oldest? Haleb.  Halabi Jews include Mizrahi Jews -- the name for Jews who call the Middle East or North Africa home; and Sephardi Jews, who fled to the region after being expelled from Spain in the 15th Century.  Jews are believed to have been in what is now Syria since the time of King David and certainly since early Roman times. ABRAHAM MARCUS: It's a community that starts, as far as we can record, in the Greco-Roman period. And we see the arrival of Islam. So the Jews were really the indigenous people when Arabs arrived. MANYA: Abraham Marcus, born to parents from Aleppo, is an internationally renowned authority on the city. He served as director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. For the past 16 years, he has been working on a book about the history of Aleppo's Jews that goes well beyond what has been previously published. As part of his research, he examined thousands of documents from the Syrian national archive and the Ottoman archive in Istanbul. He also did extensive fieldwork on the ground in Aleppo, documenting the synagogues, cemeteries, residential districts, and workplaces.  MARCUS: One of the synagogues, the famous ancient synagogue of Aleppo, which dates to the 5th Century, meaning it predates the arrival of Arabs. It is a remarkable structure. Unfortunately, what is left of it now is really a skeleton. MANYA: Abraham is referring to the Great Synagogue or Central Synagogue of Aleppo, which functioned as the main house of worship for the Syrian Jewish community for more than 1,600 years. For 600 of those years, its catacombs safeguarded a medieval manuscript believed to be the oldest, most complete, most accurate text of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Aleppo Codex. The codex was used by Maimonides as a reference for his magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, or Jewish religious legal code. In the 7th Century, Aleppo was conquered by Arab Muslims and a Great Mosque was built. For the next four centuries, the Byzantine Empire, Crusaders, and various Muslim rulers fought to gain control of Aleppo and the surrounding region. A savage Mongol invasion, a bout of the Black Death and another invasion took its toll on the city, and its Jews.  For most of this time, Muslim rulers treated them as dhimmis, or second-class citizens.  MARCUS: There were restrictions on dress, which were renewed time and again. They could not carry arms. They could not ride horses. MANYA: After half of Spain's Jews converted to Christianity following the pogroms of 1391, the Catholic monarchs issued the Alhambra Decree of 1492 – an edict that expelled any remaining Jews from the Iberian Peninsula to ensure their descendants didn't revert back to Judaism.  As Jews fled, many made their way to parts of the Ottoman Empire. In 1516, Aleppo became part of that empire and emerged as a strategic trading post at the end of the Silk Road, between the Mediterranean Sea and Mesopotamia, or modern-day Iraq. As was the case in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, Jews lived relatively comfortably, serving as merchants and tax collectors.  MARCUS: The policy of the Ottoman Empire was to essentially welcome the Sephardic Jews. The Sultan at the time is reputed to have said, ‘I don't understand the King of Spain. But if he's thinking at all, giving up all this human capital, essentially, we can take it.'  Many of the successful Jews in Aleppo and Damascus–in business, as leaders, as rabbis–were Sephardic Jews. They revived these communities, they brought new blood and new energy to them, a new wealth. MANYA: This was not always the case throughout Ottoman Syria as persecution and pogroms erupted at times.  By the mid-19th Century, Aleppo's Jewish population was slightly smaller than that of Baghdad, by about 2,000. In 1869, the opening of the Suez Canal shifted trade away from the route through Syria. Aleppo lost much of its commercial edge, motivating many Jews to seek opportunity elsewhere. MARCUS: The story of Aleppo is one of a society gradually hemorrhaging, losing people. They went to Beirut, which was a rising star. And Egypt became very attractive. So they went to Alexandria and Cairo. And many of the rabbis from the 1880s began to move to Jerusalem where there were yeshivot that were being set up. And in effect, over the next several decades, essentially the spiritual center of Aleppo's Jews was Jerusalem and no longer Aleppo.  MANYA: Another turning point for Aleppo came in World War I when the Ottoman Empire abandoned its neutral position and sided with the Central Powers–including Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and Germany.  Many wealthy Jews had acquired foreign nationalities from countries that were not allies. Now considered enemy citizens, they were deported and never came back. In addition, Jews and Christians up to that point could pay a special tax to avoid serving in the army. That privilege ended in 1909. MARCUS: Because of the Balkan Wars, there was a sense that the empire is going to collapse if they don't essentially raise a large force to defend it. And there was a kind of flight that really decimated the community by 1918, when the war ended. MANYA: Besides those two wartime exceptions, Abraham says the departure of Jews from Syria was almost always motivated by the promise of better opportunities. In fact, opportunity might have been what drew the Safdie family to and from Aleppo. MANYA: Originally from Safed, as their name suggests, the Safdie family arrived in Aleppo sometime during the 16th or 17th centuries. By that time, the Jewish community in Safed, one of the Four Holy Cities in Judaism located in modern-day Israel, had transformed it into a lucrative textile center. So lucrative that the sultan of the ruling Ottoman Empire ordered the forced deportation of 1,000 Jewish families to Cyprus to boost that island's economy.  It's not clear if those deportations or the decline that followed pushed the Safdie family north to Aleppo. Most of them stayed for roughly three centuries–through World War One and France's brief rule during the Interwar period. But in 1936, amid the Great Depression, which affected Syria as well, Leon Safdie, the ninth of ten children born to textile merchants, moved to Haifa and set up his own trading business. Importing textiles, woolens, and cottons from England and fabrics from Japan and India.  A year later, he met his wife Rachel who had sailed from Manchester to visit her sister in Jerusalem. She spoke English and a little French. He spoke Arabic and French. They married a month later. OREN: My grandfather lived in Haifa, he was a merchant like many Syrian Jews were. He imported textiles. He freely went between the different countries, you know, there weren't really so many borders. A lot of his people he worked with were Arab, Druze, Christian, Muslim. Before independence, even though there was obviously some tension, being somebody who is a Syrian Jew, who spoke Arabic, who spoke French, he was sort of just one of the region. MANYA: Moshe Safdie was born in 1938. He says the onset of the Second World War created his earliest memories – hosting Australian soldiers in their home for Shabbat and making nightly trips into air raid shelters. Every summer, the family vacationed in the mountain resorts of Lebanon to visit aunts and uncles that had moved from Aleppo to Beirut. Their last visit to Lebanon in the summer of 1947 culminated with all of the aunts, uncles, and cousins piling into three Chrysler limousines and caravanning from Beirut to Aleppo to visit their grandmother and matriarch, Symbol. MOSHE: I remember sort of the fabric of the city. I have vague memories of the Citadel of Aleppo, because it was an imposing structure. I remember her – a very fragile woman, just vaguely. MANYA: While most of Moshe's memories of Aleppo are vague, one memory in particular is quite vivid. At that time, the United Nations General Assembly was debating the partition plan that would divide what was then the British Mandate of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. Tensions ran high throughout the region. When Moshe's uncles noticed Moshe wearing his school uniform on the streets of Aleppo, they panicked.  MOSHE: They were terrified. We were walking in the street, and we had khaki shirts and khaki pants. And it had stitched on it, as required in our school, the school badge, and it said, ‘Thou shalt be humble' in Hebrew. And they saw that, or at least they noticed we had that, and they said: ‘No, this is very dangerous!' and they ripped it off.' MANYA: It would be the first and last time Moshe Safdie visited Aleppo. On the 29th of November, the UN voted on a resolution to divide Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The news arrived in Aleppo the following morning. MARCUS: This was New York time, in the evening, when the decision was made. So already, people started planning demonstrations for the next day, in support of the Palestinians. And that next day began with what was a peaceful demonstration of students, and then all kinds of people joined in and before long it became an attack on Jewish property. The synagogues were set ablaze. Many Jewish homes were burned, businesses were looted. And so the day ended with the Jews really in a state of fright.  MANYA: The mob looted the Jewish quarter and burned the Great Synagogue, scattering and desecrating the pages of the Aleppo Codex. The caretaker of the synagogue and his son later returned to the ashes to salvage as much as they could. But most of the community's leadership took a train to Beirut and never looked back.  Of course, as previously mentioned, Aleppo had already witnessed a steep decline in its Jewish population. The numbers vary widely, depending on the source, but by 1947, on the eve of the Jewish exodus from Syria, Iraq, and other Arab countries, Aleppo had anywhere between 6,000 and 15,000 Jews, whereas Baghdad had between 75 and 90,000. MARCUS: More than half the population left within a month. The community after that, in the next two, three weeks, was in a situation in which some people decided that was the end.  They took possessions that they could, got on buses and left for Beirut. That was the safe destination to go to. And there was traffic between the two areas.  Some people decided to stay. I mean, they had business, they had interest, they had property that they didn't want to leave. You can imagine the kind of dilemmas face people suddenly, the world has changed, and what do I do? Which part of the fork do I go?  MANYA: Those who left effectively forfeited their property to the Syrian government. To this day, the only way to reclaim that property and be allowed to sell it is to return and become Syrian citizens. Those who stayed were trapped. Decimated and demoralized, Aleppo's Jews came under severe travel restrictions, unable to travel more than four kilometers from their homes without permission from the government, which tracked their comings and goings. MARCUS: The view was that if they leave, they'll end up in what's called the Zionist entity and provide the soldiers and aid to the enemy. So the idea was to keep them in.  So there's a reality there of a community that is now stuck in place. Unable to emigrate. That remained in place until 1970, when things began to relax. It was made possible for you to leave temporarily for a visit. But you have to leave a very large sum as a deposit. The other option was essentially to hire some smugglers to take you to the Turkish or the Lebanese border, and basically deliver you to another country where Jews had already networked. The Mossad had people who helped basically transfer them to Israel. But that was very risky. If you were caught, it's prison time and torture.  Over the next 45 years, many of the young left gradually, and many of them left without the parents even knowing. They will say ‘I'm going to the cinema and I'll come back'. MANYA: On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence. But the socialist politics of the new Jewish state did not sit well with Leon Safdie who much preferred private enterprise. He also felt singled out, as did many Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews in Israel at the time.  