Podcasts about diplomatic

5. Guest Author: George Black Headline: The Bitter Legacy of the MIA Issue Summary: The discussion covers post-war trauma and how the MIA issue and conspiracy theories blocked diplomatic normalization between the United States and Vietnam for decades. (5)1968 THIRD MARINES

Last time we spoke about the end of the battle of khalkin gol. In the summer of 1939, the Nomonhan Incident escalated into a major border conflict between Soviet-Mongolian forces and Japan's Kwantung Army along the Halha River. Despite Japanese successes in July, Zhukov launched a decisive offensive on August 20. Under cover of darkness, Soviet troops crossed the river, unleashing over 200 bombers and intense artillery barrages that devastated Japanese positions. Zhukov's northern, central, and southern forces encircled General Komatsubara's 23rd Division, supported by Manchukuoan units. Fierce fighting ensued: the southern flank collapsed under Colonel Potapov's armor, while the northern Fui Heights held briefly before falling to relentless assaults, including flame-throwing tanks. Failed Japanese counterattacks on August 24 resulted in heavy losses, with regiments shattered by superior Soviet firepower and tactics. By August 25, encircled pockets were systematically eliminated, leading to the annihilation of the Japanese 6th Army. The defeat, coinciding with the Hitler-Stalin Pact, forced Japan to negotiate a ceasefire on September 15-16, redrawing borders. Zhukov's victory exposed Japanese weaknesses in mechanized warfare, influencing future strategies and deterring further northern expansion.   #192 The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact 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. Despite the fact this technically will go into future events, I thought it was important we talk about a key moment in Sino history. Even though the battle of changkufeng and khalkin gol were not part of the second sino-Japanese war, their outcomes certainly would affect it.  Policymaking by the Soviet Union alone was not the primary factor in ending Moscow's diplomatic isolation in the late 1930s. After the Munich Conference signaled the failure of the popular front/united front approach, Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler, and Poland's Józef Beck unintentionally strengthened Joseph Stalin's position in early 1939. Once the strategic cards were in his hands, Stalin capitalized on them. His handling of negotiations with Britain and France, as well as with Germany, from April to August was deft and effective. The spring and summer negotiations among the European powers are well documented and have been examined from many angles. In May 1939, while Stalin seemed to have the upper hand in Europe, yet before Hitler had signaled that a German–Soviet agreement might be possible, the Nomonhan incident erupted, a conflict initiated and escalated by the Kwantung Army. For a few months, the prospect of a Soviet–Japanese war revived concerns in Moscow about a two-front conflict. Reviewing Soviet talks with Britain, France, and Germany in the spring and summer of 1939 from an East Asian perspective sheds fresh light on the events that led to the German–Soviet Nonaggression Pact and, more broadly, to the outbreak of World War II. The second week of May marked the start of fighting at Nomonhan, during which negotiations between Germany and the USSR barely advanced beyond mutual scrutiny. Moscow signaled that an understanding with Nazi Germany might be possible. Notably, on May 4, the removal of Maksim Litvinov as foreign commissar and his replacement by Vyacheslav Molotov suggested a shift in approach. Litvinov, an urbane diplomat of Jewish origin and married to an Englishwoman, had been the leading Soviet proponent of the united-front policy and a steadfast critic of Nazi Germany. If a settlement with Hitler was sought, Litvinov was an unsuitable figure to lead the effort. Molotov, though with limited international experience, carried weight as chairman of the Council of Ministers and, more importantly, as one of Stalin's closest lieutenants. This personnel change seemed to accomplish its aim in Berlin, where the press was instructed on May 5 to halt polemical attacks on the Soviet Union and Bolshevism. On the same day, Karl Schnurre, head of the German Foreign Ministry's East European trade section, told Soviet chargé d'affaires Georgi Astakhov that Skoda, the German-controlled Czech arms manufacturer, would honor existing arms contracts with Russia. Astakhov asked whether, with Litvinov's departure, Germany might resume negotiations for a trade treaty Berlin had halted months earlier. By May 17, during discussions with Schnurre, Astakhov asserted that "there were no conflicts in foreign policy between Germany and the Soviet Union and that there was no reason for enmity between the two countries," and that Britain and France's negotiations appeared unpromising. The next day, Ribbentrop personally instructed Schulenburg to green-light trade talks. Molotov, however, insisted that a "political basis" for economic negotiations had to be established first. Suspicion remained high on both sides. Stalin feared Berlin might use reports of German–Soviet talks to destabilize a potential triple alliance with Britain and France; Hitler feared Stalin might use such reports to entice Tokyo away from an anti-German pact. The attempt to form a tripartite military alliance among Germany, Italy, and Japan foundered over divergent aims: Berlin targeted Britain and France; Tokyo aimed at the Soviet Union. Yet talks persisted through August 1939, with Japanese efforts to draw Germany into an anti-Soviet alignment continually reported to Moscow by Richard Sorge. Hitler and Mussolini, frustrated by Japanese objections, first concluded the bilateral Pact of Steel on May 22. The next day, Hitler, addressing his generals, stressed the inevitability of war with Poland and warned that opposition from Britain would be crushed militarily. He then hinted that Russia might "prove disinterested in the destruction of Poland," suggesting closer ties with Japan if Moscow opposed Germany. The exchange was quickly leaked to the press. Five days later, the first pitched battle of the Nomonhan campaign began. Although Hitler's timing with the Yamagata detachment's foray was coincidental, Moscow may have found the coincidence ominous. Despite the inducement of Molotov's call for a political basis before economic talks, Hitler and Ribbentrop did not immediately respond. On June 14, Astakhov signaled to Parvan Draganov, Bulgaria's ambassador in Berlin, that the USSR faced three options: ally with Britain and France, continue inconclusive talks with them, or align with Germany, the latter being closest to Soviet desires. Draganov relayed to the German Foreign Ministry that Moscow preferred a non-aggression agreement if Germany would pledge not to attack the Soviet Union. Two days later, Schulenburg told Astakhov that Germany recognized the link between economic and political relations and was prepared for far-reaching talks, a view echoed by Ribbentrop. The situation remained tangled: the Soviets pursued overt talks with Britain and France, while Stalin sought to maximize Soviet leverage. Chamberlain's stance toward Moscow remained wary but recognized a "psychological value" to an Anglo–Soviet rapprochement, tempered by his insistence on a hard bargain. American ambassador William C. Bullitt urged London to avoid the appearance of pursuing the Soviets, a view that resonated with Chamberlain's own distrust. Public confidence in a real Anglo–Soviet alliance remained low. By July 19, cabinet minutes show Chamberlain could not quite believe a genuine Russia–Germany alliance was possible, though he recognized the necessity of negotiations with Moscow to deter Hitler and to mollify an increasingly skeptical British public. Despite reservations, both sides kept the talks alive. Stalin's own bargaining style, with swift Soviet replies but frequent questions and demands, often produced delays. Molotov pressed on questions such as whether Britain and France would pledge to defend the Baltic states, intervene if Japan attacked the USSR, or join in opposing Germany if Hitler pressured Poland or Romania. These considerations were not trivial; they produced extended deliberations. On July 23, Molotov demanded that plans for coordinated military action among the three powers be fleshed out before a political pact. Britain and France accepted most political terms, and an Anglo-French military mission arrived in Moscow on August 11. The British commander, Admiral Sir Reginald Plunket-Ernle-Erle-Drax, conducted staff talks but could not conclude a military agreement. The French counterpart, General Joseph Doumenc, could sign but not bind his government. By then, Hitler had set August 26 as the date for war with Poland. With that looming, Hitler pressed for Soviet neutrality, or closer cooperation. In July and August, secret German–Soviet negotiations favored the Germans, who pressed for a rapid settlement and made most concessions. Yet Stalin benefited from keeping the British and French engaged, creating leverage against Hitler and safeguarding a potential Anglo–Soviet option as a fallback. To lengthen the talks and avoid immediate resolution, Moscow emphasized the Polish issue. Voroshilov demanded the Red Army be allowed to operate through Polish territory to defend Poland, a demand Warsaw would never accept. Moscow even floated a provocative plan: if Britain and France could compel Poland to permit Baltic State naval operations, the Western fleets would occupy Baltic ports, an idea that would have been militarily perilous and diplomatically explosive. Despite this, Stalin sought an agreement with Germany. Through Richard Sorge's intelligence, Moscow knew Tokyo aimed to avoid large-scale war with the USSR, and Moscow pressed for a German–Soviet settlement, including a nonaggression pact and measures to influence Japan to ease Sino–Japanese tensions. On August 16, Ribbentrop instructed Schulenburg to urge Molotov and Stalin toward a nonaggression pact and to coordinate with Japan. Stalin signaled willingness, and August 23–24 saw the drafting of the pact and the collapse of the Soviet and Japanese resistance elsewhere. That night, in a memorandum of Ribbentrop's staff, seven topics were summarized, with Soviet–Japanese relations and Molotov's insistence that Berlin demonstrate good faith standing out. Ribbentrop reiterated his willingness to influence Japan for a more favorable Soviet–Japanese relationship, and Stalin's reply indicated a path toward a détente in the East alongside the European agreement: "M. Stalin replied that the Soviet Union indeed desired an improvement in its relations with Japan, but that there were limits to its patience with regard to Japanese provocations. If Japan desired war she could have it. The Soviet Union was not afraid of it and was prepared for it. If Japan desired peace—so much the better! M. Stalin considered the assistance of Germany in bringing about an improvement in Soviet-Japanese relations as useful, but he did not want the Japanese to get the impression that the initiative in this direction had been taken by the Soviet Union."  Second, the assertion that the Soviet Union was prepared for and unafraid of war with Japan is an overstatement, though Stalin certainly had grounds for optimism regarding the battlefield situation and the broader East Asian strategic balance. It is notable that, despite the USSR's immediate diplomatic and military gains against Japan, Stalin remained anxious to conceal from Tokyo any peace initiative that originated in Moscow. That stance suggests that Tokyo or Hsinking might read such openness as a sign of Soviet weakness or confidence overextended. The Japanese danger, it would seem, did not disappear from Stalin's mind. Even at the height of his diplomatic coup, Stalin was determined not to burn bridges prematurely. On August 21, while he urged Hitler to send Ribbentrop to Moscow, he did not sever talks with Britain and France. Voroshilov requested a temporary postponement on the grounds that Soviet delegation officers were needed for autumn maneuvers. It was not until August 25, after Britain reiterated its resolve to stand by Poland despite the German–Soviet pact, that Stalin sent the Anglo–French military mission home. Fortified by the nonaggression pact, which he hoped would deter Britain and France from action, Hitler unleashed his army on Poland on September 1. Two days later, as Zhukov's First Army Group was completing its operations at Nomonhan, Hitler faced a setback when Britain and France declared war. Hitler had hoped to finish Poland quickly in 1939 and avoid fighting Britain and France until 1940. World War II in Europe had begun. The Soviet–Japanese conflict at Nomonhan was not the sole, nor even the principal, factor prompting Stalin to conclude an alliance with Hitler. Standing aside from a European war that could fracture the major capitalist powers might have been reason enough. Yet the conflict with Japan in the East was also a factor in Stalin's calculations, a dimension that has received relatively little attention in standard accounts of the outbreak of the war. This East Asian focus seeks to clarify the record without proposing a revolutionary reinterpretation of Soviet foreign policy; rather, it adds an important piece often overlooked in the "origins of the Second World War" puzzle, helping to reduce the overall confusion. The German–Soviet agreement provided for the Soviet occupation of the eastern half of Poland soon after Germany's invasion. On September 3, just forty-eight hours after the invasion and on the day Britain and France declared war, Ribbentrop urged Moscow to invade Poland from the east. Yet, for two more weeks, Poland's eastern frontier remained inviolate; Soviet divisions waited at the border, as most Polish forces were engaged against Germany. The German inquiries about the timing of the Soviet invasion continued, but the Red Army did not move. This inactivity is often attributed to Stalin's caution and suspicion, but that caution extended beyond Europe. Throughout early September, sporadic ground and air combat continued at Nomonhan, including significant activity by Kwantung Army forces on September 8–9, and large-scale air engagements on September 1–2, 4–5, and 14–15. Not until September 15 was the Molotov–Togo cease-fire arrangement finalized, to take effect on September 16. The very next morning, September 17, the Red Army crossed the Polish frontier into a country collapsed at its feet. It appears that Stalin wanted to ensure that fighting on his eastern flank had concluded before engaging in Western battles, avoiding a two-front war. Through such policies, Stalin avoided the disaster of a two-front war. Each principal in the 1939 diplomatic maneuvering pursued distinct objectives. The British sought an arrangement with the USSR that would deter Hitler from attacking Poland and, if deterred, bind Moscow to the Anglo–French alliance. Hitler sought an alliance with the USSR to deter Britain and France from aiding Poland and, if they did aid Poland, to secure Soviet neutrality. Japan sought a military alliance with Germany against the USSR, or failing that, stronger Anti-Comintern ties. Stalin aimed for an outcome in which Germany would fight the Western democracies, leaving him freedom to operate in both the West and East; failing that, he sought military reassurance from Britain and France in case he had to confront Germany. Of the four, only Stalin achieved his primary objective. Hitler secured his secondary objective; the British and Japanese failed to realize theirs. Stalin won the diplomatic contest in 1939. Yet, as diplomats gave way to generals, the display of German military power in Poland and in Western Europe soon eclipsed Stalin's diplomatic triumph. By playing Germany against Britain and France, Stalin gained leverage and a potential fallback, but at the cost of unleashing a devastating European war. As with the aftermath of the Portsmouth Treaty in 1905, Russo-Japanese relations improved rapidly after hostilities ceased at Nomonhan. The Molotov–Togo agreement of September 15 and the local truces arranged around Nomonhan on September 19 were observed scrupulously by both sides. On October 27, the two nations settled another long-standing dispute by agreeing to mutual release of fishing boats detained on charges of illegal fishing in each other's territorial waters. On November 6, the USSR appointed Konstantin Smetanin as ambassador to Tokyo, replacing the previous fourteen-month tenure of a chargé d'affaires. Smetanin's first meeting with the new Japanese foreign minister, Nomura Kichisaburö, in November 1939 attracted broad, favorable coverage in the Japanese press. In a break with routine diplomatic practice, Nomura delivered a draft proposal for a new fisheries agreement and a memo outlining the functioning of the joint border commission to be established in the Nomonhan area before Smetanin presented his credentials. On December 31, an agreement finalizing Manchukuo's payment to the USSR for the sale of the Chinese Eastern Railway was reached, and the Soviet–Japanese Fisheries Convention was renewed for 1940. In due course, the boundary near Nomonhan was formally redefined. A November 1939 agreement between Molotov and Togo established a mixed border commission representing the four parties to the dispute. After protracted negotiations, the border commission completed its redemarcation on June 14, 1941, with new border markers erected in August 1941. The resulting boundary largely followed the Soviet–MPR position, lying ten to twelve miles east of the Halha River. With that, the Nomonhan incident was officially closed.  