Podcasts about Joseph Stalin

Some historians argue that President Trump is using a Stalinist-style playbook to amass power, silence his enemies and suppress science. What Americans should know about notorious Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin's style and political tactics.

‘There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.' – Winston Churchill In a world where geopolitical alliances are fraying and tensions are rising, what can the fragile coalition that defeated Hitler teach us about the challenges facing the West today? In September 2025 historian Tim Bouverie came to the Intelligence Squared stage to discuss his Sunday Times bestselling book Allies at War: The Politics of Defeating Hitler. In conversation with Editor of The Spectator Michael Gove, Bouverie described how Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin overcame deep ideological differences and strategic rivalries to form a fragile but ultimately victorious alliance against Nazi Germany. Now, with Donald Trump threatening to abandon NATO, Vladimir Putin intent on exploiting Western fissures, and democratic nations questioning their own cohesion, the lessons of WWII's Grand Alliance have never felt more relevant. --- If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full ad free conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events  ...  Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

‘There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them.' – Winston Churchill In a world where geopolitical alliances are fraying and tensions are rising, what can the fragile coalition that defeated Hitler teach us about the challenges facing the West today? In September 2025 historian Tim Bouverie came to the Intelligence Squared stage to discuss his Sunday Times bestselling book Allies at War: The Politics of Defeating Hitler. In conversation with Editor of The Spectator Michael Gove, Bouverie described how Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin overcame deep ideological differences and strategic rivalries to form a fragile but ultimately victorious alliance against Nazi Germany. Now, with Donald Trump threatening to abandon NATO, Vladimir Putin intent on exploiting Western fissures, and democratic nations questioning their own cohesion, the lessons of WWII's Grand Alliance have never felt more relevant. ---- s is the first instalment of a two-part episode. If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full ad free conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events  ...  Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ottawa plows ahead for a full police state in an ambition born from Stalin's fantasies in order to try quieting the screams of it's citizens being murdered. Meanwhile Antifa is upgraded to an international terror org by the White House while Trump considers using the Insurrection Act. If that's not enough there's always the lunacy inspired game of chicken they seem to be playing with Russia and Iran. While never releasing the Epstein files, because who would want that ? STREAM LINKS: Rumble (https://rumble.com/c/JeremyMacKenzie) Odysee (https://odysee.com/@JeremyMacKenzie:9/rc515:0) TwitterX (https://x.com/JeremyMacKenzi) Kick (https://kick.com/ragingdissident) ᚦᛖᚱᛖ•ᛁᛊ•ᚨ•ᛒᛖᛏᛏᛖᚱ•ᚹᚨᛁ • SOCIALS AND WEBSITE (https://kick.com/ragingdissident) • SUPPORT (https://ko-fi.com/diagolon) • ROAD RAGE TERROR TOUR 24' MOVIE (https://thegrift.shop/roadrageterrortour/)

GATEWAY CINEMA is a multi-part series of conversations centered on key ideas in film studies. In these conversations, we interpret and celebrate a set of eclectic feature films from across generations and from around the world, including “La Haine”, “Drum”, “Alien 3 (Assembly Cut)”, “Come and See”, “Perfect Days”, “Sweet Smell of Success”, “The Swimmer”, “Amadeus (Director's Cut)”, “Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia”, “Friday”, “Marie Antoinette”, “The Night of the Hunter”, “Crank” and “Crank 2: High Voltage”, “Portrait of a Lady Fire”, “The Fabulous Baron Munchausen”, “Joker: Folie a Deux”, “Welcome to the Dollhouse”, “Heathers”, and “The Death of Stalin”. ***Referenced media in GATEWAY CINEMA, Episode 12:“The Magnificent Ambersons” (Orson Welles, 1942)“Do the Right Thing” (Spike Lee, 1989)“A Clockwork Orange” (Stanely Kubrick, 1971)“Glengarry Glen Ross” (James Foley, 1992)“Barfly” (Barbet Schroeder, 1987)“The Ren & Stimpy Show” (John Kricfalusi, 1991-1995)“Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” (Mark Twain, 1884)“Leave It to Beaver” (Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher, 1957-1963)“1917” (Sam Mendes, 2019)“Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” (Alejandro G. Iñárritu, 2014)“Mutiny on the Bounty” (Frank Lloyd, 1935)“Spartacus” (Stanley Kubrick, 1960)“Return to Oz” (Walter Murch, 1985)“Phase IV” (Saul Bass, 1974)Audio quotation in GATEWAY CINEMA, Episode 12:“The Night of the Hunter” (Charles Laughton, 1955)“Do the Right Thing” (Spike Lee, 1989)“The Ren & Stimpy Show” (John Kricfalusi, 1991-1995), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5NfgKPVZ2g

This is an excerpt from a patrons-only episode. To hear the full thing, and dozens more like it, visit Patreon.com/LoveMessagePod and become a patron from £3 a month.In this patrons episode we're taking some time to explore some of the background to our recent main feed show about colonialism, jazz diplomacy and the documentary Soundtrack to a Coup D'Etat with a bitesize primer on the origins of the Cold War. Jeremy and Tim run it all the way back to 1917 to unpack the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, the subsequent years of communist rule leading into WW2, and the musical expressions of this historic period. Along the way they discuss Soviet Realism, Modernism, formal experimentation in the arts, Stalin, the Monro Doctrine and the CIA. Elsewhere in the episode we hear about George Formby, Peter and the Wolf, the Red Army Choir, and ask whether any of us really like orchestral music. Tracklist:The Red Army Choir - The Internationale Billy Bragg - The Internationale Shostakovich - Symphony No.2 (October)Books:William Blum - Killing Hope

America saw a significant reverse-migration in the 1800s and 1900s, with 20–50% of Italian immigrants returning to Italy as ritornati and tens of thousands of Americans, including ideologues and workers, moving to Germany, Italy, and the USSR in the 1930s seeking political or economic opportunities. Some of these American expatriates were drawn to revolutionary movements in Europe and Asia, blending idealism with political activism Today’s guest is David Mayers, author of Seekers and Partisans: Americans Abroad in the Crisis Years, 1935–1941. We discuss alienated Americans who went abroad during the interwar years in search of a new home and/or to further deeply personal causes. They include John Robinson, a black aviator who in 1935 led the Ethiopian air force against the Italian invasion; Agnes Smedley, who joined the Chinese communists during the Sino-Japanese war; Helen Keller, an advocate of the seeing- and hearing-impaired; Ezra Pound, a lauded poet who championed Mussolini; and Anna Louise Strong, drawn to Stalin's USSR.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Note from James: Bill O'Reilly's new book, Confronting Evil, is both a history lesson and a warning. It's a study of the most destructive figures in human history—from Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Genghis Khan, Caligula, and even modern evildoers like Putin and the cartels.When I first picked it up, I thought it would be about the past. But after reading it, I realized it's really about right now—about how evil mutates, reappears, and spreads when we stop paying attention.We talked about the psychology of evil, how it manifests differently in modern life, and why we all need to look inward at how we process fear and anger. The episode ends on a note of hope—but only if we're willing to face what's real.Episode Description:In this episode, James sits down with legendary journalist and author Bill O'Reilly to discuss his new book, Confronting Evil: Assessing the Worst of the Worst. Together, they explore how history's darkest figures—Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Putin, and others—reflect modern patterns of violence, polarization, and moral decay.O'Reilly draws from decades of reporting and war correspondence to explain the difference between “personal evil” and “collective evil,” and why societies collapse when good people stop paying attention.The conversation also looks at free speech, mental illness, the internet's role in radicalization, and why mercy for the guilty so often becomes cruelty to the innocent.What You'll Learn:The 15 most destructive figures in world history—and why their patterns are repeating today.The two types of evil: personal vs. collective.How technology and echo chambers amplify hatred.Why ignoring small evils allows larger ones to grow.How to recognize and contain evil in a free society.Timestamped Chapters:[02:00] A Note from James: Introducing Confronting Evil[02:39] Are we living in a new age of violence or just a repeating cycle?[03:39] On partisanship, anger, and how fear disguises itself[04:57] Bill joins: marketing a book in the age of distraction[05:51] Why O'Reilly wrote Confronting Evil and how it differs from his “Killing” series[07:16] Putin, October 7th, and the eerie timing of the book's release[08:20] Why today's evil feels more personal than historic evil[09:39] Personal encounters with evil: chasing Ted Bundy[11:01] Witnessing atrocities: from El Salvador to Belfast[12:24] Could Hitler have been reasoned with? The psychology of the irredeemable[14:27] “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent” — justice and accountability[15:36] The internet's role in radicalization and digital “clubs for evil”[17:00] Echo chambers, hate speech, and how the free world handles extremism[19:02] Why confronting evil matters in a “free” but apathetic society[20:00] The October 7th attacks and why O'Reilly opens his book there[21:22] “Queers for Palestine” and the IQ of modern activism[22:00] How ignorance and apathy breed delusion[23:00] When does “necessary evil” cross the line into tyranny? Augustus and strongmen[25:10] The psychology of dictators: no remorse, no redemption[26:11] The Constitution as an anti-authoritarian framework[27:50] Polarization, Portland, and the fight over federal authority[29:00] How democracies correct themselves—eventually[31:31] Data over ideology: why extremists are still a minority[32:04] Can AI detect future Hitlers?[33:28] Why people cheer for evil—and how to walk away[34:46] The 15 who made the cut: why some evildoers were left out[35:36] The drug cartels as modern-day mass murderers[36:29] O'Reilly's warning: mobilize the 85% before it's too late[36:54] Ending on hope—why good still outnumbers evilAdditional Resources