OREN: In some ways, it almost created some tension for him on several fronts, right? First of all, between him and his clients, who he had been doing business with in the Arab world, for many years. All of a sudden, those relationships are called into question. And as my grandfather was an importer of textiles, it was considered a luxury good. And when you're in wartime, there were rations.  The high tariffs really killed my grandfather's business. So, he wanted to stay in Israel. He helped with the war effort. He really loved the country and he knew the people, but really for three years, he sat idle and just did not have work. He was a man that really needed to work, had a lot of pride. MANYA: In 1953, Leon and Rachel sought opportunity once again – this time in Montreal – a move Moshe Safdie would forever resent. When in 1959 he married Oren's mother Nina, an Israeli expat who was trying to return to Israel herself, they both resolved to return to the Jewish state. Life and phenomenal success intervened. While studying architecture at McGill University, Moshe designed a modern urban apartment building [Habitat 67] that incorporated garden terraces and multiple stories. It was built and unveiled during the 1967 World's Fair in Montreal, and Moshe's career took off.  OREN: It's quite clear to me that he was trying to recreate the hillside of Haifa with the gardens. And it's something that has sort of preoccupied him for his whole career. It comes from somebody being ripped out from their home. Those kinds of things I think stay with you. MANYA: Eventually, in 1970, Moshe opened a branch of his architecture firm in Jerusalem and established a second home there. Oren recalls visiting every summer – often with his grandfather Leon.   OREN: And I remember going with him when he'd come to Israel when I was there, because we used to go pretty much every summer. He would love to go down to Jericho. And we'd sit at the restaurants. I mean, there was a period of time, you know, when it was sort of accepted that Jews could travel to the West Bank, to Ramallah and everything. And he loved to just speak with the merchants and everything, he loved that. He felt so at home in that setting. It was not dangerous, as it is today, obviously. I think everyone back then thought it was a temporary situation. And obviously, the longer it goes, and the more things happen, it feels more permanent. And of course, that's where we are today. But that time, in my head, sort of just is a confirmation that Jews and Arabs have a lot more in common and can get along … if the situation was different. MANYA: As the son of an Israeli citizen, Oren is considered an Israeli citizen too. But he concedes that he is not fully Israeli. That requires more sacrifice. In 1982, at the age of 17, he signed up for Chetz V'Keshet, at that time a 10-week program run in conjunction with the Israel Defense Forces for American and Canadian teens and designed to foster a connection to Israel. The program took place during the First Lebanon War, Israel's operation to remove terrorists from southern Lebanon, where they had been launching attacks against Israeli civilians. OREN: So this was a mix of basic training, where we trained with artillery and things and did a lot of war games. And from there, you know, their hope was that you would join the military for three years. And I did not continue.  I guess there's a part of me that regrets that. Even though I'm an Israeli citizen, I can't say I'm Israeli in the way that Israelis are. If the older me would look back, then I would say, ‘If you really want to be connected to Israel, the military is really the only way. I'd say at that young age, I didn't understand that the larger picture of what being Jewish, what being Israeli is, and it's about stepping up. MANYA: Now in his early 50s, Oren tries to step up by confronting the anti-Israel propaganda that's become commonplace in both of his professional worlds: theater and academia. In addition to writing his own scripts and screenplays, he has taught college level playwriting and screenwriting. He knows all too often students fall prey to misinformation and consider anything they see on social media or hear from their friends as an authoritative source.  A few years ago, Oren assigned his students the task of writing a script based on real-life experience and research. One of the students drafted a script about bloodthirsty Israelis killing Palestinian children. When Oren asked why he chose that topic and where he got his facts, the student cited his roommate.  Oren didn't discourage him from pitching the script to his classmates, but warned him to come prepared to defend it with facts. The student turned in a script on an entirely different topic. OREN: You know, there were a lot of plays that came up in the past 10 years that were anti-Israel. You'd be very hard-pressed to find me one that's positive about Israel. No one's doing them. MANYA: Two of his scripts have come close. In 2017, he staged a play at the St. James Theatre in Old Montreal titled Mr. Goldberg Goes to Tel Aviv– a farce about a gay Jewish author who arrives in Tel Aviv to deliver a blistering attack on the Israeli government to the country's left-leaning literati.  But before he even leaves his hotel room, he is kidnapped by a terrorist. Investors lined up to bring it to the silver screen and Alan Cumming signed on to play Mr. Goldberg. But in May 2021, Hamas terrorists launched rockets at Israeli civilians, igniting an 11-day war. The conflict led to a major spike in antisemitism globally.  OREN: The money people panicked and said, ‘We can't put up a comedy about the Middle East within this environment. Somebody is going to protest and shut us down,' and they cut out. MANYA: Two years later, an Israeli investor expressed interest in giving the movie a second chance. Then on October 7 [2023], Hamas launched a surprise attack on 20 Israeli communities -- the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. More than 1,200 Israelis have been killed, thousands of rockets have been fired on Israel, and more than 100 hostages are still in captivity. OREN: Mr. Goldberg Goes to Tel Aviv collapsed after October 7th. I don't think anybody would have the appetite for a comedy about a Hamas assassin taking a left-wing Jew hostage in a hotel room. MANYA: Another play titled “Boycott This” was inspired by Oren's visit to a coffee shop in Oaxaca, Mexico in 2011. The walls of the cafe were plastered with posters urging boycotts of Israel and accusing it of blood libel. Oren and his daughter created their own posters and stood outside the coffee shop calling on customers to boycott the cafe instead. But the father and daughter's impromptu protest is just one of three storylines in the play, including one about the 1943 boycott of Jews in Poland–where his mother spent part of her childhood in hiding during the Holocaust.  The third storyline takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where Iran has succeeded in wiping Israel off the map. A Jewish woman has been forced to become one of the enemy's wives – a threat some hostages taken on October 7 have reported hearing from their captors.  OREN: It was really my attempt to try and show how the boycotts of Israel today, in light of, you know, 1943, were really not different.  MANYA:  Even now, Oren has not been able to convince a college or theater to stage “Boycott This,” including the Jewish museum in Los Angeles that hosted his daughter's bat mitzvah on October 7, 2023.    OREN: I've sort of wanted to shine a light on North American Jews being hypercritical of Israel, which I guess ties into BDS. Because I've spent a lot of time in Israel. And I know what it is. It's not a simple thing. And I think it's very easy for Americans in the comfort of their little brownstones in Brooklyn, and houses in Cambridge to criticize, but these people that live in Israel are really standing the line for them. MANYA: When Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton finally secured a legal way for Syrian Jews to leave between 1992 and 1994, most did. The last Jews of Aleppo were evacuated from the city in October 2016. MARCUS: They took all the siddurim and everything, put them in boxes. It was just essentially closing shop for good. They knew they're not coming back. MANYA: The food, liturgy, music, the traditions of hospitality and social welfare endure, but far from the world of which it was part. Walk into any synagogue in the Aleppo tradition after sundown on Shabbat and be treated to a concert until dawn – a custom called baqashot. MANYA: Before Oren's grandmother Rachel passed away, his cousin Rebecca did a piece for Canadian Broadcast News featuring their 95-year-old grandmother in the kitchen.  RACHEL SAFDIE: When we were children, we used to love all these dishes. My mother used to make them all the time and it's very, very tasty. Anything made, Middle East food, is very tasty. OREN: It's 10 minutes for me to see my grandmother again, in video, cooking the mehshi kusa, which is sort of the stuffed eggplant with the apricots and the meat. And there's really a great moment in it, because they're doing it together and they put it in the oven, and at the end of this 10-minute movie, they all come out of the oven, and like they're looking at it and they're tasting, and my grandmother points … RACHEL: I know which ones you did. You did this one.  CBN INTERVIEWER: How do you know?  RACHEL: I know. And this recipe has been handed down from generation to generation. OREN: It's so much like my grandmother because she's sort of a perfectionist, but she did everything without measuring. It was all by feel. The kibbeh, beans and lamb and potatoes and chicken but done in a different way than the Ashkenaz. I don't know how to sort of describe it.  The ka'ake, which were like these little pretzels that are, I'd say they have a taste of cumin in them. MARCUS: Stuffed aubergine, stuffed zucchini, tomatoes, with rice, pine nuts and ground beef and so forth. Meatballs with sour cherries during the cherry season. MANYA: Oren would one day like to see where his ancestors lived. But according to Abraham, few Aleppo Jews share that desire. After the Civil War and Siege of Aleppo in 2012 there's little left to see. And even when there was, Aleppo's Jews tended to make a clean break. MARCUS: People did not go back to visit, the second and third generations did not go back. So you see, for example, here Irish people of Irish origin in the United States, they still have families there. And they go, and they take the kids to see what Ireland is like. Italians, they do the same, because they have a kind of sense, this is our origin.  And with Aleppo, there wasn't. This is a really unusual situation in terms of migrations of people not going back to the place. And I think that probably will continue that way. MANYA: Syrian Jews are just one of the many Jewish communities who, in the last century, left Arab countries to forge new lives for themselves and future generations.  Join us next week as we share another untold story of The Forgotten Exodus. Many thanks to Oren and Moshe for sharing their story. You can read more in Moshe's memoir If Walls Could Speak: My Life in Architecture. Too many times during my reporting, I encountered children and grandchildren who didn't have the answers to my questions because they'd never asked. That's why one of the goals of this project is to encourage you to ask those questions. Find your stories. Atara Lakritz is our producer. T.K. Broderick is our sound engineer. Special thanks to Jon Schweitzer, Nicole Mazur, Sean Savage, and Madeleine Stern, and so many of our colleagues, too many to name really, for making this series possible.  You can subscribe to The Forgotten Exodus on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and you can learn more at AJC.org/theforgottenexodus.  The views and opinions of our guests don't necessarily reflect the positions of AJC.  You can reach us at theforgottenexodus@ajc.org. If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to spread the word, and hop onto Apple Podcasts or Spotify to rate us and write a review to help more listeners find us.