Kwantung Army and Red Army leaders alike sought to "teach a lesson" to their foe at Nomonhan. The refrain recurs in documents and memoirs from both sides, "we must teach them a lesson." The incident provided lessons for both sides, but not all were well learned. For the Red Army, the lessons of Nomonhan intertwined with the laurels of victory, gratifying but sometimes distracting. Georgy Zhukov grasped the experience of modern warfare that summer, gaining more than a raised profile: command experience, confidence, and a set of hallmarks he would employ later. He demonstrated the ability to grasp complex strategic problems quickly, decisive crisis leadership, meticulous attention to logistics and deception, patience in building superior strength before striking at the enemy's weakest point, and the coordination of massed artillery, tanks, mechanized infantry, and tactical air power in large-scale double envelopment. These capabilities informed his actions at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and ultimately Berlin. It is tempting to wonder how Zhukov might have fared in the crucial autumn and winter of 1941 without Nomonhan, or whether he would have been entrusted with the Moscow front in 1941 had he not distinguished himself at Nomonhan. Yet the Soviet High Command overlooked an important lesson. Despite Zhukov's successes with independent tank formations and mechanized infantry, the command misapplied Spanish Civil War-era experience by disbanding armored divisions and redistributing tanks to infantry units to serve as support. It was not until after Germany demonstrated tank warfare in 1940 that the Soviets began reconstituting armored divisions and corps, a process still incomplete when the 1941 invasion began. The Red Army's performance at Nomonhan went largely unseen in the West. Western intelligence and military establishments largely believed the Red Army was fundamentally rotten, a view reinforced by the battlefield's remoteness and by both sides' reluctance to publicize the defeat. The Polish crisis and the outbreak of war in Europe drew attention away from Nomonhan, and the later Finnish Winter War reinforced negative Western judgments of Soviet military capability. U.S. military attaché Raymond Faymonville observed that the Soviets, anticipating a quick victory over Finland, relied on hastily summoned reserves ill-suited for winter fighting—an assessment that led some to judge the Red Army by its performance at Nomonhan. Even in Washington, this view persisted; Hitler reportedly called the Red Army "a paralytic on crutches" after Finland and then ordered invasion planning in 1941. Defeat can be a stronger teacher than victory. Because Nomonhan was a limited war, Japan's defeat was likewise limited, and its impact on Tokyo did not immediately recalibrate Japanese assessments. Yet Nomonhan did force Japan to revise its estimation of Soviet strength: the Imperial Army abandoned its strategic Plan Eight-B and adopted a more defensive posture toward the Soviet Union. An official inquiry into the debacle, submitted November 29, 1939, recognized Soviet superiority in materiel and firepower and urged Japan to bolster its own capabilities. The Kwantung Army's leadership, chastened, returned to the frontier with a more realistic sense of capability, even as the Army Ministry and AGS failed to translate lessons into policy. The enduring tendency toward gekokujo, the dominance of local and mid-level officers over central authority, remained persistent, and Tokyo did not fully purge it after Nomonhan. The Kwantung Army's operatives who helped drive the Nomonhan episode resurfaced in key posts at Imperial General Headquarters, contributing to Japan's 1941 decision to go to war. The defeat of the Kwantung Army at Nomonhan, together with the Stalin–Hitler pact and the outbreak of war in Europe, triggered a reorientation of Japanese strategy and foreign policy. The new government, led by the politically inexperienced and cautious General Abe Nobuyuki, pursued a conservative foreign policy. Chiang Kai-shek's retreat to Chongqing left the Chinese war at a stalemate: the Japanese Expeditionary Army could still inflict defeats on Chinese nationalist forces, but it had no viable path to a decisive victory. China remained Japan's principal focus. Still, the option of cutting Soviet aid to China and of moving north into Outer Mongolia and Siberia was discredited in Tokyo by the August 1939 double defeat. Northward expansion never again regained its ascendancy, though it briefly resurfaced in mid-1941 after Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. Germany's alliance with the USSR during Nomonhan was viewed by Tokyo as a betrayal, cooling German–Japanese relations. Japan also stepped back from its confrontation with Britain over Tientsin. Tokyo recognized that the European war represented a momentous development that could reshape East Asia, as World War I had reshaped it before. The short-lived Abe government (September–December 1939) and its successor under Admiral Yonai Mitsumasa (December 1939–July 1940) adopted a cautious wait-and-see attitude toward the European war. That stance shifted in the summer of 1940, however, after Germany's successes in the West. With Germany's conquest of France and the Low Countries and Britain's fight for survival, Tokyo reassessed the global balance of power. Less than a year after Zhukov had effectively blocked further Japanese expansion northward, Hitler's victories seemed to open a southern expansion path. The prospect of seizing the resource-rich colonies in Southeast Asia, Dutch, French, and British and, more importantly, resolving the China problem in Japan's favor, tempted many in Tokyo. If Western aid to Chiang Kai-shek, channeled through Hong Kong, French Indochina, and Burma could be cut off, some in Tokyo believed Chiang might abandon resistance. If not, Japan could launch new operations against Chiang from Indochina and Burma, effectively turning China's southern flank. To facilitate a southward advance, Japan sought closer alignment with Germany and the USSR. Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka brought Japan into the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, in the hope of neutralizing the United States, and concluded a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union to secure calm in the north. Because of the European military situation, only the United States could check Japan's southward expansion. President Franklin D. Roosevelt appeared determined to do so and confident that he could. If the Manchurian incident and the Stimson Doctrine strained U.S.–Japanese relations, and the China War and U.S. aid to Chiang Kai-shek deepened mutual resentment, it was Japan's decision to press south against French, British, and Dutch colonies, and Roosevelt's resolve to prevent such a move, that put the two nations on a collision course. The dust had barely settled on the Mongolian plains following the Nomonhan ceasefire when the ripples of that distant conflict began to reshape the broader theater of the Second Sino-Japanese War. The defeat at Nomonhan in August 1939, coupled with the shocking revelation of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, delivered a profound strategic blow to Japan's imperial ambitions. No longer could Tokyo entertain serious notions of a "northern advance" into Soviet territory, a strategy that had long tantalized military planners as a means to secure resources and buffer against communism. Instead, the Kwantung Army's humiliation exposed glaring deficiencies in Japanese mechanized warfare, logistics, and intelligence, forcing a pivot southward. This reorientation not only cooled tensions with the Soviet Union but also allowed Japan to redirect its military focus toward the protracted stalemate in China. As we transition from the border clashes of the north to the heartland tensions in central China, it's essential to trace how these events propelled Japan toward the brink of a major offensive in Hunan Province, setting the stage for what would become a critical confrontation. In the immediate aftermath of Nomonhan, Japan's military high command grappled with the implications of their setback. The Kwantung Army, once a symbol of unchecked aggression, was compelled to adopt a defensive posture along the Manchurian-Soviet border. The ceasefire agreement, formalized on September 15-16, 1939, effectively neutralized the northern front, freeing up significant resources and manpower that had been tied down in the escalating border skirmishes. This was no small relief; the Nomonhan campaign had drained Japanese forces, with estimates of over 18,000 casualties and the near-total annihilation of the 23rd Division. The psychological impact was equally severe, shattering the myth of Japanese invincibility against a modern, mechanized opponent. Georgy Zhukov's masterful use of combined arms—tanks, artillery, and air power—highlighted Japan's vulnerabilities, prompting internal reviews that urged reforms in tank production, artillery doctrine, and supply chains. Yet, these lessons were slow to implement, and in the short term, the primary benefit was the opportunity to consolidate efforts elsewhere. For Japan, "elsewhere" meant China, where the war had devolved into a grinding attrition since the fall of Wuhan in October 1938. The capture of Wuhan, a major transportation hub and temporary capital of the Nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek, had been hailed as a turning point. Japanese forces, under the command of General Shunroku Hata, had pushed deep into central China, aiming to decapitate Chinese resistance. However, Chiang's strategic retreat to Chongqing transformed the conflict into a war of endurance. Nationalist forces, bolstered by guerrilla tactics and international aid, harassed Japanese supply lines and prevented a decisive knockout blow. By mid-1939, Japan controlled vast swaths of eastern and northern China, including key cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanjing, but the cost was immense: stretched logistics, mounting casualties, and an inability to fully pacify occupied territories. The Nomonhan defeat exacerbated these issues by underscoring the limits of Japan's military overextension. With the northern threat abated, Tokyo's Army General Staff saw an opening to intensify operations in China, hoping to force Chiang to the negotiating table before global events further complicated the picture. The diplomatic fallout from Nomonhan and the Hitler-Stalin Pact further influenced this shift. Japan's betrayal by Germany, its nominal ally under the Anti-Comintern Pact—fostered distrust and isolation. Tokyo's flirtations with a full Axis alliance stalled, as the pact with Moscow revealed Hitler's willingness to prioritize European gains over Asian solidarity. This isolation prompted Japan to reassess its priorities, emphasizing self-reliance in China while eyeing opportunistic expansions elsewhere. Domestically, the Hiranuma cabinet collapsed in August 1939 amid the diplomatic shock, paving the way for the more cautious Abe Nobuyuki government. Abe's administration, though short-lived, signaled a temporary de-escalation in aggressive posturing, but the underlying imperative to resolve the "China Incident" persisted. Japanese strategists believed that capturing additional strategic points in central China could sever Chiang's lifelines, particularly the routes funneling aid from the Soviet Union and the West via Burma and Indochina. The seismic shifts triggered by Nomonhan compelled Japan to fundamentally readjust its China policy and war plans, marking a pivotal transition from overambitious northern dreams to a more focused, albeit desperate, campaign in the south. With the Kwantung Army's defeat fresh in mind, Tokyo's Imperial General Headquarters initiated a comprehensive strategic review in late August 1939. The once-dominant "Northern Advance" doctrine, which envisioned rapid conquests into Siberia for resources like oil and minerals, was officially shelved. In its place emerged a "Southern Advance" framework, prioritizing the consolidation of gains in China and potential expansions into Southeast Asia. This pivot was not merely tactical; it reflected a profound policy recalibration aimed at ending the quagmire in China, where two years of war had yielded territorial control but no decisive victory over Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists. Central to this readjustment was a renewed emphasis on economic and military self-sufficiency. The Nomonhan debacle had exposed Japan's vulnerabilities in mechanized warfare, leading to urgent reforms in industrial production. Tank manufacturing was ramped up, with designs influenced by observed Soviet models, and artillery stockpiles were bolstered to match the firepower discrepancies seen on the Mongolian steppes. Logistically, the Army General Staff prioritized streamlining supply lines in China, recognizing that prolonged engagements demanded better resource allocation. Politically, the Abe Nobuyuki cabinet, installed in September 1939, adopted a "wait-and-see" approach toward Europe but aggressively pursued diplomatic maneuvers to isolate China. Efforts to negotiate with Wang Jingwei's puppet regime in Nanjing intensified, aiming to undermine Chiang's legitimacy and splinter Chinese resistance. Japan also pressured Vichy France for concessions in Indochina, seeking to choke off aid routes to Chongqing. War plans evolved accordingly, shifting from broad-front offensives to targeted strikes designed to disrupt Chinese command and supply networks. The China Expeditionary Army, under General Yasuji Okamura, was restructured to emphasize mobility and combined arms operations, drawing partial lessons from Zhukov's tactics. Intelligence operations were enhanced, with greater focus on infiltrating Nationalist strongholds in central provinces. By early September, plans coalesced around a major push into Hunan Province, a vital crossroads linking northern and southern China. Hunan's river systems and rail lines made it a linchpin for Chinese logistics, funneling men and materiel to the front lines. Japanese strategists identified key urban centers in the region as critical objectives, believing their capture could sever Chiang's western supply corridors and force a strategic retreat. This readjustment was not without internal friction. Hardliners in the military lamented the abandonment of northern ambitions, but the reality of Soviet strength—and the neutrality pacts that followed—left little room for debate. Economically, Japan ramped up exploitation of occupied Chinese territories, extracting coal, iron, and rice to fuel the war machine. Diplomatically, Tokyo sought to mend fences with the Soviets through the 1941 Neutrality Pact, ensuring northern security while eyes turned south. Yet, these changes brewed tension with the United States, whose embargoes on scrap metal and oil threatened to cripple Japan's ambitions. As autumn approached, the stage was set for a bold gambit in central China. Japanese divisions massed along the Yangtze River, poised to strike at the heart of Hunan's defenses. Intelligence reports hinted at Chinese preparations, with Xue Yue's forces fortifying positions around a major provincial hub. The air thickened with anticipation of a clash that could tip the balance in the interminable war—a test of Japan's revamped strategies against a resilient foe determined to hold the line. What unfolded would reveal whether Tokyo's post-Nomonhan pivot could deliver the breakthrough so desperately needed, or if it would merely prolong the bloody stalemate. 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. In 1939, the Nomonhan Incident saw Soviet forces under Georgy Zhukov decisively defeat Japan's Kwantung Army at Khalkin Gol, exposing Japanese weaknesses in mechanized warfare. This setback, coupled with the Hitler-Stalin Nonaggression Pact, shattered Japan's northern expansion plans and prompted a strategic pivot southward. Diplomatic maneuvers involving Stalin, Hitler, Britain, France, and Japan reshaped alliances, leading to the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact in 1941. Japan refocused on China, intensifying operations in Hunan Province to isolate Chiang Kai-shek.   

