Podcasts about Eastern Front

//The Wire//1900Z June 6, 2025////ROUTINE////BLUF: RUSSIAN COUNTERATTACK STRIKES KIEV. SEARCH FOR FUGITIVE IN WASHINGTON CONTINUES.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Ukraine: Russia conducted a counterattack on Kiev overnight, with multiple missile strikes reported throughout the city. Other drone and missile attacks were reported along the Eastern Front as well. Ukraine has also continued drone strikes as before, with strikes being reported at Engels Airbase overnight.-HomeFront-Washington: The fugitive search for Travis Decker continues, with local authorities stating that he may be traveling along the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). Locals have been advised to remain observant, and keep windows and doors are locked throughout the area.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: This is a major hiking trail throughout the region, and is prone to heavy traffic in some sections this time of year. It is a little early in the season for backpackers to flood into the area, however it is imperative for local hikers to be aware of this individual, now that the search area has shifted to include areas that are not currently off-limits to the public.Analyst: S2A1Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground//END REPORT//

A detailed history of Nazi anti-partisan warfare on the Eastern Front during Operation Barbarossa. From the start of the war on the Eastern Front, Hitler's Ostheer, his Eastern Army, would wage a vernichtungskrieg, or war of annihilation, in the East. Never before had such a wide-reaching campaign been fought. Preparations for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union had included the drawing up of plans and allocation of resources to secure the newly conquered territories. These plans included the premeditated murder of many innocent civilians. Adolf Hitler said as much when in July 1941, shortly after Stalin ordered the formation of partisans, he told his Army High Command: 'This partisan war has some advantage for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us.' Anticipating resistance to Nazi occupation and rule, Hitler instructed the Ostheer to act ruthlessly, not only on the front lines but in the rear areas as well. When, in July 1941, Stalin ordered partisan forces to be created, the stage was therefore set for the largest and most savage conflict ever waged between a modern military force and a guerrilla army. The scale of the partisan and anti-partisan war on the Eastern Front was as costly and bitterly fought as the struggle on the front lines themselves. Employing thousands of primary source documents and scouring eight separate state archives in six countries over a twenty-two-year period, Antonio J. Muñoz's Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa: June 1941 to the Spring of 1942 (Frontline Books, 2025) has produced what can be described as a definitive account of this part of the war behind the front lines in the East during the invasion of the Soviet Union. From the very beginning, the Nazis fought this war ruthlessly, by eliminating not only actual guerrillas, but a good portion of the civilian population. Employing dozens of wartime anti-partisan operational instructions, plus newly-created detailed battle maps and full orders of battle, Dr. Muñoz brings this little-known conflict behind the lines into focus for the very first time. The war behind the lines is detailed by district. This includes the Reichskommissariat Ostland region, which comprised the Generalbezirk Estland (Estonia), Generalbezirk Lettland (Latvia), Generalbezirk Litauen (Lithuania), Generalbezirk Bialystok (Northeastern Poland), and Generalbezirk Weißruthenien (Belarus). The book also covers the guerrilla and anti-partisan war in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (Ukraine region) as well as in north, central and southern Russia. For Russia proper, anti-partisan operations against the guerrillas are broken down by army group area. Not only are the operations described, but the reader will also learn about guerrilla attacks and how the entire partisan movement grew from year to year, and region to region. Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa documents the whole of the beginning of the savage partisan war between June 1941 and the spring of 1942. Never before has every major, and some minor, anti-guerrilla operation been described in such detail.Dr Antonio J. Muñoz lives in New York City. He is a professor of history at Farmingdale State College in Long Island, New York. He is married, has two daughters and two grandchildren. His last work, published in 2018, covered the history of the German Secret Field Police in Greece, 1941-1944.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

A detailed history of Nazi anti-partisan warfare on the Eastern Front during Operation Barbarossa. From the start of the war on the Eastern Front, Hitler's Ostheer, his Eastern Army, would wage a vernichtungskrieg, or war of annihilation, in the East. Never before had such a wide-reaching campaign been fought. Preparations for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union had included the drawing up of plans and allocation of resources to secure the newly conquered territories. These plans included the premeditated murder of many innocent civilians. Adolf Hitler said as much when in July 1941, shortly after Stalin ordered the formation of partisans, he told his Army High Command: 'This partisan war has some advantage for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us.' Anticipating resistance to Nazi occupation and rule, Hitler instructed the Ostheer to act ruthlessly, not only on the front lines but in the rear areas as well. When, in July 1941, Stalin ordered partisan forces to be created, the stage was therefore set for the largest and most savage conflict ever waged between a modern military force and a guerrilla army. The scale of the partisan and anti-partisan war on the Eastern Front was as costly and bitterly fought as the struggle on the front lines themselves. Employing thousands of primary source documents and scouring eight separate state archives in six countries over a twenty-two-year period, Antonio J. Muñoz's Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa: June 1941 to the Spring of 1942 (Frontline Books, 2025) has produced what can be described as a definitive account of this part of the war behind the front lines in the East during the invasion of the Soviet Union. From the very beginning, the Nazis fought this war ruthlessly, by eliminating not only actual guerrillas, but a good portion of the civilian population. Employing dozens of wartime anti-partisan operational instructions, plus newly-created detailed battle maps and full orders of battle, Dr. Muñoz brings this little-known conflict behind the lines into focus for the very first time. The war behind the lines is detailed by district. This includes the Reichskommissariat Ostland region, which comprised the Generalbezirk Estland (Estonia), Generalbezirk Lettland (Latvia), Generalbezirk Litauen (Lithuania), Generalbezirk Bialystok (Northeastern Poland), and Generalbezirk Weißruthenien (Belarus). The book also covers the guerrilla and anti-partisan war in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (Ukraine region) as well as in north, central and southern Russia. For Russia proper, anti-partisan operations against the guerrillas are broken down by army group area. Not only are the operations described, but the reader will also learn about guerrilla attacks and how the entire partisan movement grew from year to year, and region to region. Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa documents the whole of the beginning of the savage partisan war between June 1941 and the spring of 1942. Never before has every major, and some minor, anti-guerrilla operation been described in such detail.Dr Antonio J. Muñoz lives in New York City. He is a professor of history at Farmingdale State College in Long Island, New York. He is married, has two daughters and two grandchildren. His last work, published in 2018, covered the history of the German Secret Field Police in Greece, 1941-1944.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. 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

A detailed history of Nazi anti-partisan warfare on the Eastern Front during Operation Barbarossa. From the start of the war on the Eastern Front, Hitler's Ostheer, his Eastern Army, would wage a vernichtungskrieg, or war of annihilation, in the East. Never before had such a wide-reaching campaign been fought. Preparations for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union had included the drawing up of plans and allocation of resources to secure the newly conquered territories. These plans included the premeditated murder of many innocent civilians. Adolf Hitler said as much when in July 1941, shortly after Stalin ordered the formation of partisans, he told his Army High Command: 'This partisan war has some advantage for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us.' Anticipating resistance to Nazi occupation and rule, Hitler instructed the Ostheer to act ruthlessly, not only on the front lines but in the rear areas as well. When, in July 1941, Stalin ordered partisan forces to be created, the stage was therefore set for the largest and most savage conflict ever waged between a modern military force and a guerrilla army. The scale of the partisan and anti-partisan war on the Eastern Front was as costly and bitterly fought as the struggle on the front lines themselves. Employing thousands of primary source documents and scouring eight separate state archives in six countries over a twenty-two-year period, Antonio J. Muñoz's Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa: June 1941 to the Spring of 1942 (Frontline Books, 2025) has produced what can be described as a definitive account of this part of the war behind the front lines in the East during the invasion of the Soviet Union. From the very beginning, the Nazis fought this war ruthlessly, by eliminating not only actual guerrillas, but a good portion of the civilian population. Employing dozens of wartime anti-partisan operational instructions, plus newly-created detailed battle maps and full orders of battle, Dr. Muñoz brings this little-known conflict behind the lines into focus for the very first time. The war behind the lines is detailed by district. This includes the Reichskommissariat Ostland region, which comprised the Generalbezirk Estland (Estonia), Generalbezirk Lettland (Latvia), Generalbezirk Litauen (Lithuania), Generalbezirk Bialystok (Northeastern Poland), and Generalbezirk Weißruthenien (Belarus). The book also covers the guerrilla and anti-partisan war in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (Ukraine region) as well as in north, central and southern Russia. For Russia proper, anti-partisan operations against the guerrillas are broken down by army group area. Not only are the operations described, but the reader will also learn about guerrilla attacks and how the entire partisan movement grew from year to year, and region to region. Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa documents the whole of the beginning of the savage partisan war between June 1941 and the spring of 1942. Never before has every major, and some minor, anti-guerrilla operation been described in such detail.Dr Antonio J. Muñoz lives in New York City. He is a professor of history at Farmingdale State College in Long Island, New York. He is married, has two daughters and two grandchildren. His last work, published in 2018, covered the history of the German Secret Field Police in Greece, 1941-1944.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

A detailed history of Nazi anti-partisan warfare on the Eastern Front during Operation Barbarossa. From the start of the war on the Eastern Front, Hitler's Ostheer, his Eastern Army, would wage a vernichtungskrieg, or war of annihilation, in the East. Never before had such a wide-reaching campaign been fought. Preparations for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union had included the drawing up of plans and allocation of resources to secure the newly conquered territories. These plans included the premeditated murder of many innocent civilians. Adolf Hitler said as much when in July 1941, shortly after Stalin ordered the formation of partisans, he told his Army High Command: 'This partisan war has some advantage for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us.' Anticipating resistance to Nazi occupation and rule, Hitler instructed the Ostheer to act ruthlessly, not only on the front lines but in the rear areas as well. When, in July 1941, Stalin ordered partisan forces to be created, the stage was therefore set for the largest and most savage conflict ever waged between a modern military force and a guerrilla army. The scale of the partisan and anti-partisan war on the Eastern Front was as costly and bitterly fought as the struggle on the front lines themselves. Employing thousands of primary source documents and scouring eight separate state archives in six countries over a twenty-two-year period, Antonio J. Muñoz's Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa: June 1941 to the Spring of 1942 (Frontline Books, 2025) has produced what can be described as a definitive account of this part of the war behind the front lines in the East during the invasion of the Soviet Union. From the very beginning, the Nazis fought this war ruthlessly, by eliminating not only actual guerrillas, but a good portion of the civilian population. Employing dozens of wartime anti-partisan operational instructions, plus newly-created detailed battle maps and full orders of battle, Dr. Muñoz brings this little-known conflict behind the lines into focus for the very first time. The war behind the lines is detailed by district. This includes the Reichskommissariat Ostland region, which comprised the Generalbezirk Estland (Estonia), Generalbezirk Lettland (Latvia), Generalbezirk Litauen (Lithuania), Generalbezirk Bialystok (Northeastern Poland), and Generalbezirk Weißruthenien (Belarus). The book also covers the guerrilla and anti-partisan war in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (Ukraine region) as well as in north, central and southern Russia. For Russia proper, anti-partisan operations against the guerrillas are broken down by army group area. Not only are the operations described, but the reader will also learn about guerrilla attacks and how the entire partisan movement grew from year to year, and region to region. Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa documents the whole of the beginning of the savage partisan war between June 1941 and the spring of 1942. Never before has every major, and some minor, anti-guerrilla operation been described in such detail.Dr Antonio J. Muñoz lives in New York City. He is a professor of history at Farmingdale State College in Long Island, New York. He is married, has two daughters and two grandchildren. His last work, published in 2018, covered the history of the German Secret Field Police in Greece, 1941-1944.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

A detailed history of Nazi anti-partisan warfare on the Eastern Front during Operation Barbarossa. From the start of the war on the Eastern Front, Hitler's Ostheer, his Eastern Army, would wage a vernichtungskrieg, or war of annihilation, in the East. Never before had such a wide-reaching campaign been fought. Preparations for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union had included the drawing up of plans and allocation of resources to secure the newly conquered territories. These plans included the premeditated murder of many innocent civilians. Adolf Hitler said as much when in July 1941, shortly after Stalin ordered the formation of partisans, he told his Army High Command: 'This partisan war has some advantage for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us.' Anticipating resistance to Nazi occupation and rule, Hitler instructed the Ostheer to act ruthlessly, not only on the front lines but in the rear areas as well. When, in July 1941, Stalin ordered partisan forces to be created, the stage was therefore set for the largest and most savage conflict ever waged between a modern military force and a guerrilla army. The scale of the partisan and anti-partisan war on the Eastern Front was as costly and bitterly fought as the struggle on the front lines themselves. Employing thousands of primary source documents and scouring eight separate state archives in six countries over a twenty-two-year period, Antonio J. Muñoz's Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa: June 1941 to the Spring of 1942 (Frontline Books, 2025) has produced what can be described as a definitive account of this part of the war behind the front lines in the East during the invasion of the Soviet Union. From the very beginning, the Nazis fought this war ruthlessly, by eliminating not only actual guerrillas, but a good portion of the civilian population. Employing dozens of wartime anti-partisan operational instructions, plus newly-created detailed battle maps and full orders of battle, Dr. Muñoz brings this little-known conflict behind the lines into focus for the very first time. The war behind the lines is detailed by district. This includes the Reichskommissariat Ostland region, which comprised the Generalbezirk Estland (Estonia), Generalbezirk Lettland (Latvia), Generalbezirk Litauen (Lithuania), Generalbezirk Bialystok (Northeastern Poland), and Generalbezirk Weißruthenien (Belarus). The book also covers the guerrilla and anti-partisan war in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (Ukraine region) as well as in north, central and southern Russia. For Russia proper, anti-partisan operations against the guerrillas are broken down by army group area. Not only are the operations described, but the reader will also learn about guerrilla attacks and how the entire partisan movement grew from year to year, and region to region. Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa documents the whole of the beginning of the savage partisan war between June 1941 and the spring of 1942. Never before has every major, and some minor, anti-guerrilla operation been described in such detail.Dr Antonio J. Muñoz lives in New York City. He is a professor of history at Farmingdale State College in Long Island, New York. He is married, has two daughters and two grandchildren. His last work, published in 2018, covered the history of the German Secret Field Police in Greece, 1941-1944.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