#INDIANA HOENLEIN: And the Lost 1500 year old pyx in Austria. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1@ThadMcCotter @theamgreatness https://www.yahoo.com/news/military-experts-suggest-iran-may-100008421.html 1957 Austria Hungary border barbed wiere: the Iron Curtain

Hey, Hi, Hello, this is the History Wizard and welcome back for Day 18 of Have a Day w/ The History Wizard. Thank you to everyone who tuned in for Day 17 2 weeks ago, and especially thank you to everyone who rated and/or reviewed the podcast. I hope you all learned something last week and I hope the same for this week as well. This week we're going to be diving back into learning about historic genocides as we learn about the Congolese genocide committed by King Leopold II of Belgium. We've talked about the Congolese Genocide previously on Day 11, Free Congo. But for today's episode we're going to go into much greater detail about this particular genocide and not just discuss it within the context of a current conflict. Now, before we get to The Alchemist's Table I wanted to apologize that there wasn't a new episode last week. Sometimes you just don't have the energy, the motivation, the spoons or the spell slots. So, I took a week off. It might happen again. And now on to the booze! Today's libation is called Cherries Jubilee. It's 2 oz of Islay scotch. I'd recommend a Bowmore if you're not a huge fan of the peat. Then 1 oz of creme de cacao. 1 oz of frangelico. Add .75 oz of cherry syrup. Shake and pour overice. Top with ginger beer or a hard cider. Garnish with luxardo cherries and enjoy. Now, with that out of the way let's get into the Congolese Rubber Genocide. In order to understand this genocide we first need to understand European colonialism during this time. Colonialism has taken many forms over the years and in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century it transitioned from the classic form of American colonialism into what we would consider New Colonialism. New Colonialism would rely less on direct military control of an area and would rely more on having governmental institutions in power that would directly benefit those pre existing colonial power structures. So, near the end of the 19th century there was very little European colonial and mercantile presence in Africa. There were some port towns, to be sure, and there was trade, but very little of the African continent was under the control of European powers at this time. But, European greed for gold and, especially, ivory wouldn't allow them to ignore African riches for much longer. The Berlin Conference was organized between November 1884 and February 1885 at the request of King Leopold II of Belgium and was organized by Otto von Bismarck of Germany.   The primary purpose of the Berlin Conference was regulating European colonization and trade during the New Imperialism period. It might seem strange to need to differentiate New Imperialism from the forms of empire building that came before. Afterall, the methodology was largely the same. Conquest. And the reasoning was, mostly the same. Resources and land acquisition. But New Imperialism also came with a good deal of “civilizing” flavor. You might be familiar with the poem White Man's Burden by Rudyard Kipling. If you're not. You can fully understand the entire mindset of 19th and 20th century colonialism simply by reading that poem. Now, Leopold had been using the explorations of Henry Morgan Stanley, and his own organization, the International African Association to quietly try and create his own private colony in central Africa that would be called the Congo Free State, but France found out and started making moves, and then Britain and Portugal found out and began trying to grab land which led Germany to do the same. War was brewing quickly as these various European powerhouses all sought as much land, wealth, and power as they could grab. This, ultimately, would be why the Berlin Conference was called and why it was so successful. These European powers decided, instead of going to war and killing each other over Africa they'd just all meet and carve it up like a pecan pie and settle it all peaceful like. There were 14 nations/empires in attendance at the Berlin Conference, Germany, Austria Hungary, the International Congo Society (this really means King Leopold II of Belgium), Spain, Denmark, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden-Norway, and the Ottoman Empire. And while all 14 of those countries were in attendance at the Berlin Conference and had a say in the final decisions that were made, only 7 countries were actually going to colonize Africa once it was over. Those countries were Belgium (really just King Leopold II, this would be his own private colony), Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Portugal, and Italy. At the time of the Berlin Conference, in 1885, less than 10% of the African continent was under European control, but by the time World War 1 broke out only Liberia and Ethiopia were still independent. Although, Liberia certainly only existed because of US colonial power, and so doesn't REALLY count as independent.  Wanna know one of the most buckwild things about the Berlin Conference? I ask knowing that there is no way for you to answer or to stop me from telling you short of skipping forward by about 30 seconds. Part of the General Act, the document that was signed and ratified at the conclusion of the Berlin Conference was a commitment from the European powers involved to END AFRICAN AND ISLAMIC SLAVERY. Most of those European powers would go on to enslave the populations they conquered and colonized. This period of New Imperialism is what we tend to call The Scramble for Africa. So far we've been talking about this all in fairly clinical terms, as if these European countries simply sat around a table and calmly decided who would get what land in the second largest continent on the planet and then it just happened, with no additional muss or fuss. Anyone who has studied even the barest amount of human history knows that nothing happens without muss or fuss. There were wars, and battles, and massacres that led to Europe gaining control of African territory. We now need to talk a bit about the Congo Free State, and how King Leopold of Belgium, a frail weakling (compared to the other European powers) managed to worm his way into the conference and into one of the most lucrative colonies in Africa. The Congo Free State was a truly massive colony that was owned personally by Leopold. It was NOT, at least between the years 1885 and 1908, part of the Belgian Empire, it was not owned by the Belgian government and was ruled entirely separately, it just happened to be ruled by the King of Belgium. Leopold was able to gain this massive colony by convincing the monarchs of Europe that he was engaged in humanitarian and philanthropic work, and that the Congo Free State would be an area of free trade in Africa. He also then proceeded to lie to the leaders of Britain, Germany, France, and the US telling them all that he would give them special trade status. Leopold maintained a guise that he was not trying to use the Congo Basin to increase his own wealth and economic and political power. He maintained that his presence in the region was, as was a huge part of the ethos of New Imperialism, to civilize the savages of the Congo Basin and to bring them closer to God and good European cultural supremacy.  Leopold pledged to suppress the east African slave trade; promote humanitarian policies; guarantee free trade within the colony; impose no import duties for twenty years; and encourage philanthropic and scientific enterprises. Beginning in the mid-1880s, Leopold first decreed that the state asserted rights of proprietorship over all vacant lands throughout the Congo territory. In three successive decrees, Leopold promised the rights of the Congolese in their land to native villages and farms, essentially making nearly all of the CFS terres domaniales (state-owned land). Leopold further decreed that merchants should limit their commercial operations in rubber trade with the natives. Additionally, the colonial administration liberated thousands of slaves. Four main problems presented themselves over the next few years. Leopold II ran up huge debts to finance his colonial endeavour and risked losing his colony to Belgium. Much of the Free State was unmapped jungle, which offered little fiscal and commercial return. Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of the Cape Colony (part of modern South Africa), was expanding his British South Africa Company's charter lands from the south and threatened to occupy Katanga (southern Congo) by exploiting the "Principle of Effectivity" loophole in the Berlin Treaty. In this he was supported by Harry Johnston, the British Commissioner for Central Africa, who was London's representative in the region. The Congolese interior was ruled by Arab Zanzibari slavers and sultans, powerful kings and warlords who had to be coerced or defeated by use of force. For example, the slaving gangs of Zanzibar trader Tippu Tip had a strong presence in the eastern part of the territory in the modern-day Maniema, Tanganyika and Ituri regions. They were linked to the Swahili coast via Uganda and Tanzania and had established independent slave states. So very quickly Leopold began to renege on his promises. The first concession he made to his greed and desire for power was to establish a policy of terres vacantes. Vacant land, which was defined as any land that did not have a house or cultivated garden plot. This was, of course, most of the country. Any terres vacantes was now automatically property of the state to be portioned out to Leopold's cronies and supporters. Next Leopold would decree that any locals harvesting rubber or ivory were only allowed to sell to the state. This was doubly enforced because most of the rubber or ivory harvesting was happening on “state owned land” and so it “mae sense” that they could only sell to the state, which now had a monopoly on those products and could set the prices at whatever they wanted. Trading companies were, obviously, pissed by this as part of the General Act of the Berlin Conference was a promise of Free Trade in Belgium. Now, what made The Congo so special in the history of capitalist exploitation was that it was home to something that would become one of the most important natural resources in the entire world, rubber. There are only two sources of natural rubber in the world. The sap of the Hevea brasiliensis, or rubber tree that grows in the Amazon River Basin, and the sap of Landolphia owariensis, a species of woody vines that grow in the Congo. I mean, technically there are 2500 species of plants that produce natural latex and rubber, but those two are the big ones. Today 99% of natural latex and rubber comes from the Amazon, but Leopold was able to make massive profit off of his colony. By the final decade of the 19th century, John Boyd Dunlop's 1887 invention of inflatable, rubber bicycle tubes and the growing usage of the automobile dramatically increased global demand for rubber. Now, as mentioned previously the rubber in the Congo came from vines. So while the trees in the Amazon basin could be tapped much in the same way we get Maple syrup, the Congolese workers would slash the vines and lather their bodies with the rubber latex. When the latex hardened, it would be scraped off the skin in a quite painful manner, ripping off the workers hair. The economic system in the Congo Free State was known as the red rubber system. It was a slave economy that Leopold enforced through the use of his armed forces known as the Force Publique. The officer corp of the Force Publique was made up entirely of White Europeans, and much of their rank and file was made up of slaves captured by Arabic slavers in the Upper Congo. Many of the other soldiers were children who had been kidnapped from their villages and raised in Roman Catholic missions in conditions very similar to slavery. Each slave in the Congo Free State was required to harvest a regular quota of rubber sap. What that quota was was often arbitrarily decided based purely on profit based concerns. Workers who refused to supply their labour were coerced with "constraint and repression". Dissenters were beaten or whipped with the chicotte, a bullship made of hippo hide, hostages were taken to ensure prompt collection and punitive expeditions were sent to destroy villages which refused. The policy led to a collapse of Congolese economic and cultural life, as well as farming in some areas. One refugee from these horrors described the process: We were always in the forest to find the rubber vines, to go without food, and our women had to give up cultivating the fields and gardens. Then we starved ... When we failed and our rubber was short, the soldiers came to our towns and killed us. Many were shot, some had their ears cut off; others were tied up with ropes round their necks and taken away. Failure to meet the rubber collection quotas was punishable by death. Meanwhile, the Force Publique were required to provide the hand of their victims as proof when they had shot and killed someone, as it was believed that they would otherwise use the munitions (imported from Europe at considerable cost) for hunting or to stockpile them for mutiny. As a consequence, the rubber quotas were in part paid off in cut-off hands. A Catholic priest quotes a man, Tswambe, speaking of the hated state official Léon Fiévez, who ran a district along the river 300 mi north of Stanley Pool: “All blacks saw this man as the devil of the Equator ... From all the bodies killed in the field, you had to cut off the hands. He wanted to see the number of hands cut off by each soldier, who had to bring them in baskets ... A village which refused to provide rubber would be completely swept clean. As a young man, I saw [Fiévez's] soldier Molili, then guarding the village of Boyeka, take a net, put ten arrested natives in it, attach big stones to the net, and make it tumble into the river ... Rubber causes these torments; that's why we no longer want to hear its name spoken. Soldiers made young men kill or rape their own mothers and sisters.” One junior officer in the Force Publique had this to say about the quota system: The baskets of severed hands, set down at the feet of the European post commanders, became the symbol of the Congo Free State. ... The collection of hands became an end in itself. Force Publique soldiers brought them to the stations in place of rubber; they even went out to harvest them instead of rubber ... They became a sort of currency. They came to be used to make up for shortfalls in rubber quotas, to replace ... the people who were demanded for the forced labour gangs; and the Force Publique soldiers were paid their bonuses on the basis of how many hands they collected. Within the Congo Free State there was also rampant famine and disease that killed hundreds of thousands of people, a type of residential school where children were sent to learn to be either workers or soldiers. About 50% of the children who entered these schools died. There were also several reputable reports of Congolese people turning to cannibalism in the face of their lack of food resources. With everyone being forced to harvest rubber there was no one to farm or gather or hunt for food. It is generally accepted that over the course of Leopold's rule in the Congo Free State, between 1885 and 1908 that at least 10 million Congolese people were killed. The peak year for the cost of rubber was 1903, with rubber fetching the highest price and concessionary companies raking in the highest profits. However, the boom sparked efforts to find lower-cost producers. Congolese concessionary companies started facing competition from rubber cultivation in Southeast Asia and Latin America. As plantations were begun in other tropical regions around the world, the global price of rubber started to dip. Competition heightened the drive to exploit forced labour in the Congo in order to lower production costs. Meanwhile, the cost of enforcement was eating away at profit margins, along with the toll taken by the increasingly unsustainable harvesting methods. As competition from other areas of rubber cultivation mounted, Leopold's private rule was left increasingly vulnerable to international scrutiny. Missionaries carefully and meticulously documented the many abuses of the Congolese Red Rubber system. This would finally be noted by the international community and by the Belgian government itself as a violation of the 1885 Berlin Act which gave Leopold authority and control of the Congo as long as he: "care[d] for the improvements of their conditions of their moral and material well-being" and "help[ed] in suppressing slavery." After 2 years of international pressure the Belgian government agreed to annex the Congo Free State and make it an official part of the Belgian Empire. The reason the debate lasted 2 years was that no one wanted to take on the responsibility of fixing everything Leopold had fucked up so royally (pun intended). But what happened to Leopold you ask? Did he go to jail? Did he get a slap on the wrist? Was he deposed as king and sent into exile on a small island in the Pacific where he eventually died of stomach cancer? Nah, he did die though, but he died as King of Belgium. He had surgery on December 17, 1909. He had a coronary bridging performed, aiming at correcting insufficient irrigation of the myocardium. ''A few hours after the operation, a failure of the myocardium occurred leading to death the same day''. Leopold had ruled Belgium for 44 years, which makes him, to this day, the longest reigning Belgian monarch. You also might be please to know that his funeral procession was booed by every crowd he passed. His people fucking hated him. Exciting news y'all! We actually DO have some reviews this week! So let's read em! And now for the outro! Have a Day! w/ The History Wizard is brought to you by me, The History Wizard. If you want to see/hear more of me you can find me on Tiktok @thehistorywizard or on Instagram @the_history_wizard. Please remember to rate, review, and subscribe to Have a Day! On your pod catcher of choice. The more you do, the more people will be able to listen and learn along with you. Thank you  for sticking around until the end and, as always, Have a Day.        