-Rob plays clips of Maria Bartiromo, Devin Nunes, and Tom Fitton, connecting the FBI surveillance to efforts to cover up key documents from the Trump years, and likens the situation to Stalin's “show me the man, I'll show you the crime.” -The Newsmax hotline guest is Justine Brooke Murray, media commentator with the Media Research Center. She discusses legacy media bias, campus censorship, and her reporting from Israel post–October 7 attacks. She also shares her background, journalistic methods, and use of humor to challenge censorship. Today's podcast is sponsored by : BIRCH GOLD - Protect and grow your retirement savings with gold. Text ROB to 98 98 98 for your FREE information kit! QUINCE : Layer up this fall with clothing & accessories that feel as good as they look! Go to http://quince.com/Newsmax for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. To call in and speak with Rob Carson live on the show, dial 1-800-922-6680 between the hours of 12 Noon and 3:00 pm Eastern Time Monday through Friday…E-mail Rob Carson at : RobCarsonShow@gmail.com Musical parodies provided by Jim Gossett (www.patreon.com/JimGossettComedy) Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey guys, what you are about to listen to is basically a “what if” Japan performed Hokushin-ron instead of Nanshin-ron, ie: What if Japan invaded the USSR during WW2? Before I jump into it I just want to thank all of you that signed up for the patreon, you guys are awesome. Please leave a comment on this episode to let me know what more you want to hear about in the future. With all of that said and done lets jump right into it.   Part 1 The Geopolitical context   Ok so, one of the questions I get the most is, what if Japan invaded the USSR. I've actually already tackled this subject, albeit lightly with Cody from AlternatehistoryHub and once with my friend Eric. Its too complicated to give a real answer, a lot of this is guess work, though I really will try to provide hard numbers. I think off the bat something needs to be made clear since we are dealing with alternate history. I am not doing a “what if Japan developed completely different, or what if the IJA got their way in the early 1930's” no no, this is going to be as realistic as possible…even though this is batshit crazy.    Japan faced the decision of whether to go to war with the USSR in 1941 during Operation Barbarossa. They held meetings, made plans, and ultimately it was decided they would not engage the Soviets. Our scenario will follow exactly what they did to a T, but when the made the decision not to go to war, we will see them go to war.    Now before I jump into our this timeline, I think its very important to explain the actual situation Japan faced in 1941. There were two major strategies that emerged during the 1930's within the Japanese military. Many junior officers in the IJA favored the Hokushin-ron “northern strike” strategy against the USSR. Many officers in the IJN with some in the IJA favored the Nanshin-ron “southern strike” strategy, to seize the resource rich dutch east indies by invading Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The idea of Hokushin-ron was to perform an invasion into Southern Siberia and outer mongolia ending around Lake Baikal where they would set up defenses. They had already tried to establish this during the Russian civil war as part of the Siberian Intervention, but failed to create a buffer state. From 1935-1939 there were 108 border clashes between the USSR and Japan. In 1938 one of these border clashes turned into quite a catastrophe, it was called the battle of Lake Khasan.  The Soviets suffered nearly 800 deaths, more than 3000 wounded, perhaps nearly 50 tanks were destroyed with another 100 damaged. The Japanese suffered about 600 deaths with 2500 wounded. The result ultimately was a ceasefire, but for the Kwantung army it seemed to them like a victory. In May of 1939 they had a much larger and more famous battle known as the battle of Khalkhin Gol.  During the early part of the battle the IJA sent 80 tanks crossing over Khalkhin Gol, driving the Soviets back towards Baintsagan Hill. Zhukov was waiting for the attack and sent 450 tanks and armored cars unsupported by infantry to attack the IJA from three sides. The IJA were practically encircled and lost half their armored units as they struggled to fight back as it withdrew. The two armies spared for the next 2 weeks along the east bank of the Khalkhin Gol. Problem was the Japanese were having issues getting their supplies to the area as they lacked motor transport while Zhukov whose army was over 460 miles away from its base of supply had 2600 trucks supplying them. On july 23rd the Japanese launched attacks supported by artillery and within two days they had consumed half their ammunition stores. The situation was terrible, they suffered 5000 casualties and made little progress breaking the Soviet lines. Zhukov then unleashed an offensive on august 20th using over 4000 trucks to transport supplies from Chita base. He assembled around 500 tanks, 550 fighters and bombers and his 50,000 infantry supported by armored cars. This mechanized force attacked the Japanese first using artillery and the aircraft as his armor and infantry crossed the river. The IJA were quickly flanked by the fast moving Soviet armor and encircled by August 25th. The IJA made attempts to break out of the encirclement but failed. They refused to surrender despite overwhelming artillery and aerial bombardment; by the 31st the Japanese forces on the Mongolian side of the border were destroyed. The Japanese suffered nearly 20,000 casualties, the lost 162 aircraft, 29 tanks, 7 tankettes, 72 artillery pieces a large number of vehicles. The Soviets took a heavy hit also suffering almost 25,000 casualties, 250 aircraft, 250 tanks, 133 armored cars, almost 100 artillery pieces, hundreds of vehicles. While these numbers make it seem the Japanese did a great job, you need to consider what each party was bringing to this fight. The Japanese brought roughly 30,000 men, 80 tanks and tankettes, 400 aircraft, 300 artillery pieces, 1000 trucks. The Soviets brought nearly 75,000 men, 550 tanks, 900 aircraft, 634 artillery pieces, 4000 trucks. There are some sources that indicate the IJA brought as many artillery rounds as they could muster from Japan, Manchuria and Korea, roughly 100,000 rounds for the operation. The Soviets fired 100,000 rounds per day. A quick look at wikipedia numbers, yes I know its a no no, but sometimes its good for quick perspectives show: USSR: Bomber sorties 2,015, fighter sorties 18,509; 7.62 mm machine gun rounds fired 1,065,323; 20 mm (0.80 in) cannon rounds expended 57,979; bombs dropped 78,360 (1,200 tons). Japan: Fighter/bomber sorties 10,000 (estimated); 7.7 mm (0.30 in) machine gun rounds fired 1.6 million; bombs dropped 970 tons. What I am trying to say is there was an enormous disparity in military production. And this is not just limited to numbers but quality. After the battle the Japanese made significant reforms. They increased tank production from 500 annually to 1200. The Japanese funded research into new anti-tank guns, such as the Type 1 47 mm. They mounted this gun to their Type 97 Chi-Ha tanks, the new standard medium tank of the IJA. Because of the tremendous defeat to Soviet armor they send General Yamashita to Germany to learn everything he could about tank tactics. But they simply could not produce enough tanks to ever hope to match 10% of the USSR. The Soviets had mostly been using T-26's, BT-5's and BT-7's who were crudely made, but made en masse. The Japanese would find most of their tank models with less effective range, less armor and some with less penetration power. It took the Japanese a hell of a lot more time to produce tanks, they were simply not on par with the Soviets in quantity or quality. Their tank tactics, albeit improved via Yamashita after 1939, were still nothing compared to the Soviets.  The major outcome of the battle of Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol was the abandonment of the hokushin-ron strategy and adoption of the nanshin-ron strategy. But, that didnt mean Japan did not have a plan in case they had to go to war with the USSR. Part 2 Kantōgun Tokushu Enshū Kantōgun Tokushu Enshū or the Kwantung Army Special Maneuvers was an operational plan created by the General Staff of the IJA for an invasion of the Russian Far East to capitalize on Operation Barbarossa. Here our story truly begin. Between 1938-1939 the IJA General Staff and Kwantung Army formed two “Hachi-Go” plans. Variants A and B examined the possibility of an all out war with the USSR beginning in 1943. In both plans they expected to be facing 60 Soviet divisions, while they could deliver 50 divisions, delivered incrementally from China and Japan. Plan A called for attacks across the eastern and northern borders of Manchuria while maintaining a defensive stance in the west. Plan B, much more ambitious, called for striking into the vast steppe between the Great Khingan Mountains and Lake Baikal, hoping to cut off the trans-siberian railway. If this was done successfully it was believed the whole of European Russia would be doomed to be defeated in detail. Defeated in detail means to divide and conquer. This battle would take place over 5000 kilometers with Japan's final objective being to advance 1200 km into the USSR. That dwarves Operation Barbarossa in distance, let that sink in. Both plans faced impossible odds. First of all the railway networks in Manchuria were not sufficiently expanded for such far reaching offensives, especially for plan B. Furthermore the 50 divisions required for them would be impossible to come by, since 1937 Japan was bogged down in a war with China. When Japan went to war with the west in 1941 she had 51 divisions. She left the base minimum in China, 35 divisions and tossed nearly 20 into southeast asia and the pacific. On top of not having the men, the IJA estimated a fleet of 200,000 vehicles would be necessary to sustain an offensive to Lake Baikal. That was twice the number of military vehicles Japan had at any given time. After the battle of Khalkhin Gol, plan B was completely abandoned. Planning henceforth focused solely on the northern and eastern fronts with any western advance being limited in scope. Now Japan formed a neutrality pact with the USSR because of her defeat at Khalkhin Gol and Molotov Ribbentrop pact between Germany and the USSR. The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact came as a bitter and complete surprise to Japan. It pushed Japan to fully adopt the Nanshin-ron strategy and this began with her invasion of French IndoChina, which led the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and United States to embargo her. The Netherlands Dutch East Indies refused to sell oil to Japan, the UK refused to sell oil from Burma and the US gradually cut off selling oil to Japan, with her oil exports alone being 80% of Japans supply, the rest from the Dutch east indies. The United States also placed an embargo on scrap-metal shipments to Japan and closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. 74.1% of Japan's scrap iron came from the United States in 1938, and 93% of Japan's copper in 1939. Other things like Rubber and tin were also off the table, as this was mostly acquired from British held Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.    Now the crux of everything is the China War. Japan was stuck, she needed to win, in order to win she needed the resources she was being denied. The only logical decision was to attack the places with these resources. Thus until 1941, Japan prepared to do just that, investing in the Navy primarily. Then in June of 1941, Hitler suddenly informs the Japanese that he is going to invade the USSR. The Japanese were shocked and extremely angry, they nearly left the Tripartite Pact over the issue. This unprecedented situation that ushered in the question, what should Japan do? There were those like Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka who argued they must abandon the neutrality pact and launch a simultaneous offensive with the Germans against the USSR. The IJA favored this idea….because obviously it would see them receiving more funding as the IJN was currently taking more and more of it for the Nanshin-ron plans. But this is not a game of hearts of Iron IV, the Japanese government had to discuss and plan if they would invade the USSR….and boy it took awhile. I think a lot of you will be very disappointed going forward, but there is no grand unleashing of a million Japanese across the borders into the Soviet Far East, in the real world there is something called logistics and politics.    The Japanese military abided by a flexible response policy, like many nations do today. Theres was specifically called the Junbi Jin Taisei or “preparatory formation setup”. Japan would only go to war with the USSR if favorable conditions were met. So in our timeline the Junbi Jin encountered its first test on June 24th when the IJA/IJN helped a conference in the wake of operation barbarossa. A compromise was made allowing the IJA to prepare an invasion plan if it did not impede on the nanshin-ron plans. There was those in the IJA who argued they should invade the USSR whether conditions were favorable or not, there were those who only wanted to invade if it looked like the USSR was on the verge of collapse. One thing agreed upon was if Japan unleashed a war with the USSR, the hostilities needed to be over by mid-October because the Siberian climate would hit winter and it would simply be impossible to continue. The IJA needed 60-7 days to complete operational preparations and 6-8 weeks to defeat the Soviets within the first phase of the offensive. Here is a breakdown of what they were thinking: 28 June: Decide on mobilization 5 July: Issue mobilization orders 20 July: Begin troop concentration 10 August: Decide on hostilities 24 August: Complete readiness stance 29 August: Concentrate two divisions from North China in Manchuria, bringing the total to 16 5 September: Concentrate four further divisions from the homeland, bringing the total to 22; complete combat stance 10 September (at latest): Commence combat operations 15 October: Complete first phase of war   The plan called for 22 divisions (might I add my own calculations of 20 divisions were pretty spot on), with roughly 850,000 men, including Manchukuo allies, supported by 800,000 tons of shipping. The Japanese hoped the Soviets would toss at least half their forces in the Far East, perhaps 2/3rd of their armor and aircraft against the Germans giving them a 2-1 superiority. Even the 22 divisions was questionable, many in the war ministry thought only 16 divisions could be spared for such a venture, something only suitable for mop up operations in the aftermath of a German victory along the eastern front. It was clear to all, Japan needed perfect conditions to even think about performing such a thing.    The War hawks who still sought to perform Hokushin-ron tried to persaude Hideki Tojo on july 5th to go through with a new plan using a total of 25 divisions. This plan designated “Kantogun Tokushu Enshu or Kantokuen” would involve 2 phases, a buildup and readiness phase and an offensive phase. On July 7th they went to Hirohito for his official sanction for the build up. Hirohito questioned everything, but gradually relented to it. The plan was nearly identical to the former plans, banking on the Soviets being unable to reinforce the Far East because of Germany's progress. The level of commitment was scaled down somewhat, but still enormous. Again a major looming issue was the Manchurian railways that would need to be expanded to accomodate the movement of men and supplies. This meant the construction of port facilities, military barracks, hospitals and such. Kantokuen would begin with a initial blow against the Ussuri front, targeting Primorye and would be followed up by a northern attack against Blagoveshchensk and Kuibyshevka. The 1st area army, 3rd and 20 armies with the 19th division of the Korean army would penetrade the border south of Lake Khanka to breach the main soviet defensive lines, thus threatening Vladivostok. The 5th army would strike south of Dalnerechensk to complete the isolation of the maritime province, sever the trans-sierian railway and block Soviet reinforcements. The 4th army would attack along the Amur river before helping out against Blagoveshchensk. Two reinofrced divisions would invade Sakhalin from land and sea. The second phase would see the capture of Khabarovsk, Komsomolsk, Skovorodino, Sovetskaya Gavan, and Nikolayevsk. Additionally, amphibious operations against Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and other parts of the Kamchatka Peninsula were contemplated.   It was agreed the operation could only afford 24 divisions, with 1,200,000 men, 35,000 vehicles, 500 tanks, 400,000 horses and 300,000 coolies. The deployment of thse forces would mean the western front facing Mongolia and the Trans-baikal region would be pretty much open, so delaying actions would have to be fought if the soviets performed a counter offensive there. Air forces were critical to the plan. They sought to dispatch up to roughly 2000 aircraft cooperating with 350 naval aircraft to launch a sudden strike against the Soviet Far East Air Force to knock them out early.    The Soviet Far East had two prominent weaknesses to be exploited. Number 1 was Mongolia's 4500 km long horeshoe shaped border. Number 2 was its 100% dependency on European Russia to deliver men, food and war materials via the trans-siberian railway. Any disruption of the trans-siberian railway would prove fatal to the Soviet Far East.    Now as for the Soviets. The 1930's and early 1940's saw the USSR take up a defensive policy, but retained offensive elecments as well. Even with the German invasion and well into 1942, the Soviets held a strategy of tossing back the IJA into Manchuria if attacked. The primary forces defending the Far east in 1941 were the Far Eastern and Trans-Baikal Fronts, under the command of Generals Iosif Apanasenko and Mikhail Kovalyov. The Trans-Baikal front held 9 divisions, including 2 armored, a mechanized brigade and a heavily fortified region west of the Oldoy River near Skovorodino had a garrison. The Far Eastern Front had 23 divisions including 3 armored, 4 brigades and 11 heavily fortified regions with garrisons including Vladivostok. Altogether they had 650,000 men, 5400 tanks, 3000 aircraft, 57,000 vehicles, 15,000 artillery pieces and nearly 100,000 horses. By 1942 the Vladivostok sector had 150 artillery pieces with 75 -356 mm calibers organized into 50 batteries. As you can imagine after Operation Barbarrosa was unleashed, things changed. From June to December, roughly 160,000 men, 3000 tanks, 2670 artillery pieces, 12,000 vehicles and perhaps 1800 aircraft were sent to deal with the Germans. Despite this, the Soviets also greatly expanded a buildup to match the apparent Japanese buildup in Manchuria. By July 22nd 1941 the Far Eastern and Trans-Baikal Fronts were to be raised by 1 million men for august. By December it was nearly 1.2 million. Even the Soviet Far East Navy saw an increase from 100,000 men to 170,000 led by Admiral Yumashev. The Soviet Mongolian allies were capable of manning about 80,000, though they lacked heavy equipment.    