A detailed history of Nazi anti-partisan warfare on the Eastern Front during Operation Barbarossa. From the start of the war on the Eastern Front, Hitler's Ostheer, his Eastern Army, would wage a vernichtungskrieg, or war of annihilation, in the East. Never before had such a wide-reaching campaign been fought. Preparations for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union had included the drawing up of plans and allocation of resources to secure the newly conquered territories. These plans included the premeditated murder of many innocent civilians. Adolf Hitler said as much when in July 1941, shortly after Stalin ordered the formation of partisans, he told his Army High Command: 'This partisan war has some advantage for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us.' Anticipating resistance to Nazi occupation and rule, Hitler instructed the Ostheer to act ruthlessly, not only on the front lines but in the rear areas as well. When, in July 1941, Stalin ordered partisan forces to be created, the stage was therefore set for the largest and most savage conflict ever waged between a modern military force and a guerrilla army. The scale of the partisan and anti-partisan war on the Eastern Front was as costly and bitterly fought as the struggle on the front lines themselves. Employing thousands of primary source documents and scouring eight separate state archives in six countries over a twenty-two-year period, Antonio J. Muñoz's Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa: June 1941 to the Spring of 1942 (Frontline Books, 2025) has produced what can be described as a definitive account of this part of the war behind the front lines in the East during the invasion of the Soviet Union. From the very beginning, the Nazis fought this war ruthlessly, by eliminating not only actual guerrillas, but a good portion of the civilian population. Employing dozens of wartime anti-partisan operational instructions, plus newly-created detailed battle maps and full orders of battle, Dr. Muñoz brings this little-known conflict behind the lines into focus for the very first time. The war behind the lines is detailed by district. This includes the Reichskommissariat Ostland region, which comprised the Generalbezirk Estland (Estonia), Generalbezirk Lettland (Latvia), Generalbezirk Litauen (Lithuania), Generalbezirk Bialystok (Northeastern Poland), and Generalbezirk Weißruthenien (Belarus). The book also covers the guerrilla and anti-partisan war in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine (Ukraine region) as well as in north, central and southern Russia. For Russia proper, anti-partisan operations against the guerrillas are broken down by army group area. Not only are the operations described, but the reader will also learn about guerrilla attacks and how the entire partisan movement grew from year to year, and region to region. Hitler's War Against the Partisans During Operation Barbarossa documents the whole of the beginning of the savage partisan war between June 1941 and the spring of 1942. Never before has every major, and some minor, anti-guerrilla operation been described in such detail.Dr Antonio J. Muñoz lives in New York City. He is a professor of history at Farmingdale State College in Long Island, New York. He is married, has two daughters and two grandchildren. His last work, published in 2018, covered the history of the German Secret Field Police in Greece, 1941-1944.Stephen Satkiewicz is an independent scholar with research areas spanning Civilizational Sciences, Social Complexity, Big History, Historical Sociology, Military History, War Studies, International Relations, Geopolitics, and Russian and East European history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies

In this enlightening episode of History Rage, host Paul Bavill reunites with historians and co-authors of "Ring of Fire," Alex Churchill and Nicolai Eberholst, to explore the often-overlooked narratives of the First World War. Together, they challenge the traditional Western-centric perspectives and delve into the complexities of the war's global impact, particularly focusing on the Eastern Front and the contributions of lesser-known nations. Revisiting the Great War:- Alex and Nicolai discuss their motivations for writing "Ring of Fire," aiming to provide a more balanced account of the war that includes the significant events and actors often omitted from mainstream narratives. Unpacking the Myths:- The duo passionately critiques the oversimplified narratives that dominate First World War literature, highlighting how the war's origins and battles in the East are frequently ignored. Global Perspectives:- Discover the surprising roles played by countries such as Japan and the Ottoman Empire, as well as the impact of colonial forces in Africa and Asia, challenging the notion that the war was solely a European affair. The Human Cost:- Alex and Nicolai share harrowing accounts of ordinary soldiers and civilians, illustrating the brutal realities of war and the emotional turmoil experienced across various fronts. Challenging Neutrality:- The conversation also touches on the complexities of neutrality, with insights into how countries like Denmark and Sweden navigated their positions amidst the chaos of war. Join us as we unravel the multifaceted narratives of the First World War, shedding light on the stories that deserve to be told. "Ring of Fire" is available for purchase, and can be bought below:Buy the Book: Ring of Fire: A New Global History of the Outbreak of the First World Warhttps://uk.bookshop.org/a/10120/9781035903429Don't miss the chance to catch Alex at the Chalke History Festival, running from 23rd to 29th June and tickets are available from:Tickets: https://www.chalkefestival.com/Connect with Alex and Nicolai on Social Media:- Follow the guys on X, Instagram and Bluesky: Alex at @Churchill_Alex and Nicolai at @PikeGrey1418.Support History Rage:If you enjoy the show, consider supporting us on Patreon for exclusive content, early access, and the iconic History Rage mug. Subscribe at patreon.com/historyrage.Stay informed, stay passionate, and most importantly, stay angry! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

➡️Mój nowy kanał! https://youtube.com/@TwarzeHistorii?si=N39C27i1R7k4FMbN

In this episode of The PDB Situation Report: Iran is caught red-handed. A new report reveals a previously unknown nuclear weapons development site, along with a covert missile production facility hidden behind oil and petrochemical operations. Alireza Jafarzadeh from the National Council of Resistance of Iran joins us to explain how the discovery was made. On the Eastern Front, Russian forces appear to be withstanding heavy casualties—and replacing losses fast enough to reinforce troop strength. George Barros from the Institute for the Study of War shares a new battlefield assessment and what it says about Moscow's long-term strategy. To listen to the show ad-free, become a premium member of The President's Daily Brief by visiting PDBPremium.com. Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief. YouTube: youtube.com/@presidentsdailybrief Beam: Visit https://shopbeam.com/MIKEand use code MIKE to get our exclusive discount of up to 40% off. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Throughout the war on the Eastern Front, there were two consistent trends. The Red Army battled to learn how to fight and win, while involved in a struggle for its very survival. Butby 1944 it had a leadership that was able to wield it with lethal effect and with far more effective equipment than before. By contrast, the Wehrmacht had commenced a slow process of decline after the invasion of the Soviet Union.Hitler became increasingly unwilling to delegate decision-making to commanders in the field, which had been crucial to earlier success. The long years of fighting had also taken a heavy toll. Thousands of irreplaceable junior officers and NCOs were dead, wounded or prisoners.Renowned Eastern Front expert Prit Buttar expertly brings these contrasting fortunes to life, trends which culminated in the huge battles of Bagration. As this masterful study conclusively shows, in 1944 the Red Army finally puttogether a campaign that utterly destroyed the German Army Group Centre. The Wehrmacht suffered the loss of over 300,000 men killed, wounded or taken prisoner and the Red Army rolled forward across Belarus to the outskirts ofWarsaw. The end of the war was still many months away, and the Germans managed to reconstruct their line on the Eastern Front, but final victory for the Soviet Union was now only a matter of time as a direct consequence of Bagration. About the Author:Prit Buttar studied medicine at Oxford and Londonbefore joining the British Army as a doctor. After leaving the army, he worked as a general practitioner. An established expert on the Eastern Front in 20th-century military history, his most recent titles include the critically acclaimed new history of the siege of Leningrad: To Besiege A City:Leningrad 1941–42 and Hero City: Leningrad 1943–44. He lives in Kirkcudbright, Scotland.

In the final weeks of the Second World War, as Soviet forces closed in on Berlin, tens of thousands of German soldiers and civilians found themselves encircled in what became known as the Halbe Pocket. In a desperate attempt to break out west and surrender to the Americans rather than the Soviets, brutal fighting erupted in the forests south of Berlin. The result was one of the bloodiest and most chaotic battles of the war's final days. Joining me is David Sumner. David is a British-German World War II historian and podcaster based in Berlin. He's the producer and host of Europe At War, a weekly podcast that explores lesser-known battles and stories of the Second World War, with a particular focus on the Eastern Front. You can find David at davidsumnerhistory.com.   patreon.com/ww2podcast  

The season 7 finale is here, and Kari and Jennifer are recapping it all. There's a lot to discuss from John and Oscar's reunion to the Chenford and Wopez crumbs. Grab a snack and relive the season 7 finale. News: 0:40 John, Harper, and Oscar: 23:12 Chenford & Lucy's New Schedule: 41:15 Angela & The Bank Robbery: 53:08 Miles' First Date & The Eastern Front: 1:05:35 Listener Thoughts: 1:16:57 Share your thoughts about these topics, episodes you'd like to see from us, and more by emailing Shop Talk at shoptalktherookiepodcast@gmail.com or following Shop Talk on Twitter(@TheShopTalkPod_), TikTok(@TheShopTalkPodcast_), and Bluesky(theshoptalkpod.bsky.social).  We also have merch that you can find here: https://shop-talk.dashery.com/ #TheRookie #Chenford #Wopez #Bailan

Having tasted defeat and now victory, Stalin wants more operations in southern Russia. And what he gets will change the course of the war on the Eastern Front. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The eastern front of the first world war was much busier than its western counterpart and the stakes for one nation were much higher. When the war finally ended with the Entente triumphant, Japan was poised to enjoy the advantages of supporting the winning side.Support the show My latest novel, "Califia's Crusade," is now available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Apple Books, Bookshop.org, and many other online platforms!

In Episode #60, we dive into one of the most brutal and decisive phases of World War II. What made the Battle of Stalingrad a nightmare for Hitler? How did the desert warfare in North Africa shape the fate of the war? And what was Operation Torch—and why was it a game-changer? From the fierce house-to-house fighting on the Eastern Front to Rommel's tactical genius in the sands of Libya, and the Allied landings in Morocco and Algeria, this episode unravels the battles that marked the beginning of the end for the Axis powers.Reference Material:The Second World War by John Keegan - https://www.amazon.com/Second-World-W...Hitler's Table Talk by Heinrich Heim - https://www.amazon.com/dp/191564514X?...The Second World War by Antony Beevor - https://a.co/d/buiOkUXInferno: The World at War by Max Hastings - https://www.amazon.com/Inferno-World-...The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War by Andrew Roberts - https://a.co/d/eiI4n3ZWorld War II: The Definitive Visual History by DK & Smithsonian Institution - https://a.co/d/eUNHC1xThe Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08RF19SJD?...The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003X4R6GQ?...Blitzed: Drugs in the Third Reich by Norman Ohler - https://a.co/d/iSX2XkrThe Raj at War: A People's History of India's Second World War by Dr. Yasmin Khan - https://a.co/d/4dtZEC5The Second World War by Martin Gilbert - https://a.co/d/cdYTb7rThe World at War Documentary  - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071075/ Dan Carlin Hardcore History - https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes and is based on historical research and open-source materials. It is not intended to glorify war or promote any political agenda.Keywords: ਸਟਾਲਿਨਗ੍ਰਾਦ ਦੀ ਲੜਾਈ, ਰੂਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਜੰਗ, ਉੱਤਰ ਅਫਰੀਕਾ ਯੁੱਧ, ਰੋਮਮਲ, ਡੇਜ਼ਰਟ ਫੌਕਸ, ਓਪਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਟੌਰਚ, ਅਫਰੀਕਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਲੈਂਡਿੰਗ, ਭਾਰਤੀ ਫੌਜੀ WW2, ਦੂਜੀ ਵਿਸ਼ਵ ਜੰਗ ਦੇ ਮੋੜ, ਐਲਾਈਡ ਹਮਲੇ, ਨਾਜੀ ਜਰਮਨੀ, ਰੂਸ ਜੰਗ 1942, ਸਟਾਲਿਨ, ਹਿਟਲਰ ਦੀ ਨਾਕਾਮੀ, Punjabi podcast WW2, ਇਤਿਹਾਸਕ ਪੋਡਕਾਸਟ, ਸਿੱਖ ਸੂਬੇਦਾਰ, Punjabi history podcast, WW2 turning points, Operation Torch Explained, Battle of Stalingrad podcast, North Africa WW2, Indian troops in Africa, #WW2History #Stalingrad #OperationTorch #Rommel #NorthAfricaWWII #IndianSoldiersWW2 #WWIIPodcast #PunjabiHistory #DesertFox #ThoughtProvoking #BestPunjabiPodcast #SecondWorldWar

Japan, NFL Draft, Eastern Front, Braveheart, Swamp Fox, Gladiator, Caesar, Planets, Napoleon, Rosa Parks, Jamestown, and more!You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/twistedhistory

Throughout the war on the Eastern Front, there were two consistent trends. The Red Army battled to learn how to fight and win, while involved in a struggle for its very survival. But by 1944 it had a leadership that was able to wield it with lethal effect and with far more effective equipment than before. By contrast, the Wehrmacht had commenced a slow process of decline after the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler became increasingly unwilling to delegate decision-making to commanders in the field, which had been crucial to earlier success. The long years of fighting had also taken a heavy toll. Thousands of irreplaceable junior officers and NCOs were dead, wounded or prisoners.Today’s guest is Prit Buttar, author of “Bagration 1944: The Great Soviet Offensive.” We look at these trends, which culminated in the huge battles of Bagration. In 1944, the Red Army finally put together a campaign that utterly destroyed the German Army Group Centre. The Wehrmacht suffered the loss of over 300,000 men killed, wounded or taken prisoner and the Red Army rolled forward across Belarus to the outskirts of Warsaw. The end of the war was still many months away, and the Germans managed to reconstruct their line on the Eastern Front, but final victory for the Soviet Union was now only a matter of time as a direct consequence of Bagration.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode, Tony Brueski digs into the chilling history of the Wolf's Lair, Adolf Hitler's heavily fortified Eastern Front headquarters nestled deep within the forests of Poland. It's a place where war strategies were crafted, alliances forged and broken, and where one of the most daring assassination attempts against the Nazi leader unfolded with devastating consequences. Tony uncovers the claustrophobic atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and ruthless ambition that once consumed the lair's concrete walls.  But the shadows of history may not have settled quietly.  Tony Brueski also explores the unnerving reports of ghostly soldiers patrolling the ruins, disembodied whispers in forgotten bunkers, and unexplained phenomena that continue to plague visitors to this day. Is it the result of lingering trauma, environmental triggers, or something far more chilling? Join us as we take a Paranormal Deep Dive into the Wolf's Lair.

On this episode, Tony Brueski digs into the chilling history of the Wolf's Lair, Adolf Hitler's heavily fortified Eastern Front headquarters nestled deep within the forests of Poland. It's a place where war strategies were crafted, alliances forged and broken, and where one of the most daring assassination attempts against the Nazi leader unfolded with devastating consequences. Tony uncovers the claustrophobic atmosphere of fear, paranoia, and ruthless ambition that once consumed the lair's concrete walls.  But the shadows of history may not have settled quietly.  Tony Brueski also explores the unnerving reports of ghostly soldiers patrolling the ruins, disembodied whispers in forgotten bunkers, and unexplained phenomena that continue to plague visitors to this day. Is it the result of lingering trauma, environmental triggers, or something far more chilling? Join us as we take a Paranormal Deep Dive into the Wolf's Lair.