On the 20th of July 1914 the heads of state of two great European powers - France and Russia - met in St Petersburg. Little did they know, though they may have suspected, that the Austrians were simultaneously writing up an Ultimatum, and waiting for the departure of the French to hand it to Serbia. Russia, at that time a vast continental empire under the leadership of the conservative, nervous Tsar Nicholas II, posed a major threat to the Austrians. It had modernised quickly and was in a far more confident position than it had been ten years earlier. Moreover, it had invested interests in the Balkans - the axis of their grain reserves - and little sympathy for the Austrians and their assassinated Archduke. Meanwhile, France felt itself to be a country in decline, long the whipping boy of Europe, and threatened by Germany - the growing, encroaching industrial shadow on its border. The time had come to recover French prestige in the world, and a war in the Balkans, guaranteeing the intervention of their most useful ally, Russia, may have seemed the answer…So it was that in the wake of their summit, both powers parted having cemented their alliance, eager to drive Britain into the conflict with them, and determined take a firm hand with whatever broke out in the Balkans. Three days later, Austria delivered its Ultimatum to Serbia... Join Dominic and Tom as they discuss the intrigues and interests of the formidable Franco-Russian alliance, their historical relationship with the Austrians, and the part they played in bringing the apocalyptic First World War to fruition. Also, the moment that Austria-Hungary finally dealt Serbia its inflammatory Ultimatum, and their response to it. With time ticking, the thunder clouds of war were closing in. _______ LIVE SHOWS *The Rest Is History BOOK TOUR* To celebrate the launch of our second book, “The Rest Is History Returns”, Dominic and Tom will be appearing onstage in both Oxford and Cambridge in September! *The Rest Is History LIVE at the Royal Albert Hall* Tom and Dominic, accompanied by a live orchestra, take a deep dive into the lives and times of two of history's greatest composers: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. *The Rest Is History LIVE in the U.S.A.* If you live in the States, we've got some great news: Tom and Dominic will be performing throughout America in November, with shows in San Francisco, L.A., Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Boston and New York.  Tickets on sale now at TheRestIsHistory.com _______ Twitter: @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Producer: Theo Young-Smith Assistant Producer: Tabby Syrett Executive Producers: Jack Davenport + Tony Pastor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Just months after joining the war with high hopes of taking Transylvania from Austria-Hungary, Romania is now on the back foot and facing total collapse. Elsewhere, the Greek quasi-civil war is heating up, Bulgaria faces increasing difficulties at home, and the Serbs are finally pushing back against a harsh occupation. Supporters like you make this podcast happen! Check out www.patreon.com/bulgarianhistorypodcast to see the great perks you can get for supporting us. You can find images for this episode at: www.bghistorypodcast.com/post/210-romanian-collapse

Content warning for discussion of genocide, torture, mutilation, rape, and slavery Hey, Hi, Hello, this is the History Wizard and welcome back for Day 11 of Have a Day w/ The History Wizard. Thank you to everyone who tuned in for Day 10 last week, and especially thank you to everyone who rated and/or reviewed the podcast. I hope you all learned something last week and I hope the same for this week. This week we're going to be talking about the currently ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the long history of capitalist exploitation, western imperialism, and systemic racism that led to it. But first, as is tradition, let's take a trip over to the Alchemists Table to see what potion we've got for today. Today's libation has a lot going on in it, it's called Underworld Vacation. It starts by adding some strawberries and blueberries to the bottom of your shaker with .75 of an ounce of rose simple syrup before muddling the fruit. Then add one ounce each of pomegranate and elderflower liquor followed by 2 oz of Hendricks Lunar gin, add ice to your shaker and then stir for about 30 seconds before straining into a highball glass and topping with about 4 oz of prosecco. With that out of the way it's time to talk, once again, about the most important part of history. The proverbial devil in the literal details, context. Because to understand what is happening in the DRC today you need to understand the Kivu Conflict, and to understand that you need to understand the Second Congo War, and to understand that you need to understand the First Congo War, and to understand that you need to understand the end of the Rwandan Genocide and the Congo Crisis of the 1960s, and to understand that you need to understand the Scramble for Africa, The Berlin Conference and King Leopold !! of Belgium. So, we've got a lot to cover, and we're going to be doing it in fairly broad strokes, but it might still take us a while, so let's get started with the Berlin Conference. Near the end of the 19th century there was very little European colonial and mercantile presence in Africa. There were some port towns, to be sure, and there was trade, but very little of the African continent was under the control of European powers at this time. But, European greed for gold and, especially, ivory wouldn't allow them to ignore African riches for much longer. The Berlin Conference was organized in 1885 at the request of King Leopold II of Belgium and was organized by Otto von Bismarck of Germany.   Leopold had been using the explorations of Henry Morgan Stanley, and his own organization, the International African Association to quietly try and create his own private colony in central Africa that would be called the Congo Free State, but France found out and started making moves, and then Britain and Portugal found out and began trying to grab land which led Germany to do the same. War was brewing quickly as these various European powerhouses all sought as much land, wealth, and power as they could grab. This, ultimately, would be why the Berlin Conference was called and why it was so successful. These European powers decided, instead of going to war and killing each other over Africa they'd just all meet and carve it up like a pecan pie and settle it all peaceful like. There were 14 nations/empires in attendance at the Berlin Conference, Germany, Austria Hungary, the International Congo Society (this really means King Leopold II of Belgium), Spain, Denmark, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden-Norway, and the Ottoman Empire. And while all 14 of those countries were in attendance at the Berlin Conference and had a say in the final decisions that were made, only 7 countries were actually going to colonize Africa once it was over. Those countries were Belgium (really just King Leopold II, this would be his own private colony), Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Portugal, and Italy. At the time of the Berlin Conference less than 10% of the African continent was under European control, but by the time World War 1 broke out only Liberia and Ethiopia were still independent. Although, Liberia certainly only existed because of US colonial power, and so doesn't REALLY count as independent.  This period of New Imperialism is what we tend to call The Scramble for Africa. Sof ar we've been talking about this all in fairly clinical terms, as if these European countries simply sat around a table and calmly decided who would get what land in the second largest continent on the planet and then it just happened, with no additional muss or fuss. Anyone who has studied even the barest amount of human history knows that nothing happens without muss or fuss. There were wars, and battles, and massacres that led to Europe gaining control of African territory, but that's not the topic of today's podcast. We now need to talk a bit about the Congo Free State, and how King Leopold of Belgium, a frail weakling (compared to the other European powers) managed to worm his way into the conference and into one of the most lucrative colonies in Africa. The Congo Free State was a truly massive colony that was owned personally by Leopold. It was NOT, at least between the years 1885 and 1908, part of the Belgian Empire, it was not owned by the Belgian government and was ruled entirely separately, it just happened to be ruled by the King of Belgium. Leopold was able to gain this massive colony by convincing the monarchs of Europe that he was engaged in humanitarian and philanthropic work, and that the Congo Free State would be an area of free trade in Africa.  Leopold maintained a guise that he was not trying to use the Congo Basin to increase his own wealth and economic and political power. He maintained that his presence in the region was, as was a huge part of the ethos of New Imperialism, to civilize the savages of the Congo Basin and to bring them closer to God and good European cultural supremacy.  Of course, all of that was a lie, and that lie would reveal itself over the intervening years. The Congo was home to something that would become one of the most important natural resources in the entire world, rubber. There are only two sources of natural rubber in the world. The sap of the Hevea brasiliensis, or rubber tree that grows in the Amazon River Basin, and the sap of Landolphia owariensis, a species of woody vines that grow in the Congo. I mean, technically there are 2500 species of plants that produce natural latex and rubber, but those two are the big ones. Today 99% of natural latex and rubber comes from the Amazon, but Leopold was able to make massive profit off of his colony. The economic system in the Congo Free State was known as the red rubber system. It was a slave economy that Leopold enforced through the use of his armed forces known as the Force Publique. Each slave in the Congo Free State was required to harvest a regular quota of rubber sap. What that quota was was often arbitrarily decided based purely on profit based concerns. Workers who refused to supply their labour were coerced with "constraint and repression". Dissenters were beaten or whipped with the chicotte, hostages were taken to ensure prompt collection and punitive expeditions were sent to destroy villages which refused. The policy led to a collapse of Congolese economic and cultural life, as well as farming in some areas. Failure to meet the rubber collection quotas was punishable by death. Meanwhile, the Force Publique were required to provide the hand of their victims as proof when they had shot and killed someone, as it was believed that they would otherwise use the munitions (imported from Europe at considerable cost) for hunting or to stockpile them for mutiny. As a consequence, the rubber quotas were in part paid off in cut-off hands. A Catholic priest quotes a man, Tswambe, speaking of the hated state official Léon Fiévez, who ran a district along the river 300 mi north of Stanley Pool: “All blacks saw this man as the devil of the Equator ... From all the bodies killed in the field, you had to cut off the hands. He wanted to see the number of hands cut off by each soldier, who had to bring them in baskets ... A village which refused to provide rubber would be completely swept clean. As a young man, I saw [Fiévez's] soldier Molili, then guarding the village of Boyeka, take a net, put ten arrested natives in it, attach big stones to the net, and make it tumble into the river ... Rubber causes these torments; that's why we no longer want to hear its name spoken. Soldiers made young men kill or rape their own mothers and sisters.” One junior officer in the Force Publique had this to say about the quota system: The baskets of severed hands, set down at the feet of the European post commanders, became the symbol of the Congo Free State. ... The collection of hands became an end in itself. Force Publique soldiers brought them to the stations in place of rubber; they even went out to harvest them instead of rubber ... They became a sort of currency. They came to be used to make up for shortfalls in rubber quotas, to replace ... the people who were demanded for the forced labour gangs; and the Force Publique soldiers were paid their bonuses on the basis of how many hands they collected. Within the Congo Free State there was also rampant famine and disease that killed hundreds of thousands of people, a type of residential school where children were sent to learn to be either workers or soldiers. About 50% of the children who entered these schools died. There were also several reputable reports of Congolese people turning to cannibalism in the face of their lack of food resources. With everyone being forced to harvest rubber there was no one to farm or gather or hunt for food. It is generally accepted that over the course of Leopold's rule in the Congo Free State, between 1885 and 1908 that at least 10 million Congolese people were killed. Eventually word got out of what was happening in the Congo Free State and a conclave of the European powers of the Berlin Conference was called as, even they, decided that Leopold was going too far. Leopold offered to reform his government and economic system in the Congo, but no one would give him the chance, but also, no one wanted to take on the responsibility of rebuilding the Congo. Eventually, after two years of debate, the Belgian Parliament took over control of the Congo. Leopold would die about a year later in 1909. The Congo would remain under under Belgian control for another 50+ years, and while the abuses and overwhelming violence of King Leopold's rule were curbed. They even added a clause to the new Colonial Charter to outlaw slavery. Article 3 of the new Colonial Charter of 18 October 1908 stated that: "Nobody can be forced to work on behalf of and for the profit of companies or privates", but this was not enforced, and the Belgian government continued to impose forced labour on the indigenous people of the area, albeit by less obvious methods. So, even without King Leopold, the Belgian Congo was still a European colony, which means it was still exploited for profit. African independence movements existed throughout the entirety of European colonialism and imperialism in Africa, excepting Liberia the first country in Africa to gain independence from direct European control would be South Africa which would nominally gain its independence in 1910 after the creation of the Union of South Africa and would formally gain official independence when the last vestiges of British parliamentary control would leave the country in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster, and while there would be other successful independence movements after World War 1, such as Egypt, most African decolonization would come after World War 2, including the Congo's.  