Thus if this war broke out in September the Soviets and Mongolians would have just over a million men, with 2/3rds of them manning the Amur-Ussuri-Sakhalin front, the rest would defend Mongolia and the Trans-Baikal region. Even though the war against the Germans was dire, the Soviets never really gave up their prewar planning for how to deal with the Japanese. There would be an all-out defense over the border to prevent any breach of Soviet territory. The main effort would see the 1st and 25th armies holding a north-south axis between the Pacific ocean and Lake Khanka; the 35th army would defend Iman; the 15th and 2nd Red Banner armies would repel the Japanese over the Amur River; and other forces would try to hold out on Sakhalin, Kamchatka and the Pacific coast. The Soviets had constructed hundreds of fortified positions known as Tochkas along the border. Most of these were hexagonal concrete bunkers contained machine gun nests and 76 mm guns. The fortified regions I mentioned were strategically placed forcing the Japanese to overcome them via frontal attacks. This would require heavy artillery to overcome. Despite the great defensive lines, the Soviets did not intend to be passive and would launch counteroffensives. The Soviet air force and Navy would play an active role in defeating a Japanese invasion as well. The air force's objetice would be to destroy the Japanese air force in the air and on the ground, requiring tactical ground attack mission. They would also destroy key railways, bridges and airfields within Manchuria and Korea alongside intercepting IJN shipping. Strategic bombing against the home islands would be limited to under 30 DB-3's who could attack Tokyo, Yokosuka, Maizuru and Ominato. The Soviet Navy would help around the mouth of the Amur River, mine the Tatar Strait and try to hit any IJN ships landing men or materials across the Pacific Coasts.    Japan would not be able to continue a land war with the USSR for very long. According to Japanese military records, in 1942 while at war they were required to produce 50 Kaisenbun. A Kaisenbun is a unit of measurement for ammunition needed for a single division to operate for 4 months. Annual production never surpassed 25 kaisenbun with 100 in reserve. General Shinichi Tanaka estimated for an operation against the USSR 3 Kaisenbun would be needed per divisions, thus a total of 72 would be assigned to 24 divisions. This effectively meant 2/3rds of Japans ammunition stockpile would be used on the initial strike against the USSR. Japan would have been extremely hard pressed to survive such a war cost for 2 years.    Now in terms of equipment Japan had a lot of problems. During the border battles, Japanese artillery often found itself outranged and grossly under supplied compared to the Soviet heavier guns. Despite moving a lot of men and equipment to face the Germans, the Red Army maintained a gross superiority in armor. The best tank the Kwantung Army had in late 1941 was the Type 97 Chi-Ha, holding 33mm armor with a low velocity 57 mm gun. There was also Ha-Go and Te-Ke's with 37 mm guns but they had an effective range less than 1 km.   The Soviet T-26, BT-5 and BT-7's had 45 mm guns more than capable of taking out the Japanese armor and the insult to injury was they were crudely made and very expendable. Every Japanese tank knocked out was far greater a loss, as Japan's production simply could not remotely match the USSR. For aircraft the Japanese were a lot better off. The Polikarpov I-16 was the best Soviet fighter in the Far East and performed alright against the Nakajima Ki-27 at Khalkhin Gol. The rest of the Soviet air arsenal were much older and would struggle. The Soviets would have no answer to the IJN's Zero fighter or the IJA's high speed KI-21 bomber that outraced the Soviet SB-2. Japanese pilots were battle hardened by China and vastly experienced.   Another thing the Japanese would have going for them was quality of troops. The Soviets drained their best men to fight the Germans, so the combat effectiveness in the far east would be less. Without the Pacific War breaking out, some of Japan's best Generals would be brought into this war, of course the first one that comes to mind for me is General Yamashita, probably the most armor competent Japanese general of ww2.    Come August of 1941 those who still sought the invasion of the USSR were facing major crunch time. The IJA planners had assumed the Soviets would transfer 50% or more of their power west to face the Germans, but this was not the case. By August 9th of 1941, facing impossible odds and with the western embargos in full motion, in our timeline the Japanese Hokushin-Ron backers gave up. But for the sake of our story, for some batshit insane reason, the Japanese military leadership and Hirohito give the greenlight for an invasion on August 10th.   Part 3 the catastrophe   So to reiterate the actual world plan had    10 August: Decide on hostilities 24 August: Complete readiness stance 29 August: Concentrate two divisions from North China in Manchuria, bringing the total to 16 5 September: Concentrate four further divisions from the homeland, bringing the total to 22; complete combat stance 10 September (at latest): Commence combat operations 15 October: Complete first phase of war   So what is key to think about here is the events of September. The Battle for Moscow is at the forefront, how does a Japanese invasion in the first week or two of September change things? This is going to probably piss off some of you, but Operation Typhoon would still fail for Germany.  In our time line the legendary spy Richard Sorge sent back information on Japan's decision to invade the USSR between August 25th to September 14th. On the 25th he informed Stalin the Japanese high command were still discussing whether to go to war or not with the USSR. On September 6th Stalin was informed the Japanese were beginning preparations for a war against the west. Then on September 14th, the most important message was relayed to Stalin "In the careful judgment of all of us here... the possibility of [Japan] launching an attack, which existed until recently, has disappeared...."[15]    With this information on hand from 23 June to 31 December 1941, Stalin transferred a total of 28 divisions west. This included 18 rifle divisions, 1 mountain rifle division, 3 tank divisions, 3 mechanized divisions and 3 mountain cavalry divisions. The transfers occurred mainly in June (11 divisions) and October (9 divisions).    Here we come to a crossroads and I am going to have to do some blunt predictions. Let's go from the most optimistic to the most pessimistic. Scenario 1) for some insane reason, Stalin abandons Moscow and moves his industry further east, something the Soviets were actively preparing during Operation Typhoon. This is not a defeat of the USSR, it certainly would prolong the war, but not a defeat. Now that seems rather silly. Scenario 2) Stalin attempts transferring half of what he did in our time line back to Moscow and the Germans fail to take it. The repercussions of course is a limited counteroffensive, it wont be as grand as in our timeline, but Moscow is saved. Scenario 3) and the most likely in my opinion, why would Stalin risk moscow for the Far East? Stalin might not transfer as many troops, but certainly he would have rather placed his chips in Moscow rather than an enemy literally 6000 km's away who have to cross a frozen desert to get to anything he cares about.  Even stating these scenarios, the idea the German army would have taken Moscow if some of the very first units from the far east arrived, because remember a lot of these units did not make it in time to defend moscow, rather they contributed to the grand counteroffensive after the Germans stalled. The German armies in front of Moscow were depleted, exhausted, unsupplied and freezing. Yes many of the Soviet armies at Moscow were hastily thrown together, inexperienced, poorly led and still struggling to regain their balance from the German onslaught. Yet from most sources, and by sources I mean armchair historian types argue, the Germans taking Moscow is pretty unlikely. And moscow was not even that important. What a real impact might have been was the loss of the Caucasus oil fields in early 1942, now that could have brought the USSR down, Moscow, not so much, again the Soviets had already pulled their industry further east, they could do it again.   So within the context of this Second Russo-Japanese War, figure the German's still grind to a halt, they don't take Moscow, perhaps Soviets dont push them back as hard, but the USSR is not collapsing by any means. Ok now before we talk about Japans invasion we actually need to look at some external players. The UK/US/Netherlands already began massive embargoes against Japan for oil, iron, rubber, tin, everything she needed to continue her war, not just against the USSR, but with over 35 divisions fighting in China. President Roosevelt was looking for any excuse to enter WW2 and was gradually increasing ways to aid Britain and the Soviets.  Now American's lend-lease program seriously aided the USSR during WW2, particularly the initial stages of the war. The delivery of lend-lease to the USSR came through three major routes: the Arctic Convoys, the Persian Corridor, and the Pacific Route. The Arctic route was the shortest and most direct route for lend-lease aid to the USSR, though it was also the most dangerous as it involved sailing past German-occupied Norway. Some 3,964,000 tons of goods were shipped by the Arctic route; 7% was lost, while 93% arrived safely. The Persian Corridor was the longest route, and was not fully operational until mid-1942. Thereafter it saw the passage of 4,160,000 tons of goods, 27% of the total. The most important was the Pacific Route which opened up in August of 1941, but became affected when Japan went to war with America. The major port was Vladivostok, where only Soviet ships could transport non-military goods some 8,244,000 tons of goods went by this route, 50% of the total. Vladivostok would almost certainly be captured by the Japanese in our scenario so it won't be viable after its capture. Here is the sticky part, Japan is not at war with the US, so the US is pretty much free to find different Pacific paths to get lend-lease to the Soviets, and to be honest there's always the Arctic or Persian corridors. Hell in this scenario America will be able to get supplies easily into China as there will be no war in Burma, hong kong, Malaya and such. America alone is going to really ruin Japans day by increasing lend-lease to the UK, China and the USSR. America wont be joining the war in 1941, but I would strongly wager by hook or by crook, FDR would pull them into a war against Germany, probably using the same tactic Woodrow Wilson did with WW1. This would only worsen things for Japan. Another player of course is China. Late 1941, China was absolutely battered by Japan. With Japan pulling perhaps even more troops than she did for the Pacific war to fight the USSR, Chiang Kai-Shek would do everything possible to aid his new found close ally Stalin. How this would work out is anyone's guess, but it would be significant as I believe America would be providing a lot more goodies.    Ok you've all been patient, what happens with the war? Japan has to deliver a decisive knock out blow in under 4-6 months, anything after this is simply comical as Japan's production has no resources. The oil in siberia is not even remotely on the table. The Japanese can't find it, would not be able to exploit it, let alone quick enough to use it for the war. Hell the Italians were sitting on oil in Libya and they never figured that out during WW2.   So Kantokuen is unleashed with an initial blow against the Primorye in the Ussuri Front followed by an assault against Blagoveshchensk and Kiubyshevka. The main soviet lines south of Lake Khanka are attacked by the Japanese 1st area army, 3rd and 20th armies and the 19th Korean division. This inturn threatens Vladivostok who is also being bombarded by IJA/IJN aircraft. The 5th Ija army attacks south of Dalnerechensk in an attempt to sever the trans-siberian railway, to block Soviet reinforcements and supplies. The 4th IJA army fords the Amur river to help with the assault of Blagoveshchensk. Meanwhile Sakhalin is being attacked from land and sea by two IJA divisions.  Despite the Soviets being undermanned the western front facing Mongolia and the Trans-Baikal region is wide up to an attack as its only defended by the 23rd IJA division, so a limited counteroffensive begins there. The Japanese quickly win air superiority, however the heavily fortified Tochkas are not being swept aside as the Japanese might have hoped. A major problem the Japanese are facing is Soviet artillery. The Japanese artillery already placed along the borders, initially performed well, crushing Tochkas in range, but when the Japanese begin advancing and deploying their artillery units they are outgunned perhaps 3-1, much of the Soviet artillery outranges them and the Soviets have a much larger stockpile of shells. Airpower is failing to knock out soviet artillery which is placed within Tochkas and other fortified positions with anti-aircraft guns. Without achieving proper neutralization or counter battery fire, the Japanese advance against the fortified Soviet positions. The Soviets respond shockingly with counterattacks. The 15th and 35th Soviet armies with the Amur Red Banner Military Flotilla toss limited counterattacks against both sides of the Sungari River, harassing the Japanese. While much of the soviet armor had been sent west, their light tanks which would be useless against the Germans have been retained in the far east and prove capable of countering the IJA tanks. The Soviets inflict tremendous casualties, however General Yamashita, obsessed with blitzkrieg style warfare he saw first hand in the west, eventually exploits a weak area in the line.Gradually a blitzkrieg punches through and begins to circle around hitting Soviet fortified positions from the rear. The Soviets knew this would be the outcome and had prepared to fight a defense in depth, somewhat managing the onslaught.  The trans-siberian railway has been severed in multiple locations close to the border area, however this is not as effective as it could be, the Japanese need to hook deeper to cut the line further away. In the course of weeks the Soviets are gradually dislodged from their fortified positions, fighting a defense in depth over great stretches of land. Vladivostok holds out surprisingly long until the IJN/IJA seize the city. Alongside this Sakhalin is taken with relative ease. The Soviet surface fleet is annihilated, but their large submarine force takes a heavy toll of the IJN who are attempting Pacific landings. Kantokuen phase 1 is meeting its objectives, but far later than expected with much more casualties than expected. The Japanese are shocked by the fuel consumption as they advance further inland. Each truck bearing fuel is using 50% of said fuel to get to the troops, something reminiscent of the north african campaign situation for Rommel. The terrain is terrible for their vehicles full of valleys, hills, forests and mountains. Infrastructure in the region is extremely underdeveloped and the Soviets are burning and destroying everything before the Japanese arrive. All key roads and cities are defended until the Japanese can encircle the Soviets, upon which they depart, similar to situations the Japanese face in China. It is tremendously slow progress. The IJA are finding it difficult to encircle and capture Soviet forces who have prepared a series of rear lines to keep falling back to while performing counterattacks against Japanese columns. As the Japanese advance further into the interior, the IJN are unable to continue supporting them with aircraft and much of the IJA aircraft are limited in operations because of the range. The second phase of Kantokuen calls for the capture of Khabarovsk, Komsomolsk, Skovorodino, Sovetskaya Gavan, and Nikolayevsk. Additionally, amphibious operations against Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and other parts of the Kamchatka Peninsula are on standby as the IJN fears risking shipping as a result of Soviet submarine operations. The sheer scope of the operation was seeing the tide sides stretching their forces over a front nearly 5000 km in length. At some points the Japanese were attempting to advance more than 1000 km's inland, wasting ungodly amounts of fuel and losing vehicles from wear and tear.  So what does Japan gain? Within the span of 4 months, max 6 months Japan could perhaps seized: Sakhalin, the Primorsye krai including Vladivostok, segments of the trans siberian railway, Blagoveshchensk, Kuibyshevka. If they are really lucky Khabarovsk, Komsomolsk, Skovorodino, Sovetskaya Gavan, Nikolayevsk. Additionally, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and other parts of the Kamchatka Peninsula. What does this mean? Really nothing. Pull out a map of manchuria during WW2, take a pencil and expand the manchurian border perhaps 1000 km if you really want to be generous, that's the new extent of the empire of the rising sun. The real purpose of attacking the USSR is not to perform some ludicrous dash across 6000 km's of frozen wasteland to whittle down and defeat the Soviets alongside the rest of the Axis. It was only to break them, in late 1941 at Moscow there was perhaps a fools chance, but it was a fool's chance for Japan.  Japan has run out of its stockpiles of Kaisenbun, oil, iron, rubber, tin, all types of resources necessary for making war. Unlike in our timeline where Japan began exporting resources from its conquests in southeast asia and the pacific, here Japan spent everything and now is relying on the trickles it has within its empire. The China war will be much more difficult to manage. The lend-lease will increase every day to China. The US/UK/Netherlands will only increase pressure upon Japan to stop being a nuisance, Japan can't do anything about this as the US Pacific Fleet is operating around the Philippines always a looming threat. The Japanese are holding for a lack of better words, useless ground in the far east. They will build a buffer area to defend against what can only be described as a Soviet Invasion of Manchuria x1000. The Allies will be directing all of their effort against Germany and Italy, providing a interesting alternate history concept in its own right. After Germany has been dealt with, Japan would face a existential threat against a very angry Stalin. Cody from Alternate History Hub actually made an episode on this scenario, he believed the Soviets would conquer most of Japan occupied Asia and even invade the home islands. It would certainly be something on the table, taking many years, but the US/UK would most likely interfere in some way. The outcome would be so much worse for Japan. Perhaps she is occupied and a communist government is installed. Perhaps like in our timeline the Americans come in to bolster Japan up for the looming coldwar.  But the question I sought to answer here was, Japan invading the USSR was a dumb idea. The few Japanese commanders who pushed it all the way until August 9th of 1941 simply had to give up because of how illogical it was. I honestly should not have even talked about military matters, this all came down to logistics and resources. You want to know how Japan could have secured itself a better deal in WW2? 1941, the China War is the number one problem Japan can't solve so they look north or south to acquire the means to solve the China problem? Negotiate a peace with China. That is the lackluster best deal right there.    Sorry if this episode did not match your wildest dreams. But if you want me to do some batshit crazy alternate history stuff, I am more than happy to jump into it and have fun. Again thank all of you guys who joined the patreon, you guys are awesome. Until next time this is the Pacific War channel over and out. 