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Diplomatic correspondent Lazar Berman joins host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. Overnight, the Israeli military says, it pushed deeper into southern Lebanon as part of its “enhanced forward defense posture” after Hezbollah began attacking Israel a week ago. While there are Israeli boots on the ground, Berman clarifies that the IDF is not -- yet -- taking part in a ground maneuver. We turn to Iran and the question of a potential schism between the US and Israel over Israel's targeting of Iranian oil sites. How long can the US continue the conflict in light of the ripple effects on the global economy? The Times of Israel's US bureau chief Jacob Magid conducted a telephone interview with US President Donald Trump yesterday. We hear the main headlines today, and Magid will fill us in on the rest of the conversation on the podcast tomorrow. And finally, we speak about the choice of Mojtaba Khamenei to succeed his father, Ali Khamenei, as supreme leader. Berman discusses who he is and how the move is a direct rebuke to US President Donald Trump, who had declared the son “unacceptable.” We also delve into the apparent differences of opinion among the leadership as Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian apologized Saturday for attacks on regional countries, even as its missiles and drones flew toward Gulf Arab states Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: Two IDF soldiers killed in Hezbollah attack in southern Lebanon Black clouds over Tehran rain down oil drops after Israel strikes oil facilities Trump to Times of Israel: It’ll be a ‘mutual’ decision with Netanyahu regarding when Iran war ends Trump: Next Iranian supreme leader ‘not going to last long’ without US approval More hardline than his father, Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment signals defiance and revenge Pezeshkian apologizes for attacks on Gulf neighbors even as Iran forces step up strikes Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Gabriella Jacobs produced this episode and Ari Schlacht edited. IMAGE: A thick plume of smoke from a U.S.-Israeli strike on an oil storage facility late Saturday lingers in the cloudy sky over Tehran, Iran, March 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How does Israel pivot military success to a diplomatic achievement and how concerned should we be that a majority of Americans are against the war, with some accusing Netanyahu of dragging Trump into the conflict? KAN's Mark Weiss spoke with retired senior foreign ministry diplomat Jeremy Issacharoff about various aspects of the ongoing war.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Max Pearson presents a collection of the week's Witness History interviews from the BBC World Service. We hear how a speech by Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, in 1972, caused a break down in relations with the USA. Our guest is an expert in the historic relations between Sweden and the US, Dr Saniya Lee Ghanoui from the University of El Paso in Texas. Plus, the story of India's secret first nuclear test in 1974, and Portugal's worst train crash which killed 150 people. We also learn about the invention of the mobility scooter in the 1960s and the only time the King of Rock n' Roll, Elvis, set foot in the UK. Contributors: Jan Elliason – former Swedish diplomat. Dr Saniya Lee Ghanoui – Assistant Professor of history at the University of El Paso. Dr SK Sikka – former Indian nuclear scientist. Américo Borges – Portuguese volunteer fire commander. Al Thieme – the inventor of the mobility scooter. Anne Murphy – Elvis superfan.(Photo: Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1972 during the diplomatic freeze with the USA. Credit: Sjöberg Bildbyrå/ullstein bild via Getty Images)