Nationalist movements popping up in various African nations and agitating for Independence is, generally speaking, what would eventually cause all of African independence, and this would be no different for the Congo. Though, something that is often also common in the case of independence movements that emerged between the end of World War 2 and the early 1990s is that they would become proxy wars for the US and the USSR during the Cold War. To make a long, complex story very short, the US came out on top in this war. The nationalist movements within the Congo largely emerged amongst a class of people called the évolués, which is a term that was used in French and Belgian colonies for “evolved ones”, people of African descent who had become somewhat Europanized through education.  One of the deciding moments in Congolese independence came in the form of the Leopoldville Riots of 1959. Joseph Kasa-Vubu, who would become the first President of an independent Democratic Republic of the Congo, was the leader of the ABAKO political party, the Alliance of Bakongo. The riots began because many young folks and members or sympathizers of the ABAKO party felt that the government was forbidding them from organizing and protesting. The riots broke out on the 4th of January, 1959. The crowd began throwing rocks at police and attacking white motorists. The initial group of protesters were soon joined by 20,000 Congolese leaving a nearby soccer stadium. At the time press accounts estimated that 35,000 Africans were involved in the violence, which quickly spread as the rioters attempted to enter the European section of the capital. Rioters allegedly smashed and looted storefronts, burned Catholic missions and beat Catholic priests. Many demonstrators chanted "indépendance immédiate" The Belgian Parliament established a commission of inquiry to investigate the cause of the riots. The commission found the disturbances to be the culmination of discontent with racial discrimination, overcrowding, and unemployment. It also concluded that external political events, such as France's decision to grant self-governance to the neighboring French Congo, to be a contributing factor, and criticized the colonial administration's response to the riot. On 13 January the administration went forward with its scheduled announcement of reforms, including new local elections in December, the institution of a new civil service statue that made no racial distinctions, and the appointment of more Africans to advisory bodies. The Belgian King, Baudouin, also declared for the first time that independence would be granted to the Congo in the future. January 4th is still celebrated as an auspicious day in the DRC, it's the Day of the Martyrs and denotes a turning point in the independence movement. Congolese independence was officially declared, as planned, on the 30th of June, 1960, with Kasa-Vubu of the ABAKO elected as president and Patrice Lumumba of the Congolese National Movement appointed as the Prime Minister. Now, despite the DRC formally being declared as independent at this day, they still relied heavily on Belgian colonial institutions that had been in place previously, like the Force Publique and various white technical experts who couldn't be replaced in the face of a lack of ready replacements available amongst the Congolese people. The fact that this lack of available peoples being a result of European colonialism forbidding Congolese people from higher education wound up being somewhat irrelevant, but absolutely caused greater levels of resentment among the newly independent Congolese. In the face of this lack of change and in the face of an address given by Lieutenant General of the Force Publique Émile Janssens, many of the Congolese troops mutinied. The address went as follows: "Independence brings changes to politicians and to civilians. But for you, nothing will be changed ... none of your new masters can change the structure of an army which, throughout its history, has been the most organized, the most victorious in Africa. The politicians have lied to you." Instead of sending in Belgian troops to put down the mutiny, as Janssens wanted, Lumumba fired him and began to institute some reforms, including immediately remaining the Force Publique to the Armée Nationale Congolaise (ANC) and promoting all black soldier by at least one rank. While this had success in Leopoldville and Thysville, it failed in the rest of the country and the mutiny intensified. The government attempted to stop the revolt—Lumumba and Kasa-Vubu intervened personally at Léopoldville and Thysville and persuaded the mutineers to lay down their arms—but in most of the country the mutiny intensified. White officers and civilians were attacked, white-owned properties were looted and white women were raped. The Belgian government became deeply concerned by the situation, particularly when white civilians began entering neighbouring countries as refugees. The international press expressed shock at the apparent sudden collapse of order in the Congo, as the world view of the Congolese situation prior to independence—due largely to Belgian propaganda—was one of peace, stability, and strong control by the authorities. The Congo Crisis would run for 5 years and would end with the torture and assassination of Patrice Lumumba, with Joesph Kasa-Vubu dying while under house arrest, and with the military dictator Mobuto Sese Seko “elected” as the president of the Republic of Congo-Leopoldville. This would note just one in the long string of times that the US helped to install a military dictator in order to overthrow a democratically elected left wing government, just because they had support from the USSR and the US feared (and fears) any threat to their capitalist hegemony. Between 1965 and 1971 Mobutu consolidated his hold on power as much as he could, removing all provincial control over anything and bringing every scrap of infrastructure he could under the control of himself and his central government. In 1971, with his hold on power relatively secure and as part of his policy of Africanization of the Congo's culture and government Mobutu renamed the Republic of Congo Leopoldville to Zaire, a name that was derived from the Kikongo wore nzere, meaning “river that swallows all rivers”. Mobutu would remain as “president” of Zaire all the way until 1997, but his hold on power would begin to crumble with the First Congo War that began in 1993. Now comes the time for more context. What started the First Congo War? Honestly, to a certain extent we can view the First Congo War as an extension of the Rwandan Genocide. The Rwandan Genocide began in 1994 as a final culmination of ethnic tensions that were exacerbated by, first, German and the Belgian colonialism. See, Rwanda used to be a German colony, Rwanda was one of the nations that Germany got as part of the Scramble for Africa, but after World War 1, with the signing of the treaty of Versailles Germany was forced to give up all of its overseas colonies. Belgium gained control of Rwanda. Belgium maintained many of the systems of power and oppression that Germany had put into place, most notably the fact that they put the Tutsi ethnic group in positions of authority and disenfranchised the Hutu and Twa ethnic group. The Twa are the indigenous ethnic group of Rwanda, but by the time the Rwandan genocide occurred they were only about 1% of the population, about 85% were Hutu and the remaining 14% were Tutsi. Still, based on the indicators of European scientific racism and phrenology the Tutsi had more “European features” and so were considered superior to the Hutu ethnic group and placed, exclusively, in positions of authority. The sudden shift in power dynamics after Rwandan independence is what would lead to the Rwandan Genocide as Hutu supremacists decided to vent their fury on the Tutsi people. We won't go into any more detail than that for the Rwandan genocide. Suffice it to say that when it ended hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsi people had fled the nation of Rwanda to neighboring African countries, such as Zaire. Roughly 1.5 million ethnic Tutsi people wound up settling in Zaire. There were also about 1 million Hutu extremists in eastern Zaire who had fled the retaliation of the Rwandan Patriotic Front at the end of the Rwandan Civil War and the Rwandan Genocide. As mentioned previously, the First Congo War, also known as Africa's First World War can most simply be seen as an extension of the Rwandan Genocide. Zaire had been in decline since Mobutu gained power in 1965. He was a terrible leader and the average GDP of Zaire dropped by about 65% during his reign. Eastern Zaire was a region of massive instability that was only made worse by the number of Hutu extremists who fled to the region following the Rwandan Genocide. Rwanda, just fully, invaded Zaire in 1996 in order to put down various Hutu rebel groups that were extant in the region. These rebel groups were actively funded and supported by Mobutu's government leading to this war that lasted for some 6 months. It involved several African nations including Rwanda, Uganda, Angola, Burundi, Zambia, ZImbabwe, South Sudan, Tanzania, South Africa, Ethiopia, Chad, China, Israel, and Kuwait. Following the war Mobutu went into exile in the nation of Togo where he eventually died of prostate cancer in 1997. Zaire came under the rule of the communist aligned Laurent-Désiré Kabila. Kabila had heavy support from Rwandan, Burundian, and Ugandan forces during his rise to power in the form of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire. Kabila also came to be seen as an instrument of the foreign regimes that put him in power. To counter this image and increase domestic support, he began to turn against his allies abroad. This culminated in the expulsion of all foreign forces from the DRC on 26 July 1998. The states with armed forces still in the DRC begrudgingly complied although some of them saw this as undermining their interests, particularly Rwanda, which had hoped to install a proxy-regime in Kinshasa. Several factors that led to the First Congo War remained in place after Kabila's accession to power. Prominent among these were ethnic tensions in eastern DRC, where the government still had little control. There the historical animosities remained and the opinion that Banyamulenge, as well as all Tutsi, were foreigners was reinforced by the foreign occupation in their defence. Furthermore, Rwanda had not been able to satisfactorily address its security concerns. By forcibly repatriating refugees, Rwanda had imported the conflict. This manifested itself in the form of a predominantly Hutu insurgency in Rwanda's western provinces that was supported by extremist elements in eastern DRC. Without troops in the DRC, Rwanda was unable to successfully combat the insurgents. In the first days of August 1998, two brigades of the new Congolese army rebelled against the government and formed rebel groups that worked closely with Kigali and Kampala. This marked the beginning of the Second Congo War. The Second Congo War is generally considered to be the deadliest war since World War 2. Over the course of this war some 5.4 million excess deaths took place.  Now comes the time where I need to define what an excess death is. In epidemiology, the excess deaths or excess mortality is a measure of the increase in the number deaths during a time period and/or in a certain group, as compared to the expected value or statistical trend during a reference period (typically of five years) or in a reference population. It may typically be measured in percentage points, or in number of deaths per time unit. To put it more simply, disease, depravation, and starvation were so rampant during the Second Congo War that the overwhelming majority of deaths weren't caused directly by the fighting, but were caused by the residual damage of the fighting. The Second Congo War involved many of the same issues of the First Congo War. It would end with Laurent-Désiré Kabila assassinated in 2001 in his office by an 18 year old former child soldier. Laurent would be replaced as president by his son Joseph Kabila, who was elected unanimously by the Congolese parliament. To further highlight the complexity of the Congolese Wars, In April 2001, a UN panel of experts investigated the illegal exploitation of diamonds, cobalt, coltan, gold and other lucrative resources in the Congo. The report accused Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe of systematically exploiting Congolese resources and recommended the Security Council impose sanctions. All conflicts within Congolese territory will ultimately go back to economic exploitation and capitalist overreach. The Congo Basin is full of some of the most valuable natural resources that exist on the planet, and people will always be fighting over them. This leads us into the Kivu conflict. The Kivu conflict is an umbrella term for a series of protracted armed conflicts in the North Kivu and South Kivu provinces in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo which have occurred since the end of the Second Congo War. This includes, but is not limited to Effacer le tableau, which was a genocidal extermination campaign against the Mbuti Pygmy ethnic group. The Bambuti were targeted specifically as the rebels considered them "subhuman", and it was believed by the rebels that the flesh of the Bambuti held "magical powers". There were also reports of cannibalism being widespread. It is estimated 