October 11, 1955. Nearly three hundred of the Soviet Union's top scientists sign a secret letter demanding the removal of one man: Trofim Lysenko. For decades, Lysenko had Joseph Stalin's ear, ruling Soviet biology with an iron fist—banning genetics, rewriting textbooks, and sending dissenting scientists to prison or worse.  How did a peasant-turned-agronomist convince Stalin that wheat could turn into rye, and that ideology mattered more than evidence? And when politics replace science, what—and who—gets destroyed? Special thanks to William deJong-Lambert, author of The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research: An Introduction to the Lysenko Affair; and Nikolai Krementsov, author of Stalinist Science. -- Get in touch: historythisweekpodcast@history.com  Follow on Instagram: @historythisweek Follow on Facebook: ⁠HISTORY This Week Podcast⁠ To stay updated: http://historythisweekpodcast.com 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

Last time we spoke about the Nanjing Massacre. Japanese forces breached Nanjing as Chinese defenders retreated under heavy bombardment, and the city fell on December 13. In the following weeks, civilians and disarmed soldiers endured systematic slaughter, mass executions, rapes, looting, and arson, with casualties mounting rapidly. Among the most brutal episodes were hundreds of executions near the Safety Zone, mass shootings along the Yangtze River, and killings at improvised sites and “killing fields.” The massacre involved tens of thousands of prisoners, with estimates up to 300,000 victims. Women and children were subjected to widespread rape, mutilation, and terror intended to crush morale and resistance. Although the Safety Zone saved many lives, it could not shield all refugees from harm, and looting and arson devastated large parts of the city. Foreign witnesses, missionaries, and diary entries documented the extensive brutality and the apparent premeditated nature of many acts, noting the collapse of discipline among troops and orders that shaped the violence.    #169 Nanjing has Fallen, the War is not Over 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. Directly after the fall of Nanjing, rumors circulated among the city's foreigners that Tang Shengzhi had been executed for his inability to hold the city against the Japanese onslaught. In fact, unlike many of his subordinates who fought in the defense, he survived. On December 12, he slipped through Yijiang Gate, where bullets from the 36th Division had claimed numerous victims, and sailed across the Yangtze to safety. Chiang Kai-shek protected him from bearing direct consequences for Nanjing's collapse. Tang was not unscathed, however. After the conquest of Nanjing, a dejected Tang met General Li Zongren at Xuzhou Railway Station. In a brief 20-minute conversation, Tang lamented, “Sir, Nanjing's fall has been unexpectedly rapid. How can I face the world?” Li, who had previously taunted Tang for over-eagerness, offered sympathy. “Don't be discouraged. Victory or defeat comes every day for the soldier. Our war of resistance is a long-term proposition. The loss of one city is not decisive.” By December 1937, the outlook for Chiang Kai-shek's regime remained bleak. Despite his public pledges, he had failed to defend the capital. Its sturdy walls, which had withstood earlier sieges, were breached in less than 100 hours. Foreign observers remained pessimistic about the prospects of continuing the fight against Japan. The New York Times wrote “The capture of Nanking was the most overwhelming defeat suffered by the Chinese and one of the most tragic military debacles in modern warfare. In defending Nanking, the Chinese allowed themselves to be surrounded and then slaughtered… The graveyard of tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers may also be the graveyard of all Chinese hopes of resisting conquest by Japan.” Foreign diplomats doubted Chiang's ability to sustain the war, shrinking the question to whether he would stubbornly continue a losing fight or seek peace. US Ambassador Nelson Johnson wrote in a letter to Admiral Yarnell, then commander of the US Asicatic Fleet “There is little left now for the Chinese to do except to carry on a desultory warfare in the country, or to negotiate for the best terms they can get”.  The Japanese, too, acted as if Chiang Kai-shek had already lost the war. They assumed the generalissimo was a spent force in Chinese politics as well, and that a gentle push would suffice to topple his regime like a house of cards. On December 14, Prime Minister Konoe announced that Chiang's losses of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and now Nanjing, had created a new situation. “The National Government has become but a shadow of its former self. If a new Chinese regime emerged to replace Chiang's government, Japan would deal with it, provided it is a regime headed in the right direction.” Konoe spoke the same day as a Liaison Conference in Tokyo, where civilian and military leaders debated how to treat China now that it had been thoroughly beaten on the battlefield. Japanese demands had grown significantly: beyond recognizing Manchukuo, Japan pressed for the creation of pro-Japanese regimes in Inner Mongolia and the north China area. The same day, a puppet government was established in Japanese-occupied Beijing. While these demands aimed to end China as a unitary state, Japanese policy was moving toward the same goal. The transmissions of these demands via German diplomatic channels caused shock and consternation in Chinese government circles, and the Chinese engaged in what many regarded as stalling tactics. Even at this late stage, there was division among Japan's top decision makers. Tada, deputy chief of the Army General Staff, feared a protracted war in China and urged keeping negotiations alive. He faced strong opposition from the cabinet, including the foreign minister and the ministers of the army and navy, and ultimately he relented. Tada stated “In this state of emergency, it is necessary to avoid any political upheaval that might arise from a struggle between the Cabinet and the Army General Staff.” Although he disagreed, he no longer challenged the uncompromising stance toward China. On January 16, 1938, Japan publicly stated that it would “cease henceforth to deal with” Chiang Kai-shek. This was a line that could not be uncrossed. War was the only option. Germany, the mediator between China and Japan, also considered Chiang a losing bet. In late January 1938, von Dirksen, the German ambassador in Tokyo, urged a fundamental shift in German diplomacy and advocated abandoning China in favor of Japan. He warned that this was a matter of urgency, since Japan harbored grudges against Germany for its half-hearted peace efforts. In a report, von Dirksen wrote that Japan, “in her deep ill humor, will confront us with unpleasant decisions at an inopportune moment.” Von Dirksen's view carried the day in Berlin. Nazi Germany and Hirohito's Japan were on a trajectory that, within three years, would forge the Axis and place Berlin and Tokyo in the same camp in a conflict that would eventually span the globe. Rabe, who returned to Germany in 1938, found that his account of Japanese atrocities in Nanjing largely fell on deaf ears. He was even visited by the Gestapo, which apparently pressed him to keep quiet about what he had seen. Ambassador von Dirksen also argued in his January 1938 report that China should be abandoned because of its increasingly friendly ties with the Soviet Union. There was some merit to this claim. Soviet aid to China was substantial: by the end of 1937, 450 Soviet aviators were serving in China. Without them, Japan likely would have enjoyed air superiority. Chiang Kai-shek, it seemed, did not fully understand the Russians' motives. They were supplying aircraft and pilots to keep China in the war while keeping themselves out. After Nanjing's fall, Chiang nevertheless reached out to Joseph Stalin, inviting direct Soviet participation in the war. Stalin politely declined, noting that if the Soviet Union joined the conflict, “the world would say the Soviet Union was an aggressor, and sympathy for Japan around the world would immediately increase.” In a rare moment of candor a few months later, the Soviet deputy commissar for foreign affairs spoke with the French ambassador, describing the situation in China as “splendid.” He expected China to continue fighting for several more years, after which Japan would be too weakened to undertake major operations against the Soviet Union. It was clear that China was being used. Whatever the motive, China was receiving vital help from Stalin's Russia while the rest of the world stood on the sidelines, reluctant to upset Japan. Until Operation Barbarossa, when the Soviet Union was forced to the brink by the German Army and could no longer sustain extensive overseas aid, it supplied China with 904 planes, 1,516 trucks, 1,140 artillery pieces, 9,720 machine guns, 50,000 rifles, 31,600 bombs, and more. Despite all of this, all in all, China's position proved less disastrous than many observers had feared. Chinese officials later argued that the battle of Nanjing was not the unmitigated fiasco it appeared to be. Tang Shengzhi had this to say in his memoirs“I think the main purpose of defending Nanjing was to buy time, to allow troops that had just been pulled out of battle to rest and regroup. It wasn't simply because it was the capital or the site of Sun Yat-sen's mausoleum.” Tan Daoping, an officer in Nanjing, described the battle “as a moderate success because it drew the Japanese in land”. This of course was a strategy anticipated by interwar military thinker Jiang Baili. It also allowed dozens of Chinese divisions to escape Shanghai, since the Japanese forces that could have pursued them were tied down with the task of taking Nanjing. Tan Daoping wrote after the war “They erred in believing they could wage a quick war and decide victory immediately. Instead, their dream was shattered; parts of their forces were worn out, and they were hindered from achieving a swift end”. Even so, it was a steep price was paid in Chinese lives. As in Shanghai, the commanders in Nanjing thought they could fight on the basis of sheer willpower. Chinese officer Qin Guo Qi wrote in his memoirs “In modern war, you can't just rely on the spirit of the troops. You can't merely rely on physical courage and stamina. The battle of Nanjing explains that better than anything”. As for the Brigade commander of the 87th division, Chen Yiding, who emerged from Nanjing with only a few hundred survivors, was enraged. “During the five days of the battle for Nanjing, my superiors didn't see me even once. They didn't do their duty. They also did not explain the overall deployments in the Nanjing area. What's worse, they didn't give us any order to retreat. And afterwards I didn't hear of any commander being disciplined for failing to do his job.” Now back in November of 1937, Chiang Kai-shek had moved his command to the great trinity of Wuhan. For the Nationalists, Wuhan was a symbolically potent stronghold: three municipalities in one, Hankou, Wuchang, and Hanyang. They had all grown prosperous as gateways between coastal China and the interior. But the autumn disasters of 1937 thrust Wuhan into new prominence, and, a decade after it had ceased to be the temporary capital, it again became the seat of military command and resistance. Leading Nationalist politicians had been seen in the city in the months before the war, fueling suspicions that Wuhan would play a major role in any imminent conflict. By the end of the year, the generals and their staffs, along with most of the foreign embassies, had moved upriver. Yet as 1937 slipped into 1938, the Japanese advance seemed practically unstoppable. From the destruction of Shanghai, to the massacre in Nanjing, to the growing vulnerability of Wuhan, the NRA government appeared powerless against the onslaught.  Now the Japanese government faced several options: expanding the scope of the war to force China into submission, which would risk further depletion of Japan's military and economic resources; establishing an alternative regime in China as a bridge for reconciliation, thereby bypassing the Nationalist government for negotiations; and engaging in indirect or direct peace negotiations with the Nationalist Government, despite the failure of previous attempts, while still seeking new opportunities for negotiation. However, the Nanjing massacre did not compel the Chinese government and its people to submit. On January 2, Chiang Kai-shek wrote in his diary, “The conditions proposed by Japan are equivalent to the conquest and extinction of our country. Rather than submitting and perishing, it is better to perish in defeat,” choosing to refuse negotiations and continue resistance.  In January 1938 there was a new escalation of hostilities. Up to that point, Japan had not officially declared war, even during the Shanghai campaign and the Nanjing massacre. However on January 11, an Imperial Conference was held in Tokyo in the presence of Emperor Hirohito. Prime Minister Konoe outlined a “Fundamental Policy to deal with the China Incident.”The Imperial Conference was attended by Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe, Army Chief of Staff Prince Kan'in, Navy Minister Admiral Fushimi, and others to reassess its policy toward China. Citing the Nationalist Government's delay and lack of sincerity, the Japanese leadership decided to terminate Trautmann's mediation. At the conference, Japan articulated a dual strategy: if the Nationalist Government did not seek peace, Japan would no longer regard it as a viable negotiating partner, instead supporting emerging regimes, seeking to resolve issues through incidents, and aiming either to eliminate or incorporate the existing central government; if the Nationalist Government sought reconciliation, it would be required to cease resistance, cooperate with Japan against communism, and pursue economic cooperation, including officially recognizing Manchukuo and allowing Japanese troops in Inner Mongolia, North China, Central China, and co-governance of Shanghai. The Konoe cabinet relayed this proposal to the German ambassador in Japan on December 22, 1937: It called for: diplomatic recognition of Manchukuo; autonomy for Inner Mongolia; cessation of all anti-Japanese and anti-Manchukuo policies; cooperation between Japan, Manchukuo, and China against communism; war reparations; demilitarized zones in North China and Inner Mongolia; and a trade agreement among Japan, Manchukuo, and China.  Its terms were too severe, including reparations payable to Japan and new political arrangements that would formalize the separation of north China under Japanese control. Chiang's government would have seventy-two hours to accept; if they refused, Tokyo would no longer recognize the Nationalist government and would seek to destroy it.  