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. In our next look at the game mechanics for Civilization V we examine a new feature in Civilization 5, City-States. These are independent cities controlled by the computer that are also players to some degree in the game, and you can interact with them. And they are key to winning a Diplomatic Victory. Playing Civilization V, Part 9 - City States This was a newly introduced feature in Civ 5, and they play an important role in the game. They represent the small countries that are not running the world. They do not produce Settlers, so they do not expand beyond the one city, though that city can, and will expand its borders in a similar way to how your cities can grow. They do not start with a military unit, but they can produce military units and defend themselves. They can also build buildings in the city, but not Wonders. They do have a single vote each in the World Congress (or later the United Nations), making them a key to a Diplomatic victory. City States start out neutral with regards to the players, but your interactions with them can affect how they feel about you. For example, if you send units through their territory they will get hostile, but if you give them gifts they will get friendly. And if you wish you can go to war with them and take them over. This will affect your diplomatic relations with other players and other city states, but if you have decided on a war of conquest as your victory type, that won't matter to you, right? As mentioned, if you want to go for a Diplomatic victory you want to be allied with as many of them as possible to get their votes in the World Congress or the United Nations. But even if you don't need their votes, there are other benefits from friendly relations. There are two levels to friendly relations: Friendly, and Allied, and the benefits get better as the relations improve. City State Types With the expansions there are 5 types of City State: Militaristic, Maritime, Cultured, Mercantile, and Religious. The benefits you get are: Militaristic – If you are friends the city state will periodically gift you a unit, which will appear in your city which is closest to the city state. If you are allies the units will show up more often. Maritime – If you are friends they will add two food to your Capital city. If you are allies they will add one more food to every city you have. Cultured city states share their culture with you, at one rate if you are friends and at double the rate if you are allies. Mercantile city states give you an added 3 Happiness when you are friends. If you are allies you keep the added happiness, but in addition get access to a luxury resource that cannot be obtained any other way, and that also adds Happiness. Religious city states give you a one-time bonus of Faith when you first meet them, then provide added Faith per turn. Note that Cultured and Religious city states increase the amount of Culture or Faith they provide with each new era, so the earlier you develop your relations with them the better the benefit. Managing Relations With City States There is a mechanism in the game which keeps track of points to define your relations with city states. On this numerical scale, Neutral has a value of 0, Friendly 30 or above, and Allied 60 or above. In the other direction, once you go into negative numbers they become Angry, if if you go negative enough it becomes War. A city state can only ever have one ally. If only one player has more than 60 influence points, that player will become the patron of the city state and they will ally to that player. If two or more players have more than 60 influence points, the player with the most points gets the ally. As the game goes on, you may get a message that a city state you had as an ally has suddenly allied to someone else. This is the result of the other player gaining influence points in some way, often by gifts. You can also gain influence points by promising to protect a city state, but do this with your eyes open. If you do not follow through on your promise it will enrage the city state and you will lose a lot of influence with them. Your influence with a city state has a natural resting point at 0, or Neutral. That means that barring other factors, a positive number will fall over time, and a negative number will rise over time. So if you sent one of your units through their territory they will be angry for a period, but if nothing else happens they will return to Neutral. But on the other side, you don't stay allied with them forever unless you find ways to keep adding influence points. One way is to eliminate barbarian camps near to the city state. In fact, this is one exception to the rule about sending units through their territory. If you are doing it to attack the barbarians, you are seen as a protector, not an invader, and there is no penalty. Another way to gain influence is by completing a quest from a city state. Each city state you are in contact with will periodically give you a quest, and if you fulfill it you will gain influence points. This can include killing a barbarian camp or killing nearby barbarian units (though you can do that at any time, you don't need a quest). Some others include acquiring a Great Person of a certain kind, building a certain World Wonder, bullying another city state, finding a Natural Wonder, and so on. You do not need to fulfill a quest. For example, if your strategy calls for allying with other city states, you might want to pass on bullying another city state. There is no penalty for not fulfilling a quest, just a bonus when you do fulfill one. Another way to gain influence is with gifts. The most effective is Gold, and one large sum is more effective than several small ones. For a Diplomatic victory strategy, you should plan on having a large Treasury as you approach the end game so that you can buy allies in time for the crucial vote. You can also gain a small amount of influence points by gifting units. I make it a practice to do this whenever I have units that I don't want any longer. These could be obsolete units that have no upgrade path, for instance. I don't want to pay maintenance on them as that is a drain on my Treasury, and I could just delete them, but gifting them to a city state gives me a small amount of influence. Another way to get a big jump in your influence with a city state is to capture and then a return one of their Workers. Most often this happens when a barbarian has captured the Worker, and then you capture it. You have the option of keeping the Worker for yourself, and in the early game I would probably do that because the Worker is so valuable. But at a certain point I have enough Workers, and getting the 45 influence points for returning it starts to be more effective. Remember that you have to keep earning influence points to keep up your relations, so even if you get an ally of a city state for a few turns. it will naturally decay back to Neutral. By around the middle of the game if you playing well you can start to invest the resources needed to maintain your relationships. City States and War If you are allied with a city state and you get into a war with another player, a city state you are allied with will join you in the war. Of course, the same is true for the other player, so the war between the two players could also involve 3-4 city states dragged in as allies. You cannot make peace with a city state while it is allied to a player you are at war with. You have to first make peace with that player (or wipe them out if that suits you). However, if you can get more influence with that city state and supplant the other player you can get that city state to ally with you can turn around and attack your enemy. Generally a large cash gift can do this, once again showing the utility of a fat Treasury. Exploration You cannot have diplomatic relations with a city state you haven't met, so this reinforces the idea that you have to explore the map as soon as possible. Of course, you have to balance this with other priorities, such as expanding your cities and defending them, but finding the right balance is what all the Civilization games are about. On most maps this means you should be giving some attention to developing your naval power and technologies. There seems to be a bias to city states being coastal, and in many cases they are on small islands. Of course there are a number of motivations for exploring the map. First of all, you need intelligence of what you are up against with the other players. And unless you are on a very large land mass, you will want to find added lands for settlement. Finding Natural Wonders adds to Happiness in your Empire, so finding them all is important. And last, the unexplored sections of the map have a strong tendency to spawn barbarian units against you. Early on you cannot traverse Ocean tiles and need to stick to Coastal tiles. The unit here is the Trireme, which you can build once you discover Sailing. I will usually build 1-2 Triremes in a coastal city to go around the coast of the land mass I am on and scout out the situation. If another land mass or island is sufficiently close I can cross to it without entering an Ocean tile and extend my exploration. But to really explore the whole map you need to get to Caravels. This Renaissance Era unit becomes available when you discover Astronomy, and is essentially a naval scouting unit. It can enter Ocean tiles. Links: https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/City-state_(Civ5) https://civ-5-cbp.fandom.com/wiki/Detailed_Guide_to_Diplomacy https://www.palain.com/gaming/civilization-v/playing-civilization-v-part-9/ Provide feedback on this episode.