For this episode, I am by Prit Buttar to discuss Operation Bagration—the massive Soviet offensive launched in the summer of 1944 that shattered the German Army Group Centre. While the D-Day landings in Normandy dominate the narrative of mid-1944, events on the Eastern Front were just as decisive, if not more so, in determining the course of the war in Europe.  Prit's latest book in his series looking at the Eastern Front during WWII is Bagration 1944: The Great Soviet Offensive.   patreon.com/ww2podcast  

This episode of the US Navy History Podcast covers significant events and battles in the southern theaters of World War I, focusing on regions such as the Balkans, the Eastern Front, Romania, Iran, and Italy. Host Dale and co-host Christophe, playfully bantering as they delve into the historical details, explore the impact of various campaigns, strategies, and outcomes. Key topics include the Serbian defense, Russian withdrawals, Italy's shifting alliances, the Ottoman Empire's maneuvers, and Romania's wartime experiences. The episode also honors Colonel Robert Gould Shaw and the valor of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment during the Civil War.usnavyhistorypodcast@gmail.com@usnhistorypod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Ships Store⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Hero Cards⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠the Grateful Nation Project — Hero Cards⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠navy-cycling.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

John Sweeney is a British investigative journalist and writer. He worked for The Observer newspaper, and the BBC's Panorama and Newsnight series. Sweeney ceased working for the BBC in October 2019, and is now reporting on the war in Ukraine, as well as creating a Daily war diary. Which I strongly advise you to watch if you've not seen it. He's also been working on a film, documenting the most brutal parts of the conflict – ‘The Eastern Front', which is released in June this year.----------SILICON CURTAIN FILM FUNDRAISERA project to make a documentary film in Ukraine, to raise awareness of Ukraine's struggle and in supporting a team running aid convoys to Ukraine's frontline towns.https://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extrashttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain/collections----------LINKS:https://www.johnsweeney.co.uk/https://twitter.com/johnsweeneyroarhttps://inews.co.uk/opinion/john-sweeney-vladimir-putin-chance-1972364https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/books/1736357/john-sweeney-ukraine-war-vladimir-putinhttps://pressgazette.co.uk/comment-analysis/john-sweeney-ukraine-front-line/-----BOOKS:Murder in the Gulag: The Life and Death of Alexei Navalny (2024)Killer in the Kremlin (2023)Putin's Prisoner: My Time as a Prisoner of War in UkraineTaking on Putin with John SweeneyThe Useful IdiotThe Church of Fear: Inside the Weird World of ScientologyHunting Ghislaine----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND:Save Ukrainehttps://www.saveukraineua.org/Superhumans - Hospital for war traumashttps://superhumans.com/en/UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukrainehttps://unbroken.org.ua/Come Back Alivehttps://savelife.in.ua/en/Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchenhttps://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraineUNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyyhttps://u24.gov.ua/Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundationhttps://prytulafoundation.orgNGO “Herojam Slava”https://heroiamslava.org/kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyślhttps://kharpp.com/NOR DOG Animal Rescuehttps://www.nor-dog.org/home/----------PLATFORMS:Twitter: https://twitter.com/CurtainSiliconInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/siliconcurtain/Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/4thRZj6NO7y93zG11JMtqmLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/finkjonathan/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------Welcome to the Silicon Curtain podcast. Please like and subscribe if you like the content we produce. It will really help to increase the popularity of our content in YouTube's algorithm. Our material is now being made available on popular podcasting platforms as well, such as Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

361Firm Briefing "End of Global Conflicts or Start of Something New?" (Feb25, 2025)SUMMARY KEYWORDSGlobal conflicts, economic uncertainty, UN resolution, Russia-Ukraine war, China-US rivalry, NATO modernization, Trump administration, defense spending, Middle East instability, South China Sea, energy independence, rare earth minerals, geopolitical instability, disruptive technologies, global governance.SPEAKERSStephen Burke, Andrew Fisch, Adam Blanco, Hamlet Yousef, Speaker 1, Mark Sanor, Maxwell Nee, Bill Deuchler, Speaker 2, Michael Hammer, Anthony GordonStephen Burke  00:00Which Putin thought went in quite quickly. It's been about 16 months since you had the attacks in Gaza on October 7 of 23 and you've had a little over a month since President Trump has returned to the and nothing's been the same since any of those days in the world yesterday, we had a good sense of that with the UN resolution, which basically said Russia didn't start the war in Ukraine. So I'm going to basically ask hamly to join to put some clarity into where the conflicts are going, and are we getting close to an end or the start of something new? Last week on our calls, unless nobody raised this question, and we had the view that this started something new Hamlet and I that we're not as close to the end as everyone would hope, certainly as close the end as President Trump was kind of indicating what's going on right now has created a highly elevated economic uncertainty, but also policy uncertainty around the world. This report is takes a look at newspaper mentions of uncertainty. It looks at shifts in government policy. And it looks at surveys of Professional Forecasters, and you can see the economic uncertainty today is higher than it was when the pandemic was going on, and significantly higher was than it was when Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2020, 2022, and what you can see here, this is a survey from an armed conflict survey, which actually looks at the human impact, and they define it by the number of fatalities due to violent events in a specific country, number of refugees originating in a select country, and the number of internally displaced people. So you can see the hardship that the conflicts around the world are extracting. But it's not just Ukraine and Gaza, it's many other places around the world, and that is actually stress and government abilities to deal with is in a spot where they're paddling 02:20free front Stephen Burke  02:22as we get here, I think this really comes down to a very simple fact that China has risen to a level that they are challenging the US for global leadership, and there's a conflict in how they resolve that shift. And I think we're also seeing the fact that United Nations, NATO and other post world war two institutions probably about live there, have outgrown what their original incentive was, and they need to be modernized to deal with a world that's very different than it was, not only post World War Two, but even 20 years ago, with China's rise and the rise of other nations as well. I think we've had a problem with bad leadership. I've talked about that in the past. It, to me, is one of the most scary issues we're facing is weak leaderships, making bad decisions that are short term oriented just about the next election cycle, and not dealing with the pain, the necessary pain that comes with making hard decisions, which has led to significant under investment in critical areas, then the last thing that led to what has us where we are today is really the Trump factor. And if you want to follow and understand what's ahead of us and what's going on right now. All you have to do is look at the 2024 Republican platform. And this is the play book that Trump follows. And whether you like him or hate him, one thing you should know about the Trump administration is he's going to try and do what he laid out in this platform, whether it's good policy or bad policy, in his mind, is good policy, and he's going to push forward with it. So even things that don't make sense, he's going to move forward with. He's also going to create a lot of conflicting statements that are going to be challenging for foreign leaders, for domestic CEOs, and for CEOs and business leaders around the world, and also for people investors trying to make strong investment decision. But understand these 20 points, because this is the play book that he is following right now. Global defense spending is on the rise, and we know that it's been carried over very heavily by the US, China and Russia, and purchasing power parity, you would see Russia and China spending over four $60 billion each last year. Europe combined spent a little less than a third of what the US has spent, and part of what the goal is is to get that increase accidentally. And ease some of the burden on the US, while a lot of people think it may be for them to redirect money to other areas, I think one of the challenges that the US has is there some modernization, rebuild, and to be able to be prepared for fighting on free front, where Russia is fighting on one right now in the Gaza, it's really Ukraine, and I'm sorry, Gaza, it's really Israel, and the US take on Iran and their proxies, and then you have what's going on in the South China Sea. The US cannot afford to fight China and three other than two other battles at once. And that's really what's weighing on the US, because number one on the US is mine, I believe is dealing with China, not dealing with Russia and the Middle East is more of a short term issue. The big longer term issue is the ascension of China, and how do we deal with that? But I think the other issue is because we're fighting in three fronts. Right now we're preparing to battle on three fronts. I think this quote from Finland foreign Prime Minister really is quite true. It's it's not reasonable right now for the US to be able to do this, whether it's not just financially, but practically, can we afford to do it? We don't have the military build up right now, and we've exhausted a lot of our military supplies being at work for most of the last 20 years. So European leaders are facing a very harsh reality right now. What you can see from this chart is defense spending as a proportion of GDP, and it shows how I balance it's been and those closes to the action either with migrants coming through or with being close supporters of Russia, or where the higher spend is, and the lower spend has been not coming through from the rest of Europe. And this is creating a big problem. As you can see, the demands for future spend are going to be much higher. They're talking about 3.7% or 5% and this is what additional spending would look like over the next decade. And this is coming at a time that most of these governments have massive demands from the domestic population that are go well beyond the defense spending that's going to help other parts of the world. But I think it was NATO had said the other day, if they don't get the 3.7% they better start learning Russia and Europe. I think that may be an extreme, but maybe not. This is a problem that chronic under investment has been going on for way too long, and the catch up is going to be the problem. And if we're doing better all along, this would be less of a burden, but it's coming at a particularly bad time, particularly moving up to the 4% level, and we don't have the benefits of free money that we had for the last 15 years. So we're in a tough spot in Europe. We're trying to figure out is, can trump force a settlement in on these people in different in different parts of the world? I'm skeptical of it. I don't think we're close to the end of a war. I mentioned that last week, but I asked Hamlet to join Hamlet, if you could just give a little bit of your background first, and then we'll jump into the Q and A, Hamlet Yousef  08:23yeah, that sounds good. Appreciate it. Looking forward to the conversation here so I could be there in person. My name is Hamlet. You said one of the managing partners at Iron Gate Capital Advisors. We're a defense tech focused venture fund. This thesis was built about six, seven years ago, when we thought that the world was going down a new direction, where the kind of the global war on terror was winding down. That's an issue that we're going to continue to have to deal with. But the near conflicts, or the issue that was going to face us, geo politically, was a re emergence of a second Cold War, or, if not, a much greater conflict. I think it was right after the Ukraine invasion. On one of the calls here with the folks at 360 I talked about how the world is going down, how the path of almost like a three act tragedy. Act one was going to be the invasion of Ukraine, and the destabilizing impact that was going to have in the region and globally. Act Two of this geo political tragedy was the emergence, or was going to be, the emergence, of a very belligerent Iran with a nuclear undertone, trying to destabilize the Middle East. And act three was the emergence that the kind of driving force behind this was a desire by xi and the Chinese Communist Party to become the only super power, not a super power, but the only super power, and supplant Western influence, job, which includes the US globally. Unfortunately, I think a lot of that has been happening just quick. Color again, on background. Prior to running Iron Gate, I had a long career in. In the federal government, in the national security, diplomacy and intelligence area. So this is an area that I've been pretty, pretty keen on and falling for a good chunk of my adult life. So I think Steven's earlier slide, or the opening slide, says very clearly I think this is the beginning of a much greater conflict. I do not think global peace is breaking out anytime in the near future. I think the three main hot wars, or the hot zones you see right now, Ukraine, the Israel, Gaza, Iran conflict, and the South China Sea and Southeast Asia. I think the tenor of those conflicts is going to change in the coming months and year. I think there is potentially, quote unquote, a a grand bargain that President Trump is going to try to strike to stabilize matters to a certain extent, but I think that's going to bring more of a kind of a calm before the eye of the storm, rather than ever lasting peace. So I'll start, I'll stop there. And then, Steve, I guess, let me know in what direction you want to take the Q, a Mark Sanor  11:06Can I ask a question. Steven, can you hear me? Yeah. Long day, Mark, did you see this veto coming and the and the the way the alignment is shifting with Trump and Putin. Hamlet Yousef  11:21Oh, the UN ve though, as far as negating the UN the resolution, yeah, no, I definitely do not see that coming. I think the one thing that is going to be probably very predictable for the next four years is unpredictability, loan or hate him. I think Trump style of governance and leadership is to completely upset the apple cart, create chaos and operate through it, whether that's through willful intent or just that's how he operates. So I'll leave that for another call. So I don't think anybody saw that coming. To be honest with Mark Sanor  11:58you, the questions from from others. Oh, Michael, you're you're on mute. Steve. Michael Hammer, sure, Michael Hammer  12:12more of a comment than a question. I mean, yesterday, I felt like I was in a bizarro world where the US voted with Russia and North Korea against allies of 80 years. This is crazy. So my comment on this is, and I've, I've been speaking with friends in Europe who are involved with government and the military, and some folks here in the States, everybody is in shock. And the sense that I get from the Europeans is we are going to see a schism between the US and Europe, and they're going to be going towards a war time economy. Most folks are denying it these days, but this is huge. And I think China is just sitting there, xi is just sitting there laughing at what's going on, because it all falls in their favor. And I'll stop with that. What do you think you said? That Speaker 1  13:24was actually a question I had. Do you think China wants any of these words to end as Trump Hamlet Yousef  13:32does? I honestly, I don't know. I don't know. I think, I think China benefits through continued destabilization. I think what China wants to do is, he wants to weaken all powers, so a prolongment of a conflict in Ukraine. Kind of help? Help helps. Help does that? It distracts the West and the US in Eastern Europe, and it continues to weaken Russia to a certain extent, which is, I think what G wants, I think Xi's ultimate goal is to expand his influence in southeast China and potentially in the Nepali step. So the weaker your adversaries become, the stronger you become. One dynamic to consider is a good chunk of the first Cold War. The West really try to keep the two communist powers apart in terms of China and Russia. What's happened over the last couple of years, obviously, is you have this formation of an access of authoritarianism between Xi Putin and the regime inside Iran. So almost the exact opposite is happening. But to me, I think this is where xi sees these nations as his quote, unquote, proxy allies in a longer term effort to destabilize the US and the West and to assert their dominance in the region. But I don't think that's going to end well for a whole host of reasons. I'm still, I think, very skeptical on how long. This, this g Putin romance remains, and I want to point to just a couple of anecdotal observations, kind of at the height of the explosion of the Ukraine war. This is going back to September 2023 Xi made a tour, I believe, throughout the the scans the former Soviet states and began courting these, these nations of which a large chunk of them are Asiatic in their in their ethnicity and makeup. I think this is an effort for him to pull those folks away from the Vlad and closer to his ring of influence, the Chinese have a very long memory, and I think they view things almost like you heard this before, in a centuries long optic, not an election cycle like we do in the West. I don't think they fully forgotten or or forgave what happened to them at the back end of the Opium Wars, and that was an effort that they blame squarely, obviously, on Europe. But in 1850 1860 when the war ended, out of Manchuria, better known as Siberia today, was annexed by the Russians away from China, and is now part of the Russian government, or Russia the entity. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to see to say that at some point, Xi doesn't want to look at the lands to his north that are grossly under populated, grossly under defended, and rich of natural resources as an area that he can eventually march into. So he hear the quote that I think McCain, Senator McCain first coined, that Russia is not nothing out of the big gas station for China. I think there's some truth and merit in there. So if this conflict continues, and I think it's going to China actually benefits, now, I do think there's a greater, an increasing probability that we have some sort of a grand bargain or an agreement between Putin in the west and potentially China, where you'll see a near term cease of the firing and the fighting in Ukraine. But that's that doesn't mean global peace is breaking out and the conflict is over. If anything, I think what you see happening is, if that does happen, Ukraine is not ready to give up that land. Russia is not going to retreat and give back Eastern Don Boston in Crimea. So I think what you have is potentially a formation of almost like an East Germany, West Germany that we had at the end of the Second World War. From there, we had a decades long Cold War where both sides are starting to destabilize the other. So if you play this out and Putin does get to hold on to the lands that he sold Eastern in eastern Ukraine, I think he then spends the next decade trying to destabilize Odessa, trying to destabilize Kyiv, trying to put his own proxy, or his own person in charge, and then continue with that Western influence that he wants, in terms of reforming, reconstructing that western border. He's doing the same thing in the caucuses. So that, I think, changes the 10 of the conflicts. It may end the near term direct conflict in Ukraine, but I don't think by any means that's going to be the beginning of the 18:17end. Andrew fish, do you want to ask your question? Andrew Fisch  18:20Yeah, Hamlet, you're involved, obviously, in military acquisition technology, the push for getting Europe to spend more, you know, still kind of a slow, slow move, but, but one of the issues is spending it on what? So I'm just going to give you, like, an analogy, and then what you answer the question. So if you take Poland, Poland has ramped up their military acquisition, and they're not worried where it comes from. They're buying Korean tanks, they're buying American weapons, they're buying anything and get their hands on, I think Jack, I think even Japanese jets, whatever. The point is, they're doing it quickly. The other nations upping their expenditure. They didn't spend any money for so long, their military industrial infrastructure. And you comment on this is not ready to ramp up and and they don't want to just buy American so how much would they have to spend to do a Poland like catch up? And is that even possible? Hamlet Yousef  19:32Yeah, great question. Look, I think, I think you're starting to see the awakening of this defense tech initiative throughout Europe. It's something that I think shock the system in 2016 to 2020 under Trump's first term. I think the explosion of the conflicts on Europe's eastern flank is sending shock waves throughout the continent. You are starting to see all the countries. Us, for the most part, wake up and start allocating more and more dollars. I think there's a bit of a variance in terms of what that percentage of GDP needs to look like, is going up and exponentially for it was 456, years ago. But this is also something that the US wasn't necessarily all that worried about when we first started our fun thes just six, seven years ago, defense tech and defense investing was this kind of back water thesis that nobody cared about. It's all the rage right now here, inside the US, there's, every time you turn around, there's another venture fund or growth equity fund or a private capital source that has Defense Innovation dual use defense tech as part of their thesis. So it is becoming a key area of focus and spend for us here in the US. Well, you seen that same thing start happening in Europe over the last several years, where more and more countries are shifting focus on on the need to drive innovation and technology and and spend in their defense sector. Now, in terms of dollars. You gotta understand the economics of warfare have changed, and this is a thing so the people have not fully grasped and understood. What I mean by that is the wars of having to march columns of tanks and airplanes and ships into a theater to win. That's that's changing, if not, fully ended. And I think the world is starting to realize what does disrupt the technologies mean, and how is that reshaping the battlefield. So examples here, if you look at what happened at the at the beginning of the Ukraine war, you had a column of of arms and in tanks and in armored vehicles that was marching on Kyiv, and this is where everyone thought the key was going to fall within 40 hours and and the war is over, you had a couple billion or billion dollars of armament those, those heading down for Kyiv, and he had a handful of Ukrainian special forces bouncing around on ATVs drones and some explosive ordinances, couple million dollars worth of overhead and cost, and that was able to nullify billions of dollars worth of armaments. Look at what happens in or what's happening right now, in, in, in the Red Sea, you have the Houthis, who have no real economic base, and they're launching hundreds of in expensive drones towards global shipping, and they're shutting down global shipping to a certain extent, in that part of the country or in that part of the world, and they're spending a couple million dollars in the US. In return is deploying a couple of billion dollars worth of ships and airplanes and rockets and knock down a couple pieces of flying lawn mowers, is what it seems like. So that's not sustainable. Look what happened in Ukraine. About six months ago, you had a handful of Ukrainians with a couple million dollars of modified jet skis with explosives put onto them in a remote control device, literally sink and nullify half of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. So the economics of war are changing, and I think we're starting to grasp and understand what that means to control a battlefield in a conventional war. Two of the things you need to do is you need to control the skies, and ideally, you need to be able to control the seas. In order to do that, you need to field trillions of dollars, or deploy trillions of dollars to create and manage a comprehensive Air Force and a navy. But with where things are going in terms of drone warfare and the collapsing cost of drones, you're starting to get to the point now where nation states that traditionally could not field an Air Force or a Navy are able to basically replicate and recreate that same kind of effect for pennies on the dollar. So I wouldn't necessarily focus as much on on the spend in terms of percentage of GDP and how big that war chest needs to be, because you get to understand the technology and the tools and the platforms that are going to be needed to reshape and kind of win this, this concept of the 21st century is changing because the economics of war, sharing of warfare, completely changed. 24:13Bill, the other question, Bill Deuchler  24:16here we go. Yeah. I was wondering if Hamlet, in particular, if, if you saw the interview with Marco Rubio and Cathryn herring, I think it was just the other day, it was on, I saw it rep posted on The Rubin Report that That, to me, was quite interesting. It seemed almost like not even real politic, but like real economic in terms of that's those are the terms of the deal that we're trying to push through, and at the same time, get peace between Ukraine and Russia. And any thoughts on that one? Well, Speaker 2  24:57I missed that interview or the specific term. They discuss, what so the the top levels that he discussed, yeah, Bill Deuchler  25:03it was, it was fascinating because it really centers pretty much all around the rare earths opportunity and negotiations. Essentially, the way that it boiled down for me is that if, if Ukraine is willing or to to give us a piece of that pie. We will come in, you know, with the full weight of everything that we have, and sort of demand a piece. But the price of that is, is absolutely an economic interest in their rare earth production. Hamlet Yousef  25:39Yeah, like, I mean, there isn't a single piece of modern technology that functions without some some critical minerals or rare earths in China for a better part of 20 plus years, has been slowly trying to monopolize that segment, in that sector. So it would make sense for us to say, Listen, if we come in and kind of help help moderate or help bring about peace, one of the things we want to return is access to those critical materials and minerals. So to strike that kind of a bargain, to me, doesn't, doesn't, doesn't. To me, seen out of the ordinary. But just think about it though. Let's just kind of play this out. If there is a grand bargain and there is, quote, unquote peace between Ukraine and Russia. In return, we get access to we the US and the West get access to rares and critical materials and minerals that basically make our function, or make our society function, not to mention play a key part in basically every piece of modern defense like that's out there. That's a good thing from a stabilization standpoint. But again, it does not mean the conflict is over. I don't think that that Xi broke up one day and decided up to upset the apple car. I don't think Putin woke up one day and decided to mark March westward and kind of light Eastern Europe on fire. I think both of these guys, to a certain extent, have been operating off the same sheet of music, which is expanding their influence in the region and replacing, not counter balancing, but replacing western US influence. So just because there is a cessation of or ceasing in the conflict, direct conflict of shooting each other in eastern Ukraine, I think the 10 minutes that conflict do not go away. That's why I think we are kind of in the beginnings of a much greater conflict. The difference is going to be, it's going to it's going to turn from being a a war where people are shooting each other to a more cognitive warfare campaign, more than a regular warfare campaign, which is exactly what we had in the Cold War. The role that technology is going to play in this is, I think, disruptive technologies. When you're talking about artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, counter, drone technologies, drone platforms, swarms, quantum cyber security, space based platforms and communications network all this, to me, is analogous to what nuclear was in the first Cold War. The West and Russia got to a point of detent because there was this massive arms race around nuclear, and each side began to realize that this thing ever went to war, nobody wins, because the Arsenal on both ends is so debilitating that conflict was not an issue. Conflict was not a solution. And I think what's going to happen now, where we're going right now is we're going through that same kind of disruptive, technology driven arms race, where it is going to be a foundation, where detent is going to be the focal area, where, okay, the US and the West is such an incredible arsenal of autonomous and robotics and swarms, as does Russia, as us as does China, then conflict is not an issue. So if that's the case, then I think what you need, you need to understand you have the foundations for each very sound, strong economic base. Because if you have a foundation for a strong sound economic base, you have a strong foundation for political base. If you have that, then you have a nation. You don't have those two, then you think you see the potential for an erosion of a nation to be able to function. And that's kind of what happened with the Soviet Union, is, is we did not get into a physical conflict. We prolong the cognitive warfare long enough to allow the constructive powers of Western democracy and Western society to prevail, and to allow for the corrosive powers and authoritarian regime, or communism, in this case, to collapse. And I think we're gonna see that same exact thing play out over the next 20 years, Bill Deuchler  29:34if I could follow up just real quick on a point, on a whole bunch of points that you made. You think that that the economics and the political points that you've brought up are driving us and or making it easier to become much more of a multi polar world, as opposed to a unipolar world, which is pretty much what we have now. Yeah. Hamlet Yousef  30:00Good question, if, like, if I became for the day, I think the future of global society is, is almost like an expansion of the original American model, where you have a network of independent states that have agency and authority to do to whatever they want at the local level, and they're working under a set of ground rules that basically puts us in the same sheet of music. That's what the foundation the US was supposed to be. And that's, I think, where we were heading for a good part of our history. And I think over the last probably couple election cycles, we're starting to VA slate of whether we want to go to a form of governance and government that is based on strong, centralized authority, or do we want to revert back to what we were, which is a bunch of Independent States? I think if you look at what's going to happen globally, I think globally, we're facing that same kind of decision, whether it's Europe or Asia. Countries are starting to have to decide what kind of future do they want? Do they want to have a future of independent agency and autonomy, or do they want to be under a bit of a centralized state authority? And this is where I think it comes back into play, which is what the CCP wants, and is desires is they want to be the leader of a movement or an effort where you have a couple of strong centralized states or entities that help drive global governance and all kind of report back into a central authority, or, in this case, Beijing, where I think the opposite is, what, where I would hope, and I would think the West wants to go to, is we can all be a bunch of independent nation states. Nationalism is perfectly okay. We're all going to operate off the same sheet of music. There's going to be some bit of of basic ground rules and norms. We're going to intertwine our economies and our societies to to extent that there's going to be a greater bit of self, a great bit of of a reliance upon each other, where conflict is not an issue, or conflict is not an option. So, and I use that to kind of articulate what it means here in the US. 2020 to 2020 24 is all the rage. All we're getting to a set and we get we're going down a path of civil war. No, we're not. Because, I mean, if you, if you, if you Canvas this room, if you Canvas any room in the US, depending on the part of the world you're on, anywhere from 5050, 6047, 30 people are on one side of the political aisle or the aisle. We may agree and disagree with a great ton of vitriol, but our society as a country, I think, so well intertwined that we're going to find our way to sort our issues out and resolve it and not get into conflict. My hope and my desire is to see the same thing happen globally, where you don't have a central authority that's dictating governance and dictating authority and rule, you have a bunch of independent nation states highly nationalistic doing whatever they want, as long as it doesn't encro on your neighbors, as long as it doesn't come at a level of conflict to get there, I think would require for us to to a certain extent, begin to intertwine our economies, inter society and culture, where there is going to be a reliance on each other, but without authority. Hopefully, that makes sense. Yeah, 33:14no. Thank you. This Mark Sanor  33:17is fascinating. Wait, Bill, I like the art behind you. Three years ago, two days, our community gathered every single day, 7:30am because we came to Ukraine, Ukraine, I'm wondering, because we're just trying to also that was more of like help. I feel like we're adding a moment where a weekly meeting isn't good enough. This is so happening very fast. If you were to form a panel with diverse opinions, I'd like you to think about who would you invite to this next discussion? Definitely on Tuesday, we should be almost meeting twice a week. Steve is like going to prepare for No, no. I mean, we do this anyways, but I feel like we're this is happening very quick. Now you've got the 24 point playbook. We should just read that play book 20 points. But I feel like you're a great resource. I'd like to bring some others to the table in a 360 like style. And I know as a few people, they didn't want to be on record today, that's an issue, so maybe some private gatherings. But we're all here today to figure out how to we all agree on tech transformation, yeah, but geo political context, where do you do that? And but bigger picture, just like mechanically, of how our community should be? Nothing in Hamlet Yousef  35:02each other like I've been I've been tapped to speak to a couple of other groups like this, where it's a syndicate of thought leaders, business leaders and community leaders that began very US centric, but things very quickly morph into an international network of of vested capitalist Michael, better word, I think it's important for us to continue that conversation. I'll go on the record here in terms of my politics. I do not believe in a strong, centralized government. I think government is something that we elect to help kind of manage this enterprise. But I think society should be run in a bit of an open architecture, where industrialist, investors, people of influence, capitalists, are working together to create an open market of free and fair competition, and kind of let the let the winners go from there. So the more engagement, the more dialog we have with stakeholders in the US, but obviously in Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia. I think it's critical, because I wanted to make sure that this concept of We the People, which was the foundation of the US system, is something we export to the world. It's we, the people mindset of we're going to take agency and authority and control over our future and try to create a network of intertwined business, personal and social relationships that allow us all to benefit. If there's conflict, we'll sort our shit out. But sorting that out won't happen through direct conflict of warfare. It won't happen through through engagement and dialog. 36:45We haven't touched on the Middle East. 36:49Yeah, so look the Middle Hamlet Yousef  36:52East. The Middle East is an issue China, China and Russia, to me, represent some significant strategic challenges that we need to we need to fix full bias. I was born in Iran, came here to the US, and I lived through the Iranian revolution. So my comments here are 100% bias against the Iranian regime. I abhor them, but I also view the regime inside Iran as the single most grave threat near term to political, geo political stability and peace in the world, primarily because you have a regime right now that's being run by a very narrow group of people who not only view and want to run it as a theocratic state, but their specific SEC of ideology in Shia, Islam believes in the the ascendancy of the hidden Imam, or the return of the hidden Imam that happens on the region When the region is is under complete turmoil and chaos. That's not who you want to have becoming nuclear power. And I think the failure of the West over the last 20 years is a failure to understand that it is that is who is in charge of Iran. That's not who you want in charge of Iran when the country becomes a nuclear state. On the positive side. I think the Middle East, more than ever, is on the precipice of a significant Renaissance, Geo, politically and economically. I think if you look at the the Arabs, if you look at the folks inside Iran, not represented by the government, you look at Turkey, Israel, demographics are in their favor, and I think you have the potential for massive growth in the region. The issue there, obviously, is the Iran piece, and it's going to be interesting to see what happens over the next, next couple months. I think, no doubt, Trump did not agree with the the Obama approach to Iran, which was, I want to get his assets also recall. But I think he obviously put a max pressure campaign on Iran in 2016 and 2020 I would not be surprised to see obviously a return of that. Because I do think if you look at the regime inside Iran is it is on very thin ice, and actually it's very similar to Putin and Xi. All three are authoritarian regimes that don't have a thick foundation of stability below them, but with Iran, if you do get regime change inside Iran, you're not going to get exactly what we want. You might get more of a Russia style cryptocracy or oligopoly that's going to run the country. But what you do, and what you should get, hopefully, is a removal of of the shia sect that has almost like an End Times view of the world. Now you're stuck with a regime that is not, maybe not ideal when it comes. Of human rights, but is one. It's not hell bent on light in the Middle East on fire. That's the issue I think we're facing near term here with Iran. Speaker 1  40:11And can we shift gears to the South China Sea and your thoughts on where we are there? And what does it mean, given how the US spread sales and fighting these multiple conflict phase, these things resolving themselves over in South China Sea and Taiwan, Hamlet Yousef  40:31yeah. Well, depending who you listen to, the South China Sea is going to turn into a hot war as early as 2025 2026, 2030 the list is pretty wide in terms of where the one of the speculation is going to be. The one thing that gives me a little bit of hope is, is China and generally, is not a a country that likes to fight directly. Their view, I think, is more indirect. So, yes, there's a threat of them, one day, waking up tomorrow, invading Taiwan. It's a real, real threat that we need to be obviously concerned with. But I think one of the things that they've seen, and this has been a lesson learned for Xi, and it's probably why he wanted Putin to go first in terms of a in nation state land grab, is he wanted to see what global cancel culture was going to look like on a geopolitical stage. And he saw that, but he also saw is it's not easy to conquer another country, and this is a flat terrain where you got a bunch of embeds within eastern Ukraine to help you win that war. And Russia has had a pain, and there a lot of difficulty in doing that. Taiwan has been getting ready for this for decades, and it's a it's an island. So invading an island is a lot more difficult than invading a sovereign piece of territory that's flat. So I think what China is probably going to try to do is much more of a longer term campaign in terms of what they've done with Hong Kong, which is the slow as fixation of trying to bring the Taiwanese into their fold. So do I think the South China Sea is going to go hot. God, I hope not do. I think you have a potential for hot conflicts, whether it's with the Philippines or other, other, other, other fires. And the reason, I think that's that's a real concern, the dynamic that would change that, though, is if you have a rapid decline or ascension of challenge to xi, because xi is the Communist Party, is no longer what rules China. I think what Xi has done over the last several years is very quickly consolidate power. This is no longer a country that's run by a single party. It's a country that's run by a single individual. At some point, xi is going to have to deal with some part truths driven by collapsing demographics or collapsing real estate sector, migration of jobs out of China, and real pressures on their economic foundation. At some point, 1.3 billion Chinese people are going to wake up and realize that, though they were on the path to being part of the global economy in a in a major power house, they're facing some significant issues that have been mismanaged by one person in that g1, point 3 billion people. If you look at the Communist Party and the folks that are around g keep it in power. Estimate is estimate. Estimates range anywhere from a couple million to 20 to 30 million people. 30 million people. So if things get really bad at home, that's when I think you have a risk of xi doing something stupid, which is going after the South China Sea. In terms of the conflict, I think there's probably a greater chance that Xi actually marches north and starts constituting land back in his favor in Siberia than he does heading inside into the South China Sea. Hope I'm right on that one, but we'll see. Speaker 1  43:47So we have, we have a hard stop Mark told me at nine. So going to rapid fire some questions. So short questions and a quick answer. So Adam first. Michael, up. Adam Blanco  44:05Thank you. Steven Hamlet, always a pleasure listening to you always while reading your stuff, too. Thank you. My question to you is your thoughts on the negotiations with Putin Trump has literally given away a number of negotiating chips, such as having the discussions with Putin, giving him status as as legitimate leader, inviting him to the g7 How do you explain that? Can you do you have insight on Hamlet Yousef  44:43that? I do not. I'm not going to begin to try to figure out how Trump operates. Like I said, I think if you look at his style, to a certain extent, He probably likes to operate in a world of chaos, doing the unconventional. That's That's who he is. He's not. A refined political savan who's been a political operator for decades. He is what he is. He is a shrewd, hard, charging negotiator who cut his teeth in probably the most brutal fight there is, which is New York real estate. I think he's bringing, he's bringing his style and his 10 minutes to that if I was president, is that the approach I would take? Probably not. I'd probably take a different approach. But he's the guy who's in charge right now, and this is the the style he's taken. And I think to a certain extent, it's, it's, it's, it's unconventional, to put it mildly, is it going to work? Look, obviously, he's betting it is in that kind of a style, though, if you do like to operate through chaos and uncertainty, you can't look at every action and judge it in a vacuum. You got to understand that this is one movement many. So I would think, in his mind, this is a way of getting to some sort of near term physical piece, while allowing us to work on a much greater, grander piece, which is hopefully the removal of these authoritarian misfits in xi, in Putin and in the regime that's inside Iran. And this is, I think, the beginning steps of it. What that means, going back to Stephen's earlier slide, is geopolitical instability, I think, is just beginning. It's not ending anytime soon. Yeah, 46:25I would agree with that. Maxwell Nee  46:29Max, yes. Hi everyone. Max will here from Singapore, really appreciate this earlier call. So you know, feels like Hamlet we've been in, you know, conflicts. I don't know ping pong for just forever, but I remember distinctly there was a period where this sort of stuff just wasn't happening over and over and over again. So I guess my question is like, what do you think you would take for all of this conflict, ping pong, to start to dissipate, and for the war to get back to what some of us might remember 10 years ago? You're Hamlet Yousef  47:15not going to like the answer, more conflict. And I don't more conflict in terms of more war, but I think a conflict in ideology. We're not going back to where we came from, if anything. I think within with the last couple years and the next couple of years represents is basically the end of the world war two era as we've known it. I think world is the world is about to change as we know it, between 1890 and 1950 the world changed. You had the rise and fall as you had, I'm sure. You had the fall the British Empire. You had the rise of the US, the US as a superpower. You had a complete balkanization and factoring of the Middle East and Eastern Europe. You had two world wars. You had a pandemic and you had a global market crash. The world went from the horse and buggy and oil power to lamp to the nuclear age and landing on the moon. All that happened in 60 years. Disruptive technologies were, I think, a key driver that had significant impact on geo politics and global governance. We're going through that same kind of innovation cycle and change right now, but it's not going to take 60 years for this to sort itself out. I think it's going to take probably the next 10 years, which means massive, massive, massive, massive amounts of geo political instability and uncertainty and change. I think we can come through this, but I think it's imperative for private capital and leaders within industry to be attached to hit so we can navigate this as allocators and as investors. If you do the kind of a long term buy and hold approach that had worked in in the prior 67 years, you're not going to do well if you're plugged in and if you're informed, and you're trying to develop information edge and advantage, and you can allocate in a very, very nimble, focused fashion, I think there's an opportunity for significant wealth creation in The next 10 minutes. Thank you. We're 49:22going to, we have to 49:26Anthony Oh, one part question, only one question. Anthony Gordon  49:35Oh, yeah. Well, first, there is no one question, because, as we know, it's extra inextricably linked, content, impetus wise, etc, so I'll ask it, and then just cut me off, etc. So basically, and forgive me if I didn't hear my memory short, I didn't hear talk about energy independence, us. And so I would say that there is a forward during the course of time that you. But you know you described. And so the question is, if I'm correct, does some form of us, energy independence, create a change into this forward mantra Trump as a headline is less or no war, right? And so what does that actually mean? And then how the fact that China has put down its roots into the rare earth minerals in Africa. And then how does that feed from that north up into the south? And then lastly, in that regard, Europe, which is part of the impetus for this, from whether it's Mid East or the gas prom cut off. How does that now play into it. I'm just trying to create these tangible things. Means. And then the other thing I didn't hear is that what I would say is not necessarily a 70 style resurgence, but there is clearly a lot of disruption. 50:58Alright, I love you. I will answer that. I'm Hamlet Yousef  51:04reading lip sir, I think no, but great, great, multi part question. I think it actually answered back and tie a lot of these pieces together. First of all, I think China has some significant issues. I think what China has done over the last 20 years through their Belt and Road Initiative is they put out a lot of money and influence throughout the world to basically to colonize is exactly what they've done, physically and financially. They're taking over nations and resources. That's no different than being a predatory pay day loan provider. And I think what's starting to happen in the Global South and Latin America, particularly as well as Africa, I think you have nations are starting to wake up and read the finer details of the loan docs that they signed and realize that they're royally screwed. But what's starting to happen is, I think you're starting to see and I think you will see more of these nations begin to default and basically tell China to go pound sand. That opens up the opportunity for Western capital, both European and US, to come in and start partnering with local families, local industrials in the global south who want to rebuild and reshape their country and want to bring in that Western style capital. The issue there with China is, if all these countries begin to default, that is going to significantly accelerate the pressures that xi is going to have at home, which, going back to, I said earlier, could be a trigger for Xi becoming more desperate, more violent, if he faces him in a collapse at home. In terms of energy independence in the US, I think, under the under the current administration, and hopefully going forward, energy independence is gonna be a key foundation for the US. I am pretty bearish in terms of geo political instability in the near term, the next 1015, years. I think as a society, we can come out of this, but we gotta sort our own stuff out. If I look at near shore or kind of what's happening in the Western Hemisphere, I think there's a real opportunity for the creation of a super economic base or a super power in close collaboration between Canada, the US and Mexico, and I think eventually that movement can move out throughout the Americas. I don't say I don't care about what's happening, what's happening the rest of the world, or Europe or Asia. I do, but I think there's a real opportunity for there to be almost a bit of self reliance, at least in North America, if not throughout throughout South America. On the European front, I think Europe is going to have to go through their own kind of growing pains here. I think the European model of creating the EU and the EC thing worked on paper. I think it failed in execution. I think they're going to have some some serious issues. Again, they're going to sort through, not only economic but also geo political ly and from a demographic standpoint. So I think Europe is, I think they're probably entering, entering their quote, unquote lost decade, where they're going to have to find a way to soul search and fear or figure out what their form of of self self reliance and self governance is going to be, and what scares the shit out of them is you have a belligerent bear on the Eastern Front that wants to march westward. So Germany, I think, is is deflated. And I think who comes out very strong in this process is, is, I think Poland. I think Poland now is probably positioned to become one of the de facto leaders in Europe, because they're massively spending on their own self reliance and autonomy and defense, and they view themselves as kind of the guardians or the plug that's initially going to prevent that western expansion by by Putin. I think that that address all the questions you had or points you brought up. Stephen Burke  54:47Michael, I'm sorry at the nine o'clock mark, so next week, please, and Hamlet, thanks very much. Any closing thoughts for you, Hamlet, Hamlet Yousef  54:59I'm near term. Near term bearish, long term bullish. And I think the future is in our hands as leaders in capital industry. I think we need to work together and create this, this network of inter reliance of capital. I think the future is very bright. I think the amount of innovation that's going to happen is going to reach reshape the way we live our lives. As a technology investor, I just hope that we continue to invest in technology that liberates and integrates and does not give authority and power to the central agency or central authority to control us, because that's what you have in China, but the future is in our hands at this point. Speaker 1  55:38Thank you very much. Great, great session, and we appreciate your providing the insight. Steve, thank you everyone. Speaker 2  55:47Thanks for the opportunity. We'll see bye you shortly. 56:02Simon, you on your way. Still live. 56:12Very good. You. You can subscribe to various 361 events and content at https://361firm.com/subs. For reference: Web: www.361firm.com/homeOnboard as Investor: https://361.pub/shortdiagOnboard Deals 361: www.361firm.com/onbOnboard as Banker: www.361firm.com/bankersEvents: www.361firm.com/eventsContent: www.youtube.com/361firmWeekly Digests: www.361firm.com/digest