On January 13, 1938, the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Chonghui informed Germany that China needed a fuller understanding of the additional conditions for peace talks to make a decision. The January 15 deadline for accepting Japan's terms elapsed without Chinese acceptance. Six days after the deadline for a Chinese government reply, an Imperial Conference “Gozen Kaigi” was convened in Tokyo to consider how to handle Trautmann's mediation. The navy, seeing the war as essentially an army matter, offered no strong position; the army pressed for ending the war through diplomatic means, arguing that they faced a far more formidable Far Eastern Soviet threat at the northern Manchukuo border and wished to avoid protracted attrition warfare. Foreign Minister Kōki Hirota, however, strongly disagreed with the army, insisting there was no viable path to Trautmann's mediation given the vast gap between Chinese and Japanese positions. A second conference followed on January 15, 1938, attended by the empire's principal cabinet members and military leaders, but without the emperor's presence. The debate grew heated over whether to continue Trautmann's mediation. Hayao Tada, Deputy Chief of Army General Staff, argued for continuation, while Konoe, Hirota, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and War Minister Hajime Sugiyama opposed him. Ultimately, Tada acceded to the position of Konoe and Hirota. On the same day, Konoe conveyed the cabinet's conclusion, termination of Trautmann's mediation, to the emperor. The Japanese government then issued a statement on January 16 declaring that it would no longer treat the Nationalist Government as a bargaining partner, signaling the establishment of a new Chinese regime that would cooperate with Japan and a realignment of bilateral relations. This became known as the first Konoe statement, through which Tokyo formally ended Trautmann's mediation attempt. The Chinese government was still weighing its response when, at noon on January 16, Konoe publicly declared, “Hereafter, the Imperial Government will not deal with the National Government.” In Japanese, this became the infamous aite ni sezu (“absolutely no dealing”). Over the following days, the Japanese government made it clear that this was a formal breach of relations, “stronger even than a declaration of war,” in the words of Foreign Minister Hirota Kōki. The Chinese ambassador to Japan, who had been in Tokyo for six months since hostilities began, was finally recalled. At the end of January, Chiang summoned a military conference and declared that the top strategic priority would be to defend the east-central Chinese city of Xuzhou, about 500 kilometers north of Wuhan. This decision, like the mobilization near Lugouqiao, was heavily influenced by the railway: Xuzhou sat at the midpoint of the Tianjin–Pukou Jinpu line, and its seizure would grant the Japanese mastery over north–south travel in central China. The Jinpu line also crossed the Longhai line, China's main cross-country artery from Lanzhou to the port of Lianyungang, north of Shanghai. The Japanese military command marked the Jinpu line as a target in spring 1938. Control over Xuzhou and the rail lines threading through it were thus seen as vital to the defense of Wuhan, which lay to the city's south. Chiang's defense strategy fit into a larger plan evolving since the 1920s, when the military thinker Jiang Baili had first proposed a long war against Japan; Jiang's foresight earned him a position as an adviser to Chiang in 1938. Jiang had previously run the Baoding military academy, a predecessor of the Whampoa academy, which had trained many of China's finest young officers in the early republic 1912–1922. Now, many of the generals who had trained under Jiang gathered in Wuhan and would play crucial roles in defending the city: Chen Cheng, Bai Chongxi, Tang Shengzhi, and Xue Yue. They remained loyal to Chiang but sought to avoid his tendency to micromanage every aspect of strategy.  Nobody could say with certainty whether Wuhan would endure the Japanese onslaught, and outsiders' predictions were gloomy. As Wuhan's inhabitants tasted their unexpected new freedoms, the Japanese pressed on with their conquest of central China. After taking Nanjing, the IJA 13th Division crossed the Yangtze River to the north and advanced to the Outang and Mingguang lines on the east bank of the Chihe River in Anhui Province, while the 2nd Army of the North China Front crossed the Yellow River to the south between Qingcheng and Jiyang in Shandong, occupied Jinan, and pressed toward Jining, Mengyin, and Qingdao. To open the Jinpu Railway and connect the northern and southern battlefields, the Japanese headquarters mobilized eight divisions, three brigades, and two detachments , totaling about 240,000 men. They were commanded by General Hata Shunroku, commander of the Central China Expeditionary Army, and Terauchi Hisaichi, commander of the North China Front Army. Their plan was a north–south advance: first seize Xuzhou, a strategic city in east China; then take Zhengzhou in the west along the Longhai Railway connecting Lanzhou and Lianyungang; and finally push toward Wuhan in the south along the Pinghan Railway connecting Beijing and Hankou. At the beginning of 1938, Japan's domestic mobilization and military reorganization had not yet been completed, and there was a shortage of troops to expand the front. At the Emperor's Imperial Conference on February 16, 1938, the General Staff Headquarters argued against launching operations before the summer of 1938, preferring to consolidate the front in 1938 and undertake a large-scale battle in 1939. Although the Northern China Expeditionary Force and the Central China Expeditionary Force proposed a plan to open the Jinpu Line to connect the northern and southern battlefields, the proposal was not approved by the domestic General Staff Headquarters. The Chinese army, commanded by Li Zongren, commander-in-chief of the Fifth War Zone, mobilized about 64 divisions and three brigades, totaling roughly 600,000 men. The main force was positioned north of Xuzhou to resist the southern Japanese advance, with a portion deployed along the southern Jinpu Railway to block the southern push and secure Xuzhou. Early in the campaign, Chiang Kai-shek redeployed the heavy artillery brigade originally promised to Han Fuju to Tang Enbo's forces. To preserve his strength, Shandong Provincial Governor Han Fuju abandoned the longstanding Yellow River defenses in Shandong, allowing the Japanese to capture the Shandong capital of Jinan in early March 1938. This defection opened the Jinpu Railway to attack. The Japanese 10th Division, under Rensuke Isogai, seized Tai'an, Jining, and Dawenkou, ultimately placing northern Shandong under Japanese control. The aim was to crush the Chinese between the two halves of a pincer movement. At Yixian and Huaiyuan, north of Xuzhou, both sides fought to the death: the Chinese could not drive back the Japanese, but the Japanese could not scatter the defenders either. At Linyi, about 50 kilometers northeast of Xuzhou, Zhang Zizhong, who had previously disgraced himself by abandoning an earlier battlefield—became a national hero for his determined efforts to stop the Japanese troops led by Itagaki Seishirō, the conqueror of Manchuria. The Japanese hoped that they could pour in as many as 400,000 troops to destroy the Chinese forces holding eastern and central China. Chiang Kai-shek was determined that this should not happen, recognizing that the fall of Xuzhou would place Wuhan in extreme danger. On April 1, 1938, he addressed Nationalist Party delegates, linking the defense of Wuhan to the fate of the party itself. He noted that although the Japanese had invaded seven provinces, they had only captured provincial capitals and main transport routes, while villages and towns off those routes remained unconquered. The Japanese, he argued, might muster more than half a million soldiers, but after eight or nine months of hard fighting they had become bogged down. Chiang asserted that as long as Guangzhou (Canton) remained in Chinese hands, it would be of little significance if the Japanese invaded Wuhan, since Guangzhou would keep China's sea links open and Guangdong, Sun Yat-sen's homeland, would serve as a revolutionary base area. If the “woren” Japanese “dwarfs” attacked Wuhan and Guangzhou, it would cost them dearly and threaten their control over the occupied zones. He reiterated his plan: “the base area for our war will not be in the zones east of the Beiping–Wuhan or Wuhan–Guangdong railway lines, but to their west.” For this reason he authorized withdrawing Chinese troops behind the railway lines. Chiang's speech mixed defiance with an explanation of why regrouping was necessary; it was a bold public posture in the face of a developing military disaster, yet it reflected the impossible balance he faced between signaling resolve and avoiding overcommitment of a city that might still fall. Holding Xuzhou as the first priority required Chiang Kai-shek to place a great deal of trust in one of his rivals: the southwestern general Li Zongren. The relationship between Chiang and Li would become one of the most ambivalent in wartime China. Li hailed from Guangxi, a province in southwestern China long regarded by the eastern heartland as half civilized. Its people had rarely felt fully part of the empire ruled from Beijing or even Nanjing, and early in the republic there was a strong push for regional autonomy. Li was part of a cohort of young officers trained in regional academies who sought to bring Guangxi under national control; he joined the Nationalist Party in 1923, the year Sun Yat-sen announced his alliance with the Soviets. Li was not a Baoding Academy graduate but had trained at Yunnan's equivalent institution, which shared similar views on military professionalism. He enthusiastically took part in the Northern Expedition (1926–1928) and played a crucial role in the National Revolutionary Army's ascent to control over much of north China. Yet after the Nanjing government took power, Li grew wary of Chiang's bid to centralize authority in his own person. In 1930 Li's so‑called “Guangxi clique” participated in the Central Plains War, the failed effort by militarist leaders to topple Chiang; although the plot failed, Li retreated to his southwest base, ready to challenge Chiang again. The occupation of Manchuria in 1931 reinforced Li's belief that a Japanese threat posed a greater danger than Chiang's centralization. The tension between the two men was evident from the outset of the war. On October 10, 1937, Chiang appointed Li commander of the Fifth War Zone; Li agreed on the condition that Chiang refrain from issuing shouling—personal commands—to Li's subordinates. Chiang complied, a sign of the value he placed on Li's leadership and the caution with which he treated Li and his Guangxi ally Bai Chongxi. As Chiang sought any possible victory amid retreat and destruction, he needed Li to deliver results. As part of the public-relations front, journalists were given access to commanders on the Xuzhou front. Li and his circle sought to shape their image as capable leaders to visiting reporters, with Du Zhongyuan among the most active observers. Du praised the “formidable southwestern general, Li Zongren,” calling him “elegant and refined” and “vastly magnanimous.” In language echoing the era's soldiers' public presentation, Du suggested that Li's forces operated under strict, even disciplined, orders “The most important point in the people's war is that . . . troops do not harass the people of the country. If the people are the water, the soldiers are the fish, and if you have fish with no water, inevitably they're going to choke; worse still is to use our water to nurture the enemy's fish — that really is incomparably stupid”.  Within the southern front, on January 26, 1938, the Japanese 13th Division attacked Fengyang and Bengbu in Anhui Province, while Li Pinxian, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the 5th War Zone, directed operations south of Xuzhou. The defending 31st Corps of the 11th Group Army, after resisting on the west bank of the Chi River, retreated to the west of Dingyuan and Fengyang. By February 3, the Japanese had captured Linhuai Pass and Bengbu. From the 9th to the 10th, the main force of the 13th Division forced a crossing of the Huai River at Bengbu and Linhuai Pass respectively, and began an offensive against the north bank. The 51st Corps, reorganized from the Central Plains Northeast Army and led by Commander Yu Xuezhong, engaged in fierce combat with the Japanese. Positions on both sides of the Huai shifted repeatedly, producing a riverine bloodbath through intense hand-to-hand fighting. After ten days of engagement, the Fifth War Zone, under Zhang Zizhong, commander of the 59th Army, rushed to the Guzhen area to reinforce the 51st Army, and the two forces stubbornly resisted the Japanese on the north bank of the Huai River. Meanwhile, on the south bank, the 48th Army of the 21st Group Army held the Luqiao area, while the 7th Army, in coordination with the 31st Army, executed a flanking attack on the flanks and rear of the Japanese forces in Dingyuan, compelling the main body of the 13th Division to redeploy to the north bank for support. Seizing the initiative, the 59th and 51st Armies launched a counteroffensive, reclaiming all positions north of the Huai River by early March. The 31st Army then moved from the south bank to the north, and the two sides faced across the river. Subsequently, the 51st and 59th Armies were ordered to reinforce the northern front, while the 31st Army continued to hold the Huai River to ensure that all Chinese forces covering the Battle of Xuzhou were safely withdrawn. Within the northern front, in late February, the Japanese Second Army began its southward push along multiple routes. The eastern axis saw the 5th Division moving south from Weixian present-day Weifang, in Shandong, capturing Yishui, Juxian, and Rizhao before pressing directly toward Linyi, as units of the Nationalist Third Corps' 40th Army and others mounted strenuous resistance. The 59th Army was ordered to reinforce and arrived on March 12 at the west bank of the Yi River in the northern suburbs of Linyi, joining the 40th Army in a counterattack that, after five days and nights of ferocious fighting, inflicted heavy losses on the Japanese and forced them to retreat toward Juxian. On the western route, the Seya Detachment (roughly a brigade) of the Japanese 10th Division crossed the Grand Canal from Jining and attacked Jiaxiang, meeting stiff resistance from the Third Army and being thwarted, while continuing to advance south along the Jinpu Railway. The Isogai Division, advancing on the northern route without awaiting help from the southeast and east, moved southward from Liangxiadian, south of Zouxian, on March 14, with the plan to strike Tengxian, present-day Tengzhou on March 15 and push south toward Xuzhou. The defending 22nd Army and the 41st Corps fought bravely and suffered heavy casualties in a hard battle that lasted until March 17, during which Wang Mingzhang, commander of the 122nd Division defending Teng County, was killed in action. Meanwhile, a separate Japanese thrust under Itagaki Seishirō landed on the Jiaodong Peninsula and occupied Qingdao, advancing along the Jiaoji Line to strike Linyi, a key military town in southern Shandong. Pang Bingxun's 40th Army engaged the invaders in fierce combat, and later, elements of Zhang Zizhong's 333rd Brigade of the 111th Division, reinforced by the 57th Army, joined Pang Bingxun's forces to launch a double-sided pincer that temporarily repelled the Japanese attack on Linyi. By late March 1938 a frightening reality loomed: the Japanese were close to prevailing on the Xuzhou front. The North China Area Army, commanded by Itagaki Seishirō, Nishio Toshizō, and Isogai Rensuke, was poised to link up with the Central China Expeditionary Force under Hata Shunroku in a united drive toward central China. Li Zongren, together with his senior lieutenants Bai Chongxi and Tang Enbo, decided to confront the invaders at Taierzhuang, the traditional stone-walled city that would become a focal point of their defense. 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. Nanjing falls after one of humanities worst atrocities. Chiang Kai-Shek's war command has been pushed to Wuhan, but the Japanese are not stopping their advance. Trautmann's mediation is over and now Japan has its sights on Xuzhou and its critical railway junctions. Japan does not realize it yet, but she is now entering a long war of attrition.