Saint Lucia's CBI program registered 5,642 applications in 2023-24, up 423%, and London calls the practice "inherently high-risk."View the full article here.Subscribe to the IMI Daily newsletter here. 

 A Turning Point in Irish History50 years ago on Sunday past I was in Cage 11 in Long Kesh prison camp. It was a Monday. It was also 1 March 1976, the date on which the British Labour government's decision to end political status took effect.Political status had been introduced in June 1972 after a hunger strike by republican prisoners and as part of the context for negotiations that were to take place between republicans and the British.In March 1974 a Labour government, led by Harold Wilson, came to power and embarked on a new strategy to defeat Irish republicans. Ending political status was only one part of it. Laws were changed to allow for ease of convictions in the non-jury Diplock Courts, particularly using beatings and forced confessions. New cellular special control units called H-Blocks were constructed in 1975 in another part of Long Kesh, to house the expected new influx of those who were now to be designated ‘criminals.'Merlyn Rees was the British Secretary of State with responsibility for the new ‘Ulsterisation, Criminalisation, Normalisation' strategy. Its aim was simple; reduce the number of British soldiers getting killed, and replace them with the locally recruited RUC and UDR. In the British mindset local forces were expendable and their deaths less likely to cause a political fuss In Britain and internationally.Criminalisation was about trying to convince people, especially the nationalist section of our people, that republicans were motivated by greed. That we were ‘gangsters' involved in a ‘criminal conspiracy. We were, in the new language of the 70s, – godfathers – mafiosi – out for what we could make personally. The British hoped that this new spin on an old propaganda theme would reduce support in Ireland and the international community.  International Women's DayThis Sunday is International Women's Day. For over one hundred years the 8 March has been set aside to specifically celebrate women who are active in society; in their communities, trade unions, voluntary organisations, in their families and the political institutions.It is also an occasion when the inequalities, injustices and violence still suffered by many women are highlighted. According to one UN report nearly 70 per cent of countries surveyed revealed that women continue to face more barriers than men to accessing justice. And for the 676 million women who live within 50 kilometres of an active conflict zone “justice systems are largely absent and perpetrators act with impunity.”The reality is that millions of women and girls around the world are confronted by violence, discrimination, and abuse. The United Nations defines violence against women and girls as: “Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life.”  War of Aggression in the GulfAs I write this, the war declared by President Trump last Saturday against Iran, and his avowed aim of regime change, is continuing as the death toll rises. The US and Israel had clearly been planning this attack for some time. The USA did this as negotiations involving it and Iran were, according to the Oman mediators, making progress.This war must be condemned. Diplomatic efforts had not ended. There was still hope. President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu broke international law, ignored Iran's sovereignty, and destroyed that hope with bombs.Under the UN Charter, states are prohibited from using unilateral force, except in two cases: (1) when authorized by the UN Security Council or (2) in self-defence. The US and Israel did not go to the UN Security Council ahead of Saturday's strikes. That only leaves self-defence

As U.S. and Israeli jets continue their punishing attacks inside Iran, the Islamic Republic has widened its targets throughout the Arab states of the Gulf, and against Israel. American diplomatic targets in the Gulf were hit overnight and almost all of the civilian airspace throughout the region remains closed. Nick Schifrin reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

As U.S. and Israeli jets continue their punishing attacks inside Iran, the Islamic Republic has widened its targets throughout the Arab states of the Gulf, and against Israel. American diplomatic targets in the Gulf were hit overnight and almost all of the civilian airspace throughout the region remains closed. Nick Schifrin reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

As U.S. and Israeli jets continue their punishing attacks inside Iran, the Islamic Republic has widened its targets throughout the Arab states of the Gulf, and against Israel. American diplomatic targets in the Gulf were hit overnight and almost all of the civilian airspace throughout the region remains closed. Nick Schifrin reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

AP correspondent Ed Donahue reports on efforts to get Americans out of the Middle East.

Breaking news reports confirm the US consulate in Dubai has been set ablaze by a suspected Iranian drone, marking a significant escalation following similar attacks on embassies in Lebanon, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Nine's Correspondent Lauren Tomasi joined Dean & Sofie on 4BC Breakfast from Washington, where the Trump administration defends the military response as a necessary measure to neutralise an imminent nuclear threat, claiming to have dismantled Iran's leadership structure.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Weichert details Iran's quest for regional supremacy through its proxy network, the failure of the JCPOA's sunset clauses, and potential diplomatic challenges facing the Trump administration. 4.1830

Outraged by the Christmas bombings of Hanoi in 1972 by the USA during the Vietnam War, the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme made a critical speech. He compared the US's actions to several massacres from history, including the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews at the Treblinka Concentration Camp by the Nazis. President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger reacted by recalling their ambassador and refusing to accept the Swedish counterpart. Jan Ellisson was the first person to see the speech in the Swedish embassy in Washington and spent the next 15 months working to re-establish relations.He has been speaking to Tim O'Callaghan. Eye-witness accounts brought to life by archive. Witness History is for those fascinated by and curious about the past. We take you to the events that have shaped our world through the eyes of the people who were there. For nine minutes every day, we take you back in time and all over the world, to examine wars, coups, scientific discoveries, cultural moments and much more. Recent episodes explore everything from how the Excel spreadsheet was developed, the creation of cartoon rabbit Miffy and how the sound barrier was broken.We look at the lives of some of the most famous leaders, artists, scientists and personalities in history, including: the moment Reagan and Gorbachev met in Geneva, Haitian singer Emerante de Pradines' life and Omar Sharif's legendary movie entrance in Lawrence of Arabia.You can learn all about fascinating and surprising stories, like the invention of a stent which has saved lives around the world; the birth of the G7; and the meeting of Maldives' ministers underwater. We cover everything from World War Two and Cold War stories to Black History Month and our journeys into space.(Photo: Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, who made the speech about the Hanoi bombings. Credit: Sjöberg Bildbyrå/ullstein bild via Getty Images)

Sonia Pernell highlights Pamela's mentorship of Bill Clinton, her strategic fundraising for the Democratic Party, and her diplomatic influence in fostering relations with Soviet leaders. 7.

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Diplomatic correspondent Lazar Berman joins host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, was killed Saturday in a joint US-Israeli strike on his Tehran compound at the outset of a long-planned military operation against the Islamic Republic. Berman weighs in on how, after Khamenei's almost 37 years in power, the regime may choose a new leader -- or whether the people could rise up and create a new paradigm. We speak about the widespread nature of Iran's retaliatory strikes, including on many of its neighboring Arab states. As opposed to the June 2025 12-day war, Iran seems bent on punishing US allies in the region. We hear how these nations, including Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, are responding so far. International opinion on the US-Israel "preemptive strike" is mixed. Berman explores how nations are walking a fine diplomatic line in their public support -- or condemnation -- of the new war. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: Khamenei set Iran’s direction for decades. Now the public he suppressed has hope After Khamenei killed, Iran set for largely opaque supreme succession End of an era as Iran confirms Khamenei is dead; Trump: Justice for Iranians and beyond Woman killed, dozens injured as Iranian missile strikes Tel Aviv residential block Strait of Hormuz: Key oil route in middle of Iran crisis Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Gabriella Jacobs produced this episode and Ari Schlacht edited. IMAGE: Government supporters mourn during a gathering after state TV officially announced the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, shown in the poster, in Tehran, Iran, March 1, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode from Highclere Castle, I sit down with Nick Hopton to talk about his book, "Marma Mia," which begins as the story of buying and restoring a holiday house in an unspoiled part of Tuscany, the Maremma and becomes a wider family and personal journey. Nick shares how reading "A Year in Provence" during COVID while he was British Ambassador to Libya helped inspire him to write a feel-good book that encourages readers to discover lesser-known regions. We discuss his Foreign Office career and his approach to languages, including learning Arabic across postings such as Morocco, Yemen, Qatar and Libya, along with French, Italian, Spanish, some German, and some Farsi ahead of becoming ambassador to Iran after the 2015 nuclear deal and the reopening of the British embassy. Nick explains how a friend's suggestion to look beyond Chianti led serendipitously to the first house they viewed and ultimately boughtalongside the realities of renovating abroad: high costs, practical challenges, and the highs and lows of making a place work for family life. We also talk about his unexpected love of landscaping and working with a skilled digger operator he calls “Michelangelo,” the region's food, wine, local olive oil and its strong Tuscan accent. Nick recounts a memorable moment when a friend arrived with an armed escort and the town's mayor turned out to greet them, and he updates me on ongoing projects, including drilling a 97-meter well to reach a fresh aquifer. Looking ahead, Nick describes writing best in the relative isolation of the Italian house and shares his interest in writing more broadly about the Mediterranean, linked to his role creating a new program at the University of Cambridge Centre for Geopolitics. We touch on the Napoleonic history of the area, including the principality of Piombino and Lucca and Napoleon's sister Elisa and end with a playful question about a dream dance guest Nick chooses Dante's Beatrice, reflecting his early love of Dante's poetry and its lifelong influence.00:00 Meet Nick Hopton & the book ‘Marma Mia' (restoring a house in Italy)00:50 Inspired by ‘A Year in Provence': writing a feel-good travel memoir during COVID01:59 Diplomatic life & learning languages: Arabic, French, Italian (and more)04:26 Why you should speak the local language (even with bad grammar)05:17 Falling for Tuscany's Maremma: the serendipitous house-buying story07:42 Renovation reality: highs, lows, and why the Maremma stays authentic08:44 Landscaping obsession: diggers, Kubotas, and ‘Michelangelo' the operator11:05 Food, wine & dialect: tomatoes, olive oil, and the Tuscan accent12:49 Small-town surprises: the ambassador friend visit and the mayor's welcome13:43 The work never ends: is the villa project ever really finished?14:01 Digging a 97m Well & the Never-Ending House Project14:27 What's Next After the Book: A Wider Mediterranean Focus14:58 Seeing the Mediterranean Holistically (Cambridge Geopolitics & Trade Routes)16:26 Duff Cooper, John Julius Norwich & Highclere's Colorful Guests17:20 Writing Habits: Tuscany, Isolation, Rhythm & Beating Procrastination18:37 Italy, Maremma & Napoleonic History: Elisa and the Principality of Piombino and Lucca20:30 Diplomatic Postings & Reopening the UK Embassy in Iran (2015)23:09 Iran Today: Regime Weakness, Protests, and a Hope to Visit the Cradle of Civilization24:21 Highclere's Library, the Book Club, and a Shared Love of Italy25:27 Finale: The Summer Dance Fantasy Guest—Dante, Beatrice & Vita NovaYou can hear more episodes of Lady Carnarvon's Official Podcasts at https://www.ladycarnarvon.com/podcast/New episodes are published on the first day of every month.