60,000 to 70,000 Pygmy were killed in the campaign, and over 100,000 more were displaced. There are more than 120 distinct rebel groups involved in the Kivu Conflict, including the March 23 Movement, which a UN report indicates was created by the Rwandan government in order to potentially take over the Congolese government. Conflict began in 2004 in the eastern Congo as an armed conflict between the military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) and the Hutu Power group Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) has played a large role in the conflict. With 21,000 soldiers in the force, the Kivu conflict constitutes the largest peacekeeping mission currently in operation. In total, 93 peacekeepers have died in the region, with 15 dying in a large-scale attack by the Allied Democratic Forces, in North Kivu in December 2017. The peacekeeping force seeks to prevent escalation of force in the conflict, and minimise human rights abuses like sexual assault and the use of child soldiers in the conflict. In 2007 and 2008, in several news and TV reports, the BBC published own evidence about Pakistani MONUC peacekeepers in Mongbwalu had entered in a gold-for-guns trading relationship with Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI) militia leaders, eventually drawing Congolese army officers and Indian traders from Kenya into the deal. Following its own investigations, the UN concluded that there was no involvement of Pakistani peacekeeper in any such trade relationship. Namely Human Rights Watch harshly criticized the UN for the way it handled the investigation, providing detailed information from several UN documents, arguing that serious allegations of wrongdoing by Pakistani peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo were ignored, minimized or shelved by the UN's Organization of Internal Oversight Services. MONUC officials say nothing of substance about mining in Congo, which proceeds in parallel with the bloodletting, arms trading and extortion. For example, Anvil Mining has been involved in massacres in DRC. Anvil directors include former U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Brown, who served at U.S. embassies in Brussels, Kinshasa, Congo-Brazzaville and South Africa. Brown was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Africa (1987–1989) under George Shultz and George H.W. Bush and Director of Central African Affairs (1980–1981). Interestingly, Brown succeeded William Lacy Swing—head of MONUC in DRC—as Ambassador to the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville). Meanwhile, the former top internal intelligence and security chief of the United Nations Observer's Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) has been worked for Anvil mining in Katanga since 2006. There have been numerous cases of sexual misconduct by UN peacekeeping forces in the Congo. This has been acknowledged by the UN itself (such as the letter of 24 March 2005 from the Secretary-General to the President of the General Assembly). So, basically foreign powers both within Africa and outside of it are actively fighting within the Congo Basin in order to secure control of the vast amount of natural resources that exist within the nation. The DRC currently produces about 70% of the world's cobalt, and 80% of the cobalt mines in the DRC are owned by China. The leading use of cobalt in modern technology is in rechargeable batteries. So your cell phone battery, your laptop batteries, any kind of rechargeable battery you have is likely created using Congolese cobalt, which is a direct cause of the millions of deaths and displacements that are occuring in the DRC.  The DRC is, effectively, the site of a capitalist proxy war as the region is fought over by foreign governments and local rebel groups for control over Congolese natural resources. No one in Europe or the US would even begin to care about an African country if it wasn't for the battery technology resources that are so abundant in the region. Between 1885 and today it is, very easy, to say that roughly 20 million people have been killed by capitalist excess and exploitation.  We can, absolutely call what is happening in the DRC a genocide, though it can be difficult to always pinpoint who, exactly are the victims. Broadly speaking the victims are the Congolese people, all of them, who are being killed over a desire to control the cobalt mines. This has gone far beyond simple ethnic conflict between Hutu and Tutsi, though that conflict, which is still ongoing, definitely added to the fire. This is a genocide of the people of the DRC by capitalism itself. Capitalism has always been, and will always be an inherently genocidal institution. It craves the acquisition of individual wealth at the expense of the working class. You cannot have a system predicated on infinite growth within a closed system. Capitalism will always require that resources and wealth be stolen from people who need them. And when so much of our wealth is tied up in food, water, and housing, the theft of those resources from the working class will lead to our deaths. For the past century and a half the Congo Basin has been subjected to genocide after genocide in the name of capitalism. What is happening right now is only an extension of that, though made far more complicated by the literal hundreds of competing groups and the lack of any international will to see peace achieved. That's it for this week folks. No new reviews, so let's get right into the outro. Have a Day! w/ The History Wizard is brought to you by me, The History Wizard. If you want to see/hear more of me you can find me on Tiktok @thehistorywizard or on Instagram @the_history_wizard. Please remember to rate, review, and subscribe to Have a Day! On your pod catcher of choice. The more you do, the more people will be able to listen and learn along with you. Thank you  for sticking around until the end and, as always, Have a Day, and Free Congo.    

Bulgaria finally enters the First World War, joining Germany and Austria-Hungary in a massive offensive against Serbia. But while some victories are coming easily, all is not as it seems. True, Bulgaria is finally realizing one of its greatest national ambitions, but will it all turn out to be just a dream? Supporters like you make this podcast happen! Check out www.patreon.com/bulgarianhistorypodcast to see the great perks you can get for supporting us. You can find images for this episode at: www.bghistorypodcast.com/post/206-a-dream-realized

How did the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand lead events in Europe to spiral out of control so rapidly? Why was Germany and Austria-Hungary's bloody clash with the Russian empire during the First World War so brutal? And why has the fighting on the eastern front between 1914 and 1918 been overshadowed by its counterpart in the west? Speaking to Spencer Mizen, historian Nick Lloyd answers your questions on one of the most brutal theatres of conflict both in the First World War, and modern warfare as a whole. (Ad) Nick Lloyd is the author of The Eastern Front: A History of the First World War (Viking, 2024). Buy it now from Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eastern-Front-History-First-World/dp/0241506859#:~:text=Book%20overview&text=In%20the%20second%20volume%20of,the%20collapse%20of%20three%20empires./?tag=bbchistory045-21&ascsubtag=historyextra-social-histboty. The HistoryExtra podcast is produced by the team behind BBC History Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last time we spoke about the Twenty-One Demands and the rise of the Walrus Emperor, Yuan Shikai. Japan certainly had their work cut out for them during WW1. Seizing upon every possible opportunity Japan occupied Shandong province after the siege of Tsingtao and forced China to accept the unbelievable twenty-one demands. Yuan Shikai tried to stall and negotiate, eventually reaching thirteen demands, but yet again China was served a terrible humiliation that even became a national day henceforth. Then Yuan Shikai completely, organically, not fault of his own because the Hongxian emperor over a new dynasty. The new monarchy of China lasted a solid 83 days, before Yuan Shikai was forced to abdicate lest every single province declare their independence. All of this was occurring during the vacuum of WW1, which was still raging on. Yuan Shikai was back to being president, over a fractured nation.   #91 China & the Treaty of Versailles   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. Yuan Shikai's short-lived monarchy did not end China's national crisis. When he abdicated, you would assume this would have eased tensions a bit, but then the people of China found out Yuan Shikai was going to stay on as president. The people were livid. As you can imagine, the calls for his abdication were followed up by calls for him to step down as president. In early April of 1916 Cai E, speaking on behalf of Yunnan, Guizhou and Guangxi put forward 6 demands to solve the crisis. 1) Yuan Shikai had to step down and go into exile 2) his stooges, 13 principal monarchist supports were to be executed 3) Yuan Shikai's vast property was to be confiscated 4) Yuan Shikai's descendants were to be stripped of citizenship. Apparently Yuan Shikai ignored these demands off the bat, prompting Cai E to add 5) Yuan Shikai would be charged with treason and punished by law passed by Congress. In April and May of 1916, more provinces declared independence, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Shaanxi, Sichuan and Hunan. Their provincial leaders, many of whom were Yuan Shikai loyalists like Chen Yi of Sichuan or Tang Xiangming of Hunan labeled him an illegal leader, condemned him as a villain and severed their ties to him. Talk about choosing your friends wisely eh? Thus by May of 1916 most of southern china was independent, waiting for Yuan Shikai to step down, and most likely it would be Li Yuanhong who would take the presidency. Dr Sun Yat-Sen did not play a significant role in this anti-Yuan Shikai movement. He did make grand speeches, in April of 1916 for example he said “only after the principal culprit Yuan is exterminated could the constitution be restored and the republic be revived. If Yuan continues to rule, the country cannot be preserved. All Chinese  must annihilate the evil thoroughly and never be tolerant towards Yuan, for only after the national thief is wiped out could the republic attain peace.” A barrage of telegrams, letters and personal envoys showed up to Yuan Shikai's offices asking him to step down.  Yuan Shikai's initial reaction was simply to try and suppress his challengers. On April 1st he proposed conditions to Cai E for solving the “crisis”, these were, repealing provincial independence, returning administrative order, disbanding new military units and halting conflicts. Meanwhile Yuan sent secret telegrams to his military commanders at the frontlines ordering the annihilation of the rebels. These men working under him basically had to go with it, his fortune was theirs as they say. But as we have seen, the battles were not going well for him. While he had the best army in China, he could not stand alone against everyone else. Thus he began talking to his closest officials about leaving politics. He also began talking about who would pick up after him. His successor would need to be capable of controlling his northern army, to coordinate his network of military leaders and address the current nations financial issues. Yuan Shikai also began screaming and lashing out at those who were once close to him and betrayed him. Such men Chen Yi in Sichuan, Tang Xiangming in Hunan, but above all, Feng Guozhang made him most bitter. As Yuan Shikai thought over his retirement plans, his enemies did not let up at all. Liang Qichao set up the “Junwuyuan”, Military Affairs Council in Zhaoqing, Guangdong on May 8th, 1916. This was a rival government to the Beiyang republic, who began issuing proclamations and coordinated with rebel provincial leaders. The council supported Li Yuanhong as president and according to Liang Qichao's speeches to the public “the existing national crisis was single-handedly created by Yuan. If Yuan remains in office, the country will confront upheavals and tumult continuously. Once Yuan departs from politics, all military conflicts will immediately vanish.” Yet again China was seeing a north and south governmental divide.  According to Yuan Shikai's daughter, Yuan Jingxue, his health deteriorated in early 1916 and he suffered from major depression. Now Yuan Shikai was certainly not a physically healthy guy, again the Walrus quips hold validity. He often got ill, he rarely left the presidential palace, and kept himself very isolated. I would imagine this was to thwart assassination attempts. Apparently all the men in his family lineage tended to die before 50. Regardless, his overeating probably was the main culprit. Despite all of this, he stubbornly would not step down, even while sick in bed he continued to read official documents at the bedside. By June he was quite bedridden and few came to see him, just his closest friends and colleagues Xu Shichang and Duan Qirui. Yuan Shikai was a strong believer in Chinese medicine and tried to fight off his family who emplored him to seek western medicine until he allowed the French doctor J.A Bussiere to treat him. Dr. Bussiere diagnosed him with uremia and tried to treat him, but it was not working. Anticipated death was at the door, Yuan Shikai called upon Xu Shichang, Duan Qirui and Wang Shizhen to his bedside where he handed over his last will. He told them he bitterly regretted the monarchy move and blamed everyone for misleading him, what a mensch. Now he trusted these 3 men to care for his family and as for his successor, he told them it clearly needed to be Li Yuanhong. He asked them to swear to him that they would submit to Li Yuanhong for the good of the nation. Then he breathed his last breath and was dead by June 6th of 1916. At the age of 56 Yuan Shikai, a colossal figure of modern Chinese history was gone.  Now this was perhaps one of the most pivotal moments in modern Chinese history, for you see Yuan Shikai had ushered in something. Yuan Shikai from the beginning of his rule, did so with the might of his Beiyang Army. He built up this army, he modeled it a lot upon the imperial Japanese army. He had procured, some would simply say embezzled and stolen funds to make this army the best in China. His intentions can be seen as merely to solidify his power, but in the long term it was also to build a modern unified army for China. Like everyone else before him, he was tackling the issue of modernization. His process was a lot like a mafia however. He installed men loyal to him in various positions, by this point I've named countless of them. Many of these men were basically military-governors. They were trained to lead armies and they all had ambitions politically. There were of course those outside the Beiyang Clique as it came to be called, such as Dr Sun Yat-Sen's Kuomintang and the provinces that all declared independence like Sichuan, Guangdong, Hunan, Guangxi, Yunnan, later on the CCP will be a player as well. He had set up this elaborate system, that we will call Warlord control, I literally just made that up. Yuan Shikai's warlords were the baddest of the bunch and with him as the father of Warlords he at least had a firm grasp over China. However when Yuan Shikai decided to play monarch, he royally, pun intended screwed up his own system. This caused what has occurred throughout China's history, a North-South divide. New Warlords were emerging in the south, but even Yuan Shikai's Warlords were slowly breaking off from him. When Yuan Shikai died, while on the surface it looked like China would unify….it most certainly was not.  Its honestly a very complex and confusing situation, known as China's Warlord Era. On the face of it, China had the “Beiyang Government”, who at all times had a president, cabinets etc etc, but it was all a charade. In reality, the Warlords would fight another for dominance over the military forces in China, as that was what really controlled China. The Beiyang Clique would divide into other cliques, and all over China numerous Cliques and associated Warlords would come and go. But, I just wanted to tease you a bit, for coherency sake I'd like to finish China's experience of WW1. After Yuan Shikai's death, Li Yuanhong assumed the presidency on June 7th. Li Yuanhong ordered a state funeral costing half a million dollars, taken from Yuan Shikai's associates such as Xu SHichang and Duan Qirui. In his presidential order Li Yuanhong praised Yuan Shikai for his vital role in the Xinhai revolution and for his industrious spirit, not saying a thing about the monarchy phase. The government flew the Beiyang flag at half mast. With that the anti-Yuan war was over. Liang Qichao dismantled his rival government and the anti-yuan provinces repealed their independence proclamations. All provinces recognized Li Yuanhong as president, a very good start. Now the historical narrative had it, that Li Yuanhong's rise to the presidency was actually at gunpoint. After Yuan Shikai's death, there was a sealed box with the names Xu Shichang, Li Yuanhong and Duan Qirui found in it. None of the men wanted to stick their neck out to seize the presidency. Its said Duan Qirui forced Li Yuanhong to take the job, but Li Yuanhong was very nervous about it. Why was he? The Beiyang military leaders were all northerners, Li of course was a southerner who also had been the enemy. Duan Qirui consulted his senior military colleagues who all hated the idea of Li Yuanhong being president. But Duan Qirui fought to get the unpopular man as president, because he thought he would make for an excellent puppet. Duan Qirui meanwhile maintained his current position, which was premier. For you Americans who might not be familiar with Parliamentary type systems this is how the Beiyang Government quasi worked. The National Assembly aka parliament elects a president and vice president for 5 year terms and a premier who chooses and leads a cabinet. Typically in these types of systems, the Presidency is more of a ceremonial role. Li Yuanhong's vice president was Feng Guozhang, Yuan Shikai was rolling in his grave. Meanwhile with the provisional constitution restore, political parties were allowed back and 3 factions emerged: Dr Sun Yat-Sen's Kuomintang; Liang Qichao's Constitution Research Clique and Tang Hualong's Constitution Discussions Clique. The first order of business for the new government was the creation of a national army. You might be thinking, err what about WW1? Well with southern China armed and dangerous still, there was a looming fear of further rebellions. There was also the enormous fear, some Beiyang general would renegade and overthrow the government. Meanwhile there was of course WW1. Last episode we talked about China sending laborers to work for France, Britain, Russia and later America. 1916 for the most part saw China providing the labor services, while trying to fix their own nation. Then on February 17th of 1917, the French cargo ship SS Athos was sunk by German U-boat U-65. The ship was carrying 900 Chinese workers on their way to France and 543 of them were killed. Premier Duan Qirui and Liang Qichao both wanted to join the war on the Entente side, seeing it as a tool to help China. President Li Yuanhong and Dr. Sun Yat-Sen both opposed the idea. Duan Qirui strong armed the issue, having China break diplomatic ties with Germany. Duan Qirui also was up to something else. In January of 1917, Prime Minister Terauchi of Japan sent a secret envoy who happened to be a private business man named Nishihara Kamezo. Nishihara was given the task of finding out who really controlled the current Beiyang Army, or better said, who controlled the strongest inner clique within it. That man was Duan Qirui. Nishihara had the financial backing of the current minister of finance, Shoda Kazue who also was the former president of the Joseon Bank in Korea. Together they were offering a private loan, done so through private banks to quote “help develop China”. This was absolutely not the case. They negotiated a series of 8 loans totaling 145 million yen to Duan Qirui, to assist him in maintaining his cliques military. You see like everyone else, Duan Qirui feared other northern warlord types would become stronger than his group, can't let that happen now. To receive these loans, Japan was asking for confirmation of its claims over the former German empires concessions, ie : Kiautschou Bay in Shandong; control over the Shandong railways and some additional rights within Manchuria. All of this was to be kept hush hush, but it would not remain so. I can't get into it too much here, it will be covered in another episode, but a Duan Qirui's deal was leaked and it looked to the public that Duan Qirui was trying to take over China using Japanese aid. Li Yuanhong had Duan Qirui removed from his position as Duan Qirui and the majority of the Beiyang Generals ran over to Tianjin forming a sort of base of operations. Then in a rather insane twist, General Zhang Xun offered to mediate the situation between the Government and Duan and by mediate, I mean he showed up to the capital with his army literally besieging it. Yes, boy that escalated quickly, can't get into the insane story here, again it will be told in a future episode, but Zhang Xun with German funds and arms occupied Beijing and tried to dissolve parliament in an attempt to install Puyi as emperor over the rebirthed Qing dynasty.  Needless to say, Li Yuanhong freaked the hell out, reappointed Duan Qirui as premier and begged him to come save Beijing. Duan Qirui defeated the rebels and forced Li Yuanhong to resign as president so Feng Guozhang could take up the role. Duan Qirui then refused to restore parliament which will literally blow the door open to the Warlord wars, but for out story we return to the issue of WW1. Having already broken diplomatic ties to Germany, there was still the issue of whether or not to declare war. An intense debate was ignited involving nearly all the influential figures in China. It constituted an unprecedented movement for China. China had neer before taken an active role in a global event, one being played out very far from her borders. By participating in the war, some hoped to regain sovereign rights to Shandong. Liang Qichao criticized German militarism and said he believed Germany could not win. He also argued in order to improve China's standing, they had to align her with the victors of the war. On the other side, Dr Sun Yat-Sen argued entering the war would alienate China from Germany. Unlike Britain, France and Russia, Germany had not inflicted as much harm to China in the past. He believed Britain and Russia were far more imperialistic and thus bigger threats. He also argued it would be a material gain at the loss of spirit, thus he wanted to see China remain neutral. Duan Qirui was frustrated as Li Yuanhong added his voice to the matter saying he also did not want to enter the war. While this argument was going on, the KMT began establishing a military government in southern China and elected Dr Sun Yat-Sen to be their generalissimo.  Regardless, Duan Qirui took matters into his own hands and declared war on the Central Powers on August 14th. German and Austro-Hungarian concessions in Tientsin and Hankow were quickly seized. Duan Qirui hoped by entering the war, China might gain some international prestige and eliminate some unequal treaties. He alongside many others hoped to get rid of the indemnity payments, like the Boxer Protocol and to regain control over the Shandong Peninsula. Notably China continued to send laborers to help the war effort, but never sent troops. China's actual participation in the Great War remained very minimal. It was constrained to confiscating some German ships along their coast and continuing to support the allies with labor. China tried multiple times to offer naval and military assistance, or even a token combat unit to the western front, but it never came to be. Honestly a lost opportunity. If you check out my episode on southeast asia during ww1 or my Asia during WW1 documentary, you will see nations like Thailand did send forces and profited pretty heavily from the experience.  Germany surrendered on November 11th of 1918, and hopes were so high in China they declared a 3 day national holding. China had achieved her primary goal, being granted a seat at the Paris Peace Conference. She had been given two seats as she had not provided combat troops like other nations who had more seats. For example Japan was given 5 seats since they did provide combat troops. Now because of Dr Sun Yat-Sen's southern government, there basically was two sets of envoys sent to Paris. The Beiyang or Northern government members and Sun Yat-Sen's southern government members. Heading the Beiyang was Lu Zhengxiang who was accompanied by Wellington Koo, Cao Rulin, Hu Weide, Alfred Sze and some other advisors. On behalf of the southern government was Wu Chaoshu and although not an official delegate so was C.T Wang. Overall Lu Zhengxiang was the leader of China's delegation, but Wellington Koo, sort of a master negotiator came to become the main man.  China's demands at the conference were territorial, economic and political. In regards to territory, the “delegation proposed the internationalization of the Manchurian railways and rivers” and for foreign treaty ports and communities to remain short-term in order for China to transition them back into her ownership for a long term strategy. In regards to politics, China wanted “the elimination of all legation guards, removal of all foreign troops stationed in China, and the abolition of extraterritorial rights”. In regards to economics, China sought to regain full sovereignty over her tariffs and railways. All together these demands would be a dramatic improvement of her international standings. It would place her on a much more equal footing with the great powers. Now for those of you less familiar with WW1, this came directly at the time of one of America's worth presidents in my opinion, President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points. Again I will do the boring professor like thing by listing the points, but dont worry its in a summarized form: 1. Open diplomacy without secret treaties 2. Economic free trade on the seas during war and peace 3. Equal trade conditions 4. Decrease armaments among all nations 5. Adjust colonial claims 6. Evacuation of all Central Powers from Russia and allow it to define its own independence 7. Belgium to be evacuated and restored 8. Return of Alsace-Lorraine region and all French territories 9. Readjust Italian borders 10. Austria-Hungary to be provided an opportunity for self-determination 11. Redraw the borders of the Balkan region creating Roumania, Serbia and Montenegro 12. Creation of a Turkish state with guaranteed free trade in the Dardanelles 13. Creation of an independent Polish state 14. Creation of the League of Nations   Given the points, such as the right of self-determination of peoples, the Chinese delegates felt pretty good about their stance. However, what would prove to be the crux between China and her goals were a series of secret agreements and treaties between the Great Powers, China and Japan. Remember Duan Qirui's little loans? Well when China declared war on the Central Powers, this put her in alliance with Japan, as now they were both part of the Entente. Another large event had unfolded in 1917, the October revolution, seeing Russia fall to communism. The Entente declared the communist government a threat. Vice chief of the Imperial Japanese army general staff, Tanaka Giichi sought to form a military pact with China, including a military alliance against the new common enemy. In late January of 1917 Tanaka sent a message to the Japanese military attache in Beijing to form a Sino-Japanese agreement, but to try and get the Chinese to suggest the idea first.  