Free transcript: https://steady.page/de/sgle/posts/44cead64-c6c5-45bf-bed0-78962557b378?utm_campaign=steady_sharing_button If you want to support the podcast, you can click here: https://steady.page/de/sgle/about Please share this podcast with your friends, family and neighbours or even write a review :). You can contact me as a Steady Supporter or write a mail to learngermanwithculture@web.de .

Eric welcomes historian Tim Bouverie, author of Allies at War: How the Struggles Between the Allied Powers Shaped the War and the World, to Shield of the Republic. They discuss Tim's fascinating account of the interplay among personalities and larger forces during the Second World War. They touch on Anglo-French relations and the role of Charles de Gaulle, Britain's failed efforts to bring Turkey into the war as an ally, as well as the diplomacy of FDR, Churchill, and Stalin at the wartime conferences at Tehran and Yalta. They discuss the relative success of British and American diplomacy during World War II as well as lessons from the record of wartime diplomacy for alliance management and coalition maintenance today. Allies at War: How the Struggles Between the Allied Powers Shaped the War and the World: https://a.co/d/caX7je6 Appeasement: Chamberlain, Hitler, Churchill, and the Road to War: https://a.co/d/6cPWr7G Tickets to Bulwark Live in DC (10/8) with Sarah, Tim and JVL are on sale now at https://TheBulwark.com/events Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

Einer der berühmtesten Spione aller Zeiten - zumindest der bekannteste, der erwischt wurde: Richard Sorge (geboren am 4.10.1895) lebte ein filmreifes und komprissloses Leben... Von Joscha Seehausen.

GATEWAY CINEMA is a multi-part series of conversations centered on key ideas in film studies. In these conversations, we interpret and celebrate a set of eclectic feature films from across generations and from around the world, including “La Haine”, “Drum”, “Alien 3 (Assembly Cut)”, “Come and See”, “Perfect Days”, “Sweet Smell of Success”, “The Swimmer”, “Amadeus (Director's Cut)”, “Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia”, “Friday”, “Marie Antoinette”, “The Night of the Hunter”, “Crank” and “Crank 2: High Voltage”, “Portrait of a Lady Fire”, “The Fabulous Baron Munchausen”, “Joker: Folie a Deux”, “Welcome to the Dollhouse”, “Heathers”, and “The Death of Stalin”.***Referenced media in GATEWAY CINEMA, Episode 11:"Amadeus (Director's Cut)” (Milos Forman, 1984/2002)“Breakfast Club” (John Hughes, 1985)“Moulin Rouge!” (Baz Luhrmann, 2001)“Conan the Barbarian” (John Milius, 1982)“Saturday Night Life” (Lorne Michaels, 1975-now)“John Adams” (Tom Hooper, 2008)“Interview with the Vampire” (Neil Jordan, 1994)“The Power of the Dog” (Jane Campion, 2021)“Civil War” (Alex Garland, 2024)“Star Trek: Next Generation” (Gene Roddenberry, 1987-1994)“The Virgin Suicides” (Sofia Coppola, 1999)“Lost in Translation” (Sofia Coppola, 2003)“Rushmore” (Wes Anderson, 1998)“Star Wars” (George Lucas, 1977)“Barry Lyndon” (Stanley Kubrick, 1975)“Eye in the Sky” (Gavin Hood, 2015)“The New World” (Terrence Malick, 2005)“Titus” (Julie Taymor, 1999)“Titus Andronicus” (William Shakespeare, 1588-1593)“The Lion King” (Julie Taymor, 1997-now)“Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” (Larry Charles, 2006)“Nashville” (Robert Altman, 1975)“The Player” (Robert Altman, 1992)“American Graffiti” (George Lucas, 1973)Audio quotation in GATEWAY CINEMA, Episode 11:“Marie Antoinette” (Sofia Coppola, 2006), including the songs “Intro Versailles” (2006) by Brian Reitzell, “I Want Candy” (1982) by Bow Wow Wow, “Fools Rush In” (1982) by Bow Wow Wow, “Aphrodisiac” (1983) by Bow Wow Wow, “Hong Kong Garden” (1978) by Siouxsie and the Banshees, “What Ever Happened?” (2003) by The Strokes, and “Kings of the Wild Frontier” (1980) by Adam and the Ants, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkTESLJ1DzwVuwneRvZRNBzJkbNQsX-sP“Don't You (Forget About Me)” (1985) by Simple Minds, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdqoNKCCt7A&list=RDCdqoNKCCt7A&start_radio=1Theme for “Star Trek: The Next Generation” (1987) by Jerry Goldsmith, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5kcBxL7-qI&list=RDp5kcBxL7-qI&start_radio=1

From such notorious figures as Ghenghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler to Hamas, drug cartels, Iran's Ayatollahs, and more, evil has long made its presence felt across the pages of history. So, what do we do when facing such evil? In his new book Confronting Evil: Assessing the Worst of the Worst, bestselling author and media personality Bill O'Reilly exposes the mentalities and tactics of the most treacherous leaders and groups of the past and today to reveal the desires and motives that we see playing out even now. It's time to find the boldness to stand against the darkness and change our world. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠WATCH Stakelbeck Tonight episodes for free on TBN+ here.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ The Stakscast with Erick Stakelbeck podcast features host Erick Stakelbeck and special guests having candid, thought-provoking conversations on the state of America, the world, and the Church, plus powerful personal testimonies and stories. Tune in for deep discussions on the big issues that matter to you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By January 1945, the war in Europe neared its final phase. In the west, the Allies had repelled the Ardennes offensive. In the east, the Red Army prepared the Vistula–Oder offensive, a huge strike that pushed German forces out of Poland. The Soviet advance carried them to the very gates of Berlin. The Vistula–Oder offensive in 1945 liberated vast areas, including Auschwitz. It also created the springboard for the final assault on Germany. Stalin wanted more than battlefield victory. He pushed Soviet borders west, reclaimed imperial lands, and shaped Poland's fate before the war ended. The Wehrmacht resisted fiercely. German forces launched a desperate counterattack, their last major armoured offensive on the Eastern Front. In this episode of the WW2 Podcast, I talk with Prit Buttar, author of Into the Reich: The Red Army's Advance to the Oder in 1945.   patreon.com/ww2podcast    

Ansley Hutchinson & Tess Menzies from the Boredwalk content team and Boredwalk founder Meredith Erin are back in your earballs to recap and comment on the latest embarrassments of the regime, including (but in no way limited to): • The FBI's poorly executed disposal of two pounds of methamphetamine using the incinerator in a Montana animal shelter, exposing animals and human workers to meth fumes and sending 14 staffers to the hospital.  • ICE's racist and unlawful arrest and detention of South Korean citizens that were in the U.S. legally to set up factories and train U.S. workers on how to operate and maintain them. This episode of incompetence scuttled a trade deal that will cost the U.S. economy $350 billion dollars and thousands of jobs for U.S. workers in states that overwhelmingly voted for this clown car of incompetence. • Exploiting the murder of Charlie Kirk to curtail First Amendment protections; you know, the opposite of what noted champion of hate speech Charlie Kirk was all about. • Engaging in historical revisionism by eliminating studies from the Department of Justice's website that don't fit the MAGA narrative that political violence overwhelmingly comes from the left. The desiccated corpse of Joseph Stalin called and would like Donald to stop biting his moves. Our hosts then check in on the latest dispatches from Troll-sylvania, and a review for our new Sinister Affirmations card deck! In an effort to take things out on a high note, our hosts wrap up the episode by trading answers to questions pulled from our Delve Deck conversation card sets! This week we answer the questions "what was the worst job you've ever had?", "what do people often wrongly assume about you?", and "what's something you like that might surprise people who know you?" Thanks for stopping by to hang out, commiserate, and (hopefully) laugh with us! FOLLOW US: FACEBOOK ► facebook.com/boredwalktshirts INSTAGRAM ► instagram.com/boredwalk THREADS ► threads.com/boredwalktees YOUTUBE ► youtube.com/boredwalk.los.angeles BLUESKY ► bsky.app/profile/boredwalk.com TIKTOK ► tiktok.com/@boredwalk.lol

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

L'appétit immobilier de la famille Trump se tourne désormais vers les Balkans et l'Albanie. La fille aînée du président, Ivanka et son mari Jared Kushner ont le projet d'investir plus d'un milliard d'euros pour transformer l'île militarisée de Sazan en lieu branché pour les ultrariches. Dans ce pays où l'industrie touristique connait une croissance exponentielle, les autorités déroulent le tapis rouge. Mais c'est sans compter les écologistes et la population locale qui voient d'un mauvais œil cette mainmise sur leur territoire, sans concertation. Reportage dans la région de Vlora, dans le sud du pays signé Louis Seiller.   L'Histoire de la réunification allemande, vue par les jeunes L'Allemagne fêtera, en cette fin de semaine, les 35 ans de la réunification du pays. Un moment historique qui signe la fin de la guerre froide, et pour le pays une division douloureuse de quatre décennies entre d'une part la République Fédérale à l'Ouest et la RDA, socialiste à l'Est. Beaucoup d'Allemands ont encore le souvenir du mur qui coupait en deux Berlin. Mais, malgré l'enseignement de l'histoire, cette mémoire tend à s'estomper auprès des jeunes, qui véhiculent aussi un certain nombre de clichés. C'est le reportage à Berlin de Delphine Nerbollier.     Des espions russes à l'université L'Histoire, avec un grand H c'est bien sûr aussi le lieu de l'influence politique. Dans les anciennes républiques soviétiques, qu'il s'agisse de l'Estonie ou de l'Ukraine on ne s'y trompe pas, la main de Moscou et des services de renseignement cherchent encore à peser sur la recherche. À tel point que nombre d'universitaires répliquent en dénonçant un comportement post-colonial. Les explications de notre correspondante à Kiev Emmanuelle Chaze.   L'Histoire ukrainienne à travers un roman De la grande famine en Ukraine sous Staline, de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, du pacte entre la Russie et l'Allemagne, du massacre des juifs en Ukraine à Babi Yar, des déportations en Sibérie, on parle de tout cela dans le roman de Yaroslav Trofimov «Ce pays qui n'aimait pas l'amour», publié aux éditions Istya et Compagnie. L'auteur, correspondant diplomatique du Wall Street Journal, y raconte l'histoire tumultueuse de sa grand-mère aux prises avec les grands bouleversements de son pays au XXème siècle.

Seán T. O'Kelly brought political savvy and international flair as head of a newly-fledged nation trying to figure out its place in the world. It was during O'Kelly's terms in office that the Áras became the party-spot for high-flying night-owls. xBut behind the scenes, his two terms were not without their controversies. How did this diplomat manage to massively annoy both the Pope and Joseph Stalin in one fell swoop? And did this presidency mark the start of Ireland's great grá for US presidents? In this second episode of Think You Know...The Presidents, our dynamic duo Flor Mac Carthy and Lise Hand present a twist on the life and times of Seán T.O'Kelly with the help of historian Liz Gillis.

•⁠ ⁠கரூர் சம்பவம்: சீனா இரங்கல்!•⁠ ⁠வீடியோ வெளியிட்ட விஜய்! •⁠ ⁠தவெக-வினருக்கு மனிதாபிமானமில்லை! - கனிமொழி•⁠ ⁠முன் ஜாமீன் கோரிய என்.ஆனந்த், நிர்மல் குமார்! •⁠ ⁠eye wash ஆணையம்! - விமர்சிக்கும் எடப்பாடி•⁠ ⁠விசாரணையைத் தொடரும் அருணா ஜெகதீசன் ஆணையம்!•⁠ ⁠ஸ்டெர்லைட் ஆணைய அறிக்கை என்ன ஆச்சு? - சீமான் கேள்வி•⁠ ⁠தூத்துக்குடி துப்பாக்கிச்சூட்டில் ஆணையம் அமைத்ததை எடப்பாடி மறந்துவிட்டாரா? - அன்பில் மகேஷ்•⁠ ⁠கரூர் சம்பவத்தில் ஆதயம் தேடும் அரசியல் கட்சிகள் - மக்கள் கவனிக்க வேண்டிய விஷயங்கள்!•⁠ ⁠சென்னை மாநகராட்சியில் காலிப்பணியிடங்கள் நிரப்பப்படாததால் கடும் பாதிப்பு! - திமுக நியமனக்குழுத் தலைவர் புகார்•⁠ ⁠தி.நகரில் இரும்பு மேம்பாலத்தை திறந்துவைத்த முதல்வர்!•⁠ ⁠செங்கோட்டையன் ஆதரவாளர்களை நீக்கிய எடப்பாடி! •⁠ ⁠திருவண்ணாமலையில் இளம்பெண்ணை பாலியல் வன்கொடுமை செய்த காவலர்கள்!•⁠ ⁠ஜி.எஸ்.டி சீர்திருத்தம் சாதரண மக்களையும் சென்றடைய வேண்டும்! - பிரதமர் மோடி•⁠ ⁠ஜி.எஸ்.டி: விலை மாற்றம் செய்யாதது குறித்து 3,000 புகார்கள்! - மத்திய அரசு•⁠ ⁠தேர்தல் ஆணையத்தின் SIR நடைமுறைக்கு எதிராக கேரளா சட்டமன்றத்தில் தீர்மானம்!•⁠ ⁠லடாக்கில் 6 நாள்களாக ஊரடங்கு!•⁠ ⁠பாகிஸ்தான் ஆக்கிரமிப்பு காஷ்மீரில் போராட்டம்!