In this episode of The Winston Marshall Show, I sit down with journalist and former government adviser Ben Judah to dissect the Chagos Islands deal, Diego Garcia, and the geopolitical battle shaping Britain's future.We examine why the UK agreed to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, the role of the International Court of Justice, and how UN decolonisation rulings placed mounting legal and diplomatic pressure on Britain. Judah explains the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, the sensitive US military capabilities based there, and why American officials quietly pushed London towards a settlement.The conversation explores China's growing influence in the Indian Ocean, the risk of Mauritius pivoting towards Beijing, and why British officials feared losing access to critical US military infrastructure. We debate sovereignty, international law, national security, and whether Britain was defending its interests or surrendering territory under diplomatic pressure.We also discuss the future of Britain's Overseas Territories, proposals to integrate them more fully into the United Kingdom, and whether the Chagos deal reflects strategic realism or managed decline.A serious and wide-ranging conversation about geopolitics, American power, China's rise, and whether Britain still knows how to protect its global position.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To see more exclusive content and interviews consider subscribing to my substack here: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:Substack: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/X: https://twitter.com/mrwinmarshallInsta: https://www.instagram.com/winstonmarshallLinktree: https://linktr.ee/winstonmarshall----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapters 00:00 Introduction01:20 The Strategic Importance of Diego Garcia06:32 The Secret US–UK Deal and “Super Capacities”09:35 UN Rulings, ICJ Pressure & China's Role12:09 Why Washington Forced Britain's Hand14:47 Legal vs Military Defence: The China Risk18:52 Could Mauritius Win a Binding Judgment?21:17 Why the Americans Might Move the Base23:10 The Real Prize: UK Access to US Capabilities28:54 “Everything Changes So Nothing Changes” – Inside the Deal30:00 Can Mauritius Invite China In?32:31 Why Rubio, Vance & the Pentagon Backed It35:29 Trump's Flip-Flop and the Iran Question40:31 What If Mauritius Breaks the Agreement?42:31 Why Britain Is Paying 0.2% of Its Defence Budget44:33 This Isn't About Land — It's About Power45:30 Legal, Diplomatic & Hard Power Layers of Defence51:52 Overseas Territories: From Colonies to “Overseas Kingdoms” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Anatol Lieven questions the lack of a clear strategy for US naval fleets near Iran, hoping for diplomatic compromise and economic opening rather than war. 2.1900 MEXICO

Diplomats are once again descending on Geneva as fresh talks on both the US-Iran nuclear deal and the Russia-Ukraine war get under way. We discuss why it appeals as a location and the prospect for progress on either side.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Edmund Fitton-Brown and Bill Roggio examine Iran's potential responses to US military pressure, contrasting diplomatic signals with threats of offensive missile deployment and regional proxy warfare. 15.1843 RUSSIAN EMBASSY TO PERSIA

In this episode of The President's Daily Brief: Four years after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, new signs suggest Moscow's battlefield momentum may be fading. Russian troop levels have plateaued for the first time since the war started, and Ukrainian forces are reclaiming ground in key sectors. Ukraine hits a diplomatic roadblock as Hungary blocks a major European Union loan package and new sanctions on Russia, exposing fractures inside the bloc at a critical moment in the war. Diplomatic efforts to avoid a war with Iran continue as U.S. envoys head to Geneva for high-stakes talks — even as the threat of American strikes remains firmly on the table. In today's Back of the Brief — the fallout from the killing of cartel boss El Mencho spreads across Mexico. Americans in Puerto Vallarta are urged to shelter in place as unrest, road blockades, and flight disruptions ripple through tourist hubs. To listen to the show ad-free, become a premium member of The President's Daily Brief by visiting https://PDBPremium.com. Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief.  YouTube: youtube.com/@presidentsdailybrief Cardiff: Get fast business funding without bank delays—apply in minutes with Cardiff and access up to $500,000 in same‑day funding at https://Cardiff.co/PDB  American Financing: Call American Financing today to find out how customers are saving an avg of $800/mo. NMLS 182334, https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.196% for well qualified borrowers. Call 866-885-1881 for details about credit costs and terms. Visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/PDB Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Josh Rogin explains how Trump's 2016 victory upended the Obama administration's optimistic China policy, leading to immediate diplomatic confusion regarding Taiwan and China's territorial integrity claims. 11793

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Diplomatic correspondent Lazar Berman joins host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. The next round of talks between the United States and Iran is scheduled for Thursday in Geneva. Even as US military pressure mounts, Tehran expressed hope that a nuclear agreement could be reached that would avert a looming attack. Berman updates on where things stand ahead of US President Donald Trump's State of the Union address tomorrow. We then turn back the clock to last week's inaugural Board of Peace meeting in DC. Washington secured some $7 billion in pledges toward Gaza’s recovery from key Mideast allies; five countries agreed to contribute troops to the International Stabilization Force tasked with phasing the IDF out of Gaza; and plans are advancing to deploy thousands of Palestinian police in Gaza within two months. What about Hamas demilitarization? Berman weighs in. In a program released Friday following his brief visit to Israel, right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson claimed the Israeli government targeted his family, called the Jewish state “probably the most violent country on earth” and aired numerous antisemitic tropes. We hear why the media personality is latching on to them -- and who is listening. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: US, Iran to hold talks Thursday as Tehran claims ‘good chance’ of diplomatic solution Witkoff says Trump ‘curious’ why Iran hasn’t ‘capitulated’ under US pressure Waving off the skeptics, US feeling bullish after Board of Peace inaugural confab Tucker Carlson claims Israel targeted his family, Netanyahu ‘believes in blood guilt’; questions Israel’s right to exist Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Ari Schlacht produced this episode. IMAGE: A hand-drawn swastika is seen on the front of Union Station near the Capitol in Washington, January 28, 2022. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Support the show: Antiwar.com/donatePhone bank for Defend the Guard: https://defendtheguard.us/phonebankSign up for our newsletter: https://www.antiwar.com/newsletter/

Trump's Middle East Legacy and Israel's Judicial Crisis. Examining the Trump administration's lasting diplomatic legacy, Peter Berkowitz praises the embassy move to Jerusalem, the withdrawal from the flawed Iran deal, and the strategic Abraham Accords. He also analyzes Israel's internal turmoil over its overly activist Supreme Court, which sparked mass protests prior to the ongoing war. #111903 SAINT LAWRENCE

9. The Collapse of the US-Canada Friendship The historically strong US-Canada bond fractures under trade disputes and rhetoric, threatening long-term diplomatic and economic relationships. Guest: David Hebert1904 PORT ARTHUR

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Diplomatic correspondent Lazar Berman joins host Jessica Steinberg for today's episode. With reports of the US building firepower in the Middle East ahead of a possible strike against Iran, Berman discusses the possible timing and latest indicators, including US President Donald Trump's characterization of the recently concluded nuclear talks in Geneva. Berman details several of the latest locations of the US aircraft carriers, their offensive and defensive power in the region, and the ability of the US and Israel to carry out an extended campaign if necessary. He also reports on a brief visit of right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson to Israel to interview US ambassador Mike Huckabee, following Carlson's repeated claims that Israel oppresses Christians. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: White House: There are many arguments for striking Iran, they’d be wise to make a deal Iran atomic energy chief says no country can deprive Tehran of enrichment rights Israel, US envoy reject Tucker Carlson’s claim he was detained and interrogated at airport Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Ari Schlacht. IMAGE: Demonstrators wave Iranian and Hezbollah flags as one holds a poster of the late Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. strike in Iraq in 2020, during the Muslim Shiite holiday of Eid al-Ghadir, which commemorates the Prophet Muhammad naming Ali, revered as the first Shiite imam, as his successor, in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  Gregory Copley notes that despite scandals surrounding Prince Andrew, the Royal Family remains essential glue holding the UK and Commonwealth together, with the King and working royals performing vital diplomatic functions while spares struggle without defined roles.1900 BRUSSELS

High-stakes diplomatic talks taking place in Geneva To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Week on the Podcast: ZOO ESCAPESTwo hosts. Five “facts.”Some true. Some fake.All absolutely unhinged.This week's theme: Zoo Escapes and the stories are so wild you'll swear we made them up… or did we?From an orangutan who may or may not have outsmarted an entire zoo staff, to rumors of decoy goats, to a monkey-led crime wave on Long Island, to a rogue golden eagle causing international drama, to the slowest “escape” in zoological history… the hosts have to figure out which of these tales actually happened and which ones are pure chaos-fueled nonsense.Expect:- Escape artistry- Questionable zoo security- Monkey mayhem- Diplomatic duck-related incidents- And at least one story that feels like it was written by a drunk nature documentary narrator.Play along, make your guesses, and prepare to be shocked at how many of these stories could be real.#ZooEscapes #FactOrFake #ComedyPodcast #WildlifeFails #AllegendlyPodcast

SHOCKING: Rubio Delivers "Diplomatic Miracle."

Scott Ritter : Iran: Trump Has No Diplomatic SolutionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This episode of CAA Conversations, Research and Scholarship edition, focuses on Hannah Entwisle Chapuisa's background in law and the visual arts. In it she discusses curating exhibitions in diplomatic venues, specifically around the topics of climate change and human migration, as well as the role of artistic practice in societal norm development and the factors that led her to choose diplomatic venues as the sites of her curatorial work

Caleb Weiss of the Long War Journal details the deceptive recruitment of African men from Kenya and Uganda to fight for Russia in Ukraine, sparking controversy and diplomatic tension.1936 KENYA

Josh Rogin discusses the trade conflict between the US and India, noting that tariffs were used as leverage regarding Russian oil and Modi's diplomatic de-risking from Washington.1860 INDIA

As the full-scale invasion of Ukraine enters its fifth year, resistance to Russian occupation has undergone a radical transformation. The public displays of defiance that defined the war's early days — with civilians blocking tanks and holding street protests — have long been crushed by the Kremlin's ruthless occupation regime. By blending systematic brutality, bureaucracy, and pervasive surveillance, Russia has sought to extinguish dissent and erase Ukrainian identity in occupied regions. But this has only forced the resistance deeper underground. In this episode of The Naked Pravda, deputy editor Eilish Hart sits down with Dr. Jade McGlynn, the head of the Ukraine and Russia program at the Center for Statecraft and National Security at King's College London, to discuss this shift. Drawing on her extensive field research and recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Dr. McGlynn analyzes how resistance efforts have adapted to survive life behind the front lines. Time stamps for this episode: (2:36) Early resistance and public defiance in occupied Ukraine(10:43) Organized resistance and intelligence(14:23) Differences across Ukraine's occupied territories(24:20) The challenges of researching Ukrainian resistance(30:08) Diplomatic efforts and perceptions in UkraineКак поддержать нашу редакцию — даже если вы в России и вам очень страшно

The drumbeat of war between the U.S. and Iran seems to have quieted after indirect talks in Oman, but the threat remains. For a rare view from Iran and its perspective, special correspondent Reza Sayah sat down with Esmail Baghaei, a member of Iran's negotiating team and the spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The drumbeat of war between the U.S. and Iran seems to have quieted after indirect talks in Oman, but the threat remains. For a rare view from Iran and its perspective, special correspondent Reza Sayah sat down with Esmail Baghaei, a member of Iran's negotiating team and the spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Guests: Husain Haqqani and Bill Roggio. Al-Qaeda veteran Ahmed al-Shara's presidency in Syria highlights the group's diplomatic manipulation and Western naivety in accepting jihadists who adopt modern suits and polished personas.1924 ALEPPO

Guests: Bill Roggio and Jonatyn Sayeh. Reports indicate Iran's regime has killed thousands to suppress ongoing unrest, feigning diplomatic willingness while maintaining a paranoid grip on power and refusing real concessions.1870

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Diplomatic correspondent Lazar Berman joins host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. We begin the program by speaking about Matti Caspi, a beloved composer, singer, and lyricist who produced some 1,000 songs, who died overnight between Saturday and Sunday. He was 76 and had suffered from cancer in recent years. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will fly to Washington to meet with US President Donald Trump on Wednesday to discuss Iran, his office announced Saturday night, a day after US-Iranian talks were held in Oman. Netanyahu will depart for Washington on Tuesday and depart the US on Thursday, landing back in Israel on Friday morning local time. Berman weighs in on the Oman talks and what is likely on the agenda for DC. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: Matti Caspi, singer and composer who helped mold Israeli culture, dead at 76 PM to meet Trump in DC this week, says Iran talks must deal with missiles, proxies Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Podwaves and Ari Schlacht. IMAGE: The presidential seal is seen in the newly renovated Rose Garden of the White House, August 9, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr Boyce reads from Marcus Garvey's book, "Message to the people."

Monte Judah interviews Bill and Tania Koenig on Iran's instability, Israel's future in Judea and Samaria, and the prophetic implications shaping the Middle East.00:00 – Opening & Introductions02:05 – Bill & Tania Koenig: Background and Calling05:40 – Tania's Diplomatic and Ministry Journey09:10 – Understanding the 10,000‑Foot Geopolitical View12:00 – Iran's Internal Crisis and Regime Instability15:45 – Could the Islamic Regime Collapse?19:20 – U.S.–Israel Strategic Cooperation on Iran22:10 – The Spiritual Stronghold Over Persia25:30 – Trump's Advisors: Witkoff, Kushner, and Middle East Blind Spots29:00 – Qatar's Financial Influence on U.S. Policy32:40 – Why Western Diplomacy Misreads the Middle East35:55 – Jacob & Esau, Isaac & Ishmael: Ancient Roots of Modern Conflict39:10 – Judea & Samaria: Israel's Covenant Heartland42:25 – Netanyahu, Settlers, and the Future of Sovereignty45:30 – Why the Two‑State Solution Cannot Work48:40 – Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince, and the Abraham Accords52:10 – Prophetic Shifts Triggered by Military Victory55:00 – The Role of Prayer in Shaping Leadership57:20 – A Call to the Body of Messiah59:40 – Closing Thoughts & Final Exhortation1:01:10 – Farewell and Shabbat BlessingLion and Lamb Ministries continues to bring solid biblical teaching, prophetic insight, and Messianic perspective to believers around the world. If you're blessed by these broadcasts and want to help us reach even more people with the message of the Kingdom, please consider supporting the ministry at www.LLGive.com. Your partnership makes this work possible.

Welcome to The Times of Israel's Daily Briefing, your 20-minute audio update on what's happening in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world. Diplomatic correspondent Lazar Berman joins host Amanda Borschel-Dan for today's episode. The Rafah Border Crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip officially resumed operations on Monday for the first time in almost a year. We learn how many Palestinians were able to leave the Strip yesterday, versus the potential quota of pedestrians who should be able to cross. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with US special envoy Steve Witkoff at 4:30 p.m. today ahead of US talks with Iran scheduled for Friday in Istanbul. Berman explains what could be on the agenda for the talks and delves into the likelihood of a US offensive operation in Iran at this point. The Prime Minister's Office's point man for hostages, Gal Hirsch, sat with Berman on Friday, days after the last slain hostage from the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks — police officer Ran Gvili — was finally laid to rest in Israel. Some of his remarks sparked controversy over the weekend. We hear why. Check out The Times of Israel's ongoing liveblog for more updates. For further reading: ‘A lifeline’: Gazans rejoice as Rafah Crossing opens for limited pedestrian passage With US and Iran set for talks, Trump warns ‘bad things’ will happen if no deal is reached Ahead of Friday nuclear talks with Iran, Witkoff heading to Israel to meet PM, Zamir PM’s hostage czar Gal Hirsch says Biden pressure ‘screwed up’ deal talks, protests aided Hamas Subscribe to The Times of Israel Daily Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Podwaves and Ari Schlacht. IMAGE: People stand on US and Israel flags, outside the US Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, February 1, 2026, during a protest in support of the Iranian government. (AP Photo/Emrah Gurel)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mary Kissel criticizes Prime Minister Keir Starmer's foolish decision to pursue a new embassy in the People's Republic of China, questioning the strategic wisdom of such diplomatic investment amid rising tensions.NYC YOM KIPPUR

Liz Peek examines Mayor Mamdani's rookie mistakes during a snowstorm, as he stumbles through early diplomatic challenges while learning the complexities of his high-profile position.1863 draft riots

Ernesto Araujo and Alejandro Pena Esclusa analyze Venezuela's posture of public defiance while remaining privately obedient to the Trump administration. The segment explores the contradictions in Caracas's diplomatic stance, suggesting the regime's theatrical resistance masks behind-the-scenes accommodations driven by economic pressure and political survival calculations.

FILE 2. THE PURGE OF LITVINOV AND THE MOSCOW PACT. GUEST AUTHOR SEAN MCMEEKIN. On May 3, 1939, Stalin ordered the arrest of Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov and his Jewish staff, replacing him with Molotov to signal a diplomatic shift toward Nazi Germany,. This maneuver paved the way for the Moscow Pact, allowing Stalin to opportunistically seize territory in Poland, Finland, and the Baltics while Western powers remained passive,.1928