The Chinese obviously would be suspicious of forming any type of agreement with Japan given the Shandong situation and Japan's encroachment into Manchuria. Japanese foreign minister Motono Ichiro offered a military cooperation similar to what the Entente were doing in France, stating if they could operate their military forces in France, why not in Manchuria. The Japanese also hinted as the possibility of just sending troops into Manchuria even if China didn't agree to it. On March 3rd, 1918 the Germans and Soviets signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, leaving some 100,000 German POW's scattered about Siberia and this scared China quite a bit. Thus on March 8th, the Japanese government began forming plans for a Sino-Japanese agreement and informed the Chinese ambassador in Tokyo, Zhang Zongxiang about it. A team led by Major General Saito Suejiro went to Beijing to negotiate the terms of the agreement. On March 25th, Zhang Zongxiang and Minister Motono both agreed enemy forces were spreading rampantly along the Russia border, threatening the far east. Thus they agreed to a joint defense agreement. This got leaked to the public in early April and opposition in China spread dramatically. Japan pretty much made its intents with the Sino-Japanese alliance known. The alliance would allow for free movement of Japanese troops with Chinese territory, that some resources would be commandeered for the military, a bit of domestic politics would probably be interfered with also and they pretty much were going to plant pro-Japanese forces across China. On May 3rd, Tanaka Giichi visited Zhang Zongxiang and demanded an apology from the Chinese side for doubting Japans intentions and failing to ratify things. He stated if China did not agree to the alliance, the Nishihara loans would be withheld. Duan Qirui could not stomach that so negotiations recommenced on May 16th and the agreement was signed.  The Sino-Japanese agreement consisted of 12 major articles: The second article establishes the parties of the agreement were equals,;  the third article specified that the Chinese authorities must "try their best" to cooperate with the Japanese military in the relevant regions and prevent them from "experiencing any obstacles" in their operations. The fourth article specified that Japanese troops would be "entirely withdrawn" from Chinese territory at the termination of the war. The seventh article specified the placement of liaison officers in each party's military to facilitate communication between the two parties and specified that both parties must provide whatever resources are required to facilitate their joint defense. As usual, Japan demanded the negotiations be made secret, but it was leaked immediately.  Now back to Paris, China had thus agreed to grant Japan several things and it contradicted what she sought at the peace talks. For one thing, she sought to reclaim the Shandong Peninsula. Back in 1915 Yuan Shikai's government had signed the thirteen-demands, but Wellington Koo argued that it had been an unequal treaty imposed upon China in a moment of weakness.  Wellington Koo, gave an impassioned speech about the importance of Shandong province to China, describing it as "the cradle of Chinese civilization, a Holy Land for the Chinese. It was the birth land of Confucius and Mencius. If Japan was allowed to continue its lease of the Shandong territory, then it would provide the government of Tokyo with a strategic "gateway" to all of north China”. As for the second Sino-Japanese treaty in which China agreed to allow Japan's occupation of Shandong amongst other things, well the Chinese delegation had no idea about this agreement. Yes the delegation team found out about this agreement at Paris, go figure. So yeah it was a pretty big surprise when the Japanese delegation literally read out the treaties signed with Duan Qirui et al, very embarrassing for the Chinese delegation. Then to make matters even worse the Entente powers, specifically Britain and France also acknowledged they had signed secret agreements with Japan giving her the rights to Shandong since she had entered the war to help them. You could hear the sad violin music beginning to play. The Chinese delegation in absolute desperation looked towards the United States for help, hoping Woodrow Wilson's right to self-determination would bend to their favor. Woodrow said Shandong should be given to Japan, probably hoping to add Japan's favor in forming the League of Nations. The global powers then pretty much ignored the Chinese delegation. Hence forth the Chinese felt Woodrow Wilson had betrayed China, though as much as I hate to say it, it really wasn't his fault. He was simply balancing a number of secret agreements made and there were many promising Japan Shandong.  Thus in article 156 of the Treaty of Versailles the official transfer of the Shandong peninsula was given to the Empire of Japan rather than being returned to China. China denounced this transfer stating Shandong was the birthplace of Confucious, the greatest Chinese philosopher and it would be on par to Christians conceding jerusalem. China demanded Shandong Peninsula be returned to China, an abolition of all the privileges afforded to foreign powers in China such as extraterritoriality and to cancel the thirteen demands with the Japanese government. The Western powers refused all of China's demands and dismissed them. As a result Wellington Koo refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles in protest. Thus China was yet again humiliated. Worse, the ongoing news of what was going on at Versailles had caused probably one of the greatest movements in modern Chinese history to be unleashed back home. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. China was absolutely devastated by the treaty of versailles. Their fractured nation had been the victim of double dealings and now the Shandong problem would plague them for some years. However back home, an incredible movement was quicking up fueled by the anger of students and workers. 

Dimitri and Khalid begin their vertiginous dive into the outbreak of World War One and the circumstances leading up the Ottoman Empire's entry in alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Topics include: catalyzing incidents and geopolitical rivalries, cousin monarchs inaugurating a mechanized mass murder ritual that quickly spirals out of control, the quasi-false flag naval assault on Russia that dragged the Ottomans into the war, Germany's ill-conceived strategy of weaponizing a call to Jihad to rouse the world's Muslims against the Triple Entente, and more. Track IDs: Muslimgauze - A Nation Muslimgauze - Allah Will Provide You Forfeit Muslimgauze - Bandar Abbas For access to premium episodes, the full SJ back catalog, NOID-FM mixes, and the Grotto of Truth Discord, subscribe to the Al-Wara' Frequency at patreon.com/subliminaljihad.

In this episode we look at how conservative monarchs in the middle of the 19th century will begin to adopt liberal and nationalistic measures in order to strengthen their power. Specifically, we look at Napoleon III in France, Alexander II in Russia, and Franz Joseph I in Austria-Hungary.

This week we cover the unsung red of Central European wine – Blaufränkisch. This Central European red grape was planted widely in throughout the Habsburg Empire, and today the biggest plantings aren't too far from its birthplace – right on the Austria-Hungary border. Photo: Blaufränkisch. Credit: Austrian Wine Blaufränkisch translates to ‘blue wine of the Franks', and it is known as Lemberger in Germany and the US, Kékrankos in Hungary, Franconia in Italy, and various Burgundy-related names elsewhere in Central Europe. We discuss the origins of all these names, how the grape performs in the vineyard, its flavors, food pairings, and more. Whether it's from Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Finger Lakes of New York, Washington State, Italy or Spain,  this grape is versatile, multifacted and a perfect medium bodied red that's perfect for many foods and all sorts of weather --  it can be chilled in the summer in one version and warm your bones by a fire in another.    *Note, we mentioned the Austrian anti-freeze scandal. For more on that and Austria in general, check out an old but still accurate show: Ep 051: Austria © Austrian Wine / Austrian Wine   Go get yourself a bottle and you'll see what we mean!   Full show notes are on Patreon. Become a member today! www.patreon.com/winefornormalpeople   Most information for the show from Austrian Wine, Wines of Germany, Wines of Hungary, Wine Grapes (Book, Jancis Robinson) _______________________________________________________________ I love my exclusive sponsor, Wine Access, my go-to source for the best selection of interesting, outstanding quality wines you can't find locally. The holidays are almost here -- don't forget to stock up for your holiday feasts and get a Wine Access gift card for everyone in your life!  Get 10% your first order with my special URL.    To register for an AWESOME, LIVE WFNP class with Elizabeth go to: www.winefornormalpeople.com/classes

In an extended version of the programme that was broadcast, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the influential book John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1919 after he resigned in protest from his role at the Paris Peace Conference. There the victors of World War One were deciding the fate of the defeated, especially Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Keynes wanted the world to know his view that the economic consequences would be disastrous for all. Soon Germany used his book to support their claim that the Treaty was grossly unfair, a sentiment that fed into British appeasement in the 1930s and has since prompted debate over whether Keynes had only warned of disaster or somehow contributed to it. With Margaret MacMillan Emeritus Professor of International History at the University of Oxford Michael Cox Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Founding Director of LSE IDEAS And Patricia Clavin Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman and Elisabeth Glaser (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998) Zachary D. Carter, The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes (Random House, 2020) Peter Clarke, Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist (Bloomsbury, 2009) Patricia Clavin et al (eds.), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace after 100 Years: Polemics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Patricia Clavin, ‘Britain and the Making of Global Order after 1919: The Ben Pimlott Memorial Lecture' (Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 31:3, 2020) Richard Davenport-Hines, Universal Man; The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes (William Collins, 2015) R. F. Harrod, John Maynard Keynes (first published 1951; Pelican, 1972) Jens Holscher and Matthias Klaes (eds), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace: A Reappraisal (Pickering & Chatto, 2014) John Maynard Keynes (with an introduction by Michael Cox), The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (John Murray Publishers, 2001) Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford University Press, 1946) D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (Routledge, 1992) Alan Sharp, Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective (Haus Publishing Ltd, 2018) Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946 (Pan Macmillan, 2004) Jürgen Tampke, A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis (Scribe UK, 2017) Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 (Penguin Books, 2015)

In an extended version of the programme that was broadcast, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the influential book John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1919 after he resigned in protest from his role at the Paris Peace Conference. There the victors of World War One were deciding the fate of the defeated, especially Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Keynes wanted the world to know his view that the economic consequences would be disastrous for all. Soon Germany used his book to support their claim that the Treaty was grossly unfair, a sentiment that fed into British appeasement in the 1930s and has since prompted debate over whether Keynes had only warned of disaster or somehow contributed to it. With Margaret MacMillan Emeritus Professor of International History at the University of Oxford Michael Cox Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Founding Director of LSE IDEAS And Patricia Clavin Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman and Elisabeth Glaser (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998) Zachary D. Carter, The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes (Random House, 2020) Peter Clarke, Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist (Bloomsbury, 2009) Patricia Clavin et al (eds.), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace after 100 Years: Polemics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Patricia Clavin, ‘Britain and the Making of Global Order after 1919: The Ben Pimlott Memorial Lecture' (Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 31:3, 2020) Richard Davenport-Hines, Universal Man; The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes (William Collins, 2015) R. F. Harrod, John Maynard Keynes (first published 1951; Pelican, 1972) Jens Holscher and Matthias Klaes (eds), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace: A Reappraisal (Pickering & Chatto, 2014) John Maynard Keynes (with an introduction by Michael Cox), The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (John Murray Publishers, 2001) Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford University Press, 1946) D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (Routledge, 1992) Alan Sharp, Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective (Haus Publishing Ltd, 2018) Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946 (Pan Macmillan, 2004) Jürgen Tampke, A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis (Scribe UK, 2017) Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 (Penguin Books, 2015)

The Habsburg Way: Interview with Eduard Habsburg Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen, also known by his traditional title of Archduke Eduard of Austria, is a Hungarian diplomat and is Hungary's current ambassador to the Holy See. He is also a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, the former ruling family of Austria-Hungary. He sits down with Dr. Taylor […] The post 981: The Habsburg Way: Interview with Eduard Habsburg by Dr. Taylor Marshall [Podcast] appeared first on Taylor Marshall.