First, a summary of Stalin's late winter, early spring 1942 counter attacks, along the entire Eastern Front. They mostly fail and cost hundreds of thousands of Soviet lives, but the Germans are checked once again. Then we turn to the Axis losing one of their own, in Operation Anthropoid. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Polish teenager Stefan Kosinski was beaten, tortured, and sent to prison. His crime? He fell in love with a Viennese soldier serving in the German army. When the soldier was sent to the Eastern Front, Stefan sent him a love letter, which was intercepted by the Nazis. Visit our episode webpage for additional resources, archival photos, and a transcript of the episode. For exclusive Making Gay History bonus content, join our Patreon community. ——— RG-50.030.0355, oral history interview with Teofil (Stefan) Kosinski, courtesy of the Jeff and Toby Herr Oral History Archive, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C. For more information about the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, go here. ——— To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The tide turned against the Axis and in favour of the Allies in the course of 1943. Victories at Stalingrad in Russia, in the Battle of the Atlantic, and in North Africa, came on top of American advances in the Pacific, from island to island towards Japan. That relieved some of the pressure on the British government, that had been coming under fire for the all the disasters of 1942: the shipping losses in the Battle of the Atlantic, the loss of Burma and Malaya culminating in the fall of Singapore, and the Eighth Army's retreat in front of Rommel in North Africa. Within the British government, things had changed since the start of the war, with the Conservatives Chamberlain and Halifax gone, as well as the poorly performing Labour Deputy Leader, Arthur Greenwood. Churchill and Attlee, so different in personality, had found an effective working relationship, with Attlee now officially Churchill's deputy, and deeply loyal to him. Attlee supported his boss on the big questions, such as the strategic bombing campaign against Germany, now considerably stepped up with the arrival of the Americans. That campaign was increasingly targeting civilians, making it arguably a war crime, or even simply terrorism, but it continued even though it never achieved its aim of breaking German morale. What it did do is divert a significant amount of German airpower from the Russian front to German home defence. The North African campaign had a similar effect: small scale though it was, it sucked in German troops who might otherwise have fought in Russia, and it cost the Luftwaffe dearly, helping the Soviets gain air superiority on the Eastern Front, as the Brits and the Americans won it in the West. Where Attlee differed from Churchill was over questions such as India. A terrible new famine in Bengal, handled with callousness by Churchill, ensured that the question of Indian independence remained a burning one. Attlee was also under pressure from his own party, with Labour demanding that the government adopt as immediate policy the Beveridge report, proposing major reforms to ensure the poor and workers emerged better off when Britain reconstructed itself after the war. Attlee resisted the pressure, since he felt that it was important to hold the Churchill government together, making only small changes until it had won the war, and saving the major reforms for peacetime. Illustration: The Cathedral of Lübeck in Germany burning after an air raid in 1942. Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1977-047-16, released for free public use. Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

As he prepared to wage his war of annihilation on the Eastern Front, Adolf Hitler repeatedly drew parallels between the Nazi quest for Lebensraum, or living space, in Eastern Europe and the United States's westward expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny. The peoples of Eastern Europe were, he said, his "redskins," and for his colonial fantasy of a "German East" he claimed a historical precedent in the United States's displacement and killing of the native population. Edward B. Westermann examines the validity, and value, of this claim in Hitler's Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest (University of Oklahoma Press, 2016). The book takes an empirical approach that highlights areas of similarity and continuity, but also explores key distinctions and differences between these two national projects. The westward march of American empire and the Nazi conquest of the East offer clear parallels, not least that both cases fused a sense of national purpose with racial stereotypes that aided in the exclusion, expropriation, and killing of peoples. Westermann evaluates the philosophies of Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum that justified both conquests, the national and administrative policies that framed Nazi and U.S. governmental involvement in these efforts, the military strategies that supported each nation's political goals, and the role of massacre and atrocity in both processes. Important differences emerge: a goal of annihilation versus one of assimilation and acculturation; a planned military campaign versus a confused strategy of pacification and punishment; large-scale atrocity as routine versus massacre as exception. Comparative history at its best, Westermann's assessment of these two national projects provides crucial insights into not only their rhetoric and pronouncements but also the application of policy and ideology "on the ground." His sophisticated and nuanced revelations of the similarities and dissimilarities between these two cases will inform further study of genocide, as well as our understanding of the Nazi conquest of the East and the American conquest of the West. 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

As he prepared to wage his war of annihilation on the Eastern Front, Adolf Hitler repeatedly drew parallels between the Nazi quest for Lebensraum, or living space, in Eastern Europe and the United States's westward expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny. The peoples of Eastern Europe were, he said, his "redskins," and for his colonial fantasy of a "German East" he claimed a historical precedent in the United States's displacement and killing of the native population. Edward B. Westermann examines the validity, and value, of this claim in Hitler's Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest (University of Oklahoma Press, 2016). The book takes an empirical approach that highlights areas of similarity and continuity, but also explores key distinctions and differences between these two national projects. The westward march of American empire and the Nazi conquest of the East offer clear parallels, not least that both cases fused a sense of national purpose with racial stereotypes that aided in the exclusion, expropriation, and killing of peoples. Westermann evaluates the philosophies of Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum that justified both conquests, the national and administrative policies that framed Nazi and U.S. governmental involvement in these efforts, the military strategies that supported each nation's political goals, and the role of massacre and atrocity in both processes. Important differences emerge: a goal of annihilation versus one of assimilation and acculturation; a planned military campaign versus a confused strategy of pacification and punishment; large-scale atrocity as routine versus massacre as exception. Comparative history at its best, Westermann's assessment of these two national projects provides crucial insights into not only their rhetoric and pronouncements but also the application of policy and ideology "on the ground." His sophisticated and nuanced revelations of the similarities and dissimilarities between these two cases will inform further study of genocide, as well as our understanding of the Nazi conquest of the East and the American conquest of the West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

As he prepared to wage his war of annihilation on the Eastern Front, Adolf Hitler repeatedly drew parallels between the Nazi quest for Lebensraum, or living space, in Eastern Europe and the United States's westward expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny. The peoples of Eastern Europe were, he said, his "redskins," and for his colonial fantasy of a "German East" he claimed a historical precedent in the United States's displacement and killing of the native population. Edward B. Westermann examines the validity, and value, of this claim in Hitler's Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest (University of Oklahoma Press, 2016). The book takes an empirical approach that highlights areas of similarity and continuity, but also explores key distinctions and differences between these two national projects. The westward march of American empire and the Nazi conquest of the East offer clear parallels, not least that both cases fused a sense of national purpose with racial stereotypes that aided in the exclusion, expropriation, and killing of peoples. Westermann evaluates the philosophies of Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum that justified both conquests, the national and administrative policies that framed Nazi and U.S. governmental involvement in these efforts, the military strategies that supported each nation's political goals, and the role of massacre and atrocity in both processes. Important differences emerge: a goal of annihilation versus one of assimilation and acculturation; a planned military campaign versus a confused strategy of pacification and punishment; large-scale atrocity as routine versus massacre as exception. Comparative history at its best, Westermann's assessment of these two national projects provides crucial insights into not only their rhetoric and pronouncements but also the application of policy and ideology "on the ground." His sophisticated and nuanced revelations of the similarities and dissimilarities between these two cases will inform further study of genocide, as well as our understanding of the Nazi conquest of the East and the American conquest of the West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/native-american-studies

As he prepared to wage his war of annihilation on the Eastern Front, Adolf Hitler repeatedly drew parallels between the Nazi quest for Lebensraum, or living space, in Eastern Europe and the United States's westward expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny. The peoples of Eastern Europe were, he said, his "redskins," and for his colonial fantasy of a "German East" he claimed a historical precedent in the United States's displacement and killing of the native population. Edward B. Westermann examines the validity, and value, of this claim in Hitler's Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest (University of Oklahoma Press, 2016). The book takes an empirical approach that highlights areas of similarity and continuity, but also explores key distinctions and differences between these two national projects. The westward march of American empire and the Nazi conquest of the East offer clear parallels, not least that both cases fused a sense of national purpose with racial stereotypes that aided in the exclusion, expropriation, and killing of peoples. Westermann evaluates the philosophies of Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum that justified both conquests, the national and administrative policies that framed Nazi and U.S. governmental involvement in these efforts, the military strategies that supported each nation's political goals, and the role of massacre and atrocity in both processes. Important differences emerge: a goal of annihilation versus one of assimilation and acculturation; a planned military campaign versus a confused strategy of pacification and punishment; large-scale atrocity as routine versus massacre as exception. Comparative history at its best, Westermann's assessment of these two national projects provides crucial insights into not only their rhetoric and pronouncements but also the application of policy and ideology "on the ground." His sophisticated and nuanced revelations of the similarities and dissimilarities between these two cases will inform further study of genocide, as well as our understanding of the Nazi conquest of the East and the American conquest of the West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

As he prepared to wage his war of annihilation on the Eastern Front, Adolf Hitler repeatedly drew parallels between the Nazi quest for Lebensraum, or living space, in Eastern Europe and the United States's westward expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny. The peoples of Eastern Europe were, he said, his "redskins," and for his colonial fantasy of a "German East" he claimed a historical precedent in the United States's displacement and killing of the native population. Edward B. Westermann examines the validity, and value, of this claim in Hitler's Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest (University of Oklahoma Press, 2016). The book takes an empirical approach that highlights areas of similarity and continuity, but also explores key distinctions and differences between these two national projects. The westward march of American empire and the Nazi conquest of the East offer clear parallels, not least that both cases fused a sense of national purpose with racial stereotypes that aided in the exclusion, expropriation, and killing of peoples. Westermann evaluates the philosophies of Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum that justified both conquests, the national and administrative policies that framed Nazi and U.S. governmental involvement in these efforts, the military strategies that supported each nation's political goals, and the role of massacre and atrocity in both processes. Important differences emerge: a goal of annihilation versus one of assimilation and acculturation; a planned military campaign versus a confused strategy of pacification and punishment; large-scale atrocity as routine versus massacre as exception. Comparative history at its best, Westermann's assessment of these two national projects provides crucial insights into not only their rhetoric and pronouncements but also the application of policy and ideology "on the ground." His sophisticated and nuanced revelations of the similarities and dissimilarities between these two cases will inform further study of genocide, as well as our understanding of the Nazi conquest of the East and the American conquest of the West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

As he prepared to wage his war of annihilation on the Eastern Front, Adolf Hitler repeatedly drew parallels between the Nazi quest for Lebensraum, or living space, in Eastern Europe and the United States's westward expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny. The peoples of Eastern Europe were, he said, his "redskins," and for his colonial fantasy of a "German East" he claimed a historical precedent in the United States's displacement and killing of the native population. Edward B. Westermann examines the validity, and value, of this claim in Hitler's Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest (University of Oklahoma Press, 2016). The book takes an empirical approach that highlights areas of similarity and continuity, but also explores key distinctions and differences between these two national projects. The westward march of American empire and the Nazi conquest of the East offer clear parallels, not least that both cases fused a sense of national purpose with racial stereotypes that aided in the exclusion, expropriation, and killing of peoples. Westermann evaluates the philosophies of Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum that justified both conquests, the national and administrative policies that framed Nazi and U.S. governmental involvement in these efforts, the military strategies that supported each nation's political goals, and the role of massacre and atrocity in both processes. Important differences emerge: a goal of annihilation versus one of assimilation and acculturation; a planned military campaign versus a confused strategy of pacification and punishment; large-scale atrocity as routine versus massacre as exception. Comparative history at its best, Westermann's assessment of these two national projects provides crucial insights into not only their rhetoric and pronouncements but also the application of policy and ideology "on the ground." His sophisticated and nuanced revelations of the similarities and dissimilarities between these two cases will inform further study of genocide, as well as our understanding of the Nazi conquest of the East and the American conquest of the West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies

“Where have all the quail gone?” is a common lament, especially as one progresses east of the 99th meridian (essentially US 283). The rather acute decline in quail abundance in the eastern Rolling Plains (i.e., from Clay County southward to Coleman County) over the past 20 years is a head-scratcher. Predators, parasites, habitat change, and others are often cited as culprits. Join Dr. Dale and Justin as they dissect the situation.

When Nazi Germany launched the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, its leadership made clear to the Wehrmacht that it was waging a "war of extermination" against Germany's enemies. This meant that normal military conduct in war was to be dispensed with and soldiers would act more in accordance with the precepts of Nazi ideology. During the brutal fighting on the Eastern Front, how did average German soldiers interpret the war they were fighting? David A. Harrisville seeks to answer this question in his book The Virtuous Wehrmacht: Crafting the Myth of the German Soldier on the Eastern Front, 1941-1944 (Cornell University Press, 2021). Through letters, diaries, and other primary documents written during the war itself, German soldiers portrayed themselves as "noble" warriors undertaking a "righteous" mission to rid the world of the evils of Soviet Communism. This would later form the basis of the "clean Wehrmacht" myth that prevailed in postwar German society.  David A. Harrisville is an independent scholar. He has held various academic positions, including, most recently, Visiting Assistant Professor of History at Furman University. 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

When Nazi Germany launched the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, its leadership made clear to the Wehrmacht that it was waging a "war of extermination" against Germany's enemies. This meant that normal military conduct in war was to be dispensed with and soldiers would act more in accordance with the precepts of Nazi ideology. During the brutal fighting on the Eastern Front, how did average German soldiers interpret the war they were fighting? David A. Harrisville seeks to answer this question in his book The Virtuous Wehrmacht: Crafting the Myth of the German Soldier on the Eastern Front, 1941-1944 (Cornell University Press, 2021). Through letters, diaries, and other primary documents written during the war itself, German soldiers portrayed themselves as "noble" warriors undertaking a "righteous" mission to rid the world of the evils of Soviet Communism. This would later form the basis of the "clean Wehrmacht" myth that prevailed in postwar German society.  David A. Harrisville is an independent scholar. He has held various academic positions, including, most recently, Visiting Assistant Professor of History at Furman University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

As the Germans keep attacking the Rzhev Salient, another Soviet thrust comes up at Vyazma from the South East. Both sides are undermanned and under equipped. It is a time for heroes, as long as the hero doesn't mind sacrificing himself. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Day 1,014.Today, on its 30th anniversary, we look at the myopic approach to the Budapest Treaty and its far-reaching effects on present-day Ukraine, and we discuss the extraordinary events of recent days in Syria, with massive ramifications for Russia's influence in the region.Contributors:Dominic Nicholls (Associate Editor of Defence). @DomNicholls on X.Francis Dearnley (Assistant Comment Editor). @FrancisDearnley on X.Hamish De Bretton-Gordon (Former British Army Tank Commander). @HamishDBG on XContent referenced:Ukraine ‘halts Russian attempt to cross river on eastern front' (The Telegraph):https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/03/russia-ukraine-zelensky-putin-war-latest-news59/Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Budapest Memorandum (Ukrainian Government):https://mfa.gov.ua/en/news/zayava-mzs-ukrayini-z-nagodi-30-richchya-z-chasu-pidpisannya-budapeshtskogo-memorandumuVladimir Putin to reject Donald Trump's opening peace offer, says Russian tycoon (FT)https://www.ft.com/content/ac39b604-ef6d-41cb-bb8c-0eb76e002176Subscribe to The Telegraph: telegraph.co.uk/ukrainethelatestEmail: ukrainepod@telegraph.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last time we spoke about the fourth encirclement campaign against the CCP. In 1931, the CCP survived brutal encirclement campaigns while the threat of Japanese invasion in Manchuria shifted focus in China. The new leadership, known as the 28 Bolsheviks, seized control after the downfall of Li Lisan, leading to infighting within the CCP. Despite initial successes, Mao Zedong opposed the aggressive military strategies favored by the Bolsheviks. As the Red Army expanded, Mao's calls for caution clashed with the Central Committee's ambitions, highlighting the struggle for power and differing strategies within the party during a time of upheaval. As the 28th Bolsheviks gained power, they stripped Mao Zedong of key positions, deeming his strategies outdated. The Red Army, while suffering losses, adapted tactics and launched further offensives. Political tensions rose, leading to purges and reorganization under more orthodox leadership. Ultimately, despite setbacks, the CCP's resilience and guerrilla tactics allowed them to persist against KMT forces.   #128 the fifth encirclement campaign 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 the CCP had just survived 4 encirclement campaigns. Now each time an encirclement campaign was unleashed, it was done so during a very tumultuous time to say the least. The first three were done between 1930-1931 where the Central Plains War and multiple large scale rebellions were kicking off. It was also on the cusp of the re-unification of China, thus Chiang Kai-Shek arguably had bigger fish to fry. During the fourth encirclement campaign Chiang Kai-Shek was very much taking notice of the red menace in his interior, however a rather earth shattering moment occurred, the Japanese had invaded Manchuria. And yes, we will get to the 15 year war in good time no worries folks your boy has a lot of goodies coming. So one can understand Chiang Kai-Shek could not very well fully go after the Reds when the Japanese had invaded northeast China and there was absolutely no telling where or when they would stop. Well the fourth encirclement campaign did not provide the results the KMT needed, so obviously there was to be a fifth…and guess what, the Japanese began an invasion of North China that same year of 1933. Now if you really are itching to hear more about these events we will tackle in a few episodes, over at the Pacific War Channel on Youtube or on all major podcast platforms might I suggest the following: my Kanji Ishiwara series covering his entire involvement in these events and during WW2, my full documentary/podcast on the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and lastly my full podcast on the Japanese invasion of North China. I am a very busy boy over there as you can see.  In the late winter and early spring of 1933, the Kwantung Army had begun an invasion of North China. They specifically began by invading the province of Rehe, modern day Jehol. After this they attacked the Great Wall of China, a pretty insane story to be honest, and descended further into north china. Understandably Chiang Kai-Shek shifted his focus from the Red menace to the Japanese at his front door. Beginning in July, the KMT established a review team to examine why the encirclement campaigns were failing to provide real results and what improvements could be made. They also established division level training units to retrain the forces with the lessons learned against the Reds. There was also a lot of integration of foreign military advisers, particularly Germans who helped develop better tactics and strategies. The Germans immediately proposed a more deliberate strategy against the Soviets. The first step they argued was to establish an economic blockade. Raw materials and durable goods could not be allowed to enter or leave the Soviet areas. Foods like rice and salt were especially targeted, there was to be an absolute ban on them going in or out. The second step was to establish a series of fortifications, basically blockhouses made out of concrete to provide fire support to offensive operations in nearby cities. As NRA forces advanced into areas to clear them, the previous blockhouses would be abandoned as new ones were built. There also needed to be lines of operation, requiring road development in rear areas to expedite logistical needs to the front. Now none of this sounds new compared to what we spoke about in the previous campaigns, but what was the issue was that it was not being done by all units prior. The KMT was also going to introduce political reforms that complemented the new standardized military strategies. New slogans arose such as “Thirty Percent Military, Seventy Percent Political,”. They were going to revive the baojia system.  The Baojia system was an administrative structure that emerged during the Song Dynasty 960–1279 AD and was prevalent in various forms throughout subsequent dynasties. Its primary purpose was to enhance local governance, community responsibility, and social stability. The system was based on the grouping of households into units known as "bao" and "jia". Each bao typically consisted of ten households, while a jia consisted of ten baos, totaling about one hundred households. This hierarchical structure allowed for more manageable governance and oversight, facilitating communication and administration at the local level. Under the Baojia system, each household was assigned to a bao, and the head of the bao was responsible for maintaining order, collecting taxes, and ensuring the compliance of families with local laws and regulations. The heads of the baojia units worked in conjunction with local officials to enforce state policies and maintain social harmony. This system not only provided a means for effective local governance but also fostered a sense of community among families. Neighbors were encouraged to cooperate and support one another, creating a network of mutual responsibility. In addition to its administrative functions, the Baojia system played a significant role in maintaining social order. By organizing families into these small units, it facilitated surveillance and mutual accountability among community members. Residents were motivated to monitor each other's behavior, discouraging misconduct and promoting adherence to social norms. As a result, the system contributed to the overall stability and cohesion of society, particularly in rural areas where government presence was often limited. Now to get all of this done, the KMT increased the NRA forces deployed to Jiangxi to nearly 700,000 who were broken down into 4 area armies and 5 air corps. They deployed the Northern Route NRA Army consisting of 33 divisions in Jinzhi, Jishui, Nangeng and the Le'an front; and the Southern Route NRA Army, consisting of eleven Guangdong divisions and one independent regiment, established a blocking position along a line connecting the cities of Wuping, Anyuan, Shangyou and Ganxian. The Southern Route NRA army would move to the blocking positions north in coordination with the other NRA forces to try and squeeze the Reds. The Western Route NRA army consisting of 9 Hunanese divisions and 3 independent regiments were responsible for blocking the Reds from advancing west of the Gan River. The Fujian-Zhejiang-Jiangxi area army HQ was assigned 11 divisions and 4 security regiments to block any Reds from escaping through northeast Jiangxi. All of this encompassed the fifth encirclement campaign.  When the NRA was ready to commence the campaign, it was too late for the Reds to properly mount a counter encirclement campaign. The only thing the Reds had going for them was their recruitment efforts that saw them grow perhaps 100,000 strong. The Red Army even began touting a slogan “Million Man Army” to further recruit. By late October 1933, the Reds were certainly numerous, but this also meant they needed more supplies and equipment. With their Eastern Front Army now in Fujian, the Central Front Army and local populace should have been raising revenues and stockpiling supplies, especially rice and salt, but that is of course if they knew a fifth encirclement campaign was coming.  On September 25th, the NRA deployed 3 divisions south from Nanchang to attack Lichuan. Within 3 days of battle, the city fell, which greatly shocked the CCP. The Central Front Red Army fell back, waiting for the Eastern Front Red Army to rush back over from Fujian to meet the threat. By October 6th both front Red armies consolidated to perform a counterattack. They first attacked Xunkou, where they annihilated 3 NRA brigades. However the success was to be short lived. For the proceeding two months, the Red Army attacked multiple NRA blockhouses in Zixi, Huwan Bajiaoting, Xiaoshi, Daxiongguan and Yuangai Mountain. Yet they were unsuccessful at breaching the defensive line. The concrete block houses were acting as pillboxes allowing the NRA to concentrate fire using brand new German made machine guns. They also were utilizing new Krupp artillery pieces and German made aerial bombs against the Red army formations whenever they assaulted the blockhouse line. By November the KMT's attention was slightly diverted as Fujian had just seen a full blown rebellion, more about that in the next episode, but to summarize a bit. On November 30th, the KMT 19th route army in conjunction with the Fujian provincial government rebelled against the KMT and set up an independent government. As you might be guessing, they were also working with the CCP. Back in October they had formed a military alliance, better said cease fire. This little arrangement did not last long and there even emerged hostilities. During this chaos the revolutionary military council held an emergency meeting to figure out a course of action. Otto Braun advocated for a strong offensive to decisively defeat the KMT. He argued the golden age of guerrilla warfare in China was over and now the Red Army must conduct convention warfare against NRA positions. Thus Mao Zedong's “lure the enemy in deep” strategy was replaced by “defending against the enemy outside the Soviet”. In January of 1934 the second soviet congress was held where a series of resolutions were passed to focus the Red Army against the fifth encirclement campaign. The resolutions reiterated Otto Braun's offensive strategy and repeatedly attacked Mao Zedong's strategies. Building upon the strategy of defending against the enemy outside the Soviets, Otto Braun also proposed using “short, swift thrusts”. This would see the employment of repeated infantry assaults to overwhelm the NRA blockhouse lines. Otto Braun also advocated for continuing the mass recruitment efforts and brought up perhaps beginning a system of conscription to fill the ranks. After the Fujian rebellion situation simmered down, the NRA refocused their attention against the Reds. The NRA established a line of blockhouses going from Lichuan to Le'an and began clearing out the area south of Ruijin using 35 divisions. The NRA forces first targeted Guangchang, lying about halfway between Nanchang and Ruijin. The NRA's Eastern Front also began advancing west, totaling some 14 divisions. By March of 1934 the NRA Northern and Eastern Fronts linked up at Deshengguan where they began coordinated efforts towards Guangchang. In response to the NRA advances towards Guangchang, the Red Army built a series of fortifications and trenchworks to defend the area. On April 9th, the NRA began its attack on Guangchang, deploying the 3rd Route army's 10 divisions from Nanfeng with heavy artillery and aircraft support. The NRA forces advanced south along both sides of the Xu River leading towards Guangchang. The Northern Route NRA Army established new blockhouses on one side of the river before clearing the other side. It took the NRA forces roughly 2 weeks to advance down the riverway to Guangchang. By April 23rd, they breached the Red Army's defensive lines and seized control over some high ground surrounding the area. The Reds were forced to pull back into the city where they continued to build fortifications and trench lines. On the 27th the NRA began to artillery and aerially bomb the city, easily destroying the wooden fortifications and trench lines constructed by the Reds. On the 28th, the NRA stormed the city forcing the Reds to retreat south. The Reds had suffered 5093 casualties, roughly 20% of their defending force at Guangcheng whereas the NRA suffered 2000 casualties. It was very evident, the NRA were wielding superior equipment, notably the heavy artillery and aircrafts that the Red's had no real answer for.  After Guangchang the NRA advanced in all four directions. By May 1, NRA forces from the Western Front had taken control of both Shaxi and Longgang. Meanwhile, the Eastern Route NRA forces advanced and captured Jianning by May 16. By June, the CCP began feeling the strain from these assaults. A combination of the blockade and the baojia system was gradually eroded local support for the CCP. The attrition warfare strategy also took a toll on the quality of leadership and experience in the Red Army, as more inexperienced soldiers filled the ranks. Under pressure, many of these recruits deserted, further weakening the Red Army's effectiveness. Additionally, the shortage of supplies and food lowered morale and diminished public support for the Red Army's offensive. Even military and party publications gradually withdrew their support for the offensive, shifting focus to the promotion of guerrilla warfare to conserve resources. Recruitment efforts to replenish losses had little impact as the NRA's superior strategy continued to stifle the Soviet, reducing its control from seventeen counties to ten. In the summer of 1934, the Red Army began exploring new strategies, establishing a defensive perimeter stretching from Ninghua to Ningdu and Xingguo. By May, the Central Committee convened and concluded that the current offensive strategy was ineffective, likely necessitating the Red Army's evacuation from the Soviet area. They sought approval from the COMINTERN to change their approach, which was granted a few days later, stressing that the CCP's priority should be preserving the Red Army's combat strength. However, Braun and Bo Gu proposed a different method. Instead of immediately preparing to withdraw from the Soviet, they advocated for a final stand, urging everyone to give their all to defend the territory and secure victory. Alongside this shift in rhetoric, the Red Army maintained its defensive posture, constructing wooden blockhouses and trenches. Additionally, the CCP approved an expansion of guerrilla warfare across multiple fronts to defeat the NRA. In July, the NRA launched another offensive, focusing this time on the city of Shicheng, positioned between Ninghua and Ningdu as their entry point. The two forces clashed fiercely along this final line of defense for nearly a month. In early August, the Red Army mounted a strong counteroffensive during the battle of Gaohunao, inflicting over 4,000 casualties on the NRA. However, the Red Army also suffered heavy losses and was forced to retreat to the last defensive line just north of Shicheng. At Shicheng, the Red Army managed to hold the NRA in a stalemate. Ultimately, the NRA deployed twelve large howitzers, breaking through the defensive line in August. Shicheng eventually fell in October. The defense cost the Red Army 5,000 casualties, leaving it severely weakened and forcing its leaders to consider drastic actions. By this point, the Jiangxi Soviet had been reduced to a small area around Ruijin and Xingguo. With mounting casualties and the imminent threat of an NRA assault on Ruijin, the Red Army made a bold decision to retreat from Jiangxi on October 10, 1934, ending the Fifth Extermination Campaign. There has been a lot of thorough investigative work into why the CCP failed during the fifth encirclement campaign. This episode will be a bit different then previous ones as I thought it might be interesting to tell the overall story and then explain the finer details as to why it went down this way. Going back to when I discussed the NRA analyzing why their fourth encirclement campaign had failed. The analytics from that were incorporated into plans formed by the German advisers such as Hans von Seeckt and Alexander von Faulkenhausen. The Germans dramatically improved the NRA's performance across the board. This was seen in terms of training, the employment of more modern military tactics and of course the Germans sold the NRA some really good toys. Now again this was done in the vacuum of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and Northern China. The real aim of the Germans' assistance was directed against the Japanese, but the advisers acknowledged how China must combat the external aggressor while not succumbing to internal threats. Ironically it was that exact situation that had toppled multiple Chinese dynasties in the past, take the Ming for example.  The NRA also employed effective counterinsurgent strategies that complimented their conventional warfare strategies. Beginning back in 1928 the KMT gradually re-instituted the baojia system. The NRA first cleared out Red areas and then established local administrators who were loyal to the KMT, protected by local militias. Through this the NRA was able to hold cleared areas and block any Red infiltration. Many residents in these areas actively began providing intel to the NRA. The Baojia system also supported the economic blockade, providing a system of sentries at the entrance of villages placing a lot of pressure on the Red Army and local populations. Chiang Kai-Shek's political reform “70% political, 30% military” also helped incorporate many disenfranchised Chinese, taking their support away from the Reds. The NRA also adopted a methodical, patient approach to tackle the Reds. The NRA quickly found out the Reds did not have the necessary weaponry to take out their concrete blockhouses, thus a war of attrition was on the table. Electing for a long campaign rather than a short one severely hurt the Reds who were incapable of conducting prolonged operations. The NRA also had learnt from the Red's usage of diversionary and feint attacks, not falling for them this time around. There was also obviously their NRA enormous advantage in numbers, they did toss nearly a million men at the Soviets. On the other side the Red Army suffered from numerous internal problems. The Red Army had undergone numerous measures to reform and professionalize the army, under the leadership of the 28 bolsheviks whom dominated the Central Committee. The mass recruitment efforts were directly primarily on uneducated peasants who required intensive training. Meanwhile the offensive strategy was decimating Red Army forces, many new recruits were tossed straight into the front lines without any training. The lack of training and political guidance, accompanied with low morale led to mass desertions. By the end of the fifth encirclement campaign the Red Army could not generate the proper forces to fill its demand and simply kept tossing more and more untrained peasants into the lines, degrading the combat effectiveness. The arrival of the Twenty-eight Bolsheviks in the CCP led to significant changes in the overall military strategy of the Red Army. Much of the new leadership's perspectives were shaped by Stalinist Soviet ideology, which markedly contrasted with the views of both Li Lisan and Mao Zedong, particularly in relation to Mao Zedong's approach, which was influenced by political considerations. These ideological differences also resulted in a substantial gap in military tactics. Nevertheless, both the Bolsheviks and Mao shared a similar stance on the expansion and training of the Red Army, emphasizing the vital importance of political training in building a robust party army. Ultimately, the CCP believed that the success of the Red Army hinged on the professionalization of the force, ensuring unity of command, a shared understanding of the mission, and an enhanced capacity to execute that mission. The primary advocate for the professionalization strategy of the Red Army was the Soviet Union. Stalin's interest in the Red Army was driven by both external and internal factors. The Soviet Union viewed an imminent threat from both Japan and Germany. Japan, a longstanding adversary of Russia, had expanded its presence in China, particularly following the 1932 occupation of Manchuria, which posed a direct risk to Russia's southern flank and national security. The Soviets believed that a large, professional Red Army, loyal to the Soviet Union, would serve as a formidable defense against Japanese aggression, and later, German threats. Additionally, the Soviets resumed discussions with the Nationalist government after years of silence to help ensure the security of their Chinese flank. For Stalin, the struggle for control over the CCP was intertwined with a broader power struggle within the Soviet Union against Trotsky. His internal conflicts with Trotsky solidified his communist ideology, resulting in a stringent approach within the COMINTERN and the new CCP. Through the COMINTERN and Bolsheviks, Stalin aimed to consolidate his power by eliminating Trotskyists in China. These internal Soviet political dynamics ultimately influenced the choice of Chinese political and military strategies, which had detrimental effects on the Red Army. At first glance, the policies of the Twenty-eight Bolsheviks closely resembled those of Li Lisan. Both groups viewed the urban proletariat as the central force in the communist revolution. They shared the conviction that merging the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat with modern strategies would empower the Red Army to achieve victory. Additionally, they felt that the conditions were ripe for revolution to spread into urban areas, emphasizing the necessity for the Red Army to engage in the cities to support students and workers involved in the movement. Wang Ming even remarked that although the 1930 assault on Changsha was a mistake, he did not see this failure as evidence against the soundness of the strategy of targeting urban centers. Upon closer inspection, the distinctions between the two factions were quite pronounced. Disputes between them arose early on; in June 1930, Li Lisan criticized Wang Ming, Bo Gu, and two other group members for opposing his plans. However, their differences ran deeper than mere political conflict. Ideologically, the Bolsheviks challenged Li Lisan's characterization of the bourgeoisie. In Wang Ming's The Two Lines, he asserted that all "capitalist bourgeois reformers were counterrevolutionary." This broadened the definition to encompass wealthy and middle-class peasants, who became targets during land reform efforts. Additionally, their strategies for confronting urban centers differed significantly. The factions also had contrasting views on the role of the Red Army: Li Lisan believed it should support urban proletariat uprisings to capture the cities, while the Bolsheviks regarded it as the primary force for seizing the metropolis. The distinctions between Mao Zedong and the 28 Bolsheviks were significant. Unlike Mao Zedong, the Bolshevik-led CCP rejected any form of alliance, insisting on the defeat of both the Nationalists and the Japanese. In their view, both groups were imperialists and posed equal threats to the Soviet Union and the communist movement. During the Mukden Incident, many nationalists and communists sought to forge a united front against Japanese aggression. However, the CCP opposed this, advocating for the overthrow of what they considered the agent of imperialism—the KMT.  The Bolsheviks also held a strong opposition to Maoist military strategies. They believed that an incorrect guerrilla warfare approach had infiltrated the Red Army, epitomized by the "lure the enemy in deep" tactic. Wang Ming likened this strategy to a form of "retreat" or "escape." The Bolsheviks advocated for the significant expansion and professionalization of the Red Army, aiming to move away from a peasant mentality. With a larger force, the Red Army could adopt an offensive stance, employing Soviet tactics to capture urban centers and extend Soviet influence. While guerrilla warfare was not entirely dismissed, it was relegated to local militias in rear and flank areas. In contrast, Mao had a more practical perspective on the capabilities of Red Army soldiers. He recognized that the Red Army lacked the technology necessary for conventional warfare. Moreover, Mao believed that achieving victory was not the sole priority; sustainability after victory and ensuring that the gains outweighed the losses were also crucial considerations. In hindsight, the positional warfare and offensive tactics advocated by Otto Braun and the students proved to be ineffective against the NRA. However, at the time, it is understandable why this approach was favored over Mao Zedongs strategy of "luring the enemy deep." This new offensive military strategy was predicated on the belief that the Red Army was strong and capable of launching attacks against the NRA. Although this assessment may have been overstated, the victories achieved during the Extermination Campaigns did boost the morale of the Red Army. Furthermore, their later success in resisting the Fourth Extermination Campaign reinforced the capabilities of the Communist military forces. This offensive strategy also marked a departure from the tactic of conceding territory, which had always posed challenges for the local population. The CCP garnered more support for its strategy by asserting that the Red Army was now strong enough to defend their territory and confront the enemy directly, allowing locals to remain in their homes. This simple shift fostered greater support for their cause. Conversely, Mao Zedong had a keen understanding of local conditions and recognized the detrimental effects of Bolshevik policies on land redistribution. The Bolshevik approach increased the burden on a larger portion of the local populace and threatened the fragile support necessary for waging a "people's war." Mao Zedong and his followers also aimed to delay and hinder large recruitment efforts, arguing that expansion would be an unnecessary distraction for locals who were already busy with agricultural work. Moreover, the Bolshevik offensive strategy was more conventional compared to Mao Zedongs concept of mobile warfare. At that time, Mao Zedongs approach of "luring the enemy deep" and other mobile warfare tactics were revolutionary in China and faced considerable criticism and skepticism. Even after the significant defeat of the Li Lisan line, the ability of the Bolsheviks and Otto Braun to revive a similar strategy two years later demonstrated the ongoing support for a more conventional military approach. In its new strategy, the Red Army blended traditional and modern tactics to engage the enemy. On the one hand, it maintained its reliance on established strengths in intelligence gathering and deception to outmaneuver the NRA. However, with the introduction of the Twenty-eight Bolsheviks and Otto Braun, the Red Army transitioned from a mobile defense approach to employing “short, swift thrusts” as offensive tactics against the NRA blockhouses during the Fifth Extermination Campaign. The Red Army also capitalized on advantages gained from previous campaigns. Improvements in signal intelligence, particularly through increased collection of wireless communications and the creation of training schools, enabled the Red Army to closely monitor NRA movements during the Fourth Extermination Campaign. Additionally, the Red Army integrated tactical intelligence into its operations, using plain-clothed soldiers and deploying double agents within KMT units to gather intelligence and disrupt them. The thoroughness of the Red Army's intelligence collection was a notable strength. For instance, an intelligence report on the KMT's Seventy-ninth NRA Division analyzed the background and motivations of its soldiers, revealing that many hailed from the same area as their commander, which fostered strong loyalties. This insight made the unit a less appealing target for subversion, given the traditional Confucian emphasis on hierarchical loyalty. The Red Army continued to execute feints and deceptive operations throughout its campaigns. The Eleventh Red Army effectively served as the main effort on two occasions. Moreover, the Red Army sent misleading communications to confuse NRA forces. For instance, while near Huangpi, NRA scouts “intercepted” a message claiming that the Red Army's main forces were positioned in Nanchang, prompting the division units to lower their guard in the city, only to be ambushed. The biggest change to Red Army tactics was the introduction of what Otto Braun described as “short, swift thrusts,” while Lin Biao defined this tactic as “sudden, rapid raids launched against the enemy who emerges from their blockhouses to advance the fortification line by a short distance, specifically between 2½ to 5 kilometers or even less. These thrusts aim to eliminate the main enemy forces before they can solidify their position. Although the tactics appeared straightforward, significant differences emerged in their application, particularly between Braun's theoretical approach and Lin Biao's practical execution. Firstly, the ultimate objectives of the tactics differed greatly. Braun's approach was part of a broader strategy aimed at safeguarding Soviet territory. Rather than seeking a decisive victory over the numerically superior NRA forces, the Red Army focused on defending territory and achieving small tactical victories that could translate into operational and strategic advantages. In contrast, Lin Biao viewed this tactic as a means to “annihilate the enemy or secure victory in the entire battle.”His emphasis was on defeating the enemy and achieving a decisive victory. Secondly, Braun promoted a more methodical strategy, where the Red Army would establish strong points with small clusters of fortifications. These areas provided defensive protection against artillery and air assaults, creating conditions conducive for the Red Army to launch rapid attacks on the NRA when they were away from their blockhouses. During an attack, Braun suggested that the Red Army should first fix the NRA in its rear, flank, or even front, followed by a strike aimed at weakening the enemy to disrupt its forces. Conversely, Lin Biao had a different perspective on the assault, prioritizing mobility and movement for the Red Army during these thrusts. The Red Army's primary defense relied on secrecy, moving quietly to occupy high ground while only establishing makeshift defensive structures for air and artillery protection. When the enemy entered their territory, the Red Army would encircle their forces, cutting off their retreat and swiftly attacking their flanks before they could construct fortifications. He advocated for the pursuit, believing it was the most effective way to convert a tactical victory into operational or strategic success. In contrast, Lin Biao rejected the idea of pursuit, reasoning that if his tactics were executed effectively, the enemy would have no escape route, making a pursuit unnecessary. These differing views on tactics underscored the challenges of translating theoretical military concepts into practical application. Otto Braun's offensive strategy stemmed from his experiences and understanding of Western military traditions. When applied to the Chinese battlefield, Lin Biao adapted his own experiences to formulate his interpretation of “short, swift thrusts,” which incorporated several of Mao's tactical principles. Given the circumstances of the Red Army, Lin Biao aimed for a quick, decisive victory, steering clear of prolonged battles with the NRA. He utilized intelligence and terrain—particularly through reconnaissance—to gain an advantage over the enemy. His strategy prioritized focusing on the enemy rather than merely securing territory, enabling his unit to engage in battle on favorable ground. While the localization of “short, swift thrusts” did not provide the Red Army with the decisive edge needed to overcome the NRA, it illustrated how the Red Army continued to adapt concepts to local conditions to achieve success in combat. Between 1932 and 1934, the Red Army reached its maximum size and level of professionalism, only to be outmatched by a stronger NRA force. With the rise of the Twenty-eight Bolsheviks, the Red Army adopted a more aggressive, offensive strategy. Although this approach would later be deemed a mistake, it initiated a series of reforms that enhanced the Red Army's professionalism. During this period, the Red Army nearly doubled its strength to six army corps. To promote uniformity and centralize command, all Red Army units, including local militia groups, were standardized. Additionally, the Red Army founded the Red Academy and the Red Army War College, alongside specialized schools to train and develop its officers. These reforms contributed to the Red Army's success in the Fourth Extermination Campaign against the NRA and facilitated the expansion of Soviet influence into four provinces. However, following their defeat, the NRA adapted and developed a more effective strategy against the Red Army. Lacking the necessary heavy weapons and supplies, the Red Army could not prevent the systematic encirclement of the Jiangxi Soviet during the Fifth Extermination Campaign. In order to survive the Red Army would have to embark on arguably one of the most important historic moments of the CCP's history, it was a notably very long march. 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 28 Bolsheviks wrestled control over the CCP and this had rather dramatic consequences. For one, Mao Zedong's strategies were thrown to the wind as full on offensive strategies took the center stage. In the face of the most intense NRA encirclement campaign as of yet, the CCP crumbled and would now have to march to away trying to survive.

HOW STALIN'S NKVD MANAGED THE INFORMATION WAR, 1941-45: 8/8: The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin's Propaganda War by  Alan Philps  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hotel-Metropol-Stalins-Propaganda/dp/1639364277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In 1941, when German armies were marching towards Moscow, Lenin's body was moved from his tomb on Red Square and taken to Siberia. By 1945, a victorious Stalin had turned a poor country into a victorious superpower. Over the course of those four years, Stalin, at Churchill's insistence, accepted an Anglo-American press corps in Moscow to cover the Eastern Front. To turn these reporters into Kremlin mouthpieces, Stalin imposed the most draconian controls – unbending censorship, no visits to the battle front, and a ban on contact with ordinary citizens. The Red Hotel explores this gilded cage of the Metropol Hotel. They enjoyed lavish supplies of caviar and had their choice of young women to employ as translators and share their beds. On the surface, this regime served Stalin well: his plans to control Eastern Europe as a Sovietised ‘outer empire' were never reported and the most outrageous Soviet lies went unchallenged.1917 KREMLIN

HOW STALIN'S NKVD MANAGED THE INFORMATION WAR, 1941-45: 1/8: The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin's Propaganda War by  Alan Philps  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hotel-Metropol-Stalins-Propaganda/dp/1639364277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In 1941, when German armies were marching towards Moscow, Lenin's body was moved from his tomb on Red Square and taken to Siberia. By 1945, a victorious Stalin had turned a poor country into a victorious superpower. Over the course of those four years, Stalin, at Churchill's insistence, accepted an Anglo-American press corps in Moscow to cover the Eastern Front. To turn these reporters into Kremlin mouthpieces, Stalin imposed the most draconian controls – unbending censorship, no visits to the battle front, and a ban on contact with ordinary citizens. The Red Hotel explores this gilded cage of the Metropol Hotel. They enjoyed lavish supplies of caviar and had their choice of young women to employ as translators and share their beds. On the surface, this regime served Stalin well: his plans to control Eastern Europe as a Sovietised ‘outer empire' were never reported and the most outrageous Soviet lies went unchallenged.1945

HOW STALIN'S NKVD MANAGED THE INFORMATION WAR, 1941-45: 2/8: The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin's Propaganda War by  Alan Philps  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hotel-Metropol-Stalins-Propaganda/dp/1639364277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In 1941, when German armies were marching towards Moscow, Lenin's body was moved from his tomb on Red Square and taken to Siberia. By 1945, a victorious Stalin had turned a poor country into a victorious superpower. Over the course of those four years, Stalin, at Churchill's insistence, accepted an Anglo-American press corps in Moscow to cover the Eastern Front. To turn these reporters into Kremlin mouthpieces, Stalin imposed the most draconian controls – unbending censorship, no visits to the battle front, and a ban on contact with ordinary citizens. The Red Hotel explores this gilded cage of the Metropol Hotel. They enjoyed lavish supplies of caviar and had their choice of young women to employ as translators and share their beds. On the surface, this regime served Stalin well: his plans to control Eastern Europe as a Sovietised ‘outer empire' were never reported and the most outrageous Soviet lies went unchallenged.1945

HOW STALIN'S NKVD MANAGED THE INFORMATION WAR, 1941-45: 3/8: The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin's Propaganda War by  Alan Philps  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hotel-Metropol-Stalins-Propaganda/dp/1639364277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In 1941, when German armies were marching towards Moscow, Lenin's body was moved from his tomb on Red Square and taken to Siberia. By 1945, a victorious Stalin had turned a poor country into a victorious superpower. Over the course of those four years, Stalin, at Churchill's insistence, accepted an Anglo-American press corps in Moscow to cover the Eastern Front. To turn these reporters into Kremlin mouthpieces, Stalin imposed the most draconian controls – unbending censorship, no visits to the battle front, and a ban on contact with ordinary citizens. The Red Hotel explores this gilded cage of the Metropol Hotel. They enjoyed lavish supplies of caviar and had their choice of young women to employ as translators and share their beds. On the surface, this regime served Stalin well: his plans to control Eastern Europe as a Sovietised ‘outer empire' were never reported and the most outrageous Soviet lies went unchallenged 1945 POLISH ARMY

HOW STALIN'S NKVD MANAGED THE INFORMATION WAR, 1941-45: 4/8: The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin's Propaganda War by  Alan Philps  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hotel-Metropol-Stalins-Propaganda/dp/1639364277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In 1941, when German armies were marching towards Moscow, Lenin's body was moved from his tomb on Red Square and taken to Siberia. By 1945, a victorious Stalin had turned a poor country into a victorious superpower. Over the course of those four years, Stalin, at Churchill's insistence, accepted an Anglo-American press corps in Moscow to cover the Eastern Front. To turn these reporters into Kremlin mouthpieces, Stalin imposed the most draconian controls – unbending censorship, no visits to the battle front, and a ban on contact with ordinary citizens. The Red Hotel explores this gilded cage of the Metropol Hotel. They enjoyed lavish supplies of caviar and had their choice of young women to employ as translators and share their beds. On the surface, this regime served Stalin well: his plans to control Eastern Europe as a Sovietised ‘outer empire' were never reported and the most outrageous Soviet lies went unchallenged.1914

HOW STALIN'S NKVD MANAGED THE INFORMATION WAR, 1941-45: 5/8: The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin's Propaganda War by  Alan Philps  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hotel-Metropol-Stalins-Propaganda/dp/1639364277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In 1941, when German armies were marching towards Moscow, Lenin's body was moved from his tomb on Red Square and taken to Siberia. By 1945, a victorious Stalin had turned a poor country into a victorious superpower. Over the course of those four years, Stalin, at Churchill's insistence, accepted an Anglo-American press corps in Moscow to cover the Eastern Front. To turn these reporters into Kremlin mouthpieces, Stalin imposed the most draconian controls – unbending censorship, no visits to the battle front, and a ban on contact with ordinary citizens. The Red Hotel explores this gilded cage of the Metropol Hotel. They enjoyed lavish supplies of caviar and had their choice of young women to employ as translators and share their beds. On the surface, this regime served Stalin well: his plans to control Eastern Europe as a Sovietised ‘outer empire' were never reported and the most outrageous Soviet lies went unchallenged.1918 REVOLUTION

HOW STALIN'S NKVD MANAGED THE INFORMATION WAR, 1941-45: 6/8: The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin's Propaganda War by  Alan Philps  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hotel-Metropol-Stalins-Propaganda/dp/1639364277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In 1941, when German armies were marching towards Moscow, Lenin's body was moved from his tomb on Red Square and taken to Siberia. By 1945, a victorious Stalin had turned a poor country into a victorious superpower. Over the course of those four years, Stalin, at Churchill's insistence, accepted an Anglo-American press corps in Moscow to cover the Eastern Front. To turn these reporters into Kremlin mouthpieces, Stalin imposed the most draconian controls – unbending censorship, no visits to the battle front, and a ban on contact with ordinary citizens. The Red Hotel explores this gilded cage of the Metropol Hotel. They enjoyed lavish supplies of caviar and had their choice of young women to employ as translators and share their beds. On the surface, this regime served Stalin well: his plans to control Eastern Europe as a Sovietised ‘outer empire' were never reported and the most outrageous Soviet lies went unchallenged.1911 BORODINO

HOW STALIN'S NKVD MANAGED THE INFORMATION WAR, 1941-45: 7/8: The Red Hotel: Moscow 1941, the Metropol Hotel, and the Untold Story of Stalin's Propaganda War by  Alan Philps  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hotel-Metropol-Stalins-Propaganda/dp/1639364277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= In 1941, when German armies were marching towards Moscow, Lenin's body was moved from his tomb on Red Square and taken to Siberia. By 1945, a victorious Stalin had turned a poor country into a victorious superpower. Over the course of those four years, Stalin, at Churchill's insistence, accepted an Anglo-American press corps in Moscow to cover the Eastern Front. To turn these reporters into Kremlin mouthpieces, Stalin imposed the most draconian controls – unbending censorship, no visits to the battle front, and a ban on contact with ordinary citizens. The Red Hotel explores this gilded cage of the Metropol Hotel. They enjoyed lavish supplies of caviar and had their choice of young women to employ as translators and share their beds. On the surface, this regime served Stalin well: his plans to control Eastern Europe as a Sovietised ‘outer empire' were never reported and the most outrageous Soviet lies went unchallenged.1900 RUSSIA

5/8: The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918 Hardcover – August 27, 2024  by  Nick Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Front-History-Great-1914-1918/dp/1324092718 "[A] superb history…so much has been forgotten, including the course of the war in the east across multiple theaters of operation and the strategies pursued by both sides. It is all this and more that Mr. Lloyd has resurrected in compelling detail." ―Economist 1899 Kaiser observes army maneuvers

7/8: The Eastern Front: A History of the Great War, 1914-1918 Hardcover – August 27, 2024  by  Nick Lloyd  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Front-History-Great-1914-1918/dp/1324092718 "[A] superb history…so much has been forgotten, including the course of the war in the east across multiple theaters of operation and the strategies pursued by both sides. It is all this and more that Mr. Lloyd has resurrected in compelling detail." ―Economist 1918