L'appétit immobilier de la famille Trump se tourne désormais vers les Balkans et l'Albanie. La fille aînée du président, Ivanka et son mari Jared Kushner ont le projet d'investir plus d'un milliard d'euros pour transformer l'île militarisée de Sazan en lieu branché pour les ultrariches. Dans ce pays où l'industrie touristique connait une croissance exponentielle, les autorités déroulent le tapis rouge. Mais c'est sans compter les écologistes et la population locale qui voient d'un mauvais œil cette mainmise sur leur territoire, sans concertation. Reportage dans la région de Vlora, dans le sud du pays signé Louis Seiller.   L'Histoire de la réunification allemande, vue par les jeunes L'Allemagne fêtera, en cette fin de semaine, les 35 ans de la réunification du pays. Un moment historique qui signe la fin de la guerre froide, et pour le pays une division douloureuse de quatre décennies entre d'une part la République Fédérale à l'Ouest et la RDA, socialiste à l'Est. Beaucoup d'Allemands ont encore le souvenir du mur qui coupait en deux Berlin. Mais, malgré l'enseignement de l'histoire, cette mémoire tend à s'estomper auprès des jeunes, qui véhiculent aussi un certain nombre de clichés. C'est le reportage à Berlin de Delphine Nerbollier.     Des espions russes à l'université L'Histoire, avec un grand H c'est bien sûr aussi le lieu de l'influence politique. Dans les anciennes républiques soviétiques, qu'il s'agisse de l'Estonie ou de l'Ukraine on ne s'y trompe pas, la main de Moscou et des services de renseignement cherchent encore à peser sur la recherche. À tel point que nombre d'universitaires répliquent en dénonçant un comportement post-colonial. Les explications de notre correspondante à Kiev Emmanuelle Chaze.   L'Histoire ukrainienne à travers un roman De la grande famine en Ukraine sous Staline, de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, du pacte entre la Russie et l'Allemagne, du massacre des juifs en Ukraine à Babi Yar, des déportations en Sibérie, on parle de tout cela dans le roman de Yaroslav Trofimov «Ce pays qui n'aimait pas l'amour», publié aux éditions Istya et Compagnie. L'auteur, correspondant diplomatique du Wall Street Journal, y raconte l'histoire tumultueuse de sa grand-mère aux prises avec les grands bouleversements de son pays au XXème siècle.

In 1933, Stalin's Soviet Union rounded up thousands of men, women, and children—many guilty of nothing at all—and dumped them on a tiny Siberian island with nothing but sacks of raw flour. Within weeks, starvation, violence, and cannibalism tore through the camp. This forgotten atrocity became known as Cannibal Island. Tonight, we're dragging it out of the shadows.

https://thecommunists.org/2025/09/01/news/history/stalins-library-geoffrey-roberts-resume-book-review-pt4/ The discovery of this library put an end to nonsense about Stalin's ‘mediocrity' and shed light on the multifaceted talents of this intellectual and revolutionary giant. Contrary to the myths peddled by Khrushchev and Trotsky and repeated endlessly by anticommunist historians, Josef Stalin was a selfless, modest and devoted revolutionary, and a lifelong student of Marxist-Leninist science. Subscribe! Donate! Join us in building a bright future for humanity! www.thecommunists.org www.lalkar.org www.redyouth.org Telegram: t.me/thecommunists Twitter: twitter.com/cpgbml Soundcloud: @proletarianradio Rumble: rumble.com/c/theCommunists Odysee: odysee.com/@proletariantv:2 Facebook: www.facebook.com/cpgbml Online Shop: https://shop.thecommunists.org/ Education Program: Each one teach one! www.londonworker.org/education-programme/ Join the struggle www.thecommunists.org/join/ Donate: www.thecommunists.org/donate/

What do John D Rockefeller, King Solomon, Henry Ford, and Joseph Stalin all have in common? Two things. First, they are all on the list of the twenty wealthiest individuals who ever lived. Second, they are all rotting in the ground. While the blessing of money can do a lot of things, it cannot prevent death or buy one's way out of it. Jesus' words this week warn against allowing anything - whether a love for money or anyone or anything else - to fill our hearts and crowd out the love of God and love for God. Instead, let our hearts be filled with what serves us in this life and qualifies us for the next: the Word of God.

La marche du monde est au MuCem à Marseille. Le Musée des civilisations de l'Europe et de la Méditerranée accueille pour la 5ème édition le colloque Balkan Matters, un rendez-vous scientifique international où les cultures matérielles des Balkans sont à l'honneur ! Ici on s'intéresse à l'usage des objets en général et à l'usage de la radio en particulier ! Radio Moscou, Radio Sofia, Radio Bulgaria, chaque radio de l'Union des Républiques Socialistes Soviétiques diffuse ses propres programmes au temps de la guerre froide. Des archives méconnues, souvent perdues, des souvenirs d'auditeurs, des histoires sensibles, à la fois intimes et collectives sur lesquelles nos invités anthropologues ont longuement enquêté. Avec Aliki Angélidou, de l'Université Panteion des Sciences sociales et politiques à Athènes, nous réveillons la mémoire des réfugiés grecs de la guerre civile tandis qu'avec Olivier Givre, de l'Université Lumière Lyon 2, nous partons sur le terrain à la recherche d'un mystérieux poste de radio appelé Radiototchka !   Tous nos remerciements  - Au MucemLab et particulièrement à Anne Faure - À l'équipe de Balkan Matters et particulièrement à Olivier Givre - À l'équipe de RFI et particulièrement à Jad El Khoury et Sophie Janin - À découvrir, l'exposition de Alain Blum et Emilia Koustova «Sur les traces des lituaniens déportés par Staline».    Pour aller plus loin  Série «Les voix du goulag» sur RFI.

Shedding light on the origins of the Second World War in Europe, Stalin's Gamble: The Search for Allies Against Hitler, 1930-1936 (University of Toronto Press, 2023) aims to create a historical narrative of the relations of the USSR with Britain, France, the United States, Poland, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Romania during the 1930s. The book explores the Soviet Union's efforts to organize a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany, in effect rebuilding the anti-German Entente of the First World War. Drawing on extensive research in Soviet as well as Western archives, Michael Jabara Carley offers an in-depth account of the diplomatic manoeuvrings which surrounded the rise of Hitler and Soviet efforts to construct an alliance against future German aggression. Paying close attention to the beliefs and interactions of senior politicians and diplomats, the book seeks to replace one-sided Western histories with records from both sides. The book also offers an inside look at Soviet foreign policy making, with a focus on Stalin as a foreign policy maker as well as his interactions with his colleagues. Told in a fascinating narrative style, Stalin's Gamble attempts to see the European crisis of the 1930s through Soviet eyes. Michael Jabara Carley is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal. 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

Shedding light on the origins of the Second World War in Europe, Stalin's Gamble: The Search for Allies Against Hitler, 1930-1936 (University of Toronto Press, 2023) aims to create a historical narrative of the relations of the USSR with Britain, France, the United States, Poland, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Romania during the 1930s. The book explores the Soviet Union's efforts to organize a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany, in effect rebuilding the anti-German Entente of the First World War. Drawing on extensive research in Soviet as well as Western archives, Michael Jabara Carley offers an in-depth account of the diplomatic manoeuvrings which surrounded the rise of Hitler and Soviet efforts to construct an alliance against future German aggression. Paying close attention to the beliefs and interactions of senior politicians and diplomats, the book seeks to replace one-sided Western histories with records from both sides. The book also offers an inside look at Soviet foreign policy making, with a focus on Stalin as a foreign policy maker as well as his interactions with his colleagues. Told in a fascinating narrative style, Stalin's Gamble attempts to see the European crisis of the 1930s through Soviet eyes. Michael Jabara Carley is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

Shedding light on the origins of the Second World War in Europe, Stalin's Gamble: The Search for Allies Against Hitler, 1930-1936 (University of Toronto Press, 2023) aims to create a historical narrative of the relations of the USSR with Britain, France, the United States, Poland, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Romania during the 1930s. The book explores the Soviet Union's efforts to organize a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany, in effect rebuilding the anti-German Entente of the First World War. Drawing on extensive research in Soviet as well as Western archives, Michael Jabara Carley offers an in-depth account of the diplomatic manoeuvrings which surrounded the rise of Hitler and Soviet efforts to construct an alliance against future German aggression. Paying close attention to the beliefs and interactions of senior politicians and diplomats, the book seeks to replace one-sided Western histories with records from both sides. The book also offers an inside look at Soviet foreign policy making, with a focus on Stalin as a foreign policy maker as well as his interactions with his colleagues. Told in a fascinating narrative style, Stalin's Gamble attempts to see the European crisis of the 1930s through Soviet eyes. Michael Jabara Carley is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

Shedding light on the origins of the Second World War in Europe, Stalin's Gamble: The Search for Allies Against Hitler, 1930-1936 (University of Toronto Press, 2023) aims to create a historical narrative of the relations of the USSR with Britain, France, the United States, Poland, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Romania during the 1930s. The book explores the Soviet Union's efforts to organize a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany, in effect rebuilding the anti-German Entente of the First World War. Drawing on extensive research in Soviet as well as Western archives, Michael Jabara Carley offers an in-depth account of the diplomatic manoeuvrings which surrounded the rise of Hitler and Soviet efforts to construct an alliance against future German aggression. Paying close attention to the beliefs and interactions of senior politicians and diplomats, the book seeks to replace one-sided Western histories with records from both sides. The book also offers an inside look at Soviet foreign policy making, with a focus on Stalin as a foreign policy maker as well as his interactions with his colleagues. Told in a fascinating narrative style, Stalin's Gamble attempts to see the European crisis of the 1930s through Soviet eyes. Michael Jabara Carley is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

This week our latest Men of Steel is a conversation with DJ Nik (Happiness in Darkness, Gold Standard, etc.) about the animated adaptation of Superman: Red Son. Find DJ Nik: https://www.whiskeyandcigarettesshow.com/happiness-in-darkness Support us on Patreon! patreon.com/CertainPOVMedia Men of Steel Full Episode Originally aired: September 26, 2025 Edited by Sophia Ricciardi Scored by Geoff Moonen Certain Point Of View is a podcast network brining you all sorts of nerdy goodness! From Star Wars role playing, to Disney day dreaming, to video game love, we've got the show for you! Learn more on our website: https://www.certainpov.com Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/wcHHer4 PODCAST SHOWS: ▶ Men Of Steel - https://www.certainpov.com/men-of-steel​ FOLLOW US: ▶ Twitter: @certainpovmedia @menofsteelpod ▶ Instagram: @certainpovmedia ▶ Website: https://www.certainpov.com Superman Red Sun Adaptation and Narrative Direction The animated adaptation of Superman Red Sun presents a distinct political and moral narrative where Superman raised in Russia embodies an idealistic yet highly manipulatable figure, reflecting a complex interplay of power and ideology (03:02). Key narrative decision to depict Superman as a good but misguided character shaped by Russian upbringing and Soviet-era values was emphasized by Case and J. Mike, highlighting his susceptibility to manipulation by figures like Stalin and Brainiac. The movie diverges from the comic by portraying Lex Luthor as a morally positive U.S. leader, married to Lois Lane, who is fully integrated into his political life. This creative choice aimed to balance the story by making Lex a relatable protagonist, reinforcing a pro-American slant, likely influenced by current political climates. The film's thematic focus on Superman's idealism clashing with harsh realities underlines his internal conflict and the consequences of unchecked power. Market-wise, this adaptation seeks to draw in audiences interested in alternate superhero narratives with geopolitical undertones, broadening Superman's appeal beyond typical fans. The three-act structure reflecting phases of Superman's evolution (young idealist, political figure, and authoritarian leader) was retained, but with streamlined storytelling to fit the film's 90-minute format (19:17). Original elements like the character Svetlana were introduced to establish Superman's early influences and set the tone for his eventual manipulation. The film's use of Soviet-era iconography and Gregorian chants enhances immersion and aids audience understanding of the setting. This structure supports clear character arcs and audience engagement despite the complex political backdrop. Character and Relationship Dynamics The film notably improves on character relationships, particularly between Lex Luthor and Lois Lane, making them a committed and supportive couple, which contrasts sharply with the comic's estranged dynamic (21:52). Lois Lane's evolution from independent journalist to First Lady strengthens the political narrative and adds emotional depth to the story. Her conflict with Lex over the “Superior Man” experiment adds dramatic tension while humanizing both characters. Lois serves as a moral anchor, showing resistance to some of Lex's harsher decisions, preserving her agency within the political framework. This dynamic was designed to maintain audience sympathy and avoid alienating fans of classic Lois Lane. The characterization of Wonder Woman diverges from the comic by presenting her as a lesbian ambassador skeptical of men, which adds a feminist layer but also generated mixed reactions due to its repetitive messaging (13:11). Her breaking of the lasso of truth and subsequent power drain symbolize disillusionment with Superman's regime. The film portrays Wonder Woman as more powerful than Superman and as a conflicted figure torn between loyalty and opposition. These changes serve to enhance the narrative's emotional stakes and highlight ideological divides within the Soviet leadership. Batman's grimmer portrayal with willingness to accept collateral damage introduces a morally ambiguous antagonist motivated by personal loss, deepening the plot complexity (45:06). His vendetta against Superman is grounded in the death of his parents in a gulag, providing emotional weight to their conflict. The film reduces the supporting cast compared to the comic, focusing more tightly on core characters to enhance storytelling clarity. Political and Ideological Themes The film embeds a strong political subtext, portraying Superman as a tool of the Soviet state, subject to manipulation by Stalin and later Brainiac, exploring themes of authoritarianism and propaganda (59:14). The depiction of Stalin's regime and the gulags is stark, providing a critical lens on Soviet atrocities, which Superman initially ignores due to naivety (28:34). Superman's assassination of Stalin is a pivotal moment symbolizing a break from oppressive rule but also the beginning of his own moral decline. The film's anti-Russian bias reflects American perspectives prevalent at the time of production. This political framing underscores the dangers of absolute power and state control over individuals. The presence of Brainiac as a manipulative force amplifies the narrative of Superman's loss of agency, positioning Brainiac as the true power behind the Soviet regime in the latter acts (01:00:33). Brainiac's control enables technological advances but also enforces oppressive mind control, with Superman complicit but unaware of the extent. This adds a sci-fi layer illustrating how technology can be weaponized politically. Brainiac's role serves as both a plot device and a commentary on surveillance and control. The contrasting portrayal of Lex Luthor as a morally upright U.S. leader reinforces the ideological divide, positioning America as a counterbalance to Soviet authoritarianism (01:18:40). Lex's presidency and relationship with Lois symbolize American values of freedom and partnership. This ideological framing is strategic to appeal to Western audiences and to provide a clear antagonist-protagonist dynamic. It reflects the broader geopolitical tensions influencing superhero storytelling in the 21st century. Action and Superpower Depictions The film adapts classic superhero action with a focus on power limitations and ideological symbolism, notably through the use of red sun lamps to neutralize Superman's powers and the introduction of Superior Man as a Soviet weapon (47:48). The immediate loss and regain of Superman's powers under red sun exposure was acknowledged as a narrative expediency, despite known inconsistencies with canonical depictions (48:58). This mechanism facilitates key confrontations and heightens tension without complex exposition. The decision balances pacing needs of a 90-minute runtime against the need for recognizable superhero logic. The Superior Man character acts as a tragic figure whose destruction deepens Lois's conflict with Lex and underscores the moral costs of weaponizing superpowers (37:22). His portrayal as a lab creation rather than a fully human clone adds ethical ambiguity. This subplot strengthens the film's theme of sacrifice and unintended consequences in superhuman conflicts. The Green Lantern Corps assault was streamlined, with the film emphasizing the fight's intensity and Wonder Woman's intervention, contrasting with the comic's more fragmented depiction (01:11:00). The film's choice to present Wonder Woman as stronger than Superman visually reinforces her narrative significance. The fight sequences support the escalating stakes and demonstrate the combined forces opposing Soviet Superman. Production and Storytelling Choices The filmmakers made strategic decisions to adapt the comic's complex narrative into a cohesive, accessible screenplay that emphasizes character and political drama over spectacle (09:41). The introduction of original scenes such as the gulag encounter and Superman killing Stalin serve to heighten emotional impact and clarify political stakes early in the film (28:34). These scenes compensate for the comic's denser exposition by providing visual and emotional anchor points. The film balances storytelling clarity with maintaining the comic's core themes. The choice to omit or tone down certain comic elements, such as excessive narrative exposition and supervillain cameos, streamlines the plot for new audiences (01:14:44). This focus on fewer characters helps maintain narrative coherence and emotional resonance. The film aims to appeal both to comic fans and general audiences unfamiliar with the source material. The adaptation was influenced by modern political sensibilities and audience expectations, reflected in the more explicit feminist themes and clearer moral distinctions (13:11). These choices aim to update the story's relevance and broaden its appeal. The film's tone contrasts with the comic's edgier, more ambiguous style, favoring clarity and accessibility. Audience Reception and Legacy The podcast hosts unanimously recommend Superman Red Sun as a compelling and unique take on the Superman mythos, suitable even for non-fans due to its strong narrative and thematic depth (01:33:00). Nick and J. Mike highlight the film's ability to retain Superman's core ethics despite the alternate political setting, praising its nuanced portrayal of flawed heroism. The story's exploration of power, ideology, and morality offers rich material for discussion and reexamination of classic characters. Its accessibility makes it a useful entry point for audiences new to superhero stories or interested in political narratives. The film's balanced treatment of Lex Luthor and Lois Lane adds emotional investment and challenges traditional villain-hero dichotomies. This complexity enhances the film's value as a character-driven drama. The positive portrayal of Lex as a “good guy” is noted as a refreshing and deliberate creative decision. The upcoming interview with J. M. DeMatteis, writer of the animated movie, and the launch of the Trade School podcast series on comic trades indicate ongoing community engagement and content expansion around this material (01:39:10). These initiatives suggest sustained interest and potential for deeper exploration of comic adaptations. They offer platforms for fans and newcomers to connect over shared appreciation of graphic storytelling.  

EI's Paul Lay discusses a world order in flux with Stephen Kotkin, historian and biographer of Stalin. Image: A Canadian soldier during a NATO-led operation. Credit: Associated Press

La guerra en Ucrania, estancada desde hace tres años, no muestra un final cercano pese a los esfuerzos de Estados Unidos y Europa por lograr una solución negociada. Los europeos, más inflexibles, temen que una victoria de Putin le anime a atacar países de la UE, como las repúblicas bálticas, mientras que en EEUU la postura ha variado mucho en el último año. En origen Trump apoyó a Rusia y criticó a Zelenski, pero recientemente ha reconocido que Ucrania podría ganar aduciendo la ineficiencia militar rusa. Este cambio refleja su creciente confianza en los aliados europeos y una reevaluación del discurso inicial sobre el conflicto. Ninguno de los bandos puede cumplir los objetivos que se había propuesto. Ucrania quería repeler la invasión y recuperar Crimea, mientras que Rusia aspiraba a ocupar el país y establecer un Gobierno afín. Tras tres años y medio de guerra ambas metas son inviables. La propuesta actual es que Ucrania ceda territorios a cambio de paz inspirándose en el tratado entre Finlandia y la Unión Soviética de 1944, cuando la primera cedió territorios a la segunda a cambio de mantener su independencia con algunas condiciones. Esta “finlandización” de Ucrania, defendida por figuras como el presidente finlandés Alexander Stubb y el historiador Niall Ferguson, se debate como posible solución. Pero para inspirarse en la historia, primero hay que conocerla. Cuando con el pacto germano-soviético de 1939 Hitler y Stalin se repartieron Europa del Este, Finlandia, independiente desde 1917, resistió la invasión soviética, pero al final no les quedó más remedio que ceder a la URSS el 10% de su territorio, incluyendo la segunda ciudad del país. El final de la guerra con la victoria aliada consolidó esas pérdidas, a las que sumó la exigencia de neutralidad y pagos en concepto de reparaciones. Extrapolar esto a la Ucrania de nuestros días es problemático. Finlandia, un país pequeño y periférico, no tenía la relevancia estratégica ni sentimental que Ucrania tiene para Rusia, a la que ven como parte integral de su esfera cultural e histórica. Una Ucrania independiente desafía el proyecto imperial ruso, lo que hace improbable que el Kremlin acepte una paz sin sometimiento absoluto. A diferencia de Finlandia, Ucrania necesitaría un ejército fuerte, armamento avanzado y garantías occidentales para evitar futuras agresiones. Además, el contexto geopolítico actual difiere del de 1945, cuando la URSS priorizaba otros frentes. Hoy, Ucrania es el foco principal para Rusia. Otros precedentes, como las divisiones de Alemania y Corea tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial, indican que una frontera de facto, sin reconocimiento legal, podría ser viable. Pero ceder de iure territorios como todo el Donbás sería política y estratégicamente muy costoso. Un mal acuerdo podría permitir a Rusia rearmarse y volverlo a intentar. Desde la perspectiva ucraniana, los objetivos de hace tres años ya no son realistas. Occidente, especialmente el Gobierno Biden, contribuyó a esta situación retrasando la ayuda militar. Europa, más preocupada que nunca por su seguridad, debe incrementar el apoyo a Ucrania para evitar un acuerdo que debilite al país y amenace a las repúblicas bálticas y a Polonia. Una paz sostenible requiere un Ucrania fuerte y un compromiso occidental firme, no una solución que recompense de alguna manera la agresión rusa. En La ContraRéplica: 0:00 Introducción 3:54 La 'finlandización' de Ucrania 33:37 Contra el pesimismo - https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R 35:25 La desafección de la medicina 38:39 La bomba de deuda europea 45:00 Pedro Sánchez y Donald Trump · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra el pesimismo”… https://amzn.to/4m1RX2R · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #ucrania #rusia Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Eric Peters from Eric Peters Autos is my guest today. We talk about the challenge of sorting fact from fiction and how easily the populace can be swayed into chanting in unison. Article of the Day: Since the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk, the legacy media has had ample opportunity to dial back its spin and manipulation but has chosen instead to put the pedal to the metal. El Gato Malo warns that our current reality war would amaze the likes of Stalin or Mao. Sponsors: Life Saving Food Fifty Two Seven Alliance HSL Ammo Quilt & Sew

HEADLINE: Nikita Khrushchev's Miscalculation and the Specter of Berlin GUEST NAME: Professor Serhii PlokhyBOOK TITLE: Nuclear Folly TOPIC: Accidental War Warning SUMMARY: Nikita Khrushchev, a shrewd politician who succeeded Joseph Stalin, was widely misunderstood as a clown. Khrushchev expected to manipulate the young Jack Kennedy, having once offered campaign assistance. Khrushchev was surprised when Kennedy refused to compromise over the missile deployment. Both leaders were constantly concerned about Berlin; Khrushchev used the threat of escalation there to manipulate Kennedy. 1920 HAVANA

7 HoursPG-13Back in the beginning of 2021, as Pete was transitioning out of libertarianism, he and Bird got together to do a series on the Four Swords of Marxism: Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Abimael Guzman, and added in post-Marxist, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.Here is the complete audio.Timeline Earth PodcastPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

What mattered most for survivors of the Holocaust, indeed, what made their survival possible, was not only that the Allies had better ideas about democracy and civilization, though of course Britain, America, and the other Western Allies did. It was that they actually won the war. They defeated the Germans on the field of battle—on sea, land, and air, in the hills and in the streets. It's not enough for us to rest contentedly on the superiority of our ideas. We also have to fight. But at this moment, the fundamental political fact of the last 80 years—that it was an indispensable and untarnishable achievement for the Allies to have destroyed the Third Reich—is itself under revisionist assault. The Internet talk-show host Tucker Carlson last year promoted the podcaster Darryl Cooper, calling him “America's most honest historian,” and airing his claim that Winston Churchill was the “chief villain” of World War II who “escalated” what Hitler supposedly intended to be a limited conflict. As one of this episode's guests reports in the Wall Street Journal, when the Holocaust-denying podcaster Jake Shields polled his social-media followers about who they thought was “the biggest villain of World War II,” 40.3 percent chose Churchill over Hitler (25.3 percent) or Stalin (25.9 percent). Darryl Cooper or Jake Shields are teaching a new generation of Americans a grotesquely distorted view of our own history. To understand why that is, what can be done about it, and what's at stake for Jews and America, Mosaic's editor Jonathan Silver sat down Rabbi Meir Soloveichik and Andrew Roberts. Roberts is a distinguish historian and the author of more than twenty books. His 2018 biography of Churchill, Walking with Destiny, was the rare work that deserved all of the glowing praise it received, and there is perhaps no person living who knows more about the 20th century's greatest man than Roberts. On November 1, 2022, he was elevated to a peerage as Baron Roberts of Belgravia. Rabbi Soloveichik is the religious leader of Congregation Shearith Israel, the director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought and Yeshiva University, and vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. This conversation took place at a private event held for members of the Tikvah Society. You can learn more about its activities and how to join here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Send us a textJust wanted to share the plans I have for the podcast, which will continue for at least another year. Support the show

In 1933, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin had his secret police goons round up hundreds of thousands of former farmers and he sent them into Siberia to create labor camps where they would be forced to work. Many would die along the way, including the over 6,000 unfortunate enough to end up on Nazino Island, where innocent people were dumped with no food other than raw flour, no clean water, no shelter, no medicine, and no protection from each other. Starvation and desperation quickly led to cannibalism, mutilation, and death.For Merch and everything else Bad Magic related, head to: https://www.badmagicproductions.com

In the years following Stalin's death in 1953, a new phenomenon emerged within the Soviet Union: so-called 'dissidents'. Preferring to think of themselves as 'rights defenders', these individuals advocated a form of 'civil obedience' – a demand that the state abide by its own constitution and the basic rights and freedoms it promised on paper. Historian Benjamin Nathans speaks to Danny Bird about his Cundill Prize-nominated book To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause, which examines this extraordinary movement. To find out more about the Cundill History Prize, go to https://www.cundillprize.com/ (Ad) Benjamin Nathans is the author of To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause: The Many Lives of the Soviet Dissident Movement (Princeton University Press, 2024). Buy it now from Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Success-Our-Hopeless-Cause-Dissident-ebook/dp/B0CW1FHMSQ/?tag=bbchistory045-21&ascsubtag=historyextra-social-histboty. The HistoryExtra podcast is produced by the team behind BBC History Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices